Reiner Fuellmich Concludes Bogus Hearings, Starts “Crimes Against Humanity” Tour

Pretty strange that a lawyer who claims to be taking Governments to court isn’t at all concerned whether this “virus” has ever been isolated and proven to exist. Then again, considering he’s not actually going to trial over this. (12:45 in this video)

There is a reason [we] the group of international lawyers, who are conducting this grand jury investigation, did this outside the existing system: because the system is completely and totally corrupt.
But its true effort is to show the people what’s going on, and then empower them by showing that they can’t trust the system. Empowering them, for them to understand that they have to get up and do something. Force their own judiciaries (if they’re still functioning) to do their job.
— Reiner Fuellmich

There never was any lawsuit.

In other words, Fuellmich didn’t actually take his “case” to court. This wasn’t the “Nuremberg 2.0” that it had long been hailed as. These people took large sums of donor money for a case they had no intention to try. His so-called grand jury investigation has no legal standing, no power, and the outcome will mean absolutely nothing.

And why should Reiner be “inspiring others to take action”? After all, he solicited donations for a long time, under the pretense that HE would be doing something on behalf of others. This comes across as a complete fraud.

Now, after ripping off donors for nearly 2 years, Fuellmich and his cronies are going on a speaking tour across the United States. If you want to attend, tickets fall in the $100 to $300 range.

Don’t forget to donate, suckers!

Rather than pursuing an international case, as Fuellmich had been promising the entire time, he used the platform — and donations — to raise his own stature. He never brought any case, and it looks like he never intended to do so. Now, he’s ready to make even more money, duping those same people into hearing him speak live.

Beyond that, Fuellmich comes across as intellectually lazy and dishonest for propping up the bogus narrative that there is a virus to deal with. Since these “hearings” have no effect, at least have some truth as to the germ theory hoax.

Of course, Fuellmich is hardly the first lawyer to pretend to be taking the Government to court. He certainly won’t be the last either. One always has to wonder when some superstar lawyer spends all his time giving media appearance, but has no actual progress to report.

Just another subversion agent and grifter.


Delay Prevents Action4Canada Case From Being Immediately Thrown Out

Action4Canada and other Plaintiffs were supposed to be in Court on February 3rd, in order to address 2 Applications (here and here) filed back in January. But due to an extremely convenient medical illness, this has been pushed back until April 5th. It’s unclear why Lawrence Wong didn’t simply step up, as he’s been a B.C. lawyer since 1987.

Private matters generally aren’t worth covering. However, their August 2021 lawsuit is a very public case, and has involved soliciting public donations since 2020. It’s fair that people know its true status: that it’s on the verge of being struck.

For all the money that was sunk into getting this lawsuit off the ground, it never stood a chance.

It feels odd to have a previous piece age so well. Back in August 2021, this site critiqued the 391 page lawsuit filed by Action4Canada in Vancouver. The basic premise was that the Notice of Civil Claim was drafted so poorly, it didn’t stand a chance in hell of making it to trial.

To be more specific, the Notice of Claim didn’t follow (at all) Rules 3-1, and 3-7 of BC Civil Procedure. These outline how pleadings are to be drafted. The logical remedy — from the Defendants’ position — would be to file a Motion or Application to strike based on Rule 9-5. This rule allows cases to be struck for a number of reasons, including for being “frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process”. Pleadings can also be struck if they don’t disclose a reasonable cause of action.

To make a distinction here: dismissing and striking are not the same thing. Dismissing a case usually means a Judge has made a determination about the merits of the case. By contrast, striking means attacking the pleadings themselves.

For those wondering what “struck without leave to amend” means, here’s an explanation. Sometimes, the Court will “give leave” or permission, to make changes to the pleadings (allowing content to be added or deleted). This is typically meant for very minor issues. For serious problems, such as with this lawsuit, the defects are so extensive that the Court won’t allow it.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of civil procedure would have looked at Action4Canada’s case and saw where this was going.

Now the other shoe has dropped, and at least 2 Applications have been filed. The first is from the various Provincial Defendants, and the other from Vancouver Island Health Authority and Providence Health Care. They are trying to strike the case for essentially the same reasons outlined on this site back in August, 2021.

To state the obvious: this doesn’t mean supporting or advocating for the medical martial law measures that have gone on in the last 2 years.

Nonetheless, it’s pretty difficult to argue with the premise of the Application. Specifically, Defendants are trying to get the case struck as being “frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, prolix, and an abuse of process”. This isn’t just written in a shoddy manner, but it’s over-the-top ridiculous.

