A Beginner’s Guide: How A COMPETENT Lawyer Should Have Have Handled Federal Injection Pass Case

On Wednesday, November 8th, the Federal Court of Appeal heard a case of over 600 Plaintiffs that was struck for being “bad beyond argument“. This was the high profile case of Federal workers, and members of Federally regulated industries who objected to the CV injections being a new job requirement.

There was an additional complication, as the Federal workers were also barred by law from going to Court. The others could, in theory, still use litigation as an option. This effectively “split” the case.

The case is being handled by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself, Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati.

August 2021: Ottawa announces that “vaccine passport” will be required of all Federal workers, and members of Federally regulated industries in the next few months.

May 2022: Statement of Claim is filed on behalf of over 600 Plaintiffs.

January 2023: There’s a hearing in Federal Court to strike the Claim.

February 2023: Claim struck in its entirety without leave (no permission) to amend regarding the Federal employees. However, it’s struck with leave (permission) to refile for everyone else. The Judge also found that the quality of the writing was “bad beyond argument”.

March 2023: Notice of Appeal was filed.

April 2023: The Appeal Book is filed.

May 2023: The Appellants’ written arguments are filed.

June 2023: The Respondents’ written arguments are filed.

November 2023: The Federal Court of Appeal has hearing to review the case.

The case is on reserve, meaning that the 3 Justices haven’t yet made their findings. This is quite common, though it’s uncertain when it will be released.

Interestingly, the lawsuit wasn’t filed until May 2022, nearly a year after mandates were announced. To put it mildly, it was terribly written, and never stood a chance. That’s been covered in detail here, here, here, and here.

Instead, this is going to be a different focus. Rather than simply pointing out errors and faults with how the case has been handled, serious, constructive feedback will be offered. Here are some ways that the case could have been managed differently, and how it may have survived.

This article does not attempt to provide legal advice. Instead, it’s meant as constructive feedback and information with regards to the Adelberg v. HMTK Case. The handing, both at the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal was beyond inept and unprofessional. Nonetheless, do not rely on this for your own cases. If you have questions, please seek advice from a competent legal professional

Anyhow, let’s get started.

One of the first things that needs to be pointed out is that employees of the Federal Government — a.k.a. the “Core Public Administration” — don’t automatically have the right to sue. Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) are quite clear about that.

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.

No Right of Action
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.

236(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.

Section 208 of the FPSLRA gives Federal employees the right to grieve, and that often ends in arbitration. This is similar to how workers in unionized environments, or ones with collective bargaining agreements. Section 236 is the prohibition on seeking remedies in the Courts via lawsuits. This is referred to as a lack of jurisdiction, or an “explicit ouster” from the Court.

With this in mind, Federal workers don’t automatically have the right to go to Court. In fact, they will have to demonstrate that the grievance options available to them are grossly inadequate and/or that the process is corrupted. This didn’t happen here. In fact, it doesn’t appear that any effort was made by anyone to go through the process, at least from reading the pleadings.

Approximately 2/3 of the 600+ Plaintiffs (about 400 in total) are/were members of the Federal Government. In order to sue, they’d have to demonstrate that existing options weren’t adequate.

There’s also the inter-related concern about just how poorly written the Claim is.

Anyhow, let’s offer some constructive feedback.

1. Plead Facts About How Grievance Process Is Unworkable Or Corrupt

The Statement of Claim (SoC) is 50 pages long. While this seems like a lot, the first 15 are just the Parties listed, and the other pages included in the template. The next several are the remedies sought. Then a few pages include some background information on the Parties (which is fine).

The “FACTS” start on Paragraph 22, which is about halfway through the SoC. It goes on from there until about Paragraph 30, approximately 1 page in total, explaining the allegations and pleading facts. Nearly everything else that follows is irrelevant to these proceedings.

Feedback: It would help the case immensely to plead facts about how various clients had attempted to resolve the injection mandates at their jobs. Providing details about what steps were taken (at least by some employees) to avoid this would have helped.

This certainly wouldn’t need to be all 600+ Plaintiffs, but pleading facts for about 20 or 30 of them using grievance options would have gone a long way. Or, considering that there aren’t many options available, perhaps lumping Plaintiffs together could work. For example:

-“Group A Plaintiffs” filed grievances with their union reps.
-“Group B Plaintiffs” contacted their HR Departments to seek alternatives.
-“Group C Plaintiffs” wrote to their employers, refusing, and asking for options.
-“Group D Plaintiffs” tried some combination of different methods.

This may be oversimplified, but remember, Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA give Federal workers the right to grieve, but not to sue. To overcome this, they need to show that there were no options available. And to do that, they need to at least show that they tried some remedies.

Seriously, there were over 400 members and former members of the Federal Government here. Didn’t any of them attempt the grievance process? None of them plead anything of the sort.

2. Plead Facts About Clients Attempting Workarounds Or Exemptions

Paragraph 28(c) is the only mention of Plaintiffs seeking exemptions from these requirements. And only a handful of them are named. While nice to see a mention of it, this isn’t nearly enough.

Feedback: More than just a few Plaintiffs should have been named as seeking exemptions. Additionally, the SoC “should” have given more information on what types of exemptions were sought, and the responses.

Similar to the last point, Plaintiffs who sought exemptions could be grouped together to make things more organized.

-“Group A Plaintiffs” sought exemptions for religious reasons.
-“Group B Plaintiffs” sought exemptions for medical reasons.
-“Group C Plaintiffs” sought exemptions based on freedom of conscience beliefs.
-“Group D Plaintiffs” sought exemptions based on lack of current long term test data.
-“Group E Plaintiffs” sought exemptions for a variety of reasons.

Additionally, Plaintiffs could have tried to obtain various accommodations to allow them to continue working (such as remotely). Information on that could have been pleaded as well.

This could also be used to bolster the claim that the Plaintiffs sought alternative remedies, and only sued as a last resort. It would be an important point to make.

