Category: Miscellaneous

Posted on

Making Some Changes….

Some significant changes will be coming in terms of content in the new year.

For context, this site started in the Spring of 2018, which was 7 1/2 years ago. It’s quite something to realize that it’s been creeping towards a decade. The question needs to be addressed: what next? Retire, or change direction?

The general sentiment is one of “returning to the roots”, or refocusing on topics that made the series stand out in the first place. A short list is included, though it’s more aspiration than a promise. Time and energy are real constraints lately.

1. Deep Dives Into Various Government Institutions

One of the most viewed articles to date remains this piece on how the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is in fact a de-facto branch of the World Health Organization. It gets into the creation of it, and the ad-hoc attempts to legitimate it.

A related pitch would be to cover historical revisions of various laws they enact. Firearm rights are always a contentious issue.

2. International Banking And Climate Change

A pair of schemes that are very much intertwined are banking and climate change. Although things seem to be on the wane, enormous sums of money have been stolen from the public and sent off, with no accountability. This has been covered to a degree, but there’s so much more exploitation to get into.

3. Back To Focusing On Open Border Agenda

Prior to 2020, the bulk of the content centered around open borders, and the true scale which things were happening at. There was a real disconnect to what information the public is fed, versus what is really going on. When this site originally reported in 2019 that about a million people annually were entering, it was laughed at. Now, it’s accepted wisdom.

With immigration, comes a host of new concerns. These include human smuggling and exploitation, importing foreign conflicts, groups demanding special treatment, and censorship.

As an aside, the floodgates didn’t “just open” in 2022. Statistics Canada finally decided to be more transparent in how they calculated the numbers.

4. Land Grabs Via The Courts

The Cowichan case made national news in August 2025, ruling that a large part of Richmond, B.C., belonged to a tribe living in the area. As has now been made public, significant parts of Canada are now being contested. Property rights as a concept is now in limbo for many people.

5. Delving Into The Limitations Of Modelling

This may be reaching, but there has been a desire to tackle directly the idea of computer modelling. This is where so-called experts plug a bunch of numbers into a computer, make assumptions, and spit out predictions. Those results — shoddy as they may be — are treated as fact. A lot of problems in the world would end if this junk science simply died off.

There are some other ideas on the backburner in terms of new content, subject to time limitations. One was getting back into the privacy/surveillance topic, but it may difficult to contribute without sounding crazy.

Separating Data And Articles More Formally

The details are still in the works, but the goal is to more completely separate source material from content which critiques it. The goal is better organization.

Creative Commons Licencing

The site is looking into licencing, which will still allow use, even in full without restriction. The only condition had been credit where it’s due. This is a bit of a formality, as the goal had always been to get the material out. And “Fair Dealing” is typically allowed for it to be reused in transformative ways.

Court filings and legislative documents are open to the public anyway.

Converting More Content Into Video Format

People have suggested over the years to turn more of the publications here into short videos, in order to reach a wider audience. This is a valid point, and worth consideration.

Retiring: Scam Lawsuits Series

Probably the most definable topic since 2021 has been the “scam lawsuits” series that shocked much of the Freedom Movement. To sum up: millions of dollars have been wasted, while thousands of litigants saw their cases (most, if not all, valid) tossed out because of shoddy lawyering.

This is of course not to say that all of them were grifts, but a lot of questions need to be asked about some of them. Hopefully, that point has been driven home.

Lockdown measures began in 2020, and largely went away in early 2022. If people are still fundraising in 2026 or 2027 to file a Statement of Claim, perhaps their cases require a closer look.

It’s also frustrating to put up with threats of lawsuits, actual lawsuits, swatting threats, and threats to get the site shut down. All of these have happened. It seems easier to go after critics than to zealously advance interests of clients and donors.

Retiring: “HateGate” Hoax

This is the nonsense about the Emergencies Act being invoked over a meme. The flaws in this were reported extensively. While the broader topic of government run operations is a good one, this specific psy-op has run its course.

Primary Sources Is The Path Forward

An interesting perspective relayed is that there’s more to covering court cases than simply going through the documents. This is certainly true, and there’s always room for nuance and discussion. But for that to happen, we need to at least agree on what has happened so far. We can always figure out the solution afterward.

The original documents are the primary sources, and everything afterwards is secondary, or lower. In every iteration of a subject being shared, information is lost.