The Claim contains many pages of completely irrelevant material, seeks remedies outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and makes allegations against people who aren’t parties (and presumably haven’t been subpoenaed). It’s also extremely disjointed and difficult to follow along with.

It’s hard to believe that 2 very senior, very experienced lawyers could draft this garbage. Combined, they have nearly 70 years of legal work completed. While the Claim does contain a fair amount of truthful information, it’s written so badly that no Judge will ever consider it.

By contrast, the Notices of Application were extremely well written, to the point, and raised many fatal defects in the Notice of Civil Claim. Again, this isn’t to defend the Horgan/Henry regime, but their lawyers make a compelling case as to why this should be thrown out. Although there are 2 Applications, the content is very similar.

3. The Claim is a prolix and convoluted document that is replete with groundless accusations against public officials, inflammatory language, and conspiracy theories.

6. The Plaintiffs’ Claim is deficient in form and substance. It is a scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious pleading that fails to meet the basic requirements for pleadings and is an abuse of the Court’s process. The Claim should be struck in accordance with Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, without leave to amend.

Pleadings Generally
7. Supreme Court Civil Rule (the “Rules”) 3-1 provides, in part:
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the Plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;

(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7. [emphasis added]

8. Rule 3-7 provides, in part:
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved.

Pleading conclusions of law
(9) Conclusions of law must not be pleaded unless the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

General damages must not be pleaded
(14) If general damages are claimed, the amount of the general damages claimed must not be stated in any pleading. …

9. The function of pleadings is to clearly define the issues of fact and law to be determined by the court. The plaintiff must state, for each cause of action, the material facts. Material facts are those facts necessary for the purpose of formulating the cause of action. The defendant then sees the case to be met and may respond to the plaintiff’s allegations in such a way that the court will understand from the pleadings what issues of fact and law it will be called upon to decide.
Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2703 (S.C.), para. 5

10. As the Court of Appeal recently held in Mercantile Office Systems Private Ltd. v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362, para 44:
None of a notice of claim, a response to civil claim, and a counterclaim is a story. Each pleading contemplates and requires a reasonably disciplined exercise that is governed, in many instances in mandatory terms, by the Rules and the relevant authorities. Each requires the drafting party to “concisely” set out the “material facts” that give rise to the claim or that relate to the matters raised by the claim.
None of these pleadings are permitted to contain evidence or argument.

Application to Strike
11. Rule 9-5(1) provides:
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court

12. A pleading may be struck under Rule 9-5(1) if it is plain and obvious that the pleading contravenes any of Rule 9-5(l)(a) through (d).
Knight V. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at para. 17

Rule – 9-5(l)(a)-The Notice of Civil Claim Discloses No Reasonable Claim
14. The Claim is premised upon non-justiciable questions and relies heavily upon international treaties, Criminal Code provisions, and unknown causes of action that are incapable of disclosing a reasonable cause of action for the purposes of Rule 9-5(1)(a).

16. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations (and non-violations) of the Criminal Code that are not properly raised in a civil action (Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924, para. 45); including:

17. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations of international legal instruments, unwritten constitutional principles, and causes of action unknown to law that are not actionable in Canadian courts (Li v. British Columbia, 2021 BCCA 256, paras. 107-109; Toronto v. Ontario, 2021 SCC 34, para. 5), including the following:

19. The general rule that facts pleaded should be accepted as true for the purposes of a strike application does not apply in a “case like this where the notice of civil claim is replete with assumptions, speculation, and in some instances, outrageous allegations. The law is clear that allegations based on assumption and speculation need not be taken as true.”
Willow v. Chong, 2013 BCSC 1083, para. 19
See, also, Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924 [“Simon”], para. 54

20. The Plaintiffs have failed to plead the concise statement of material facts that is necessary to support any complete cause of action. The Charter claims are inextricably bound up in a prolix, argumentative, and wildly speculative narrative of grand conspiracy that is incapable of supporting a viable cause of action. It is impossible to separate the material from the immaterial, the fabric of one potential cause of action or claim from another, or conjecture and conspiracy from asserted facts.
Fowler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 367, para. 54
Simon, supra, paras 54-59

9-5(l)(b) The Notice of Civil Claim is Scandalous, Frivolous and Vexatious
Scandalous and Embarrassing
22. A pleading is scandalous if it does not state the real issue in an intelligible form and would require the parties to undertake useless expense to litigate matters irrelevant to the claim.
Gill v. Canada, 2013 BCSC 1703 [“Gill”], para. 9

23. A claim is also scandalous or embarrassing if it is prolix, includes irrelevant facts, argument or evidence, such that it is nearly impossible for the defendant to reply to the pleading and know the case to meet. Pleadings that are so prolix and confusing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the case to be met, should be struck.
Gill, supra para. 9
Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2009 BCSC 473, at para. 36
Kuhn v. American Credit Indemnity Co., [1992] B.C.J. No. 953 (S.C.)