And back to Point #1: considering that by default, Federal workers don’t have the right to sue (they can grieve though), it would have been nice to see what, if any, steps were taken afterwards. But the SoC pleads none of this, and consequently, can’t overcome the s.236 FPSLRA prohibition.

Yes, it’s true that facts are presumed to be true at the initial stages, but they still need to be pleaded in the Statement of Claim.

3. Provide Evidence Of Unworkability In Motion To Strike

It’s true that in Motions to Strike (throw out), evidence is not normally allowed. This is because it’s a preliminary challenge, and the opposing side is trying to say that the suit is fatal flawed regardless.

However, there are a few exceptions to this. These are instances where it will lead to the case being thrown out without any possibility to refile. Jurisdiction is one such exception, and the Statute of Limitations is another. Galati appears to be unaware of this, at least according to Paragraph 3 of his Written Submissions.

Feedback: The first line of defence that the Government has is the “explicit ouster” of s.236 of the FPSLRA. Once again, this is the argument that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear (at least part) of the Claims. If this can not be overcome, then the case is dead in the water.

What should have been done here is have several Plaintiffs submit evidence that they tried to exercise their grievance options. True, this will involve collecting Affidavits. True, they can then be questioned, or cross-examined on this. But such evidence would have helped in demonstrating the unworkability of existing options for Federal workers.

Plaintiffs who file Affidavits could certainly attach as exhibits any documents that show they tried other methods. Emails, text messages, letters, transcripts of recordings, etc…. would all have shown that they attempted to resolve this internally. If enough litigants did this, that would be very powerful evidence.

None of the 400+ Government workers had any evidence to submit for the Motion?

Keep in mind, if people are suing for large sums of money, they’d likely have to testify under oath at some point. Therefore, being cross-examined on an Affidavit hardly seems excessive.

Back to Point #1: if facts had been pleaded about this in the SoC, then it would have been a lot easier. Yes, a Motion to Strike would still be likely, but the Plaintiffs would be in a much stronger position.

4. Allegations Need To Be Particularized (Spelled Out) Clearly

There’s a requirement in the Federal Court Rules to “give particulars” when making allegations of, among other things:

(a) Fraud
(b) Misrepresentation
(c) Breach of Trust
(d) Undue influence
(e) Malfeasance of Public Office

What this means is that there’s a duty for the Plaintiffs to spell out with additional clarity what the accusations are. Galati doesn’t do that here, or in any anti-lockdown cases.

Feedback: If litigants are going to be making accusations of this sort, then it needs to be outlined in much more detail. What specific actions were fraudulent or amount to misrepresentation? What specific actions or statements caused that breach of trust? Instead of just making such bare statements, the underlying information needs to be provided.

Remember, everyone is entitled to confront their accusers. This includes Government officials. How can they respond to allegations if there’s not enough information provided?

If there isn’t enough information available to allege such things, then it would probably be better to just leave them out. It doesn’t help the clients to have the case bogged down unnecessarily.

5. Plead Facts In Support Of Claims Charter Rights Were Breached

Setting aside the issues around jurisdiction, the Courts are generally the proper forum to raise allegations that Charter protections have been violated. And a number of them are raised here:

(a) Section 2, Fundamental Freedoms
(b) Section 6, Mobility Rights
(c) Section 7, Security of the Person
(d) Section 15, Equality Rights

The problem is: while these are listed, there’s little to no information in support of this. As a result, the Defendants are left to guess. While many people can imply the reasons, it still has to be written out in the pleadings.

Feedback: If someone is going to allege that their rights have been violated, it would be helpful to lay out the details of what has happened. How are groups of people being treated unequally? How are people unsecure in their bodies? What mobility rights have been taken away?

The Plaintiffs have suffered mental anguish? Loss of dignity? Okay, then we need more information (facts) about what has happened.

6. Remove Argument From Statement Of Claim

The Statement of Claim more closely resembles a Factum than it does a Claim. It tries to argue what the scientific consensus is, and what the motivations of people are. It also draws the same conclusions that the Court is being asked to do.

Feedback: Instead of trying to argue in a Claim, it would be more helpful to to simply plead what information is available. What events? What dates? Who said what? Making it unnecessarily convoluted may impress many, but confusing the Judge is not wise.

Moreover, arguing caselaw and evidence in the initial pleadings isn’t appropriate. That comes much later, and is pretty basic knowledge in civil procedure. This is (partly) why the Government lawyers are saying that there are no facts pled. They’re right, it’s almost entirely argument.

7. Remove Content That’s Inappropriate In A Civil Claim

This is a no brainer. Courts are limited to certain types of cases, and are not allowed to preside over issues outside of their jurisdiction. It was also part of the reason the Action4Canada case was struck.

(a) Allegations of criminal conduct
(b) Allegations of crimes against humanity
(c) Allegations of violations of the Nuremberg Code
(d) Allegations of violations of the Helsinki Declaration
(e) Allegations of involvement in eugenics schemes
(f) Seeking declarations about what the “scientific consensus” is

Feedback: Drop all of this, and related content from this — and other lawsuits. All it does is lead to Motions to Strike over jurisdiction. If the case is about workers having to take injections to keep their jobs, then don’t lose focus.

8. Name All Plaintiffs Instead Of “John Doe” And “Jane Doe”

Dozens of Plaintiffs in the Style of Cause (front pages) are simply listed as either “John Doe” or as “Jane Doe”, along with their employer.

Feedback: If the lawsuit were actually intended to go ahead, this would be pointless, as they’d all have to be identified at some point. It just wastes everyone’s time. Supposedly, this was done to prevent harassment and intimidation, but their identities could still be found out.

Considering that Government lawyers — supposedly — tried to find out who were anyway, it’s unclear what the point is. Despite what people think about Trudeau and his people, they still are entitled to know who is making the allegations. Think about it: how can one confront their accusers in Court, without knowing who they are?