Going to original documents also (largely) negates the need to discuss with a lawyer or client. Sorry, not sorry. If you have all the filings, that’s what should be the focus.

Where Do Things Go From Here?

It has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows. Oddly, a similar sentiment can be shared when it comes to various outlets reporting on stories.

Back in 2021-22, it was quite revealing to see the reactions to covering the Gill-Lamba defamation case. People who identified as “freedom fighters” were angry at the lack of support they received here. It seemed that just because they spoke out against lockdowns, they should get a free pass trying to silence their critics.

A more recent example involved the situation with Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, B.C. Interestingly, despite the near constant coverage received from “alternative” media outlets, court documents were rarely discussed. While there were cries of “an attack on the food supply”, the filings told a very different story. Had there been more honest and transparent reporting, this would never have gotten off the ground.

This has led (once again) to the conclusion that there can be no sides in reporting: either truth matters, or it doesn’t.

A question that commonly comes up is who someone should be following. In a perfect world, the answer is no one. Ideally, people should be driven to seek out truth and information on their own. Information has been provided on: (a) general searching; (b) FOIA requests; (c) CanLII searches; (d) Lobbying registries; and (e) Charity lookups to get started.

Perhaps this is a better answer: follow people who make it easier to do the fact checking yourself.

***It’s not necessary to become a publisher, but it doesn’t mean that one can’t at least look up things on their own. Here’s what one person did.

The hope here is to inspire people to get into their own deep dives. Is it tedious? It can be. But what can result from it?

(a) Untold truth about court cases finally gets covered
(b) Lobbyists and special interests behind legislation get exposed
(c) Money thought to have disappeared gets tracked
(d) “Organic” movements exposed as either initiated by, or infiltrated by authorities
(e) More complete stories are told about what’s happening in the world

It’s easy to get frustrated or burned out, and to want to give up. And there’s often the comment that “nothing will ever come of it”. Until and unless something is tried, it will always be nothing. Hopefully, this will be inspiring to some.

As always, feedback is encouraged.

Happy new year to all!

Posted on

A Beginner’s Guide To Finding A Lawyer (If You Must)

Characters such as Lionel Hutz may be a meme at this point, but they are certainly based on reality.

To clarify, lawyers aren’t hard to find. They’re everywhere. But what does matter is finding a good quality one who will actually protect your interests, and not bankrupt you. Alternatively, if you don’t need one, then it’s nice to know before wasting huge amounts of time and money.

Note: everything presented here is just for the purpose of INFORMATION, and not advice. As always, take everything with a grain of salt and research on your own. This is just a mix of opinion, common sense, and experience thrown in.

If it’s someone close to you, there may be a high level of trust already. Still, questions should be asked ahead of time, to avoid things getting complicated.

Another disclaimer should also be included. If you have nearly unlimited amounts of money, or are covered by insurance, it may not seem to be a big deal. Still, it’s wise to put effort into what can be a major financial or life altering decision.

1. Avoid Getting Into Such Situations In The First Place

There’s the old expression that “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of a cure”. Certainly, there’s logic to that. It’s (usually) better to avoid problems rather than have to fix them later. Ask whether or not this headache is even worthwhile.

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution Options

A problem doesn’t always have to result in going to court. Other options such as mediation (voluntary) and arbitration (binding) are now much more common. True, lawyers are often involved, but they don’t have to be.

3. Self-Representing May Be An Option

A lot has changed in recent years. In the internet era, information is more accessible than ever before. Court forms are readily available to download. Electronic filing (largely) makes physical visits unnecessary, and hearings routinely take place virtually. Search sites such as CanLII allow anyone to look up relevant and related decisions.

Although clerks are prohibited from giving advice, they’re often very helpful in ensuring that the correct paperwork is submitted. Asking is for free.

If you’re aware of a resolved case with related issues, consider ordering (purchase, if needed) some of the filings. Getting ahold of the written arguments will be helpful in understanding what points keep coming up. And if need be, perhaps they can be incorporated into your case.

Also consider if you are self-representing, while the other side is not. This means they’ll be paying lawyer fees every step of the way, racking up expenses. In the long term, it can lead to attrition.

4. Low Cost Representation (i.e. Paralegals) May Be Available

This varies by Province, but lawyers are not always the only game in town. For example, Ontario and B.C. allow paralegals to take some types of cases that used to be more restricted. They charge a fraction of the cost, and can provide the same service. For less urgent matters, it’s worth considering.