24. The Claim is a scandalous pleading because it is prolix, confusing, and nearly impossible to respond to:
a. The 391 page Claim attempts to plead dozens of causes of action and Charter breaches and seeks over 200 declarations. It is, as a result, nearly impossible to know the case to be met.
b. The Claim contains extensive passages of completely irrelevant information, including:

Rule 9-5(l)(a) and (d) – The Claim is Vexatious and an Abuse of Process
28. Little distinction exists between a vexatious action and one that is an abuse of process as the two concepts have strikingly similar features.
Dixon v. Stork Craft Mamifacturing Inc., 2013 BCSC 1117

29. Abuse of process is not limited to cases where a claim or an issue has already been decided in other litigation, but is a flexible doctrine applied by the court to values fundamental to the court system. In Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (CUPE), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, the court stated at para. 37:
Canadian courts have applied the doctrine of abuse of process to preclude relitigation in circumstances where the strict requirements of issue estoppel (typically the privity/mutuality requirements) are not met, but where allowing the litigation to proceed would nonetheless violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice.

30. Vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights. Where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious.
Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian, [1987] O.J. No. 355 [“Lang Michener”], at para. 19

33. The Applicants submit the Claim has been brought for an improper purpose. The Plaintiffs and their counsel must know, or ought to know, that a 391 page Claim seeking over 200 declarations concerning alleged criminal conduct and the efficacy of public health measures “cannot succeed … [and] would lead to no possible good”: Lang Michener, supra.

34. The Claim is intended, at least in part, to intimidate and harass health authorities, public officials and politicians, including the Provincial Health Officer, by advancing spurious, public allegations of criminal conduct, conflicts of interest, and ulterior motives. This intention is further corroborated by the Plaintiff Action4Canada’s simultaneous campaign to encourage individuals to serve government officials and politicians with “Notices of Liability” for their actions in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic (Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. G, I).

35. The Claim is also intended, at least in part, to consolidate, publicize, and amplify COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation. The Claim is a book-length tirade against the entirety of British Columbia’s response to the pandemic, with dozens of quotes from, and hundreds of footnotes to, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, and anti-vaccine resources. Both Action4Canada and its counsel have promoted the Claim online and on social media
(Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. D, K).

36. These are improper purposes to file and prosecute a civil action. There can be no question that the Claim is an abuse of process. Permitting this litigation to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and the integrity of the administration of justice.

The above quotes came from the January 17 Notice of Application. Re-read the original Notice of Civil Claim and ask: what are they wrong about?

The Applications get into allegations that Action4Canada is causing harassment of Government Officials as a result of their behaviour. This is where things get more interesting:

This Application also contains an Affidavit from Rebecca Hill. She apparently works for Mark Witten, the lawyer for the B.C Defendants. She’s alleging that the “Notices of Liability” that Action4Canada provides have led to the bombardment of Government Officials. From the information provided, it’s strongly implied that this is done in order to drive up the donations.

By extension, it wouldn’t take much to argue that the entire Notice of Claim was a stunt to get more people handing out money.

Remember those notices you downloaded, filled out, and submitted? Guess what? Many of them, and the emails, are now saved as evidence by the B.C. Government.

Author’s note: since the Vancouver Court has apparently not scanned the entire Affidavit, the attachments are not available. That may be for the best, as there is contact information.

It’s also worth pointing out: the Defendants are asking for costs as well. This is pretty much inevitable, once the case is thrown out. It seems unlikely that any Plaintiff has given this serious thought. For a reference point, Adam Skelly was hit with a $15,000 cost award, just for trying to open his restaurant. Given the size and vexatious nature of the Action4Canada case, it’s quite possible for everyone to be on the hook for several thousand dollars each. Keep in mind, court costs aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Once more, this isn’t an attempt to defend the B.C. Government. That said, the Claim was written in such a convoluted way, it never stood a chance. One has to ask why it really happened.