9. Don’t Suggest Lower Court Judge Was Biased

The Notice of Appeal implies that Justice Fothergill was biased in how he wrote up the February 2023 Order which saw the SoC struck. This isn’t a good idea. The Judge correctly outlined many serious defects in the pleading.

Feedback: This is a dumb idea. Don’t do it. To even imply such a thing, there’d have to be some strong basis for it, or it could be considered contempt of Court.

Also, the comparison to Action4Canada was quite fitting. While the Federal suit was much shorter, it had essentially the same flaws and defects. There was the additional problem of the “explicit ouster” of s.236 FPSLRA.

Would the case have survived if the above recommendations had been implemented? It’s impossible to say for sure, but it would have been a lot more likely.

Again, this article is not meant to provide legal advice. This site in general does not provide advice. If you have questions in your own case, please seek professional input.

Pretty pathetic that this case has taken in over $1.2 million in fees and donations. How is this number arrived at?

(a) the donations solicited on the Constitutional Rights Centre website
(b) the Retainer Agreement demanded $1,000 from each Plaintiff (or $600,000+)
(c) the email to clients demanding another $1,000 from each (or $600,000+)

A lot of money has been wasted, and all for a lawsuit that never stood a chance. Now, hundreds of Plaintiffs — with valid problems — are going to find that they’re barred by the Statute of Limitations from trying again.

Meanwhile, a “moronic troll” online can break this case apart with little effort. Have to wonder what’s really going on here.

This article will likely lead to Galati suing the site again. Oh well. It’s not like the last one was well written, or even coherent.

(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html#par85
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html#par17
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1701/2023bcsc1701.html#par30

(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

Ontario EMS Workers Suit Recycled From Recent “Bad Beyond Argument” Federal Case

The grifting never ends, does it?

Monday, March 1, 2023, a lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court, on behalf of over 100 Plaintiffs. It is essentially a cut-and-paste copy of a Claim that the Federal Court threw out just 2 weeks earlier.

Yes, a lawsuit that was struck for being “bad beyond argument” was simply repackaged and refiled to initiate another one. The lawyer involved was Rocco Galati, who works out of Toronto.

In fairness, CTV did announce this case, but let’s go into it in greater detail.

As for some recent decisions:

(1) Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba filed a $12.75 million defamation case for mean words on Twitter. After it was — predictably — thrown out in February 2022 as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), Gill and Lamba were stuck with over $1 million in costs.

(2) Action4Canada brought a 391 page, rambling, incoherent Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) to the B.C. Supreme Court. After it was struck in its entirety in August 2022 for being “bad beyond argument”, the Plaintiffs decided to appeal. This was in spite of the Judge allowing a rewrite.

(3) The Federal Court struck a case by over 600 Plaintiffs for being “bad beyond argument” in February 2023. The pleadings were impossible to follow, and heavily lifted from the Action4Canada case. Plaintiffs who were part of the Federal Government were permanently barred due to Section 236 of the FPSLRA, which mandated other forms of resolution. The other Plaintiffs can still theoretically bring an amended Claim. Apparently, appeals are in the works.

(4) Vaccine Choice Canada had their case sit idly for 2 1/2 years before making a first appearance in Court. The Attorney General wants it thrown out for: (a) disclosing no reasonable cause of action; and (b) being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Of course, this doesn’t include several others that just remain dormant for years with no activity. Those have been covered extensively on this site.

Now, turning to the Ontario EMS case, how does this parallel with the Federal case, and where will this end up? In short, this Ontario one will get struck in its entirety.

1. Most (All?) Workers Subjected To Arbitration Requirements

This case may be dead on arrival for a very simple reason: the Court may not be allowed to hear it at all, if there are other agreements in place.

To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or

[Rule 21.01(3)(a)]
(3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that,
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;

As we saw in the recent Federal Court case, the majority of the Plaintiffs were actually subjected to Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. Since it specifically barred litigation as a workplace solution, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear their arguments.

Considering that the Plaintiffs here work for various Municipal Governments, and most are probably unionized, this lawsuit will likely get struck for the same reasons. Unions typically have a grievance process — such as arbitration — built into their collective bargaining agreements. Ontario Procedure Rules allow for cases to be dismissed if there’s no jurisdiction.

Of course, their lawyer should know this, right?

After all, this is why the majority of Plaintiffs in the Federal case were prevented from seeking remedies in Court. And that ruling was just 2 weeks ago.

2. Challenge Should Probably Be Done As Judicial Review

Another major issue with the Federal lawsuit was that the wrong paperwork was filed. If challenging a specific order, it’s routinely done by way of Application for Judicial Review, and not as a Statement of Claim. Again, their lawyer should be aware of this, correct?

3. Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Claim

To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01(1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Pleading Law
25.06(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.

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.

Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure lay out how pleadings are to be done. Similar rules exist for all Courts, although the numbering differs.

A Claim has to plead the facts that are alleged in a case. It’s not enough to simply make accusations. Instead, the person drafting the document has to lay out how they know these things to be true. There must also be sufficient particulars (a.k.a. “specifics”) so that the opposing side can understand the case they must address.

However, Galati doesn’t do that in a lot of his cases. He’ll make plenty of allegations, but won’t provide the necessary information so that they can be addressed. This is (partly) why so many of his cases get struck by the Courts.

If a pleading can’t be written in a coherent and intelligible manner, the Court will either order it to be redone, or possibly throw it out altogether.

4. Many Claims Outside Jurisdiction Of Civil Court

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:
a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19 prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a bona fide “pandemic”;
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false and fraudulent use of the PCR test.

Both the Action4Canada suit and the Federal case were struck in part because they sought remedies that no Civil Court can realistically grant. This includes rulings based on international agreements, criminal allegations, and scientific declarations.