Rates vary, but it may be only 10% to 30% of what a lawyer would bill.

An astute observer will realize that everything listed so far has focused on AVOIDING the use of a lawyer. This is not accidental. Circumstances vary, of course. However, sometimes the easiest and cheapest path forward doesn’t involve them.

5. Seeking Free (Or Low Cost) Consultations

Depending on what the situation is, the lawyer may recommend, or at least suggest options #2 to #4. This can actually be a good sign. If the person talks about ways to resolve your problem quickly and cheaply, it’s a clue that they may have your best interests in mind.

With this is mind, it might be better to pay a few hundred dollars for a serious talk. Ask about this type of case, common pathways, documents filed, issues raised at trial, etc….

But if you do end up hiring a lawyer to take your case, there’s much more to do. The more you can learn about this type of law ahead of time, the less likely a prospective hire will try to screw with you.

6. Conduct Background Check On Prospective Contractor

Think for a moment that you are an employer. You’re looking to hire an employee, or perhaps an independent contractor. If the job is serious, or involves a lot of money, then it would certainly be worth the effort to screen them.

Here are a few things to consider before handing over large amounts of money:

(A) Verify who they are: This should go without saying, but make sure the people representing themselves as lawyers are in fact who they claim to be. Checking their Law Society will be helpful. There may not be a photo, but check to see that the name and contact information match up, and that the licence is active.

(B) Search for history of bad conduct: While the respective Law Societies are notoriously bad for holding lawyers accountable, it’s still worth a look. Have they ever been reprimanded or suspended? Are there any active complaints? And do an online search of their name. Have they been involved in anything shady?

(C) Credit check the prospective contractor: This doesn’t mean contacting Transunion or Equifax. In this context, look at the office. Is it extravagantly furnished, or more practical? If the office (or building) appears to be very expensive, then they may promise anything in order to secure more clients. Likewise, seeing luxury cars may be a sign or debt, or overbilling.

(D) Check their portfolio: In this context, research earlier decisions made involving this lawyer. What kind of results are they getting? While it’s true that cases are typically settled, any lawyer who’s been around for a while will have at least some kind of history on CanLII. Look into it. Also, if you know of any (related) cases they’ve been involved with, ask the court for documents, and see what they file.

(E) Reference check for prospective contractor: This can be tricky, since many people aren’t sure what to look for. Is there a trustworthy friend or family member who has used this person with good results? Has anyone been burned by them? While general reputation may matter, finding someone who has dealt with this specific person adds context.

(F) Interview the prospective contractor: That initial meeting isn’t just about whether the lawyer will take your case. It’s also about whether you believe they are suitable to work on your problem. The best way to do this is ro prepare ahead of time. Have some idea who this lawyer is, they work they do, and what kind of litigation they focus on?

Here’s something that anyone who has ever held a managerial role, and hired people, will tell you. A person may present in a very appealing way initially, in order to get hired, but then change afterwards. In other words, they were just putting on an act. Your prospective counsel may be doing the same thing.

Fees may be: (a) hourly; (b) contingency; (c) flat rate; or (d) some combination thereof. It’s always important to get it in writing. If the lawyer refuses to put it in writing, walk away immediately.

All of this may sound excessive. And for cases involving low amounts of money, or other consequences, it is. But if your case involves hundreds of thousands — or millions — then it’s worth putting the effort in to screen out potential disasters.

7. The Critical Question: “Have You Done This Before”?

This one question had interesting results on a personal level.

Lawyers will often “sell” their abilities to handle a certain area of law. They’ll tell you that the subject is very complex, and that they can help get you through. The usual pitch is that this is too much for the typical person to deal with, but without getting into specifics.

Then, ask the lawyer: “Have you ever done this before?”

This has actually led to admissions that it would be a first time. Retaining such a lawyer would amount to paying them to learn how to do such a thing. Maybe it’s preferable for some or most people. But why not save the money and teach yourself?

Now, should the lawyer say yes, it’s good to follow up with requesting if the result is available on CanLII, or some other site. If there’s hesitation or unease about this, it’s a likely sign that you’ve caught out a grifter lying about their abilities.

Here’s the TL, DR (too long, didn’t read) summary. Depending on the circumstances, it may be worthwhile to avoid lawyers altogether. Many people are capable of learning things themselves. But if you must hire one, view it the way you would hiring an employee or contractor.