Back in October, Action4Canada posted a reply to the response they received from the B.C. Government. It’s amusing that they act indignant that Rule 9-5 was quoted verbatim. Spoiler: if you want a Court to toss a case, you have to cite the law that allows it.

Whether this case is decided on April 5, or is set back again, the ultimate result is the same. Once a Judge sits down with the lawsuit, it’s getting struck without leave to amend.

It’s not just the B.C. case that will be struck. The Ontario ones will be soon as well. Many will remember this filing from July 6, 2020. More than a year and a half later, there are still no defenses filed, no motions, no applications, no scheduled appearances.

In fact, under Rules 14 and 24 of civil procedure in Ontario, all of these idling cases could probably be dismissed at any time for unnecessary delay.

One other thing to consider is the Statute of Limitations. For most things in Ontario and B.C., a person has 2 years to commence legal action. Now, if a case is filed, but sits for years and is simply dismissed, it may be too late to start another. This doesn’t stop the clock. Something to think about.

Prediction: once the B.C. case is struck (for the reasons listed above), the Ford regime will then make similar Applications for the Ontario cases.

Other than wasting a lot of time and money, what has this actually accomplished?

(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.

Although it’s unclear who was served, Rule 24 could apply for a variety of different reasons. It’s also worth noting that Rule 14.08 specifies that a Statement of Claim must be served within 6 months of being filed.

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.

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.

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.

8. Dismissal For Unnecessary Delay, Failure To Serve

Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.

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.

In reality, the Defendants could file a motion to dismiss this case at any point.

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.


Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

Action4Canada and several others recently filed a Statement of Claim (or SoC) against the B.C. Government, BCPHO Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan, Health Minister Adrian Dix, Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and several others. The Plaintiffs are being represented by Rocco Galati and Lawrence Wong.

While this should be cause for excitement, that is not the case here. The SoC is filled with obvious defects which will lead to it getting thrown out, if the Government ever decides to challenge it.

Just looking at Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, it already becomes clear that there will be issues with the pleading. These aren’t minor problems, but ones that seriously and repeatedly violate basic rules of the B.C. Supreme Court.

And no, this isn’t “infighting”. It’s difficult to believe that “Canada’s top constitutional lawyer” could draft such garbage unless it was done intentionally. People are being asked to donate to a case that doesn’t stand a chance in hell of going ahead. And maybe that was the point all along.

To begin the critique, let’s first look at a few parts of the Rules Of Civil Procedure for B.C. Although not identical to Ontario, they are quite similar, and set up much the same way. And Lawrence Wong is a lawyer in B.C., so presumably he’s familiar with how things are done in that Province.

For reference, B.C. provides a template for such documents. This is done for all forms, in all Courts across Canada. Just fill out the appropriate sections.

  • Part 1: Statement of Facts
  • Part 2: Relief Sought
  • Part 3: Legal Basis

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 is quite long, but here are some of the more relevant portions which apply to this Statement of Claim. The reasons will soon become obvious.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

Assuming that this SoC doesn’t just sit indefinitely, like both with Vaccine Choice Canada are, it’s most likely to be struck when challenged. Rule 9-5 lays out how and why Pleadings are thrown out. Going through the SoC, it becomes clear it could happen for many reasons.

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
[am. B.C. Reg. 119/2010, Sch. A, s. 22.]
Admissibility of evidence
(2) No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).

Now, let’s address specific criticisms of the SoC.

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

Rule 3-1(2)(a) says that a Claim should have a concise set of material facts. This does not. Instead, this is a rambling, redundant, horribly repetitive monster that should have been gutted a long time ago. 391 pages was not needed, as this could have been done in a fraction of that. The SoC — if ever challenged — is likely to be struck because of the exceptionally poor writing alone.

Paragraphs in SoC are typically supposed to contain 1 main idea or fact. This makes it easy for the other side to simply “admit” or “deny”. But throughout this, many are crammed full of other information, which complicates things.

Moreover, many of the allegations are things that each Defendant could claim they had no knowledge of. And there are plenty of bald assertions, without underlying facts being pleaded.

2. Section On Relief Sought Is A Complete Mess

Rule 3-1(2)(b) states that a Claim shall “set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant”. In this filing, that section starts at page 312, and ends at 356. Yes, it takes 44 pages to outline what is being asked for in the Claim. It’s incredibly redundant and repetitive.

At page 341, we finally get to monetary damages.
-$1,000,000: Action4Canada
-$2,000,000: Kimberly Woolman
-$2,000,000: Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
-$200,000: Brian Edgar
-$200,000: Amy Muranetz
-$2,000,000: Jane Doe #2
-$2,000,000: Valerie Ann Foley
-$250,000: Linda Morken
-$250,000: Gary Morken
-$500,000: Pastor Randy Beatty
-$500,000: Ilona Zink
-$750,000: Federico Fuoco
-$750,000: Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions Incorporated
-$250,000: Michael Martinz
-$250,000: Makhan S. Parhar
-$750,000: North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
-$250,000: Melissa Anne Neubauer
-$750,000: Jane Doe #3

$14.65 million (if this is added up correctly), is the amount being sought by individuals and organizations. But there is more to this. Although some private parties are named, it’s unclear who exactly is supposed to be paying these people the Charter damages they seek. A number of Government Officials are named. It seems that the Judge would just be expected to figure it out for himself.

On page 355, it is stated that $20 million is sought against CBC. However, it’s not clear who would get it. Would the Plaintiffs share it, or is that the lawyer fees?

$14.65 million for the Plaintiffs, and $20 million for who exactly?

3. No Concise Summary Of The Legal Basis For Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(c) requires that the SoC “set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought”. The legal basis starts on page 356, and ends at page 384. Obviously, this is far from being concise. But beyond that, the SoC isn’t really stating a legal basis. Instead, it mostly rehashes the declaratory relief sought in Part 2 of the SoC. It looks like it was just a cut-and-paste job, done without anyone checking to see if it made sense.

What SHOULD have been include was a list of the various laws and statues that would be relied on at Trial. If necessary, the relevant parts can be quoted. Instead of that, Part 3 just goes through the same demands made earlier.

At times, it also appears that conclusions are being drawn, when it should just be stating the law.

4. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(1) explains that an SoC should not plead evidence. Nonetheless, this document spends a lot of time pleading just that This isn’t supposed to happen at this stage. The SoC should outline the facts that the Plaintiff(s) are trying to establish.

Additionally, the bulk of the evidence cited wouldn’t be allowed in even if it were okay to include here. Going through the SoC, a good chunk of the citations are media articles. That may be fine for research, or for other publication, but Courts do have a higher standard.

5. Long Quotes Listed In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(2) tell us that: “The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.” Throughout the SoC there are very long quotes of conversations and documents. Sure, references are fine, and short bits of text, but entire paragraphs are devoted to this purpose.

6. Content That Is Unnecessary, Vexatious, Delay Proceedings

Rule 9-5(1) allows for Pleadings to be struck if they contain any of the following elements:

(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

Starting at page 188, the SoC goes on and on about Bill Gates, GAVI, the World Economic Forum, Alan Dershowitz, and media collusion. Granted, the bulk of this is completely true. However, unless these people and organizations are either being sued, or called as witnesses, their presence doesn’t help. Moreover, it’s not just a brief mention, but entire pages.

Are these lawyers unaware that the Defendants are entitled to challenge every statement and allegation made? This is just asking for such a Motion.

7. Proofreading Not Exactly Up To Par

This is from page 118. Sure, it’s very minor in the scheme of things, but shouldn’t lawyer fees come with an expectation of proofreading? Jagmeet Singh and Jason Kenney aren’t being sued, so why are they even in here? Singh is the head of a 3rd Party Federally, and Kenney is Premier of Alberta.

This last error is more a nuisance than anything. However, the other ones could (by themselves) get the SoC struck if anyone ever challenged it. These are not minor errors or oversights, and are not something that could be cured by Amendment, or a revised Statement.

Also, starting on page 122, Denis Rancourt is listed and discussed as an expert. Considering that he “is” an expert witness is the police case and the schools case, and also a Plaintiff in the July 6, 2020 case, there may be some conflict of interest here. Beginning on page 128, there is the pleading of expert opinion. If they are, or ever became witnesses, this would be more pleading of evidence, in violation of Rule 3-7(1).

And this is nitpicking, but Bonnie Henry co-owns a winery in Keremeos, not Keremios. See page 121.

But hey, at least the service addresses were included this time, so take that as a small victory.

Now, this is a (non expert) look at things, but R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45 seems to be the standard for Motions striking out Pleadings. It uses the “plain and obvious” test for making that determination. The SoC violates the Rules in glaringly obvious ways, and there isn’t any real fix possible.

Why draft a Claim this badly? One possible explanation is that this is never intended to go to Trial. See here for background information.

Consider, for example, the July 6, 2020 Claim from Vaccine Choice Canada. It contained the same defects as this. Despite those problems, it has never been challenged by Trudeau, Ford, Tory or anyone else. No default judgement was ever sought either, despite having no response in over a year. The only plausible explanation is collusion, where the parties agreed to leave it in limbo, for whatever reason.