It’s worth pointing out that the pending Motion to Strike in the Vaccine Choice Canada suit is being brought partially for the same reasons.

Instead of taking these rulings to heart, Galati is attempting to reargue them in this Ontario EMS workers case. He’s filing content that has specifically been tossed, and more than once. This Claim will be struck for the same reason.

5. Ontario EMS Literally A Clone Of Federal Lawsuit

Page 26 of Ontario EMS, Page 32 of Federal:

First paragraph in both versions:

Vaccines are apparently not really vaccines:

The tort of conspiracy:

Tort of intimidation:

From looking at the 2 Claims, a rough estimate would be that about 90% of the Federal worker case has been cut and pasted into the Ontario EMS one. Changes are minimal, and mostly cosmetic. Do clients know that they’re paying for second hand work? Do they know that Judges have already ruled on these issues?

6. Plaintiffs Being Recycled In This Suit?

Most people won’t remember that Police On Guard (POG) helped initiate an Application in Ontario back in April 2021. Like many of Galati’s cases, this has remained dormant since then. However, a few names stick out.

  • Matthew Blacklaws
  • Sgt. Julie Evans
  • Len Faul

These 3 are listed both in the stale-dated POG challenge, and in this Ontario EMS case. It’s unclear why this has happened.

Also, this more recent suit contains plenty of Plaintiffs listed simply as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”. As such, it’s often unclear who is a new litigant. This is a waste of everyone’s time. If you are coming to Court and asking for money, you need to identify yourself.

7. Sheer Number Of Parties Sued A Problem

To understand how much litigation would be involved, just consider how many parties have been sued. Granted, some can be represented by the same lawyer (such as a city and its Police Chief or Fire Chief). That said, there are going to be a lot of lawyers involved, and the costs will easily get into the 6 or 7 figures. Here is the list.

  2. Solicitor General of Ontario
  3. Town of Ajax
  4. Town of Ajax Fire Department (Fire Chief Aaron Burridge) City of Cambridge
  5. City of Cambridge Fire Department (Fire Chief Brian Arnold)
  6. City of Greater Sudbury
  7. City of Guelph, City of Guelph Fire Department (Fire Chief Dave Elloway)
  8. City of Hamilton
  9. City of Hamilton Police
  10. City of Hamilton Police Chief (Frank Bergen)
  11. City of Hamilton Fire Department (Fire Chief David Cunliffe)
  12. City of Markham
  13. City of Markham Fire Department (Fire Chief Adam J. Grant)
  14. City of Mississauga
  15. City of Mississauga Fire Department (Fire Chief Deryn Rizzi)
  16. City of Ottawa
  17. City of Ottawa Police
  18. City of Ottawa Police Chief (Eric Stubbs)
  19. City of Ottawa Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Hutt)
  20. City of Pickering
  21. City of Pickering Fire Department (Fire Chief Steve Boyd)
  22. City of Toronto
  23. City of Toronto Police
  24. City of Toronto Chief of Police (James Ramer)
  25. City of Toronto Fire Service (Fire Chief Matthew Pegg)
  26. Toronto District School Board
  27. Toronto Transit Commission
  28. Toronto Transit Commission Chair (Jon Burnside)
  29. City of Windsor
  30. City of Windsor Fire Department (Fire Chief Stephen Laforet)
  31. Town of Orangeville
  32. City of St. Catharines
  33. Regional Municipality of Durham
  34. York Region
  35. York Regional Police
  36. York Regional Police Chief (Jim MacSween)
  37. City of Niagara Falls
  38. Niagara Regional Police
  39. Niagara Regional Police Chief (Bryan MacCulloch)
  40. Town of Oakville
  41. Town of Oakville Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault)
  42. Peel Region
  43. Peel Regional Police
  44. Peel Regional Police Chief (Nishan Duraiappah)
  45. Town of Whitby
  46. Town of Whitby Fire Department (Fire Chief Mike Hickey)
  47. Municipality of Leamington

For (somewhat) of a reference point, consider the $12.75 million defamation lawsuit that Galati brought on behalf of Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba against 23 parties. After it was dismissed as a SLAPP, they were ordered to pay over $1.1 million in costs. This suit could potentially top that.

It’s entirely possible that there will be 15-20 lawyers who show up to defend against this lawsuit. Plaintiffs need to know that cost awards can be very steep.

8. Similar Retainer Requirements For Both Cases

There was a $1,500 retainer fee to be represented in the Ontario EMS case, if this form is for real. Also, there’s a form available listing a $1,000 retainer for the Federal case.

A source who claimed to be friends with a Federal employee claimed that Plaintiffs were actually being charged $2,000 each to be represented. If this is true, then the 600+ employees would have handed over more than $1.2 million for fees.

9. Some Final Thoughts

This has been a rudimentary review of the most recent anti-lockdown suit. The pleadings are seriously defective, and it will never make it to Trial.

And again, it’s essentially a copy and paste version of the Federal Claim that was recently struck. Clients aren’t just paying for secondhand work. Instead, they’re paying for secondhand work that has already been thrown out by the Federal Court, and the B.C. Supreme Court.

Claims that are found to be “bad beyond argument” don’t suddenly become valid simply because they are refiled in another jurisdiction.

Anyhow, most readers are probably aware by now that this site has been sued for millions of dollars, simply for exposing the anti-lockdown grifts that are going on in Canadian Courts. For some strange reason, people seem to think that it’s a “private” matter to publicly solicit donations for these lawsuits. This article will likely lead to another suit because of “muh racism”, or something.

If the Ontario EMS case ever is heard in Court, updates will be provided.

(1) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

(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 Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(12) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Federico Fuoco Fire Productions
(13) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Amy Muranetz
(14) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(3) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(4) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(5) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(6) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(7) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(9) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

Coalition For Content Provenance And Authenticity (C2PA), Project Origin, Content Authenticity Initiative

The “Content Authenticity Initiative” claims to be setting the standard for digital content attribution. There are a few groups that seem to be working together to promote this. The CAI …. sounds a bit like CIA, doesn’t it?