Posted on

A Little Discernment Can Go A Long Way….

Above is a photo from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. This exact image is available at my local library, and probably many others across Canada as well. It’s meant as a rough guide for filtering out information.

While it presumably is targeted at books, the same guidelines are valid for podcasts, articles, videos and other content. And there are worthwhile things to ask.

  • Are there any supporting sources to make the claims?
  • Is the title “clickbait”, or does it accurately represent the content
  • Is it satire? If the claims made are overly dramatic, the author may be trying to create humourous work.
  • Who wrote it, and why? Are there any obvious conflicts of interest?
  • Who can a person check with to verify the information?
  • Will biases be an issue in judging it objectively
  • Is the information current or outdated?

No one needs to point out how badly “ask the experts” has gone lately. Nonetheless, it can be a starting point for getting information on a topic.

Note: This isn’t meant at a specific person or group. Rather, it’s a pattern that has become a lot more noticeable over the last few years.

While many people have become proficient at spotting Government deception and propaganda, they either overlook or ignore it in the alternative media spheres. Of course, the reverse is also true for the normies. And examples?

(1) Some who dismissed Government fear mongering around this so-called “pandemic” will not look carefully into topics such as microchipping vaccines, DNA modification, gain of function, lab leaks, or bioweapons. Any dramatic claims deserve skepticism, regardless of the source.

(2) On a related note: there have been some who (rightly) question whether CV tests are accurate based on current methods. However, they will just take for granted that other viruses can be tested for using that same technology. We want authors who are logically consistent.

(3) Some of the larger political alternative voices will do a great job researching candidates and parties they don’t like, while making excuses for those they support. If they have a dog in the fight, then they can never be fully trusted.

(4) In a world where views and advertising dollars matter, catching attention is important. However, that’s not always the best option if the content doesn’t warrant sensationalism.

(5) While Government plants within the media are often easy to spot, “alternative” voices come out of nowhere and instantly gain huge followings. Such individuals do so despite addressing topics that are normally censored, or while not offering anything insightful. Similarly, if the content frequently borders on, or engages in outright Fed-posting, be wary.

(6) Lack of curiosity should always be viewed as a red flag. If a piece touches on really important issues, but only at a surface level — with no follow up — one should ask why. Rabbit holes are a fun, albeit exhausting, way to shake strongly held views.

These are just a few things that have come up in the alt-media landscape, and not just the Canadian scene. All media should be scrutinized, regardless of whether it has the slant and leanings that are preferred.

A question that comes up is who should the public be following. The answer is no one. Ideally, the best populace is one that’s full of inquisitive and resourceful people. Yes, research is time consuming, but there’s no shortcut to becoming educated. The alternative is to sit back and hopefully trust the right outlet. That seems to be a poor plan.

True, there’s no way to not view published media at all, but just realize that there will be gaps in what’s presented. If nothing else, different perspectives can at least draw attention to flaws and errors.

A little discernment can go a long way….

Posted on

Federal Court Strikes Claim By Coast Guard Worker Over Pay Issues, Cites Lack Of Jurisdiction

A member of the Canadian Coast Guard, Jennifer Horsman has had her challenge thrown out of the Federal Court, and lack of jurisdiction is cited.

This isn’t a case about being forced to take the clot-shots, but it’s still interesting. In August 2022, her employer claimed that she had been overpaid nearly $9,000, the remainder of a larger amount that was supposedly owed. Horsman says she kept her own records of all dates and shifts and contested the demand. This caused financial hardship.

She also tried to seek union representation, but was denied.

Despite attempts to resolve this internally, Horsman was unsuccessful. She eventually ended up suing the Government in March 2023 to resolve this, and here’s where it takes a turn.

Ottawa brought a Rule 221 Motion to Strike (throw out) the lawsuit on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case at all.

Looking at Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, FPSLRA:

Individual Grievances
Presentation
Right of employee
.
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved
.
(a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
.
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
.
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
.
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

Section 208 then goes on to list a series of conditions and limitations.

Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Application
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Taken together, it seems laid out that Federal workers have the rights to file grievances, but they have no real right to take their problems to Court.

This ruling confirms the Adelberg decision, a high profile ruling in February 2023 that permanently ended the cases of over 400 Federal workers. Another 200 workers of Federally regulated industries had a setback as well, since the pleading was so poorly drafted.