However, donors pump money into these cases, unaware that there is no urgency in bringing them forward. In fact, it doesn’t seem they (the lawyers) ever planned to take any of them to Trial, despite the hype. This diverts money, energy, hope and time into Court challenges designed to go nowhere. By taking on all these cases — and letting them sit — the Great Reset moves ahead relatively unopposed. Not that the people in the comments would notice.

Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”. And that’s exactly what this looks like.

(5) Action4Canada Statement Of Claim

Vaccine Choice Canada, Action4Canada Want More Money For Cases (Still) Not Happening

On July 21, 2021, we had our latest round of panhandling from Tanya Gaw (Action4Canada) and Ted Kuntz (Vaccine Choice Canada). They are asking for money for what they claim are lawsuits to challenge various Governments in Canada.

What people choose to do, and choose to file in their private lives is their business. That being said, when it involves constantly asking the public for money, it’s fair game to report on what’s actually happening. If those donations aren’t be used as advertised, then it’s even more important.

This is an almost identical script from a year ago. Action4Canada needs money to start a suit, and Vaccine Choice Canada needs more to keep theirs going. In a way, not much has changed. Thankfully, it seems that far fewer people are buying into it at this point.

Of course, it doesn’t help that misinformation videos like this surface, telling of non-existent court rulings. Whether intentionally, or by cluelessness, some with large audiences spread false stories of secret court decisions fixing everything. This doesn’t help either. It takes advantage of widespread ignorance.

Keep in mind, that places like Ontario allow members of the public to search for cases online. All one needs are the parties and/or case number. One can see who has lawyers, and when they are next expected in court. If people are unrepresented, that information is also available. Similarly, the Supreme Court Of Canada publishes its rulings, as does the Federal Court, and CanLII is also a great source. Also, individual courts can be contacted for information or documents.

In their December 2020 update, Vaccine Choice Canada lamented how no mainstream media had seen fit to cover such an important event. However, they didn’t mention (and still don’t mention), that THIS SITE was threatened by them for exposing the grifting going on.

This is the infamous case (CV-20-00643451-0000) filed July 6, 2020. Forget trial, this may very well get dismissed for lack of prosecution the way it’s going. Seriously, is no one asking what’s going on?

Gaw says that a statement of claim is in the works in B.C. Apparently, it going to be 425 pages, or more. This would easily double the 190 pages Vaccine Choice Canada submitted. These aren’t supposed to encompass everything under the sun. While such a document may look impressive, it will grind down the proceedings (if they ever happen) considerably.

Yes, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines in Ontario, and that ended September 14, 2020. That was nearly a year ago. Interestingly, the length of time that elapsed since that happened is never made clear.

Kuntz also claims that no statement of defense has been filed in that year. While true, it raises the obvious question: why was no application for default judgement ever sought? Or for that matter, why was no effort to force the case forward ever sought? Orlewicz never asks the question either. If a Defendant plays games or won’t answer a lawsuit, this is serious what litigants do.

By the way, this case is nearly 2 years old, (CV-19-00629801-0000), and hasn’t gotten past the pleadings stage. Children are being vaccinated right now. Keep in mind, the organization asks for money under the guise of pursuing such claims diligently.

Throughout the talk it’s stated that there is a grand plan, and Galati knows what he’s doing. Sure, nothing is happening currently in the public, but trust the plan. Not that it gives off Q-Anon vibes or anything. Also, Operation Trust from the 1920s is worth looking into.

Gaw makes the nonsensical statement that she doesn’t want to show her cards at the moment. Okay. So she and Kuntz are streaming on YouTube with Orlewicz and asking for money for their lawsuits, but they don’t want to reveal their moves to the Government. They don’t want their strategy being known by their enemies. They seem unaware that YouTube is a public platform, that any person can access at anytime.

These people say (or at least imply) that the emergency orders in B.C. and Ontario were allowed to lapse because of the cases Galati has in those Provinces. Funny, since there is NO CASE in B.C., just the promise to start one at some point. As for Ontario, Ford’s people take the matter so seriously that no defenses were ever filed. And again, no effort to force a default judgement.

Both Gaw and Kuntz state that there are many thousands of pages of evidence, including affidavits that run to the thousands of pages individually. Great way to not show your cards. Anyhow, no Judge is ever going to read something of that length. Even if such documents were submitted (which seems unlikely), the Defendants could immediately ask for a delay of several months.