The major goals involve being able to instantly and accurately trace a piece of media to its source. Photographs, images, videos, words, and other elements are to be encoded, and be able to get tracked. Welcome to Project Origin.

While this is sold as some sort of trust in media, there is another, more disturbing way to look at things. Will this not also directly connect people to things that are shared online? Won’t it mean the end to anonymous sharing of important information? Will it now become easier to track people for their thoughtcrimes?

1.2 Background At Adobe MAX 2019, the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) was announced by Adobe in partnership with The New York Times Company and Twitter. Since that time, this group has collaborated with a wide set of representatives from commercial organizations (software tools, publishers, social media), human rights organizations and academic research to produce this paper and the approach it describes.

5.1.3 Establishing Trust One key component in establishing trust in the CAI system comes from the entities whose certificates are used for signing the claim. To ensure that only assets signed by trusted actors can be considered properly attributed, it is necessary to create a list of trusted certificates or their certification authorities (CAs). Similar to the EU Trust List, the Adobe Approved Trust List, and similar lists used by web browsers and operating systems, the members of the CAI will establish their own Trust List of certificates that can be used to sign claims. Details on the governance of the Trust List is outside the scope of this paper. In many cases, the holder of the certificate will not the individual who created (or edited) an asset, but instead will be the entity responsible for the hardware or software that they used. The signing certificate belongs to the actor (e.g. Truepic Camera, Adobe Photoshop, BBC, etc.) that performed the actions on behalf of someone else. This model allows CAI to provide anonymity (and/or pseudonymity) where desired. For scenarios where the certificate holder is able to reliably establish the identity of the individual, and the individual wishes their identity associated with an asset, an identity assertion is used.

5.1.4 Identity One of the assertion types that can be present in a claim is Identity. This digital identity (also sometimes referred to as a Subject or an Entity) is present when an individual (or organization) is making a clear statement about their association with this claim. Digital identity fundamentally requires digital identifiers — strings or tokens that are unique within a given scope (globally or locally within a specific domain, community, directory, application, etc.). In order to support a variety of use cases, including those where identity might be anonymous or pseudonymous, it is important that various schemes for the identifiers are available for use. Fortunately, most common identity formats such as Decentralized Identifiers-DID, WebIDs, OpenID, ORCiD and others are all based on URIs. This enables an identity assertion to be expressed in the standard format described in RFC 3986.

5.1.6 Redaction of Assertions: In many workflows, there is a need for assertions to be removed by subsequent processes, either because publishing the assertion would be problematic (e.g. the identity of the person who captured a video) or the assertion is no longer valid (e.g. an earlier thumbnail showing something that has since been cropped out). The CAI allows for the redaction of these assertions in a verifiable way that is also part of the provenance of the asset. In the process of redacting an assertion, a record that something was removed is added to the claim. Because each assertion’s reference includes the assertion type, it is clear what type of information (eg. thumbnail, location, etc.) was removed. This enables both humans and machines to apply rules to determine if the removal is acceptable. NOTE: Assertion redacted only applies to assertions that are part of the CAI data. It does not have anything to do with removal of other metadata (XMP, EXIF, etc.).

9 Conclusion: The collaborators on this paper have explored the challenges of inauthentic media through problem definition, system design and use case research. The results of the exploration are expressed in the design of the CAI provenance system. To achieve widespread adoption we have based the design on existing standards and established techniques, and acknowledge that the system will need to include simple and intuitive user experiences. However, even an optimally designed system cannot ultimately succeed in a vacuum. We now begin the important work of deeper, more expansive collaboration with leaders in technology, media, academia, advocacy and other disciplines. With this first step towards an industry standard for digital content attribution, we look optimistically to a future with more trust and transparency in media.

The CAI white paper is certainly worth a read.

Microsoft and the BBC explain Project Origin in their own words. It all sounds so harmless, doesn’t it? It’s all about ensuring that people can trust what they observe in the media is accurate and reliable. Who could possibly disagree with that?

This “coalition” claims to be interested in being able to authenticate media images, videos, and bits of data to identify where it came from. If one was to work in a a vacuum, this sounds completely reasonable and well intentioned.

However, what all too often gets left out of the equation is the rampant corruption, collusion, and financial interests pushing certain narratives. Authenticating photos, while ignoring the bias and fake narratives leaves out the bigger picture. No way is this done by accident.

Have a look through some of the articles at the bottom. These are the bigger issues that so often get (unsurprisingly) ignored. Hard to have an independent media when they are all on the public dole. Even harder when political operatives work within many of them.

But hey, things like a global vaccine passport, are just crazy conspiracy theories, right? Just like the Vaccine Credential Initiative, or the ID2020 Project.

(1) https://c2pa.org/
(2) https://c2pa.org/about/charter/
(3) https://contentauthenticity.org/
(4) https://www.originproject.info/
(5) https://c2pa.org/about/resources/
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W3Om9Xbj2k
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTTl-C4PTM
(8) Content Authenticity Initiative WhitePaper

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/media-in-canada-obedient-to-govt-covid-narrative-largely-because-of-subsidies/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-subsidies-connections-may-explain-lack-of-interest-in-real-journalism/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-gets-next-round-of-pandemic-bucks-from-taxpayers-in-2021/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-19c-brian-lilley-mentions-global-canada-piece-on-lockdowns-omits-group-is-gates-funded/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/nordstar-capital-torstar-corp-metroland-media-group-more-subsidies-pandemic-bucks/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/aberdeen-publishing-sells-out-takes-those-pandemic-bucks-to-push-narrative/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/many-other-periodicals-receiving-the-pandemic-bucks-in-order-to-push-the-narrative/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37i-tri-city-news-pulls-article-where-bonnie-henry-admits-false-positives-could-overwhelm-system/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/counter-intelligence-firms-to-influence-elections-canada-and-abroad-registered-as-charities/
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/rockefeller-spends-13-5-million-to-combat-misinformation-in-u-s-elsewhere/
(15) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/press-forward-anti-white-independent-media-controlled-and-funded-by-the-establishment/
(18) https://canucklaw.ca/hirebipoc-replacing-whites-in-the-media-industry-all-at-taxpayer-expense/
(19) https://canucklaw.ca/journalism-trust-initiative-trusted-news-initiative-project-origin-the-trust-project/

Andrew Lawton Of True North Sells Out, Gives Softball Interview To Jason Kenney

On May 8, 2021, Andrew Lawton of True North did an interview with Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. To put it mildly, this was a softball. Lawton went out of his way to avoid difficult questions, and help Kenney along. Rather than holding the Premier to account, Lawton acted as a form of controlled opposition. Commenters on Twitter were quite angry. He gave more legitimacy to the tyrannical measures imposed in the Province.

True North got its “charity” status under very dubious terms. Rather than founding one (as Candice Malcolm leads people to believe), she took over an existing one. See the CRA or search corporations in Canada for more information. True North used to be called the Independent Immigration Aid Association, founded in 1994.

Prior to “founding” True North, Malcolm and her husband, Kasra Nejatian, were staffers for Jason Kenney. They worked in his office while he was Multiculturalism Minister in Stephen Harper’s Government. This detail is never disclosed publicly.

Kenney used to run the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a Koch/Atlas think tank. Malcolm worked for them as well. Nejatian is still part of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, another Koch/Atlas group. He’s also a Director at True North, but not openly listed. None of this is disclosed either.

It’s beyond hypocritical for True North to rail against media outlets being bribed by Trudeau, while it gets tax breaks from pretending to be a charity. The most likely reason for taking over one, as opposed to starting one, is that there would be far less scrutiny.

Lawton himself was a 2018 candidate for the Ontario Provincial election for Doug Ford. To his credit, that is openly mentioned.

And “staffer” is the impression that interview gives off. Lawton tries his best to make Kenney look good, or at least better. What questions could have been asked?

  • Why do the goalposts keep shifting on these measures?
  • Has this virus eve been isolated? See Fluoride Free Peel.
  • Why at PCR tests used, when they can’t determine infection?
  • WHO defines Covid deaths as “clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed case”. How is this medically or scientifically based?
  • What agreements were made to simultaneously shut down economies?
  • What really happened March 2020 at World Economic Forum?
  • Why are daily press conference questions screened in advance?
  • Are these public gathering bans about safety, or just making it harder for opposition to gather and talk openly?
  • Why are churches closed, but mosques can remain open?
  • How can you justify jailing people for attending church?
  • What gives Kenney the right to indefinitely suspend basic rights?
  • Who runs Alberta? You or Deena Hinshaw and her people?
  • Why is computer modelling treated as if it were science?
  • What is the scientific basis for determining “non-essential businesses”?
  • How are you “pro-business” if you keep shutting them down?
  • What is the actual science behind banning indoor gatherings?
  • What is the actual science behind social distancing?
  • What research was done into looking at potential harms from masks?
  • At what rates are people being harmed from “vaccines”?
  • Is the lack of testing on pregnant women/nursing mothers a concern?
  • Is the lack of testing on pregnant children a concern?
  • If these are safe, why are manufacturers indemnified?
  • Are these “vaccines” approved, or given interim authorization?
  • Why ignore the fact that testing continues for years to come?
  • What recourse will people have if harmed by “vaccines”?
  • Why is Deena Hinshaw, an unelected bureaucrat, running the Province?
  • Why is AHS, an autonomous corporation, allowed to dictate freedoms?
  • Why is the Alberta Public Health Act based on the 2005 Quarantine Act?
  • Why was the Quarantine Act passed to accommodate the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations? WHO-IHR?
  • Do these public health orders override AB Bill of Rights?
  • Doesn’t it do an end run around due process to deny Provincial services to people with unpaid tickets, even if they intend to oppose them in Court?
  • What really happened when you attended Bilderberg?
  • Finally: Who the hell do you think you are?

There are more of course, but this just a sample of some of the hard questions Andrew Lawton could have asked. Instead, he allows Kenney to spread his nonsense unchallanged.

It is possible that Lawton his oblivious to all of the above, and did no research at all. However, a more likely explanation is that agreeing to softball questions was a condition of the interview. While having access to politicians is quite understandable, this does the public a huge disservice.

Last November, Jason Kenney did an interview with Danielle Smith, former head of the Alberta Wildrose Party. Kenney admitted doing reading that indicated 90% of positives could be in error, and he shrugged it off.

Both Deena Hinshaw (Alberta), and Bonnie Henry (British Columbia), has introduced the standard of “assuming” that positive test results are variants. This has no scientific basis at all.

It’s difficult to see who the audience was here. Many of the commenters in the video call out Lawton for his softball approach. No new information was learned, as Jason Kenney just repeated his same lines as before. Although Lawton (may) not have wanted this, Kenney’s handlers certainly would have advised him on which topics are off limits. Overall, it was very disappointing.

Never again should Lawton criticize the CBC for giving Trudeau a pass. He did exactly the same thing here to Kenney.


If you want some real research, check out this HEALTH series, or this COVID series. This is the kind of information that should be shared openly, but isn’t.

Jason Kenney is a fake conservative.
Andrew Lawton is a fake journalist.
True North is a fake charity.

Spencer Fernando Promotes Fake Parties As Beneficial For Canadian Representation

On April 27, Spencer Fernando published a piece titled “Canada Would Benefit From Having Maverick & PPC MPs In Parliament”. This would be hilarious, if not for the fact that people take this man seriously.

Does the author of this article support nuking the CPC in order to bring a real alternative to Canadians? No. He supports having fake parties take a few seats as a way to send a message.

As for the title above, both the PPC (People’s Party of Canada), and Maverick (formerly WExit), are fake parties. Neither have constitutions, governing documents, or elect their leaders. As such, they immune from being overtaken by people serious for real change.

Considering how long Fernando has been writing about politics for, it’s hard to believe he doesn’t know this.

Has he not found it strange that in almost 3 years, Maxime Bernier hasn’t bothered with adding even a rudimentary structure to his party? Not strange that EDAs keep getting shut down?

Fernando claims to be offering an “independent” perspective in his publications. That’s downright laughable, considering that his organization, the National Citizens Coalition, used to be run by Stephen Harper. The blantant anti-Trudeau bias is evident.

That said, there are times when the NCC takes potshots at “conservative” politicians. This has the effect of making it less obvious of their agenda. And this is one of those times.

In fairness, there are many in the Conservative Inc. media who engage in this sort of behaviour. Included are:

  • Rebel Media – This outlet calls itself activist, and doesn’t even pretend to be neutral. Recently, they were sending out petitions calling for the return of Stephen Harper.
  • True North Canada – This is a fake charity that used to be the Independent Immigrant Aid Association. It’s run by Candice Malcolm and Kasra Nejatian, who used to be staffers for Jason Kenney while he was Multiculturalism Minister.
  • The Post Millennial – This is run by Jeff Ballingall, who helped get Erin O’Toole and Doug Ford into their current positions. It’s owned by Matthew Azrieli, grandson of a late media billionaire, David Azrieli.
  • Western Standard – This is currently run by ex-Alberta MLA turned fake populist Derek Fildebrant. Admittedly, it does provide some decent coverage on Western issues, but never comes clean on PPC or Maverick.

There are others of course, but those are the big names. None of them address the issue of fake parties in the election landscape.

A section from the article reads:

And that can happen through the election of some Maverick & PPC candidates in the upcoming election.
In the West – particularly in ridings where the Liberals have no chance – a win for the Maverick Party would result in electing someone who is conservative, yet not beholden to Erin O’Toole. They certainly wouldn’t go along with a Liberal agenda, and would be a voice for fiscal conservatism and policies that support the energy sector.
On the PPC side of things, Maxime Bernier has been one of the few politicians in Canada who has spoken out against government’s increasingly infringing on our civil liberties – a concern of many Conservatives but one which the CPC itself (with a few notable exceptions like Michelle Rempel Garner & David Sweet – and more subtly Pierre Poilievre), has been reluctant to speak out against.
Bernier has certainly been much more consistently ‘conservative’ than the CPC.
For that, it would be good if he got his seat back in Beauce, getting back into Parliament and putting pressure on the Conservatives to actually live up to their ideals.
In short, a combination of some Maverick MPs and PPC MPs in Parliament would make it clear to the CPC that they no longer have a monopoly on Conservative voters, that Conservative Canadians have leverage, and they must actually offer something of substance to those they expect support from.
Now, notice that I’m not calling for the wholesale defeat of the CPC, as that would be completely counterproductive.
The CPC still has many MPs – like Poilievre and Rempel Garner – who have a strong future in Canadian politics and effectively represent major threads of Canadian Conservative thought.
On balance, it is still better to elect a CPC MP than a Liberal MP.

First point to note: the author doesn’t call for the destruction of the CPC. That is hardly surprising considering that he works for them. He just wants a few MPs elected to “teach them a lesson”.

Considering that Conservatives are silent while Trudeau imposes martial law, and “conservative” Premiers do it Provincially, it’s bewildering why not call for the removal of all of them. The author engages in mental gymnastics to not condemn them outright.

Nothing screams seriousness quite like pandering about resisting tyranny abroad, even as you support it locally. If it’s not worthwhile burning the establishment to the ground over this lot, then what exactly will it take?

Second, Rempel has been little more than a shill for vaccines and martial law in Canada. She whines about minor details of implementation, but overall supports the agenda. On a related note: Poilievre is great with the one liners, and is entertaining, but he outside of being comic relief, offers nothing of substance.

Third, there is a a rewriting of history in terms of Bernier. While in Cabinet, he was pro-UN, pro-China, pro-globalized trade, and supported mass economic immigration. He handed out hundreds of millions in corporate welfare, which he now claims to oppose. He voted in 2007 and 2014 for equalization changes that screwed over the West in favour of Quebec. He reinvented himself as a populist only after losing in the CPC leadership race in 2017.

Fourth, Maverick used to be WExit, which openly called for Western separation. Having gained attention, the goalposts shifted, and its new purpose is just to pretend to pander for the interests of those Provinces.

Fifth, considering that Jay Hill is a former MP from Harper’s Government, how different would be? He didn’t seem to have any issues while in office.

And again, the author completely ignores the fact that both “parties” exist mostly just on paper, and have no structure to keep them alive.

While talking about debts, Fernando NEVER mentions the international banking cartel, which the Conservatives fought in Federal Court to keep intact.

He also addresses the carbon tax, but never gets into the underlying fraud and corruption behind it. Nor does he address the fact that the “challenges” to them were designed to fail.

In terms of nationalism, it is not limited to statues and history, as implied in the article. Canadians don’t want the wholescale population replacement that is going on — something conservative politicians fully embrace.

In 2020, Bernier decided to call for a moratorium, at least until there is economic recovery. Then full speed ahead. He spent over a year calling people who wanted real immigration reforms “racists”.

Conservative politicians of all stripes endorse the free-trade or outsourcing agenda, which leads to industries being sent overseas in the name of cutting costs.

In the name of unity, it’s ignored how incompatible different elements are. Nationalists and social conservatives could theoretically work together. But they have little in common with open borders libertarians and milquetoast cons. They want fundamentally different things.

It’s unclear what specific policies the author actually would see from this, other than (perhaps) no carbon tax. Much like Bernier, he remains extremely vague on what real conservatism is. Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t oppose O’Toole ideologically, just in style.

