Joanne Person Speaks Out Following Charges Being Withdrawn Over Coutts Arrest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 On January 16, 2023, the charges were officially withdrawn.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Although released on bail, it took nearly a year to have the case withdrawn.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.


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)

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.

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.


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:

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.

(3) WHO-2019-nCoV-Surv_Case_Definition-2020.
(10) Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR
(17) Wayback Machine

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.


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.

(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


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

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

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

There never was any lawsuit.

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

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

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

Don’t forget to donate, suckers!

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

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

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

Just another subversion agent and grifter.