As for the Gill lawsuit that’s referenced, that is a defamation case over things said on Twitter, (CV-20-00652918-0000). It will have no impact whatsoever on Government imposed lockdown measures. Sure, it looks and sounds great, but is a diversion from bigger issues.

Kuntz boasts about how the various Governments have no reply to the July 2020 lawsuit. But he would probably be utterly speechless if someone asked him why he never followed up. It’s not like it’s just a few days late.

Do any of the Plaintiffs in the July 6 case find it strange that in a year, there have been no updates? There was a Notice of Intent to file a Defense on September 30, 2020 from Windsor-Essex County and their Doctor, Wajid Ahmed, but nothing since then. Not only that, only the County and Ahmed have anyone listed as representing them. The establishment fears Galati so much, they can’t be bothered to even lawyer up. Why is that?

One obvious explanation for the lack of progress would be a question about the legitimacy of the service. Only a handful of service addresses are listed in the July 6, 2020 case. True, a number of them can go together, such as the Ontario Attorney General and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario. However, all addresses must still be provided.

Here are just a few examples. None of the Federal Government, Ontario Government, City of Toronto, or either Attorney General of Canada or Ontario bothered to file a response. They also never obtained counsel or filed a notice of appearance. This isn’t a joke. They know Galati isn’t serious, so they don’t even go through the motions of playing along.

Moreover, the CBC implies they weren’t served at all. In their August 2020 article, they claim to have “obtained an unredacted copy”. That’s not service (if true). That’s someone calling up the court to order a copy. CBC alleges that Galati spoke to the CBC but didn’t agree to an on the record interview. Further attempts to secure a public interview weren’t successful. In some sense this might be forced. Pretty hard to claim censorship when the national broadcaster is offering a platform. One can only guess what CBC would have asked, but it would be interesting.

They also claim that Vaccine Choice Canada threatened to sue them over how they cover various movements. That accusation is surprisingly believable.

Perhaps if a convicted terrorist was about to lose their citizenship, this may be seen as more of an emergency.

A minor point, but page 4 of the July 2020 Claim lists Trudeau and the Federal Crown as “dispensing with Parliament, under the pretense of Royal Prerogative”. Isn’t that the Governor General who exercises Royal Prerogative?

In the end, what do we have here? A group in B.C. promises — STILL — to file a lawsuit at some point. They just need more cash, and have been at this for nearly a year. In Ontario, there are 2 lawsuits (1 is specific to vaccinating students), and neither are progressing. Doesn’t seem very urgent. However, the begging continues.

Again, if this was their private business, then who cares? But they are endlessly asking the public for money, for the promises of lawsuits.

Guess we’ll have to see if this one goes anywhere (CV-21-00661284-0000). At least most of the Respondents have representation listed, so there’s that. It was filed April 2021, over 3 months ago, and no court dates are set. Or this one (CV-21-00661200-000). Denis Rancourt is listed as an expert witness in both, which is interesting considering he’s also a Plaintiff in the July 2020 case that’s sitting in limbo. Is that why his name was scrubbed? So people wouldn’t connect the dots?

Interesting side note on the Sgt. Julie Evans case, the Attorney General used Rule 2.1.01 to try to get the case dismissed. However, it’s meant for very obviously defective cases. If the AG was serious about this, why not use a regular Motion to Strike? Was the goal to launch a half hearted effort to make it appear to challenge the case?

If someone makes wild claims about secret court rulings ending all measures, but can’t provide any specifics, it’s probably a hoax. These things are very easy to search. In a similar vein, if someone wants help financing a case, but never provides updates, there’s probably something going on.

To those reading this: it’s your money, and you can spend it however you like. That said, you should know where it’s going and what is happening with it. It’s truly sad how few do even the most basic research. But then, suckers are born every minute.


Next Iteration Of Q-Anon? Trust The Lawyers, It’s All Being Taken Care Of

Remember “Operation Trust”? It was a 1920s scheme to get people not to overthrow the Bolsheviks, by claiming a military operation was already underway. Remember Q-Anon? It was a way to get people to passively wait while Trump drained the swamp and jailed the deep state. Of course, neither were real.

Canadians are constantly being told that there are a committed group of people fighting Trudeau, Ford, Horgan and their ilk. This isn’t about infighting. There are serious questions about what’s going on.

A recent video floating around on the internet is from a group called “Awake Canada”. It claims that all emergency measures have been struck down by the courts. However, neither links to any rulings, nor specific details are provided. Start at 0:45 in the video.