Adelberg was also cited by a former RCMP worker, whose case was struck because of the FPSLRA.

Lesson in here: members of the Federal Government, as well as most unionized employers, have no guaranteed right to go to Court. There’s almost always a grievance or arbitration requirement.

If there’s any consolation here, it’s that the person wasn’t ordered to pay any costs. Yes, the Attorney General asked, but the Judge declined. She also didn’t waste many thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer to get the exact same result. Still, she has guts for at least attempting this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2003-c-22-s-2/latest/sc-2003-c-22-s-2.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html

Posted on

5 Years Later: No Constitution Or Leadership Race For Bernier And PPC

It’s time to mention it again: the epicentre of “dissident” politics in Canada still doesn’t have even a basic framework in place, despite being launched 5 years ago. There are no governing documents whatsoever to outline how this organization will be managed.

Conveniently, there’s no way to force Bernier out either.

Interestingly, when this fact is pointed out to supporters, they indignantly point to “the platform”. Others may go off on a tirade about how establishment structures invite corruption. Apparently, allegations of the CPC being corrupt — whether true or not — is reason to abolish any sort of internal controls.

Some also point to an online vote following the 2021 Federal election. This doesn’t replace an actual leadership convention, with competing ideas and candidates. Heck, even the Communist Party of Canada is more democratic in structure.

It’s beyond obvious by this point that it was never intended to be any sort of a real party. Instead, this is a money-pit to suck up the cash of otherwise agnostic Canadians. But at $104,000 per year, plus whatever benefits are included, it’s lucrative.

Many theories have been floated as to why this “party” was launched, if there was no goal to make it a viable contender. These include:

(a) Spite and/or revenge
(b) Ego
(c) Grifting

While all are possible, there is another way to look at this. One of the arguments that supporters make is that they can’t stand the “LibCon” establishment. While valid, how does this help? How does forming an imitation of a political party upend things? It doesn’t. If anything, it helps to entrench the status quo by sucking out any energy and money that may have been better used.

But then, this may just be a cynical take.

Remember to donate!

(1) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/
(2) https://www.bitchute.com/video/48wpxl42BEdK/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-leadership-party-review-1.6274329
(4) https://www.bitchute.com/video/pFiBwmcHolxk/
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peoples-party-canada-maxime-bernier-1.5695908

Posted on

Some Thoughts On The Fine Line Between Awakening And Demoralizing

This piece is going to be different than what’s normally covered.

The above meme is of Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet defector. He became famous decades ago for his talks on subversion and demoralization. Even when presented with hard evidence, demoralized people can be unable to see reality. Videos are widely available online.

A criticism that often comes up here is that it’s unproductive to expose a problem without proposing an alternative to it. At some point, trying to wake up a group of people devolves into depression and demoralization, where there’s no obvious solution to anything. Even when alternatives exist on paper, they seem completely impractical to implement.

Another comparison may be between “red-pilling” v.s. “black-pilling”.

A common instance where this comes up is with the problem-reaction-solution scenarios, or the Hegelian Dialectic. This is when it seems that the outcomes are prearranged, and to a degree, they are. It’s challenging to accept answers if it looks planned in advance.

What issues are important? Take a look around this site, and see what things are addressed.

There is a valid point to the notion that harsh doses of reality are needed. In order to come to sensible conclusions, it’s important to know just how bad a problem is. Sugar coating the depth of an issue does nothing to properly correct it. Is there any obligation to offer an alternative, or is pointing out the truth enough on its own?

But the flip side is that completely destroying people’s spirits by showing the depth of a situation may not be that helpful. Outlining in vivid detail how hopeless a situation is will be soul crushing. What’s the point of demonstrating the ugly truth if everyone feels powerless to fix it? Doesn’t draining the will to fight effectively lead to their defeat?

Reality and hopium cannot exist separately. At some point, we need both.

So, where do we draw the line?

I don’t have a clear answer to this, and don’t know if anyone does. Being a truther means going down all kinds of rabbit holes, and discovering incredible things. However, there are undeniable consequences for people who get into this. Constantly being suspicious of everything and everyone gets very tiring. It’s extremely time consuming and not a good way to live.

Anyhow, these are just some random thoughts on the subject.

As always, feedback is appreciated.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress