Category: Corruption

Posted on

End Of An Era: Vaccine Choice Canada Discontinuing Anti-Lockdown Case

Does anyone remember the hype in alternative media circles about Vaccine Choice Canada taking on Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford over martial law measures? It seemed to be the beginning of something grand. This would be the big case to stop the New World Order.

But in the end, nothing ever came of it. The case sat idly for years, even as more donations were solicited. The quality of the pleadings themselves was very questionable. There weren’t even service addresses for most Defendants, despite them being freely available. No attempt was made to push the case forward, or to obtain Default Judgement. Critics who publicly asked questions were threatened, and some sued.

Now, the other shoe drops. The case is being discontinued, and will never make it to Trial. Heck, it won’t even make it to the scheduled Motion to Strike.

The litigants themselves will never see their day in Court. Given the 2 year Statute of Limitations, they probably don’t have recourse with another lawyer. Donors who paid money in good faith were ripped off.

How long before the many interviews from the Summer of 2020 get scrubbed from the internet?

Thanks for the money, suckers!

Vaccine Choice Canada’s Email To Supporters

Dear Vaccine Choice Canada Community and Donors,

After much consultation and deliberation the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada have decided to file a ‘Notice of Discontinuance’ with regards to the legal action filed on July 6, 2020 (Court File No. CV-20-00643451-0000). Discontinuance means that a party, for its own reasons, has chosen not to continue the litigation. The decision to discontinue does not take away from the importance or merit of the case.

It is the position of the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada that to continue this legal matter at this time is not advisable. Our confidence in the independence and integrity of our Courts, and their willingness to properly consider the available facts and scientific evidence has been seriously eroded, past repair or hope. We are of the opinion that to participate in a fraudulent and illegitimate process is to give legitimacy to that process. 

Our decision is based on the following considerations:

1. The Courts have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to properly consider the facts as they relate to COVID-19, the evidence and lack thereof of a pandemic; the extent of harm caused by the so called “vaccine”; the extent of harm caused by measures and mandates imposed by governments including masking, social distancing, lockdowns, injection of a genetic material; lack of proper safety testing; the violation of our Charter Rights and Freedoms, and other matters related to the government’s response to the COVID-19 event.

2. The Courts have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to consider expert testimony that challenges the claims of Health Canada, the CDC, and statements made by various government officials, officers and agencies.

3. The Courts have clearly demonstrated a deference, not to facts, the scientific method, and scientific evidence, but rather to government authorities, regardless of the inability of such authorities to justify their measures and mandates.

4. The Courts have utilized “judicial notice”, “mootness”, and “motion to strike” as instruments to deny full debate and disclosure of the available evidence.

5. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by their requirement that those attending court be compelled to wear a face covering, despite compelling evidence of the ineffectiveness of coverings in preventing transmission, and the harm from prolonged use of face coverings. 

6. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of COVID and the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by the Supreme Court judges publicly declaring their compliance with vaccine mandates that violate bodily sovereignty and informed consent.

7. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of COVID and the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by the Supreme Court refusing to consider the appeal of lower court decisions that violate our fundamental rights and freedoms. 

8. Our Courts are no longer committed to “justice” as understood by Canadians. Rather, our Courts have become politicized such that they serve those in power rather than justice. Our Courts have become instruments of control and coercion rather than safeguards to ensure the upholding of the rule of law and our Charter rights and freedoms. 

9. We are also fully aware that the Courts have used the legal process to delay, defer and unnecessarily increase the cost of seeking justice. We are fully aware of the punitive costs awarded to those seeking justice which punishes those seeking justice and discourages future efforts to seek justice.

10. Our Courts have failed to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite it being the highest law of the land. They have refused to demand that governments “demonstrably justify” their clear and undisputed violations of our Charter rights and freedoms as required under Section 1. 

Given our current lack of confidence in the independence and commitment of the Courts to justice and to protecting our rights and freedoms as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are of the opinion that to proceed under these circumstances would cause more harm than good, jeopardize future legal action by adding to defective case law, and further erode confidence in the integrity of our judicial system and government agents. (A brief summary of the failure of the Canadians courts to uphold our Charter rights and established rule of law is available here:

https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/news/are-courts-failing-to-protect-medical-freedom-for-children-and-youth)

We are also of the opinion that given the number of defendants included in this action, in the event of an unjust ruling where the plaintiffs are ordered to pay costs, this could present a significant financial burden. The awarding of punitive court costs would undoubtedly impair the ability of VCC to serve our mission with respect to defending informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right, responsibility and authority of parents to protect their children from harm.

In initiating this legal action, the first of its kind in Canada, we consciously and intentionally drafted, with the guidance of our legal counsel, an unusually detailed Statement of Claim to ensure that those involved in this well planned and globally orchestrated event were named, and their actions exposed. By this measure, we believe we have achieved our purpose and brought awareness to a global conspiracy that is undeniable in the harm it has caused. For those who may not be aware of what we exposed in July 2020, the Statement of Claim can be viewed here:

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/20CRC16/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/vcc-statement-of-claim-2020-redacted.pdf

We are confident that were the available facts to be properly considered, and the laws of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms upheld, that our proceeding would have been successful. The failure of our law enforcement and Canadian judicial systems to properly respond to the harms caused by government measures and mandates, including permanent injury and death, and to the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms is deeply disturbing and reveals a significant betrayal that needs to be rectified if justice is to be served in Canada.

Vaccine Choice Canada will continue to inform and defend our right to informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right and responsibility of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Forced and coerced vaccination, and other purported medical treatments, have no place in an ethical medical system, and a free and democratic Nation. Given the present threats to our fundamental and inherent rights and freedoms, the work of Vaccine Choice Canada was never more important.

We know that justice will eventually be served, however, it would appear that this is not the time.

Sincerely,

Ted Kuntz, President
Board of Directors Vaccine Choice Canada
VaccineChoiceCanada.com

June 13, 2024

That appears to be it. 4 years later, Vaccine Choice is dropping their case, after making no effort whatsoever to push it through the Courts. Donors should be receiving refunds, at a bare minimum.

Vaccine Choice Lawsuit A Giant Bait-And-Switch

Re-read this passage from Kuntz’ email.

In initiating this legal action, the first of its kind in Canada, we consciously and intentionally drafted, with the guidance of our legal counsel, an unusually detailed Statement of Claim to ensure that those involved in this well planned and globally orchestrated event were named, and their actions exposed. By this measure, we believe we have achieved our purpose and brought awareness to a global conspiracy that is undeniable in the harm it has caused. For those who may not be aware of what we exposed in July 2020, the Statement of Claim can be viewed here:

Kuntz states that the Statement of Claim was written to “ensure that [people] were named, and their actions exposed”. He states that “we believe we have achieved our purpose”.

Why does this matter? Because he doesn’t say that going to Trial and having the Court hold people accountable would have achieved the purpose. In other words, this was for publicity. It was never about getting any sort of a ruling or decision.

Consider this quote from a July 13, 2022 livestream. Fuller video here.

“Most people measure the effectiveness of a Court submission based upon what a Judge decides. And what you’ve helped us to understand is that there’s more to educating the impact of your legal proceeding than simply what happens within the Court. It’s also how the Defendants respond, and how the public responds…. We brought awareness to a dynamic that had been hidden from the public. And I would suggest that maybe, this was the most important impact we’ve had to date.”

It’s actually illegal to commence proceedings like this. You can’t sue somebody to “make a point”, or to “fire a shot across the bow”, or any similar justification. The Courts refer to this sort of thing as bringing a suit “for improper purposes”. The only permitted reason is that the Plaintiff(s) believes that he or she has a strong case.

Does this sort of thing happen? Yes it does. But few are retarded enough to openly admit it on a public livestream. Anyone can be listening in. This alone would be grounds to throw the case out.

So, What Happened Over The Course Of 4 Years?

July 6th, 2020: Vaccine Choice Canada files a 191 page Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. In addition to its length, the Claim was incoherent, and failed to follow even the basics of Civil Procedure.

Summer 2020: There was a media blitz online soliciting donations for this lawsuit. It was supposed to be the great challenge to medical martial law in Canada. However, no one seems to be asking the important questions, such as what activity is going on.

September 2020: Counsel for Vaccine Choice Canada tells Rebel Media that he will do everything he can to ensure an Application for a mask injunction is heard before Christmas (2020). However, that never happens. To be clear, no Application is ever filed with the Court. It simply does not exist.

In fact, no activity whatsoever will happen with this case for a long time to come. But what does happen is lawfare directed against critics and ideological opponents.

December 2020: 23 people and organizations are sued for defamation by Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, primarily over Twitter comments. It would be thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws.

January 2021: CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, is threatened with a defamation suit for an email to Dan Dicks (Press For Truth) from their Treasurer. The email tries to redirect attention and money to their case, and calls into question the abilities of counsel for Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice.

March 2021: Kulvinder Gill files another defamation lawsuit, this time against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. She demands $7,000,000 because he called her an “idiot” online. An anti-SLAPP Motion will be heard later this year.

Ted Kuntz later admitted that Vaccine Choice financed (or at a minimum, coordinated) the Gill defamation cases. See paragraph 20 in the main text, and Exhibit “C”, starting on page 20.

From that, it’s reasonable to suspect VCC funded other defamation lawsuits.

September 2021: This website is sued in large part for publicly questioning the horrible quality of the VCC and A4C pleadings, and for pointing out the lack of progress in any of these cases. Currently, there’s an open anti-SLAPP Motion pending.

June 2022: CSASPP is sued for the email mentioned above, and an FAQ that’s critical (in part) of the VCC case. The suit also goes after a woman named Donna Toews. She dared to contact the Law Society of Ontario, LSO, asking about money she had donated to Vaccine Choice and Action4Canada. It was thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws.

July 2022: The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) is sued for $500,000. The primary motivation appears to be an attempt to derail the complaint from Donna Toews, and to make sure it cannot be investigated. It was struck for failing to state a Cause of Action (a grievance the Court can theoretically remedy), and the incoherent pleadings.

Note: The LSO would be sued again in 2023, a virtual clone of the last one. The probable reason was to keep the Court activity going, in order to sabotage their investigative abilities.

July 2022: A Notice of Discontinuance is filed regarding the CBC, which removes them as a Defendant. Previously, the organization had threatened to file an anti-SLAPP Motion if the case against them wasn’t dropped. See cover letter.

August, 2022: A single Statement of Defence is filed, more than 2 years after the Claim is originally brought. It suggests a Motion to Strike will be coming.

December 2022: Lawsuit from Byram Bridle filed against the University of Guelph, employees, and non-employees. Currently on hold while 2 separate anti-SLAPP Motions are pending.

***You’ll notice in this list so far that there’s no mention of Court activity, such as motions, hearings, witnesses testifying, or evidence being sworn. That’s because none ever took place. This case is a “paper challenge”, not going anywhere.***

January 2023: Vaccine Choice Canada had its first Court appearance. Yes, that is the correct date. It took 2 1/2 years for even this. And it was just a CPC (Civil Practice Court) session. Simply put, these are 5-10 minute hearings with a fairly full docket. What happened was that dates were set down for the Defendants to bring Motions to strike (throw out) the case.

  • June 30th, 2023 – Moving Party Motion Record
  • July 28th, 2023 – Responding Motion Record
  • October 31th, 2023 – Cross Examinations (if Affidavits submitted)
  • November 17th, 2023 – Moving Party Factum (arguments)
  • December 8th, 2023 – Responding Factum
  • December 22nd, 2023 – Reply Factum
  • January 30th, February 1st, 2024 – 2 day Hearing

March 2023: For his work creating the article and video called “Nothing Burger Lawsuits”, Rick Thomas is threatened with a lawsuit. None have been filed yet, but anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason.

January 2024: The hearing briefly starts, headed by Justice Dow. However, he immediately recuses himself and adjourns the case. The reason being that he’s a former co-worker and personal friend of Health Minister Christine Elliott. This conflict of interest makes him unavailable to adjudicate the Motion. The hearing is rebooked — with a new Judge — for May 1st and 2nd of 2025.

February 2024: Ted Kuntz (VCC) and Tanya Gaw (A4C) host a livestream to “expose” people they call “paid agitators”. Basically, it’s just a hit piece on their critics.

June 2024: Vaccine Choice Canada announces that they’re dropping the case.

So much for being the ground-breaking challenge.

What About VCC’s 2019 Challenge For Vaxxing Students?

Few will remember this, but Vaccine Choice filed a challenge in October 2019 against Ontario’s policy of immunizing children as a requirement of attending class. In over 4 1/2 years, that case hasn’t gone past the pleadings.

Keep in mind — and this is written into the Statement of Claim forms — that a case will be dismissed for delay if it’s not resolved or set down for Trial within 5 years. Sure, it can be extended, but the Court will need to be convinced that there’s activity.

Should donors expect a refund for this case?

What About Those Thousands Of Pages Of Expert Evidence?

Once of the mantras endlessly repeated is that counsel for Vaccine Choice and Action4Canada has the best evidence from the top experts in the world.

We’ve all seen pictures or videos where all these expert reports are bandied about, attached as Affidavit evidence. Supposedly, it amounts to tens of thousands of pages. Problem is, they’ve never been filed in any Court. Any if these reports do exist, why delay cases with convoluted pleadings?

It seems more likely no such Affidavits exist, and that these are just images of stacks of blank paper. Or, they could just be random items printed from the internet. One explanation might be that it’s to divert attention from the lack of activity in the Courts. This would be done for the purpose of duping and deceiving donors and potential donors.

Why spend (presumably) hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions, on expert reports if there was never any intention to push the case forward?

It these thousands of pages of expert reports do exist, which seems unlikely, then a competent lawyer should have been responsible for drafting the pleadings.

Growing List Of Anti-Lockdown Cases Not Pursued

The Vaccine Choice cases don’t exist in isolation. Consider these:

  • Struck as “bad beyond argument” – Action4Canada (August 2021)
  • Upheld as “bad beyond argument” – Action4Canada (by B.C. Court of Appeal)
  • Struck as “bad beyond argument” – Adelberg, Federal injection pass case (May 2022)
  • Upheld as “bad beyond argument” – Adelberg (by Federal Court of Appeal)
  • Non-Existent?! – Federal workers vaccine injury lawsuit
  • Abandoned?! – Vaccine Choice Canada (October 2019)
  • Discontinued – Vaccine Choice Canada (July 2020)
  • Discontinued – Sgt. Julie Evans (April 2021), fundraised by Police On Guard
  • Discontinued – Children’s Health Defense Canada (April 2021), of which counsel was, at the time, a Director of the organization
  • Discontinued? – Take Action Canada (March 2023) is in an awkward spot. While it faces Motions to throw out the case as “bad beyond argument”, the group is openly considering dropping the case. More money is demanded. If only someone could have warned Sandy and Vincent that this was a bad idea

It’s worth mentioning that Action4Canada can probably be classified as “abandoned” at this point. 4 months after their nonsense Appeal was thrown out, there’s still no amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC).

Seriously: Is this a track record of good results?

Sadly, many of the “truther” media accounts promote these cases as if they’re legitimate, despite the abundance of information available. Liberty Talk is an obvious example, but hardly the only one.

Does it make sense why this website would spend so much time and effort tracking these bogus cases, and the endless money-pits that they’ve become? Does it make sense to question why millions of dollars have been funneled into this litigation? Shouldn’t everyone be held to account?

How much money has been raised? Here’s a starting point.

Okay, So What’s YOUR Solution?

A common thread most detractors have here is that the content is too negative. It’s too divisive. It needlessly weakens the Freedom Movement. No solutions are ever offered, despite endless criticism.

Well, there is a simple solution for donors at least. Demand full refunds, preferably with interest. If they say there’s no money available (since it was all spent on lawyers), start suing VCC for refunds. They’ll capitulate rather than face hundreds or thousands of angry people. Small Claims Court is dirt cheap, for example.

Deceit and/or misrepresentation would surely void any “no refunds” policy.

What About Potential Cost Consequences?

One question worth asking is how much VCC would be forced to pay for dropping the case. After all, the (successful) Defendants could ask for costs to offset the expenses incurred so far. True, the Motion to Strike wasn’t actually heard, but it had to be prepared.

This is certainly a valid point.

However, after thinking it over, it’s probably not a big deal. Government lawyers often agree to waive costs (or minimize them) if lawsuits are discontinued. This could have happened here. Or, the Defendants could have agreed to accept nominal costs (small amounts) as a symbolic victory.

Using Action4Canada as a reference, they paid out approximately $13,000 in costs after their Notice of Civil Claim was struck as “bad beyond argument”. True, Ontario has higher tariffs, but $50,000 or less would have been a reasonable order from a Judge against VCC. In any event, it would be a drop in the bucket considering the money that was fundraised.

Now that the Claim has been dropped, Kuntz, VCC, and their counsel are presumably free to spend the rest as they wish. There doesn’t appear to be a refund policy.

How long until Action4Canada announces they’re discontinuing their case?

As Trudeau would say: “Thank you for your donation.”

GRIFTERS MAIN PAGE

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2019 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants
(11) VCC – Factum Of Respondent Plaintiffs

Posted on

Joanne Person Speaks Out Following Charges Being Withdrawn Over Coutts Arrest

Joanne Person has finally spoken out out about an arrest last year which caused nationwide attention. She was charged with 1 count of Firearms Possession and 1 count of Mischief Over $5,000.00 for allegedly aiding and abetting protesters in Coutts on Feb 14, 2022. On January 16, 2023, the charges were officially withdrawn.

This stems from the a section of the Canada/U.S. border being blocked last winter during nationwide protests over martial law measures.

While there was brief coverage of her case being dropped, it was quite limited. The version told by Person in the livestream paints a very different story to what has been officially reported. This includes the conduct of, and treatment by the RCMP.

Person wasn’t actually a part of any alleged plot, but had merely been hosting protesters in Coutts at her residence.

Although released on bail, it took nearly a year to have the case withdrawn. While news of the charges being dropped is a relief, it doesn’t undo the stress and hardship which came with the arrest. Her name made national news, and no public apology has yet been offered.

Chris Carbert, Christopher Lysak, Anthony Olienick and Jerry Morin remain charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers. Police allege that there had been a cache of weapons found in the area. They are scheduled to go on Trial in June.

The stream was hosted by Stand4THEE, and is worth a watch.

(1) https://rumble.com/v29uldy-stand4thee-live-5-press-conference-with-joanne-person.html
(2) https://stand4thee.com/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/joanne-person-coutts-charges-court-prelim-mischief-1.6715505
(4) https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/crown-withdraws-charges-against-coutts-protester-who-hosted-others-on-her-property
(5) https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/another-one-of-the-coutts-blockade-suspects-granted-bail-pending-trial

Posted on

What Percentage Of People Entering Canada Illegally Are Allowed To Make Asylum Claims?

A question that often gets asked: What percentage of people who come into this country illegally are allowed to still make asylum claims? Just because they self-identify as refugees, it doesn’t mean that their cases will be forwarded to the I.R.B.

The quick and dirty answer: roughly 81%, or four fifths of them.

Of those making claims: some 59%, of three fifths of those, are accepted by the I.R.B.

Note: The I.R.B. page “says” 59,736 claims were started between February 2017 and September 2022. But adding them manually, it comes to 73,407. Now, these are just claims that are initiated, not necessarily the number of people granted asylum.

As should be obvious: these numbers only relate to people entering Canada illegally. This does not take into account various refugee programs that are administered. And it’s well known that this happens primarily through Roxham Road in Quebec.

This answer was calculated by contrasting data on illegals detained from Immigration and Citizenship Canada, with claims filed with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Total illegals detained in 2017: 20,278 (starting partially through February)
Total illegals detained in 2018: 19,419
Total illegals detained in 2019: 16,503
Total illegals detained in 2020: 3,302
Total illegals detained in 2021: 4,246
Total illegals detained in 2022: 27,052 (data up until Q3, or September 2022)

Total illegals detained: 90,800 (February 2017 to September 2022)

FOR REFERENCE
Q1: January to March
Q2: April to June
Q3: July to September
Q4: October to December

This is from the various pages available here. The numbers are not exact, but a start. The Immigration and Refugee Board says that 73,407 claims by illegals were made during that time.

If these are anywhere near accurate, then 73,407/90,800 is 0.8084, or ~81%. So, approximately four fifths of the people entering Canada illegally are able to make asylum claims.

A few disclaimers need to be mentioned though.

First, if the percentages seem out of whack, there may be gaps between when people are detained by the RCMP, and when the claims are actually launched. If they are stopped at the end of a quarter, but the claim isn’t started for a few weeks, there will be discrepancies. It looks as though they were busy clearing a backlog.

If a person’s identity cannot be confirmed, or if there are security questions, it can take a very long time before a claim is filed. As such, looking at the longer range is a lot more accurate.

Still, this is a place to begin.

YEAR, QUARTER INTERCEPTIONS CLAIMS WITH IRB PERCENTAGE
2017, Feb-March 1,575 433 27.5%
2017, Q2 2,485 2,159 87.8%
2017, Q3 10,727 8,558 79.8%
2017, Q4 5,491 6,912 ?
2018, Q1 5,052 5,581 ?
2018, Q2 5,692 6,183 ?
2018, Q3 4,982 5,037 ?
2018, Q4 3,693 3,798 ?
2019, Q1 2,698 2,918 ?
2019, Q2 4,009 3,957 98.7%
2019, Q3 5,373 5,148 95.8%
2019, Q4 4,423 4,139 93.6%
2020, Q1 3,035 3,500 ?
2020, Q2 59 360 ?
2020, Q3 108 128 ?
2020, Q4 100 162 ?
2021, Q1 115 216 ?
2021, Q2 78 232 ?
2021, Q3 284 314 ?
2021, Q4 3,769 789 20.9%
2022, Q1 7,049 2,772 39.3%
2022, Q2 9,382 4,512 48.1%
2022, Q3 10,621 5,599 52.7%
Feb 2017-Sept 2022 90,800 73,407 80.8%

Note: Beginning in Q4 of 2017, and Q1 of 2018, it seems that there were more than 100% asylum applications compared to people arriving. The likely reason is that the claims weren’t started right away, making the backlog worse.

Strange, even when there were few illegals coming in 2020 and 2021, it seems that the backlog wasn’t finished off. Guess everyone stopped working.

Now, this doesn’t answer the obvious question about how many people who are declared ineligible actually leave. Either the Government doesn’t keep such data, or they don’t make it easy to find.

The CBSA reported that in 2019 and 2020, some 11,444 “removals” had taken place, but no detailed breakdown is provided. This number apparently includes failed asylum seekers, and people ordered deported for other reasons. The CBSA has also complained that the majority of the removal orders are unenforceable.

More digging will need to be done in a follow-up.

Even when this subject is covered, little in the way of hard numbers are provided. This is one of the better ones. As one point, it was reported back in 2017 that there was a backlog of some 40,000 people. It’s currently at around 17,000.

Also, the totals of 25,789 (accepted), and 18,019 (rejected) are not accurate

As for how many of them are granted asylum, doing a manual count:
February 2017 to September 2022: 29,344 claims were accepted.
February 2017 to September 2022: 20,179 claims were rejected.

Total claims ruled = 29,344 + 20,179 = 49,523.

True, this includes claims started before February 2017, but assuming the acceptance rate is pretty consistent…

If we ignore the withdrawn and abandoned claims (as is done here), then 29,344 out of 49,523 were accepted for asylum. That works out to about 59%.

If the source material is at all accurate, roughly 81% of people coming into Canada illegally are allowed to have claims heard by I.R.B., and 59% of them are accepted. If it’s not accurate, that figure could be a lot higher.

(1) https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/Pages/Irregular-border-crosser-statistics.aspx
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2022.html
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2021.html
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2020.html
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2019.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2018.html
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2017.html
(8) https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/19/new-data-show-69-of-illegal-border-crossers-are-being-granted-asylum.html
(8) https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/arr-det-eng.html
(9) https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/pd-dp/bbp-rpp/pacp/2020-11-24/km-mc-eng.html

Posted on

Taking That Last Step To See Through The Lies….

Credit for the artwork goes to Bill Huston, and please visit his website. Also, this confrontation with Andrew Kaufman and Judy Mikovits is very much worth the watch. The full livestream is available online and mirrored for anyone wanting it.

Plenty of decent people across the world are fully aware that their freedoms have been crushed in a planned and deliberate manner since 2020. They see that these “conspiracy theories” of using a so-called pandemic to implement societal control turned out to be accurate. Kudos to them for that.

But, there’s one step many won’t take: admit there’s no virus.

Why does this last step matter? Because it’s the pipeline to realizing how deep the pharma rabbit hole goes. If there’s no “Covid-19”, then it means all of the testing equipment is completely faulty and invalid. Moreover, all of the other “viruses” discovered over the years would be immediately suspect. If no viruses have ever been proven to exist, then virology — and germ theory itself — come crashing down. In order to preserve the medical industry, then this lie needs to be protected at all costs.

Why are theories of lab leak and/or bioweapon promoted? Because they attempt to explain the origins of this “virus”, rather than look into whether it’s even real.

How is a “case” defined, according to the World Health Organization? (See archive).

Notwithstanding how vague “suspected” and “probable” cases are, the definitions for so-called confirmed cases are equally dubious.

  1. A person with a positive Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT)
  2. A person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT AND meeting either the probable case definition or suspect criteria A OR B
  3. An asymptomatic person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT who is a contact of a probable or confirmed case.

NAAT testing doesn’t prove anything, which will be addressed later. Also, everyone, including the WHO, admits these tests aren’t reliable.

Not only is there the issue of no isolation, WHO recommends in its March 2020 (see page 3), and September 2020 (see page 8), guidance NOT to isolate for routine testing.

Perhaps WHO just doesn’t want proper testing done normally to save money?! Well, not really, their own paperwork (see archive) indicates that they view testing for just a gene to be sufficient.

If no virus has even been isolated or shown to exist, then what have doctors been prescribing over the years? Are they morons, or just being paid off?

Admittedly, it wasn’t really a topic addressed here for quite a while. However, the time has long come for hitting this home. And what is the definition of a “Covid death”? According to the World Health Organization, it is:

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this isn’t satire. The WHO actually provides this incredibly vague and meaningless definition. Only a complicit and deliberately obtuse media wouldn’t expose this. (See archive), as the original has either been deleted or moved.

The BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), admitted in April 2020 that these tests can’t actually determine active infection. (See original). Also, the 30% error rate is apparently just a commonly quoted statistic, not the result of real research.

There was an article in June 2020 (now deleted), where BCPHO Bonnie Henry warned against mass testing, as false positives could overburden hospitals. See archives here and here.

To repeat: considering that there is no virus isolation, and these tests aren’t designed for infection anyway, what exactly is being tested for?

  • Why is this virus pushed, despite lack of proof it exists?
  • Why have other viruses been pushed, despite lack of proof they exist?
  • Why does WHO recommend against isolation in regular testing?
  • Why does WHO see testing for a gene as sufficient?
  • Why is the definition of “Covid death” so convoluted?
  • Why does Bonnie Henry admit false positives could flood hospitals?
  • Why does the BCCDC admit these tests can’t determine infection?

These are just a few of the core problems.

There’s also all kinds of proof that this was planned in advance. And people should wonder about connections like the Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Toronto.

Of course, this isn’t to say that everyone who still believes in germ theory or viruses is a grifter or shill. Plenty of well meaning people are still caught up in that. They RIGHTLY recognize martial law being imposed, but can’t bring themselves to admit that it’s all been a lie.

Many accept that 90-95% of this is a lie, but can’t come to that last part.

That being said, there are still some basic questions that need answering.

Simply saying: “I oppose masks, vaccine passports and lockdowns” is a safe position to take. It doesn’t address the depth of the hoax.

And if you haven’t checked out the work from Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. This deadly “virus” hasn’t been isolated or proven to exist, anywhere in the world. Additionally, it doesn’t appear that any others have been either. There’s also a pretty interesting set of Google docs available from A Warrior Calls, worth checking out.

(1) https://www.bitchute.com/video/qm1z7PhGXnGe/
(2) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Surveillance_Case_Definition-2020.2
(3) WHO-2019-nCoV-Surv_Case_Definition-2020.
(4) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(5) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf
(9) https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf
(10) Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR
(11) https://www.bitchute.com/video/iKXqxr8RgNQz/
(12) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLaw:8/Definitions-Matter:d
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BC-COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(14) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(15) https://www.glaciermedia.ca/bc-news/bonnie-henry-warns-businesses-against-covid-testing-4682197
(16) https://archive.ph/U2k6g
(17) Wayback Machine
(18) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(19) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BZ7kHlWeg5pcvLMFvC-Hao8pIc4hiM-o
(20) https://www.youtube.com/c/BillHustonPodcast
(21) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/

Posted on

Great Barrington Declaration: Gatekeeping True Scale Of Medical Hoax

This is a long overdue piece. The so-called “Great Barrington Declaration” came about in late 2020. It was supposedly a call for “balanced” public health measures.

In reality, it still calls for significant limitations on freedoms. It plays along with the psy-op that there is some virus killing people at all. In short, it works to limit genuine discussion and curiosity on the subject.

It doesn’t really call for a return to normal lives. However, by “appearing” to call for a return to normalcy, it acts as just another voice working to suppress the full truth. Like with most controlled opposition, fact will be mixed with lies in order to obscure the big picture.

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

This is the first of several red flags. The document doesn’t address the premeditation or deception behind these measures. Instead, they are criticized for being too heavy handed. There’s overwhelming evidence this was planned, and it’s easily available, even in October 2020.

And how concerned are they really? Epidemiologists and public health “scientists” are the ones pushing this warfare on the public. Perhaps there is some professional courtesy at play by not calling out the full scale of the lies going on.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

So, these “public health experts” are worried that lockdown measures will result in lower childhood vaccination rates for other things?! That’s an interesting approach. There’s no objection in principle to martial law being used on society, just the means that it’s being done.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

What about the so-called vaccine itself? What kind of irreparable harm will that cause? Is that something that needs discussing? And what “virus” would it be curing?

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

They claim that their knowledge is growing, but never address the elephant in the room: this “virus” has never been isolated or proven to exist in any scientific manner. It seems that none of them will touch the issue of germ theory being pseudo-science.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

Another warning sign: this call doesn’t address the complete lack of necessity for experimental vaccines. Instead, it’s referred to as just another measure. And immunity to what exactly?

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Again, the goal is to allow “some people” to live normal lives, but restricting the freedoms of others. They don’t ideologically object to martial law measures, just how they’re implemented.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

The Declaration quite clearly “does” support having freedoms removed, and having unelected bureaucrats make those decisions. And perform frequent tests for what? The nasal rape sticks can’t actually determine infection.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

Under the terms of the G.B.D., some people should be allowed to return to a normal life. This means that there is still support for reducing others’ freedoms indefinitely.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

While all of this sounds lovely on the surface, the G.B.D. gatekeeps real opposition by helping to gloss over the true scale of this hoax. It seems very doubtful that the people pushing this are unaware of what’s really going on.

Guess what else the G.B.D. doesn’t address? The fraudulent “definition” of a Covid death. This has been brought up on this site, but not many others. The people promoting G.B.D. talk about the science, but never the underlying deceit. There really is no other way to describe this “Declaration” as anything other than as a scam.

They also don’t seem interested in the myriad of businesses who’ve been paid to prop up the narrative via various subsidies. It doesn’t just happen in Canada.

(1) https://gbdeclaration.org/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/a-death-resulting-from-a-clinically-compatible-illness/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/following-the-bailout-money-video-compilation/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/big-pharma-reviews/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-science-table-un-who-ihr/

Posted on

Action4Canada Case To Be Put Off Indefinitely

This is a follow-up to the Action4Canada lawsuit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, back in August 2021. This comes after a year of begging and panhandling for money.

So, did the donors get their money’s worth? Not at all.

Far from being the work of legal experts, the final product was nearly 400 pages and extremely disjointed. It demanded millions of dollars, cited non-Canadian laws, demanded international remedies, went on tirades against non-parties, and was mostly comprised of irrelevant material. This Claim wasn’t just poorly done, but must have taken considerable effort to mangle in such a way. See the earlier review on exactly what was wrong with it.

As an extra layer of absurdity, the lawyers who wrote this piece of work have about 70 years of combined experience between them. This wasn’t done by Articling students or interns.

In a move that was entirely foreseeable, the Defendants filed Applications to strike out the Statement of Claim in its entirety. It’s also alleged that the Notices of Liability available to download were being used to harass public officials, and drive up donations.

The hearing was supposed to take place on February 3rd, concerning those Applications. It was expected to last most of a day.

That got pushed back to April 5th, due to an alleged serious illness from counsel.

However, that April 5th hearing never happened. According to the Court staff, the hearing has been postponed indefinitely. There is currently no date set down to review the Application. There’s also no indication or tentative date as to when things will progress.

It’s unclear why Lawrence Wong can’t represent the Plaintiffs for the Application. He is a B.C. lawyer, and was called to the Bar in 1987. Presumably he’s capable of handling this.

To avoid confusion here: this is just an attempt by the Attorney General and others to get the case tossed. It’s not a Trial, or any real progress in anti-lockdown challenges.

Also, striking pleadings is not the same as dismissing a case. Dismissing means terminating a case on its merits, while striking refers to serious defects with the documents themselves. Quite simply, the Attorney General’s argument is that the case is so convoluted, confusing, and incoherent, that it would be a waste of everyone’s time to go any further.

And they’re not wrong.

Is it difficult to meet the minimum threshold? Not really, as long as a few Rules of Civil Procedure are followed for all B.C. cases.

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

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

This isn’t hard. Broadly speaking, a lawsuit must do 3 things:
[1] Briefly set out the facts as alleged
[2] Set out what remedies are being sought
[3] Briefly list what important laws will be relied on

Instead of following these simple rules, a 391 page mess was dropped on the Courts last year. Even someone researching for the last 2 years would have considerable difficulty following along.

Considering how badly this dumpster fire of a “Claim” was done, the response from the Defendants was inevitable. Why litigate a case when they can just get it struck out?

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
.
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
.
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
.
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.

This concept isn’t unique to B.C. Ontario has similar provisions with Rule 21 and 25.11, while the Federal Courts have Rule 221. They all amount to essentially the same thing.

And for clarity, the Government isn’t asking the case be thrown out because there are typos, mistakes, or that it’s sloppy overall. These kinds of cases are sent ahead all the time. No, the Application says that the Claim is so incomprehensible, rambling and scattered that it’s impossible to determine the case that must be made. They also allege that the Claim contains many, many pages which are completely irrelevant.

Again, they’re not wrong.

A cynic may wonder at this point if the goal is just to endlessly ask for extensions. That way, the Application to strike will never be heard, and the case will technically remain open. The donations can keep flowing in.

Let’s not kid ourselves here: this suit has no possibility of ever making it to Trial. There’s no amount of amendments or rewrites that will fix what’s wrong with it.

There have been rumours circulating since last Summer about Affidavits of evidence. Supposedly, these are several thousands of pages in length. This isn’t true at all. However, the statements may have been spread in order to placate nervous donors.

Any member of the public can call any Canadian Court — during business hours — and ask to see what documents are in a case. These Affidavits haven’t been filed for any of these suits, and it seems doubtful they exist at all.

Also: remember that July 6, 2020 case with Vaccine Choice Canada? This is the one where no Defences were ever filed, but no one ever sought Default Judgement. You don’t hear about that anymore, nor the one from October 2019. You don’t hear about the Police On Guard case either.

In other news, there has been an update with regards to Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba. These are the doctors who tried to bankrupt 2 dozen people, mostly over mean words on Twitter. After their case was (predictably) dismissed as a SLAPP, the Defendants are alleging that they spent some $1.3 million obtaining that Judgement. While that sounds high, it works out to about $55,000 each, which is plausible. Anyhow, Notice of Appeal has been served, and it looks just as frivolous as the original Claim.

Interesting priorities. The Gill/Lamba case is being appealed, despite it being a matter between private parties, and having no outcome on the public. Meanwhile, anti-lockdown cases are dormant.

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

(9) Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate – Gill
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html

REVIEW
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-statement-of-claim-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/delay-prevents-action4canada-case-from-being-immediately-thrown-out/
(C) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/another-toronto-court-challenge-but-will-this-one-actually-go-anywhere/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/vcc-soc-ontario-redacted-october-24-2019.pdf