Of course, what does Spencer Fernando know about being a “conservative” anyway? Until a few years ago, he was a Chief of Staff for the Manitoba Liberal Leader. Interesting career trajectory, going from Liberal staffer to Conservative writer. But rhetoric aside, they are basically the same parties.

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part II

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of book.

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney, UN Climate Finance Envoy.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Why Focus On This Book?

Most “scientists” involved in the climate change business at least claim that their focus is on the science itself. However, a subset has emerged which focuses on the science of persuasion.

That’s right, the goal isn’t using scientific research to PROVE that climate change is a serious and ongoing global threat. Rather, the goal is using social science methods to CONVINCE people that the threat is real. These are two very different things.

In layman’s terms, this book reads like a propaganda manual for tricks and techniques of persuasion. There never appears a moment of doubt in Boykoff’s mind that climate change is urgent. He seems to views the public’s disengagement simply as a communications issue. As such, this book focuses on emotionally manipulative tactics to get around that.

The idea is creepy enough. The fact that there is an entire segment of academia that focuses on this area is very troubling. Unfortunately, Boykoff is entirely serious about his work. Also, the many, many sources he cites are serious.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

4. Specific Examples From CCC Book

(Page 18) Boykoff cites some research suggesting that racial and gender politics should be injected into the subject. Supposedly, racial minorities are going to be disproportionately impacted, and that needs to be discussed openly. Also, female researchers are more likely to have their work ridiculed and mocked. Obviously that is because of sexism and not poor research. That’s right, race and gender are now dimensions in the climate change debate.

(Page 21) A technique called “pre-bunking” is introduced. This is a form of inoculation, which climate change pushers will attempt to pre-empt criticism or questions ahead of time. They do it to sew seeds of doubts in people who would otherwise see obvious problems with the research.

(Page 23) One idea is go beyond simply telling the truth. The focus here is to go beyond simply stating facts and conclusions, and to introduce a “story-telling” element to it. By doing this, people are more accepting of the story, and are less likely to pick up on deficiencies in the arguments themselves.

(Page 26) This is the start of Chapter 2. This chapter gets shifting the discussion away from a scientific one, and appealing to a more emotional issue. By framing it as a social issue, there is more of a focus on people’s ability to act. One technique suggested is to keep it “upbeat” so that others will remain optimistic that their actions will have consequences. Boykoff’s sources also suggest moving away from the “DOOMSDAY APPROACH”. This should have the effect of keeping people more engaged if their aren’t told it is hopeless.

(Page 35) There is more detail about how to turn climate change into stories. Stories in general have: main characters, villains, plot, description, complexity, some ambiguity, and conflict resolution. Boykoff talks about telling the “facts” of climate change as if it were a story. This will do wonders to keep people engaged. Interestingly, the approach is to water down the hard facts, and to focus more on a compelling narrative.

(Page 45) The book heads towards cultural politics and interdisciplinary communication. What this means is that taking different approaches, or combining approaches, may work best depending on who the specific audience is. Page 47, Boykoff begins to detail the actual communication training that climate change pushers are being given in order to more effectively market this concept. Yes, there is now formal training in how to peddle this.

(Page 50) Boykoff talks about a “building bridges” approach, something he also refers to as a “common ground” approach. This involves making some effort to find out what other people are interested in, and building a relationship with them. Climate change information will gradually be introduced via this relationship. The other people will eventually be sold on the agenda, but without realizing that was your goal all along. The entire tactic is emotional manipulation, and the worse form of bonding that can take place.

(Page 58) Boykoff discusses some of the research that has been done across demographic groups and across political leanings. He also explains that the climate change agenda can still be pitched to almost everyone, but the message needs to be shifted depending on which group you are addressing.

(Page 96) We get into the idea of adding visualizations (images) to help sell the climate change agenda. The idea here is that if people can actually see what is happening, it should compel them more strongly to act. Now, it doesn’t really matter if what people see is what is truly happening. What’s important is that they see what they should.

(Page 132) Boykoff talks about the framing climate change in certain ways. One is as a sacrifice v.s. benefits approach. This is one where the experts will outline the sacrifices needed (such as your standard of life) and various benefits that will come. Always, there is the bit about making the world a better place for those in developing countries. After all, they had no hand in this. This is a combination of guilt tripping and a call to patriotism, and put together beautifully.

(Page 190) Boykoff explains more of this “silver buckshot approach”, as opposed to the silver bullet. In short, there have to be multiple forms and paths to spread the message of climate change at any given time. Since no one technique will work on everyone, we need many streams ready to convince people of the cause. And really, that is what this book is: listing and detailing these multiple paths.

In short, Boykoff suggests inserting climate change into the discussion wherever possible. Though he doesn’t explicitly add this, it’s implied that it should be done even when the above issue has nothing to do with it.

Make the connections. And make the other people see those connections. Sometimes best if done subtly, as you don’t want your agenda to be too obvious.

The examples above are by no means exhaustive, but should demonstrate how devious and cunning the author is. He outlines technique after technique to push the narrative. And these techniques are lifted directly from psychological and sociological research. Boykoff is applying those findings in his quest to do a better job of selling climate change to the public.

5. Boykoff Avoids Actual Research

You will likely notice that Max Boykoff never gets into the so-called climate change science. He mainly avoids any real detail on how climate change research is conducted. Why is that?

It’s because this entire book shies away from telling people the hard and fast truth (at least as he perceives it), and focuses on indirect and roundabout ways of getting people on board. In short, this book is still intended to push the climate change agenda, but just shows ways to be more sneaky and dishonest about it.

Was this a worthwhile read? Yes, in the context of knowing how your enemies are lying and manipulating you. Boykoff gives an in-depth, well researched book on exactly that. If nothing else, he if very thorough in detailing these underhanded methods.