Now, it is true that British Columbia ended their state of emergency on June 30, 2021. It’s also true Ontario‘s lapsed, although it seems to be operating under new laws.

And suing in multiple provinces? All of Galati’s cases on the site are from Ontario.

The video takes some truth (such as ON and BC stopping their orders) but then goes on to claim that these mysterious court decisions have been responsible for it.

If Canada’s High Court (presumably the Supreme Court of Canada), had really ruled on this, then shouldn’t it be listed in their decisions? Or available on CanLII?

Also, why would the Supreme Court make such a ruling? It’s an appeals court, not a trial court. Even then, it only hears cases that have already been appealed at least once. Their job is to confirm, set aside, or modify lower court rulings. Aside from constitutional questions (which is something else), they aren’t a place to initiate proceedings.

True, the JCCF has managed some low level victories in some provinces, but they seem to be challenging details within the orders, not the overall agenda. On the whole, the courts have been upholding these measures as “necessary for public health”.

However, there haven’t been any court rulings striking the state of emergency. Isn’t it interesting that there is:
-No ruling available
-No court file number
-No judge(s) named
-No date of ruling
-No specific court

Strange how there’s no information about such a case, or cases, as is implied in the video. Keep in mind, that Ontario court cases can be searched by anyone at anytime. This is also true in many other jurisdictions. Yet too few people care enough to look.

The fact that such an claim is pushed when it’s so easy to check makes it difficult to believe this is accidental. Is this a disinfo campaign?

In Ontario, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines, but that ended September 14, 2020.

As for that infamous case filed July 6, 2020 by Vaccine Choice Canada (Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000), there’s nothing happening. This was the one to end all measures in Canada. No defenses have even been filed. Yes, in a year, no defenses. Now, one might expect an application for default judgement to have been sent a long time ago, but it seems not. True, a notice of intent to defend was filed by Windsor-Essex County and their doctor, but that was September 30, 2020.

In a similar vein, nothing has happened with an earlier VCC case (Ontario Superior Court #CV-19-00629801-0000). This was filed in October 2019, to stop mandatory vaccination of Ontario students. Sure, a defense was filed in December 2019, and a reply in March 2020, but nothing since. And children are getting the experimental vaxx right now.

While the July 2020 case involved serious human rights abuses, and was worth $11 million, it appears that mean words on Twitter is worth $12.75 million. Seems a bit odd. (Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000)

Sure, a few more cases have been filed recently. Guess we’ll have to see if anything comes from any of them.

If a lawyer wanted to get into court quickly, it can be done in days. Just ask Canadian Appliance Source, or Hudson’s Bay Company.

I guess this offer is no longer available. There used to be an option to purchase (for just $90) half filled forms with pleading arguments written into them. They were sold in Ontario for a time. Of course, buying these forms with a waiver of liability is a bit unsettling. This is just speculation, but perhaps these forms were pulled as they might be considered providing legal advice, regardless of whatever waiver was issued.

Action4Canada is based out of B.C. They claim to have been fundraising for a lawsuit for almost a year now. In January 2021, they reported having reached 45% of the goal to sue the B.C. Government. Now, they state they have 83% of the way there. Strangely, there’s no mention of the amount of money needed, as it’s just given as a percent. Back in September 2020, they claimed to have raised over $30,000. Strange how no one asks to see where their donations went.

What an offer. If you donate to Odessa Orlewicz, she’ll give 50% to Tanya at Action4Canada for the lawsuit they aren’t filing. 25% will go to Galati’s cases which are going nowhere. And she’ll keep 25%. Great deal!

And what is this federal case Odessa mentions?

Fight The Fines was started up by Ezra Levant and Rebel Media. This outlet acts as a middleman, taking public donations and hiring lawyers to fight (some) tickets. Just a thought, but that’s addressing a symptom and not the disease.

While not lawyers, Hugs Over Masks, The Line and Chris (Sky) Saccoccia deserve an honourable mention for all the great work they do helping us out.

On the American scene, we have Robert Kennedy Jr. and Del Big Tree leading the opposition. They’re not against vaccines altogether. They just support “safe” vaccines.

Elsewhere, Reiner Fuellmich routinely gives interviews about these international efforts. However, he never has any concrete progress to report.

As Vladimir Lenin famously stated, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

Trust the plan, everyone!

Note: in the interest of fairness, some challenges in American courts have been successful. See below. That could be because those lawyers take their work more seriously.


%d bloggers like this: