CLICK HERE, for race- based discounts in sentencing. CLICK HERE, for Terri McClintic, child killer, in a healing lodge. CLICK HERE, for 2016/2017 StatsCan data on incarceration rates. CLICK HERE, for Table 5, incarceration by race and gender. CLICK HERE, for Table 6. CLICK HERE, for archived findings form Correctional Service of Canada form 1999. CLICK HERE, for a Larry Elder video on single parent households. CLICK HERE, for a documentary on drug use on reserves. CLICK HERE, for a video on lack of drinking water on reserves.
This is a proposal to scrap so-called “Gladue Rights” which specifically are designed to give Aboriginal offenders special consideration when it comes to sentencing in the criminal justice system.
Please don’t interpret this as an indication not to give anyone a break if the circumstances permit. Rather, rights and options should be available to everyone. They should not be given to one specific group, or denied to one specific group.
Disclaimer: I am not a criminologist, or a sociologist. Just a researcher.
Now, how great are the discrepancies?
From the StatsCan 2016/2017 findings:
The Criminal Code mandates that all sanctions other than imprisonment are to be considered with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. In 2016/2017, Aboriginal adults accounted for 28% of admissions to provincial/territorial correctional services and 27% for federal correctional services, while representing 4.1% of the Canadian adult population (Table 5). In comparison to 2006/2007, the proportion of admissions of Aboriginal peoples to correctional services was 21% for provincial and territorial correctional services and 19% for federal correctional services.
Aboriginal adults accounted for 30% of admissions to custody and 25% of admissions to community supervision among the provinces and territories in 2016/2017. Aboriginal adults accounted for 27% of admissions to custody and 26% of admissions to community supervision in federal correctional services (Table 5).
The proportion of Aboriginal admissions to adult custody has been trending upwards for over 10 years. It has increased steadily from 2006/2007 when it was 21% for provincial and territorial correctional services and 20% for federal correctional services.
Among the provinces, Aboriginal adults made up the greatest proportion of admissions to custody in Manitoba (74%) and Saskatchewan (76%). These two provinces also have the highest proportion of Aboriginal adults among their provincial populations at 15% for Manitoba, and 14% for Saskatchewan.
Aboriginal males accounted for 28% of admissions to custody in the province and territories, whereas non-Aboriginal males accounted for 72%, in 2016/2017. Aboriginal females made up a greater proportion of custody admissions than their male counterparts, accounting for 43% of admissions, while non-Aboriginal females accounted for 57% (Table 6).
Here is the data in a more visual form.
Abor. Total Pop’n
Abor. Group Pop’n
Non-Abor. Total Pop’n
Non-Abor. Group Pop’n
Note: Here is how to calculate the rates. Assume there is a population of 100,000 people, and 1,000 of them are locked up and then break in down as percentages of the population.
Now that we can make an apples-to-apples comparison, 0.068/0.0075 =~9.1
So on a per-capita basis, Aboriginals are about 9 times as likely as non-Aboriginals to be locked up
Next, covering Aboriginal women and incarceration rate. For this. Assume that the overall percentages are about same: 95.9% non-Aboriginal, and 4.1% Aboriginal. Here instead of making up 28% overall in Provincial jails, it is 57%, approximately double.
Abor. Total Pop’n
Abor. Group Pop’n
Non-Abor. Total Pop’n
Non-Abor. Group Pop’n
And once more we need to convert to rates of respective populations.
When women inmates are looked at specifically, the ratio goes to 0.1390/0.0045 ~= 30.88
That’s right, looking at women, there are (per capita) 30 times as many Aboriginal women locked up as non-Aboriginal women.
3. Evidence Of Discrimination Or Bias?
By itself, no. Having groups with different rates of something is not evidence that there has been discrimination. Either these differences are caused by something that justifies it (such as higher crime rate), or there may be some external factor. Let’s start with the Criminal Code.
718.2(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
It is written right into the Canadian Criminal Code, to give offenders (where reasonable), an alternative to custody, with special consideration to Aboriginals. And this is codified in 3 cases.
R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
R. v. Gladue,  1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)
R. v. Ipeelee,  1 SCR 433, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII)
Looking at the Criminal Code, and recent decisions, there doesn’t seem to be any legalized discrimination. So let’s look elsewhere.
4. R. v. Proulx (Conditional Sentencing Guidelines)
12 Since it came into force on September 3, 1996, the conditional sentence has generated considerable debate. With the advent of s. 742.1, Parliament has clearly mandated that certain offenders who used to go to prison should now serve their sentences in the community. Section 742.1 makes a conditional sentence available to a subclass of non-dangerous offenders who, prior to the introduction of this new regime, would have been sentenced to a term of incarceration of less than two years for offences with no minimum term of imprisonment.
13 In my view, to address meaningfully the complex interpretive issues raised by this appeal, it is important to situate this new sentencing tool in the broader context of the comprehensive sentencing reforms enacted by Parliament in Bill C-41. I will also consider the nature of the conditional sentence, contrasting it with probationary measures and incarceration. Next, I will address particular interpretive issues posed by s. 742.1. I will first discuss the statutory prerequisites to the imposition of a conditional sentence. Thereafter, I will consider how courts should determine whether a conditional sentence is appropriate, assuming the prerequisites are satisfied. I conclude with some general comments on the deference to which trial judges are entitled in matters of sentencing and dispose of the case at hand in conformity with the principles outlined in these reasons.
16 Bill C-41 is in large part a response to the problem of overincarceration in Canada. It was noted in Gladue, at para. 52, that Canada’s incarceration rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third highest among industrialized democracies. In their reasons, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. reviewed numerous studies that uniformly concluded that incarceration is costly, frequently unduly harsh and “ineffective, not only in relation to its purported rehabilitative goals, but also in relation to its broader public goals” (para. 54). See also Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969); Canadian Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach (1987), at pp. xxiii‑xxiv; Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Taking Responsibility (1988), at p. 75. Prison has been characterized by some as a finishing school for criminals and as ill-preparing them for reintegration into society: see generally Canadian Committee on Corrections, supra, at p. 314; Correctional Service of Canada, A Summary of Analysis of Some Major Inquiries on Corrections – 1938 to 1977 (1982), at p. iv. In Gladue, at para. 57, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. held:
Without rehashing the entire ruling, Proulx, which was based on Bill C-41, set the benchmark for giving out “conditional sentences”, aka “house arrest”. The ruling noted the destructive long term effect prison can have.
While conditional sentencing is completely inappropriate for certain offences, it can have its benefits.
In areas with high crime rates, poverty, or high drug use, a person has to reasonably ask what will be the best solution overall. Does the community benefit from locking up large amounts of its people?
One caveat, breaks in sentencing, and alternatives to prison should be equally available to all Canadians. One group shouldn’t receive a greater aid, or detriment.
See the next section for the CSC report on Aboriginal circumstances.
5. Information Worth Looking At
This comes from the 1998 Corrections Service of Canada Paper (linked above). It also has an impressive bibliography, worth at least a peek.
1.3 Aboriginal Population
Approximately, one-third of all Aboriginal children under the age of 15 in Census families lived in a lone-parent family, twice the rate within the general population. The rate was even higher in urban areas. About 46% of Aboriginal children under 15 in Census families who lived in a census metropolitan area were in a lone-parent family. One-quarter of the Aboriginal population reported that they had an Aboriginal language as mother tongue. Cree was the largest Aboriginal mother tongue. The number of people who could speak an Aboriginal language was about 10% higher than the number who reported an Aboriginal mother tongue, indicating that a significant number of persons learned such a language later in life. (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1998).
This mentions a very interesting issue. Conservative commentator Larry Elder frequently talks about this. Single parent households (mostly missing fathers), is a very good indicator of crime and education. And it cuts across race.
1.4 Demographic and Socio-Economic Data
Increasing evidence points to a strong correlation between socio-economic disadvantage and involvement with the criminal justice system. A large proportion of the Aboriginal population in Canada suffers socio-economic disadvantage in comparison to non-Aboriginal Canadians. The social and economic conditions outlined in the section below illustrates a correlation between these factors and Aboriginal involvement with the criminal justice system. Poverty, inadequate educational opportunities, unemployment, poor living conditions, alcohol abuse and domestic violence all contribute to Aboriginal people coming into conflict with the law. The challenges to which the criminal justice system must respond are rooted in addressing these disadvantaged conditions.
These problems are prevalent, in particularly on remote reserves. To be fair, it isn’t restricted to reserves. It is heartbreaking to hear the problems and 3rd world conditions.
Suicide is approximately three times more common among Aboriginal people than non-Aboriginal people. It is also five to six times more prevalent among Aboriginal youth than non-Aboriginal youth. In First Nations communities, suicide is more prevalent among the young and usually results from feelings of hopelessness and despair.
Wow. Just wow.
2.4 Urban vs. Rural Aboriginal Offenders
A recent study (Johnston, 1997) of Aboriginal inmates incarcerated in Canadian federal penitentiaries found that one-quarter (24%) of the group had originally came from reserve or remote areas; 44% originally came from rural areas, and 30% from urban areas. The interviewers did not ask about where the offenders had been living at the time of the offence. In addition, the study also found that a majority of the group had left their home community after their youth. Eighteen percent had lived in their home community all their life apart from periods spent incarcerated. Furthermore, the study found that 66% of the Aboriginal inmates incarcerated in federal penitentiaries were considered high-need. Forty-seven per cent were rated as both high-need and high-risk. A majority were rated by case management officers and other penitentiary staff who knew them, as having needs in the following areas:
-substance abuse needs (88%),
-personal/emotional needs (82%),
-employment needs (63%), and
-education needs (54%).
A large proportion were also rated as having needs in relation to:
-pro-criminal attitudes (49%),
-marital and family issues (42%),
-community functioning (36%),
-criminal associates (33%), and
-sexual offending (31%).
This is shocking. Almost 9 in 10 with substance abuse, 4 in 5 with personal needs, 2/3 with employment needs, and half lacking in education.
Canada is supposed to be a 1st world country, but standard of living for those away from any urban area are falling far short of what should be acceptable.
6. So Why Abolish Gladue?
Quite simply, it is a band-aid solution that ignores the real problems. “Rigging” the rules to let Aboriginal offenders off easier (or let them out earlier) turns a blind eye to the problems cited in the previous section. Lack of drinking water being one in the news lately.
Are Aboriginals disproportionately represented in criminal courts and jails? Yes, absolutely. The data and evidence for that is overwhelming.
But it is also plain and obvious that there are many problems with the more remote areas that should not be happening. Setting up different sentencing guidelines does nothing to address any of that.
It could easily be argued that problems with poverty, remote living, drugs, alcohol and domestic violence contribute to crime. These are the causes and crime is the effect. But Gladue gets it entirely backwards. It impacts the EFFECT, hoping to impact the CAUSES.
Hopefully this doesn’t come off as heartless. However, I view the “Gladue Rights” idea as completely missing the point, and ignoring genuine concerns.
7. Actually, There Is Discrimination
Instead of our Prime Minister blowing our money on virtue signalling foreign adventures, perhaps fixing the problems within our borders is a better approach.
Safe drinking water
Access to social services
Seriously evaluate if reserve system is sustainable
We certainly have money to blow on every UN adventure.
While the criminal justice system itself isn’t set up to discriminate, our government does. Entire sections of Canada’s population is left to die while we show the outside world how generous we are.
Gladue is the quick-fix that covers up the real problem.
CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org. CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org recommended websites. CLICK HERE, for Federal Reserve Act. CLICK HERE, for fractional banking. CLICK HERE, for fractional reserves. CLICK HERE, for a disclosure lawsuit against the Federal Reserve. Spoiler: It’s a private entity. CLICK HERE, for verdict forcing Federal Reserve to disclose who it has been financially bailing out. CLICK HERE, for US Federal debt by year. CLICK HERE, for an article on Fed background. CLICK HERE, for who owns the Federal Reserve.
2. What Is “End The Fed”?
This is a website posted to make people aware of the Federal Reserve. It contains links to books, videos, documentaries, websites, and other information.
The Federal Reserve, “the Fed”, is the central bank of the United States of America that was created in 1913 by Congress. It is a banking cartel that has a government-granted monopoly on the creation of money and credit. The Fed literally loans “money” (Federal Reserve Notes) into existence. Federal Reserve Notes are paper promises backed by nothing of intrinsic value and they are only functioning as money because the government forces them on the public through legal tender laws. Federal Reserve Notes are referred to as dollars but are not. The definition of a dollar is a weight of silver (371 grains). To put it simply, the Fed is a group of banks running a national counterfeiting operation with the protection of the government.
Why Should I Care?
Because you’re being systematically robbed and enslaved. The Fed’s counterfeiting causes the price of goods and services to rise which requires you to work harder in order to purchase them. Even with all the technological advances over the last century, you have to work just as hard or even harder to survive. The Fed is siphoning off the productivity that should have come from those technological advances. The reality is that you are working overtime solely for the benefit of some bankers who the government gave the power to conjure money out of nothing. In addition, the Fed’s counterfeiting finances the tools of the government’s oppression over you: the militarization of the police, the surveillance apparatus, and the endless wars.
If you cherish truth, freedom, justice, and want to leave behind a better world for your loved ones then you must…END THE FED! A free market, where each individual has the freedom to choose what form of money to use rather than one being forced on them, must be allowed to function in its place.
End The Fed is basically a reference site, which connects you to many great tools and resources. It is well worth spending time here. Even those who are Canadian can benefit from it, as many of the same issues the US faces also impact Canada.
3. Quotes From Federal Reserve Act
(From page 15 of 112)
DIVISION OF EARNINGS. SEC. 7. (a) DIVIDENDS AND SURPLUS FUNDS OF RESERVE BANKS.— (1) STOCKHOLDER DIVIDENDS.—
(A) DIVIDEND AMOUNT.—After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend on paid-in capital stock of—
(i) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, the smaller of—
(I) the rate equal to the high yield of the 10 year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend; and
(II) 6 percent; and
(ii) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, 6 percent.
(B) DIVIDEND CUMULATIVE.—The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall annually adjust the dollar amounts of total consolidated assets specified under subparagraph (A) to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis
So, if you are a stockholder in the Federal Reserve, you are guaranteed at least 6% interest on your “investment”. Talk about predatory lending.
Now, if you think that participating in this system is voluntary for banks, think again. This is from Section 2, Part 5 of the Act:
5. Failure of national bank to accept terms of Act¿ Any national bank failing to signify its acceptance of the terms of this Act within the sixty days aforesaid, shall cease to act as a reserve agent, upon thirty days’ notice, to be given within the discretion of the said organization committee or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
6. Penalty for violation of Act by national banks¿ Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after the passage of this Act to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Act applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act, or under the provisions of this Act, shall be thereby forfeited. Any noncompliance with or violation of this Act shall, however, be determined and adjudged by any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in a suit brought for that purpose in the district or territory in which such bank is located, under direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the Comptroller of the Currency in his own name before the association shall be declared dissolved. In cases of such noncompliance or violation, other than the failure to become a member bank under the provisions of this Act, every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal or individual capacity for all damages which said bank, its shareholders, or any other person shall have sustained in consequence of such violation
Banks don’t have the choice to “opt-out”. They are in if they want to be in this industry.
Logic dictates that the ideal form of money should be durable, divisible, portable, fungible, scarce, and in demand for purposes other than a medium of exchange. Market supply and demand dynamics demonstrate that precious metals, specifically gold and silver, meet these criteria better than any other good. Many people voluntarily chose to use gold or silver as money throughout history for this reason.
So who has the power to create fiat currency? The answer is central banks. Central banks are banking cartels that have a “government” granted monopoly on the creation of fiat currency. In the United States, it’s the Federal Reserve System (the Fed). In the United Kingdom, it’s the Bank of England (the BoE). In Europe, it’s the European Central Bank (the ECB). In Japan, it’s the Bank of Japan (the BoJ). The model is the same across the world. Central banks loan fiat currency (Federal Reserve Notes, Pounds, Euros, Yen, etc) into existence. These fiat currencies often bear the name of money, such as the Federal Reserve Note bearing the word “dollar” (which is by definition a weight of silver), but they are not money. To put it simply, central banks run “legalized” counterfeiting operations with the protection and enforcement of “government.” Counterfeiting is theft because it steals purchasing power from the current holders of the currency or money and transfers it to the counterfeiter. The Fed has stolen approximately 95% of the purchasing power from the users of the Federal Reserve Note since its creation in 1913 and other central banks have similar track records. Unfortunately, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Central banks use their counterfeiting rackets to rig interest rates, bailout their cronies, fund the welfare state, fund the police state, fund the warfare state, create asset booms and busts, and stifle economic growth. You pay for all of this through lost purchasing power, whether you want to or not.
This artificial system of creating money sets up a system where the only way to pay off existing debt is to use a substantial portion of your currency.
Now, since you have used up a significant amount of your currency making debt payments, a nation now finds itself short on currency to pay for the needs of its people. How do you solve that problem? Answer, by borrowing more. This system creates a dependency where the only solution is to borrow more to pay off existing debts.
5. Fractional Reserve Banking
US banks are not required to holdanywhere near the amount of money they are lending out. They are allowed to only hold a fraction of it, hence the name “fractional banking”.
In 2016, the minimum reserves required were:
In the United States, the reserves are held in the bank’s vault or the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. The Board of Governors of the Fed set the reserve requirements and use it as one of the tools of guiding monetary policy. As at January 2016, commercial banks with deposits of less than $15.2 million were not required to maintain reserves. Banks with deposits valued at $15.2 million to $110.2 million were required to maintain the reserve requirement at 3% while those with more than $100.2 million in deposits were required to keep a reserve requirement of 10%. The Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 exempted the first $2 million of reserve liabilities from the reserve requirements.
Bank Deposit Total
$15.2M to $100.2M
Let’s take a look at it. If you own a US bank, you can claim $15.2 million in deposits without actually having any. Your bank can be worth billions, and you will only be required to hold 10% of the total amount.
Lending out potentially 10 times the money that you actually have sounds absurd, yet it is entirely legal. Of course this is completely unsustainable.
-Trump added $3T to national debt (~15%)
-Barack Obama added almost $10T to the national debt (~50%)
-Bush Jr. added $4T (~20%)
-Clinton added $1.6T (~8%)
-Bush Sr. added $1.3T (~6.5%)
-Reagan added $1.7T (~9%)
-National debt broke $1T in 1981. More than 95% of national debt has come “after” that benchmark.
Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank’s district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed’s outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,
‘… The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today’ (Mullins, p. 47-48).
Admittedly, this is difficult to confirm, since the Federal Reserve tries to keep its ownership secret.
8. Conspiracy Theory: JFK’s Assassination Tied To Federal Reserve
There has long been a theory that former US President John F. Kennedy was murdered because of his opposition to the Federal Reserve. Look up “Executive Order 11110”.
Was Kennedy killed for wanting to stop this scam? I don’t know, but it is possible. It certainly was lucrative to the stockholders of the Federal Reserve.
9. System Will Collapse
As should be apparent, this system is not sustainable in the slightest.
This Federal Reserve is a bank creating its own money, and then lending it out, with interest. Note: “shareholders” are to receive a minimum of 6% return on their investments annually.
Banks operate on a “fractional reserve” system, meaning they only need to keep a portion of the actual money they claim to have on hand. Even for the biggest banks, this is capped at 10%. The same money can in fact be loaned out multiple times, since there is no requirement no have much of it on hand.
In order to finance this system, the US Government adds to its debt, year after year. This is debt that will never be paid back. The only way the US can “service the debt” is by continued economic growth. Of course, this is not possible. The dollar “used” to be backed by gold, but that is no longer the case.
The “debt ceiling” will continue to be raised, since no President or member of Congress wants to see it collapse on their watch.
How do you take over the world without war, guns, and bombs? You do it incrementally, and strategically. This guide will outline some of the major steps.
1. Important Links
This section will be empty. Instead, links are interwoven in the article. Also, Part II, will address who is behind these global takeover efforts.
2. Convention On Preventing & Punishing Genocide To Be Used As “Guideline”
No two ways about it. If you are serious about world domination, then you can’t have strong groups and populations standing in your path. The population needs to go. Either it needs to be killed off, or it needs to be “phased out”. This idea was addressed in a previous article.
He are sections of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishing Genocide:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The following acts shall be punishable:
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
This applies if there are certain groups, such as racial or ethnic, that are obstacles to the plan. Yes, we can kill them, or we can just reduce their populations, by preventing births or causing mental harm to the group.
Ironically, this convention outlines some effective “non-violent” ways to erase a group, or groups.
We will get back to this later.
3. Financing The Global Domination Mission
No doubt about it: a scheme to control the world is expensive and complex. The right people have to be in place, and the organization needed is substantial. So let’s discuss a few methods to finance our agenda.
(Option A:) Get wealthy nations to borrow extensively from private banks. Most countries have their own internal banking, which means that they effectively borrow from themselves. A much better alternative is to get nations to start borrowing from private banks, but never completely pay it back. This ensures permanent interest payments. However, we must be careful to fight any and all attempts by concerned citizens to take back control of their finances.
(Option B:) Convince wealthy nations to participate in bogus scheme such as the “climate change scam”, which is based entirely on junk science. Rather than endlessly appealing to give foreign aid (which we then steal), we should be appealing to the mutual survival instinct. Doing this can raise hundreds of billions in revenue each year. Sure there will be resistance, but we can establish some controlled opposition “Conservatives” to give the illusion of fighting for the average people. These initiatives, once established, will be profitable.
(Option C:) While using the money raised from (A) and (B) immediately seems like a good idea, we must be more strategic about it. A serious option is to loan out to developing nations, huge sums of money they cannot possibly pay back. As such, once nations begin defaulting, we can either seize assets, or “forgive debt” in return for favours. Sure this is predatory lending, and the middle class will suffer, but their leaders will be put in an impossible position.
Note: the debts that we “lend” to developing nations are not actually losses we accrued. Rather they will be from the perpetual “debt repayments”, which developed nations pay us after they started taking out private loans.
(Option D:) Make globalism more profitable and have our partners contribute to the efforts. Making mass migration more profitable leads to an almost endless supply of new customers. A wide variety of groups, can get involved, ensuring a diversified portfolio for us. By linking their business interests with our ideological interests, it will ensure these organizations are vested in our survival.
(Option E:) It doesn’t just have to be foreign aid that gets transferred outside of host nations. Many national pension funds are screaming to be invested in our global development. Sure, there are criticisms that they are underfunded and unsustainable, but the potential growth will offset any risks to the funds. If seniors object, we can always subsidize their efforts to start smoking.
(Option F:) For the purposes of trade, it is antiquated to think of it as “nations” trading. Rather, if we think of them as economic zones, trade can be liberalized much more effectively. Sure there will be job losses here and there. But it’s all for the good of the “global economy”.
4. Mass Migration Is Critical To Our Success
In order to achieve the “One World Order”, individual nations must be destroyed. Sure they may keep their flags and names, but for all practical purposes, they cannot exist. There must be no true sovereignty allowed.
This aspect has unique challenges. There are plenty of nationalists and ethno-nationalists who want to keep their race, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, and way of life intact. There are those who reject conservatism and libertarianism, (which favour individuality over group survival), in favour of the long term stability of their nation. We need to completely replace the host populations. Being direct and honest will not work in this case. As such other approaches are required:
(Option I:) We can buy off media outlets. The rise in internet use and citizen journalists had led to an utter devastation of traditional media outlets. This presents an opportunity never thought possible: to keep certain media solvent in return for favourable coverage of our practices.
(Option II:) We can install puppet candidates and fund parties whose populist agendas are very similar to ours. With the right rhetoric, the sheeple won’t care that we lie about the true size of annual mass migration. Nor will they care that a “right-wing populist” is only proposing a 7% reduction in current rates. With the right messaging, the patriots will overlook that forced multiculturalism and diversity has never actually been successful, and only leads to balkanization. Members of the Government and Opposition should both have their campaigns contributed to. While common in the US, campaign contribution laws shall be used fully to ensure a cooperative Congress or Parliament.
(Option III:) Straight up gaslighting can and does still work, but the citizenry is getting tired of it. This technique should be used less frequently. Not saying stop entirely, but it shouldn’t be the first tool anymore.
(Option V:) In order to facilitate mass migration and population replacement, we should introduce “throw-away” ideas such as repatriating terrorists to home countries. If successful, we further destabilize the nation states. If unsuccessful, we at least divert their attention away from our real goals.
(Option VI:) One subset of mass migration is promoting high levels of Islamic immigration. Given their desire to take over the world, and propensity for “playing the victim”, this will be useful. Further, the drain on resources of the host nations will make it harder for them to put up resistance. Given Muslims’ very high birthrate, and violent intolerance towards others, they can help replace the populations for us.
Note: we won’t allow the Muslims to actually take over. Rather, they will do much of the leg work for us.
Naturally, the elites will need to meet annually, to ensure a smooth post-national transition takes place.
Once mass migration is sufficiently underway, we can focus on controlling the new masses, and that leads to the next topic: education.
5. Taking Control Of Education
If the agenda is to succeed, we need to take control of the next generation, and the one after that. As noted, children are to become dependent on the schools for everything from meals, to health care, to actual parenting. Yes, the financial costs will be high, but we will pay for it out of the interest payments from the loans we grant to governments. So really, it costs us nothing.
Academia has an important role to play, which is obvious. Scholarly articles, such as those written by Frank Geels and Kirsten Jenkins will add legitimacy to what we are doing.
Another important aspect is to redefine what cultural norms are. This in turn will also help reduce the host populations, which will make it easier to replace them. One such technique is encouraging people, especially young children, to have sex changes. A further technique is to keep pushing for abortion as a “human right”. Less births will of course reduce the host nation’s population. An extra benefit is that baby parts sell for huge amounts to organizations which are sympathetic to our globalist methods.
6. Making It All Come Together
Okay, this is definitely a lot to absorb. But knowing and implementing all of these steps, what have we actually accomplished? Let’s list them:
We have identified ways to commit genocide against nations and their host populations without the obvious evidence of guns, bombs and war
We have raised money by getting nations to borrow heavily from private banks, and never fully pay it back, leading to permanent interest payments
We raised money via bogus environmental scams
We loaned out to nations who cannot pay
We have enlisted corporate partners in our goals
We have invested national pensions and other assets
We have eliminated borders, ensuring efficient trade
We have bought off an obedient media
We have propped up puppet politicians
We reduced the overt gaslighting
We changed the narrative to mass migration being normal
We normalized repatriating terrorists
We weaponized Islamic immigration
We coordinated global leadership meetings
We have made children dependent on schools
We controlled the academic output
We replaced traditional cultural norms
We centralized globalization via UN
This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it should serve as an introduction to global domination.
(1948 Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide)
(Canadians encouraged to have less children)
(Russian Pres. Putin: woke on the myth of civic nationalism. “We may be a multiethnic country, but we are one civilization. We are Russian, first and foremost.”)
(Al Quds in Toronto: We execute gays, and Canada will at some point follow Sharia law. We are making babies. Your population is going down the slumps).
Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau is in the news again. This time the MMIWG Inquiry (Missing or Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls) Inquiry has laid accusations of genocide against Canada, for doing nothing to prevent targeting killings of one group of people.
Apparently, Trudeau believes that the findings amount to a pattern of genocide committed against Indigenous women and girls. In an effort to virtue signal, this had lead to admissions that Canada “does” engage in genocidal practices.
As such, it is now reasonable to ask: will the UN and other foreign bodies be able to investigate Canada for genocide? Will this lead to an even bigger erosion of our sovereignty? Sadly, this is not where this article is heading. Sorry for misleading you.
Strangely, this led to another thought: What if Canada actually “did” commit genocide, but in an entirely different way? What if mass migration, multiculturalism, forced diversity and speech codes actually led to the destruction of a nation and its people?
The article looks at the actual 1948 UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide. It will unironically be compared to some existing laws and practices in Canada. This should be interesting.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide. CLICK HERE, for pushing for replacement of Canadian population. CLICK HERE, for 1988 Multiculturalism Act. CLICK HERE, for a previous critique of multiculturalism. CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid. CLICK HERE, for UN pushing global blasphemy laws. CLICK HERE, for Cairo Declaration on Human Rights. CLICK HERE, for review of Cairo Declaration. CLICK HERE, for Nationalist’s rejection of Conservatism and Libertarianism.
2. Quotes From UN Convention On Genocide
Having people killed or go missing is horrible, no doubt about it. However, it is not the only way to breach the Convention on Preventing and Punishing Genocide. See the following sections.
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The following acts shall be punishable:
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Although killing and mass executions are an obvious and overt form of genocide, there are more subtle ways. Government, media and private organizations can work together in ways to bring about a group’s destruction “over time”. As will be demonstrated, there are ways to erase groups that don’t involve firing a shot.
Keep in mind, Article 2 refers to “bring out the destruction, in all or in part” of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This will be demonstrated in the coming sections.
3. Replacement Migration
This topic was covered in an earlier article, shown here, but the topic is worth bringing up again. While the Government is not explicitly calling for the replacement of the Canadian population, it does push 2 competing narratives:
(A) Canadians should have less children.
(B) Canada needs more mass migration.
Here is the contrast from the previous article.
(CBC wants less Canadian children) CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”. CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome. CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids. CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child. CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture. CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite. CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.
(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general) CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada. CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless. CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration. CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders. CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration. CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation. CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless. CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.
The above are just a small sample of what the CBC, our state funded broadcaster, has been putting out. While calling for Canadians to have fewer (or no) children, our government also advocates for increased immigration to cover for “declining birthrates”.
It is untrue that Canada was “always multicultural”. In the 1971 census, the population was 96% European descent. This “multiculturalism” is a phenomenon of the last 50 years. This was imposed on the population, without any democratic consent.
While CBC is an easy target, it should be noted that politicians of all political parties promote mass migration of very different people, from very different backgrounds and cultures. Diversity is our strength, so the saying goes.
Is this not pushing for the destruction of a group of people? Or is anything and anyone Canadian who wants to be?
4. 1988 Multiculturalism Act
Section 3 of the Act is the most interesting for the purposes of this article. Here it is, in its entirety:
3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.”
Throughout, the Act refers to Canada’s “multicultural history”. This is a complete rewrite of history. For over 100 years, Canada had been built largely as a British colony, with heavy French regions in the east. There are also great swaths of land which belong to various Indigenous groups, and many treaties are still discussed today.
This leaves out that the more extra cultures who gain prominence, the host(s) become diluted and weakened. They become just one of many.
(I) and (J) are nonsensical. They want to promote languages “other than” English and French, while strengthening the status of the official languages. Newsflash, of you promote “other” languages, it leads to the weakening of the status of English and French.
Missing from Section 3 (or any section) is a description of what Canada actually is. All this says is that it is a “collection of identities”. We are told repeatdly that “diversity is our strength”, but with no explanation of how so.
This part, while nice, omits a crucial detail: how does a group preserve their language and culture? Simple, get like people together, form an enclave, and preserve their identity. This type of legislation directly leads to balkanization.
5. Destruction of Religious Groups
Let’s address the elephant in the room: Islam. Liberal idiots seem to believe we can co-exist with a group whose stated (and practiced) goals are the destruction of anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs.
Despite plenty of available evidence, Liberals believe that mass Islamic migration and nurturing the growth of Islam is somehow “showing diversity and tolerance”.
M103 – Systemic racism and religious discrimination
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Islam does not permit the survival of non-muslims. To help achieve this goal, efforts are being made to shut down and ban criticism of Islam. But hey, diversity is our strength.
Naming a park in Winnipeg, MB, after an Islamic warlord named Jinnah (hence Jinnah Park), to celebrate the Muslim takeover of half of India is another symbol of our history being erased.
There are too many cases to cite, but those are a few recent and obvious ones. Canadian history is being erased.
7. Is Multiculturalism & Mass Migration “Genocide”?
Let’s go through the list
Founding people of a nation are replaced.
Culture is replaced in favour of “multiculturalism”.
Common language becomes just one of many.
Main religion (Christianity) is removed, often through violence.
Heritage and history are removed.
The ironically named “Conservatives” do nothing to actually conserve what our nation is. As such, they are complicit in its breakdown.
Yes, it is fair to say that Canadian laws are in fact leading to the genocide of certain groups in Canada. But hey, diversity is our strength.
8. What Was IN MMIWG Report Anyway?
It would not be fair to readers to not at least address this topic.
The conclusions of the MMIWG Report is that these victims are not given the care and seriousness they should have.
1.1. The National Inquiry’s Mandate The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec entrusted a very broad mandate to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, for Quebec.
First, according to Order 711-2016 that created the provincial commission of inquiry, the National Inquiry had to “investigate” and “report on” two main topics: the systemic causes of all forms of violence, and the institutional policies and practices implemented in response to the violence against Indigenous women and girls. To that end, the National Inquiry’s mandate included reviewing the factors that could be associated with the relationships between public services under Quebec’s constitutional jurisdictions, including police forces, health facilities, social and educational services, and Indigenous people more generally.
In addition, the National Inquiry had a mandate to “make recommendations.” These recommendations had to focus on two objectives: to propose concrete and sustainable actions to be implemented to prevent situations of violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, and to significantly improve the quality of relationships between Indigenous people and public services.
Noticeably absent is any mention of “solving the cases” of these women and girls. In fact, the mandate is not about solving any of these murders or disappearances.
In fact, it is a report about various “marginalizations” that these women face. Very little of it has anything to do with the cases of the missing/murdered women.
CLICK HERE, for the UN page on gender equality. CLICK HERE, for women’s human rights. CLICK HERE, for about UN women. CLICK HERE, for goal #5 of sustainable development. CLICK HERE, for guiding principles of UN women’s advisory, civil society groups. CLICK HERE, for the Commission on the Status of Women. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s GBA+ (Gender Based Analysis Plus) CLICK HERE, for declaration of women’s rights. CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Beijing Declaration for Women. CLICK HERE, for the 2017 system-strategy for gender parity. CLICK HERE, for gender-inclusive language CLICK HERE, for guidelines for gender inclusive language. CLICK HERE, for tools & training for gender inclusive language.
Note: As a “Government certified” entity in gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) I am more qualified than the vast majority of people to look at things through a gender spectrum
2. Prison Reform
Our population is approximately 50% males and 50% female (excluding all other categories). Yet the incarcerated population is about 90% male. We need to enact policies to close that gap. Ideas include:
Sentencing laws which give men a “gender based discount” for crimes, just like the Gladue Rights concept
Affirmative action for the police to take the person’s gender into account before finalizing an arrest
Quotas (just like in hiring and universities) so that a certain percentage of all arrested people will be female. Once the 50% threshold is near, we can re-evalute the policies
Reduce arrests for rape and murder, crimes overwhelmingly committed by men
Incentivize men to “identify” as women in order for a reduction in their prison sentences
Similarly, incentives to have men identify as “non-binary”
Turning the men into women will reduce our birthrate anyway. And certainly, what we need is less Canadians, to justify the push for replacement migration. Even the ethno-nationalists can agree with that.
3. Health Care Reform
Before anyone starts pushing a “biological reality” argument, we need to consider the facts. There is a huge disparity in the amount of health care spending between the genders. Look at the data:
Most neo-natal services are for women
Most abortions are for women
Most prescriptions for hormone replacement are for women
Most rape intervention spending is for women
Most gynecological service spending is for women
Most osteoperosis related services are for women
The majority of overall health care spending is for those identifying as female
4. Employment Reform
The wage gap still exists in society. Women are simply not paid the same as men. In order to fix that, every industry everywhere needs to be heavily regulated, and the pay structure monitored. The hiring, the positions, and the wages must all be set by the government. No, this is not Communism, it is forced equity. See the difference?
Most of the dangerous jobs are filled by men
Overwhelming majority of workplace deaths are men
Overwhelming majority of physical jobs filled by men
Most high level management jobs filled by men
Most of overtime hours performed by men
Most STEM and business programs filled by men, while arts and gender studies programs are filled by women
Most men take much less time off for raising children than do women
Yet, in spite of all these “inequities”, there still exists a pay gap. That needs to change. Of course, there also exists the option to force more women into the above categories. Sure, the women may not be happy, but we are here to smash the patriarchy.
5. Cultural & Societal Reform
While this is a very broad category, here are a range of ideas to make our culture more “gender compliant”.
50% of all pornography must be of men, or those who identify as men (regardless of the sexual orientation of the audiences)
50% of all strippers and restaurant staff (such as in Hooters) are required to be men, or at least identify as men
“King” and “Queen” will be purged from our history books to make room for gender neutral monarchies
All clothing stores will be required to add a “non-binary” department
Gay Prides will now be required to hold a “Straight Pride” event
Dating websites can no longer force users to disclose their gender
6. Suicide Reform
This needs to be pointed out: the overwhelming majority of suicides are committed by men. This is unacceptable. We will introduce tax breaks to make suicide more affordable for women.
Ladies, start cutting!
7. Diversity Is Our Strength!
Some people may question this, but consider the following:
All these extra laws and regulations we have to impose to hold our society together — doesn’t that make us stronger? Aren’t we united by having nothing in common?
-Right to self-representation
-Federal Court jurisdiction
-Private & Public standing
-Charter Provisions Engaged
35 (Indigenous Rights)
38 (Amending process)
-High burden to strike out
-Amending as an option
1. Written Submissions
-Does the Plaintiff have the right to self represent in this case?
-Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?
-Is there private or public interest standing in this case?
-Are the following Constitutional provisions engaged: 91 (POGG), 15 (equality rights), 35 (Indigenous rights), 38 (amending the constitution)?
-Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unjust enrichment?
-Does allowing fake refugees into Canada violate the doctrine of unconscionability?
-Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out?
-Is amending the Claim a better option?
-Does the Government lawyer misrepresent the facts?
Canada the US signed the S3CA in 2002. It came into effect in 2004.
Canada is recognized as a safe country, which provides protection to people seeking genuine asylum
The United States is also recognized as a safe country, and offers protection to people seeking protection from persecution based on: race, religion , political beliefs, and identity
Both Canada and the US receive hundreds of thousands of refugee applications annually.
Although there is a loophole in the agreement (which omits crossings “between” official ports), it was never meant to be a path for illegal immigration, or fraudulent refugee claims.
Crossings from the US into Canada mainly fall into 2 categories:
(a) Those coming to the US on tourist visas, with the intent of using the US as a stopover country,
(b) Those living in the US illegally, who have decided to “asylum shop”
There are AT LEAST 40,000 illegals who have snuck into Canada, likely many more.
The Plaintiff is a self-representing, Canadian citizen, concerned about the impacts of illegal immigration. She is interested both as a private citizen, a taxpayer, and as a Canadian.
Preventing illegal immigration (and bogus refugee claims), is both a private interest, and a public interest.
Self represented people have every right to have their cases heard in court.
Illegal immigration (such as via this loophole) undermines the integrity of the immigration system, costs cities and provinces money they don’t have, and undermines the security of the country
For example, the Mayor of Toronto, John Tory, has reported that illegals have taken up almost half of the available space in homeless shelters
The Federal Government has had to reimburse the Provinces (mainly Quebec and Ontario), over $300 million so far due to costs these “refugee claimants” have racked up.
The Federal Government has also been paying the homeowners near Roxham Road — using taxpayer money — for the damage caused to their properties.
Recently, a group of illegal “refugee claimants” has announced plans to sue Quebec for subsidized daycare.
The flood of fake refugees has caused a strain on the health care system, particularly in Ontario and Quebec.
All of the above statements are not “mere assertions”. They are facts which can be proven in the course of the trial and via discovery.
The Government makes at least 3 serious misrepresentations.
First, the Government’s lawyer, Aman Owais, misrepresents the truth when claiming the loophole was “intentionally” written into the agreement. This is provably false, since even Trudeau has publicly spoken about the need to cut the illegal border crossings.
Second, there is a strawman argument that this is about refugee protections. Wrong, it is about protecting the public from illegal immigration.
Third, and furthermore, Aman Owais suggests that it would be better to have a refugee claimant make this claim. This is complete nonsense. A person using legal channels wouldn’t be impacted by this case. A person using illegal means to enter Canada would have no reason to pursue this, as it would be a big conflict of interest.
4. Applicable Law
22: Self representing litigants: From Pintea v. Johns,  1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)
 As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand.
 We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.
B. PROMOTING EQUAL JUSTICE
Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.
1. Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
2. Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.
3. Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.
4. When one or both parties are proceeding without representation, non-prejudicial and engaged case and courtroom management may be needed to protect the litigants’ equal right to be heard. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:
(a) explain the process;
(b) inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
(c) make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
(d) provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
(e) modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
(f) question witnesses.
23: There is nothing in the Pintea v. Johns ruling that says self-represented people can “only” appear in certain courts or in certain types of cases
Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear the case
24: Consider that the test for determining if a matter is within the Federal Court’s jurisdiction is stipulated in ITO-International Terminal Operators LTD v Miida Electronics, 1986 CanLII 91 (SCC),  1 SCR 752 at 766 [ITO-International]:
1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament.
2. There must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
3. The law on which the case is based must be “a law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act.
Furthermore, the Federal Courts Act (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such.
Rule 25: The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.
25: Although designed for Judicial Review Applications, the Federal Court does have authority under Rule 18.1(5) of Federal Courts Act to correct errors in form or technical defects. The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.
Defect in form or technical irregularity,
(5) If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
(a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and
(b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.
26: Immigration matters are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. And this case is essentially about illegal immigration and border security. Furthermore, if this case prevailed, it would certainly have an impact on how asylum claims were handled in the future.
27: The Canadian Border Services Agency enforces the border, and enforces approximately 90 different acts. So there is ample Federal law to be looked at here. They are given their authority under the Customs Act.
28: Furthermore, CBSA enforces such acts as
Access to Information Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1]
Aeronautics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2]
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act [S.C. 1995, c. 40]
Appropriation Acts [R.S.C. 1985, c. Z-01 ]
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3]
Canada Agricultural Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 20 (4th Supp.)]
Canada Grain Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. G-10]
Canada Post Corporation Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-10]
Canada Shipping Act, 2001 [S.C. 2001, c. 26]
Canada Transportation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 10]
Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1997, c. 14]
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 2001, c. 28]
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1996, c. 33]
Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [S.C. 1988, c. 65]
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 [S.C. 1999, c. 33]
Canadian Wheat Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-24]
Coasting Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 31]
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-38]
Criminal Code [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46]
Cultural Property Export and Import Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-51]
Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-53]
Customs Tariff [S.C. 1997, c. 36]
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. A-9]
Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act [S.C. 1994, c. 31]
Department of Industry Act [S.C. 1995, c. 1]
Energy Efficiency Act [S.C. 1992, c. 36]
Excise Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-14]
Excise Act, 2001 [S.C. 2002, c. 22]
Excise Tax Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15]
Explosives Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-17]
Export Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-18]
Export and Import Permits Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. E-19]
Feeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-9]
Fertilizers Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10]
Financial Administration Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11]
Firearms Act [S.C. 1995, c. 39]
Fish Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-12]
Fisheries Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14]
Food and Drugs Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27]
Harbour Commissions Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-1]
Hazardous Products Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. H-3]
Health of Animals Act [S.C. 1990, c. 21]
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [S.C. 2001, c. 27]
Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-3]
Industrial and Regional Development Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-8]
International Boundary Commission Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. I-16 ]
Meat Inspection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. 25 (1st Supp.)]
Motor Vehicle Safety Act [S.C. 1993, c. 16]
National Defence Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5]
National Energy Board Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7]
Navigable Waters Protection Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22]
Nuclear Safety and Control Act [S.C. 1997, c. 9]
Pest Control Products Act [S.C. 2002, c. 28]
Pilotage Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-14]
Plant Breeders’ Rights Act [S.C. 1990, c. 20]
Plant Protection Act [S.C. 1990, c. 22]
Precious Metals Marking Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-19]
Preclearance Act [S.C. 1999, c. 20]
Privacy Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21]
Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. P-24]
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act [S.C. 2000, c. 17]
Radiation Emitting Devices Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-1]
Radiocommunication Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2]
Seeds Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-8]
Special Economic Measures Act [S.C. 1992, c. 17]
Special Import Measures Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15]
Statistics Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. S-19]
Textile Labelling Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-10]
Trade-marks Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13]
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 [S.C. 1992, c. 34]
Visiting Forces Act [R.S.C. 1985, c. V-2]
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act [S.C. 1992, c. 52]
29: The border clearly is being protected in accordance with Federal laws, and Acts passed by Parliament. So loopholes which make it harder for them to do their job at least conflict with Federal laws.
30: It has also long been held that,
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG)), and that it is a tool for dispute resolution, of which one of the most important goals is to serve well those who make use of it: Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1996 CanLII 259 (SCC),  1 SCR 186 at 210.
There private & public interest standing in this case
31: Three cases which are used to determine public interest standing are:
(a) Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, (b) Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and (c) Minister of
Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):
It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects.
First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question?
Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity?
Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
32: First: if this “interpretation” of the S3CA is as the Government claims, then effectively the Canada/US border disappears, except for a small number of official crossings. That is pretty serious. Illegal immigration cannot simply be shrugged off if it is not the government raising the issue.
33: Second: Yes, I am effected by illegal immigration. As a taxpayer, and as a citizen who wants secure borders. Clearly I have a genuine interest here. Why else go to court to do this? It is insulting and misrepresents reality to suggest that citizens are not concerned and interested in the external security of their nation.
34: Third, there doesn’t seem to be another reasonable or effective way to bring it to the Courts. It is the Government itself, with a majority mandate, which seems content to end-run the intent of the law.
35: Note: Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found
in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)
36: Plaintiff submits that there clearly is standing to bring forward these justiciable issues on the facts pleaded. This standing is personal, but it is also public interest-based and is in line with recent jurisprudence: Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 (CanLII); Galati, above.
Following Constitutional provisions engaged:
15 (equality rights),
35 (Indigenous rights),
38 (amending the constitution)
Peace, Order & Good Governance (Section 91)
37: Consider the case of R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd.,  1 SCR 401, 1988 CanLII 63 (SCC).
33. From this survey of the opinion expressed in this Court concerning the national concern doctrine of the federal peace, order and good government power I draw the following conclusions as to what now appears to be firmly established:
1. The national concern doctrine is separate and distinct from the national emergency doctrine of the peace, order and good government power, which is chiefly distinguishable by the fact that it provides a constitutional basis for what is necessarily legislation of a temporary nature;
2. The national concern doctrine applies to both new matters which did not exist at Confederation and to matters which, although originally matters of a local or private nature in a province, have since, in the absence of national emergency, become matters of national concern;
3. For a matter to qualify as a matter of national concern in either sense it must have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern and a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the fundamental distribution of legislative power under the Constitution;
38: In looking this through the Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) doctrine, it is worth asking should we allow actions that our laws seem designed to prevent?
34(1)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits: engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada.
39: Allowing fake refugees to slip in arounf official border ports in order to “jump the queue” seems hardly in keeping with the POGG principle, or Rule 34(1)(b.1). Again, it is submitted that poor wording, not intent is the cause of this loophole.
40: The Court must also consider the national security implications of protecting the border. This should be obvious, but a nation that cannot control its border ceases to be a nation.
41: Currently, illegal border jumpers (fleeing war zones in Minnesota and New York State), are able to illegally enter Canada. They are processed, then released into the public often within hours. There is no public interest in doing this.
42: Given the vast amount of unscreened and unvetted fake “refuges” entering, there is no way to keep the public safe. This is not consistent with POGG in any sense.
43: Again, the Government’s lawyer “claims” that this loophole was intentionally written into the S3CA. This is even while Justin Trudeau and other Government members profess their desire to cut illegal entries. Obviously, both statements can’t be true.
44: As cited above, there are literally dozens of Acts which members of the CBSA are charged with enforcing. Obviously, enforcing the border is a sign of POGG. Now, how does adding a loophole to bypass some of these Acts make any sense?
45: How does it now undermine our national security? Borders are meant to be the protected outer areas of a nation. No one, except the most disingenuous would argue that borders do not matter. However, the Government does an end run around that (violating POGG doctrine), by claiming the loophole in the S3CA was intentional.
46: Border security “doesn’t” matter, apparently, as long as you go around the official checkpoints.
Section 15; Equality Rights:
47: This seems like a strange one to bring up. However, the Government of Canada’s website on Charter cases brought up an interesting argument about equality under the law.
(a) Pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue
Section 15 has a significant remedial component (Andrews, supra at 171). Therefore, one of the most compelling factors is the impact of the governmental action on individuals or groups who are vulnerable, the object of stereotypes, disadvantaged or members of “discrete and insular minorities” (Law, supra at paragraphs 63-68). A member of a group that historically has been more disadvantaged in Canadian society is less likely to have difficulty in demonstrating discrimination (Law, supra at paragraph 68). When considering intra-group distinctions within a larger disadvantaged group (for example, as between status and non-status Indians, as determined pursuant to the Indian Act), there is no requirement that the claimant group be the more disadvantaged; there is no “race to the bottom” (Lovelace, supra at paragraph 69). Where no such unique disadvantage is established, as distinct from the broader group which provides the basis for comparison, this factor does not play a significant role (Gosselin, supra; Martin; Laseur, supra at paragraph 88).
48: In this case, the disadvantaged people are those who immigrate legally into Canada, and go through proper channels.
True, Canada’s immigration system is slow, expensive, and very complex. But that is a debate for another day. Point is, hundreds of thousands of people follow proper due process every year.
49: They are the ones who suffer as “border jumpers” push ahead of them, and get preferential treatment, and access to benefits. Furthermore, they are the ones who suffer the public backlash as Canadian get fed up with mass, illegal immigration.
50: In short, legal applicants suffer because of the actions of criminals.
Section 35: Indigenous Rights
51: From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests),  3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.
26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?
27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.
52: The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director),  3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.
25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.
53: It is a serious question here: how much consultation (if any), was done before signing a document that — the Federal Government now claims — eliminates the security of the Canada/US border? Just because there isn’t a claim pending doesn’t mean there are not valid Indigenous interests to be considered
54: No consultation process took place — EVER — which would fulfill the obligations to negotiate in good faith with Indigenous groups. The Government claims that the S3CA was “designed” to allow for entrants from the United States to make refugee claims, as long as they bypass the official border ports.
It would be disingenuous for the Federal Government to claim that it wouldn’t be aware of any obligation to consult prior to “erasing” the US/Canada border.
55: The Government breached is S35 obligations if, by this defense, the S3CA was drawn up with the loophole “intentionally” left in.
Substantial Consent required (section 38)
56: If the Government truly believes that POGG, and other obligations can be circumvented by intentional poor wording, then we need to amend the constitution to change what POGG means.
57: This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform,  1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.
 The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.
58: If what the Government says is true, then the doctrine of Peace, Order and Good Government (POGG) has been distorted to such a degree that a Constitutional amendment should be required.
59: These constitutional arguments are not exhaustive, and will be expanded on more fully as the case progresses. The point here, is that the case at hand (the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement), engages the same Charter rights as what is cited here.
Doctrine of unjust enrichment
60: The Court must also consider how allowing illegal immigration and fake refugees to gain priority over legal immigrant violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
61: Citing from 3 cases:
Kerr v. Baranow,  S.C.J.
Kerr v. Baranow, 2009 BCCA 111
Vanasse v. Seguin, 2009 ONCA 595
62: These cases set the standard for unjust enrichment. (a) the person received a benefit, (b) the claimant suffered a loss corresponding in some way to the benefit, and (c) there was no juristic reason for the benefit and the loss.
63: As stated in the facts, these so-called “refugees” have been accessing public services. This costs money, and takes away from actual citizens.
64: And forget the money factor for a moment. Isn’t Canadian residence or citizenship a thing of value itself? If we consider that being Canadian is something to be valued, then doesn’t obtaining it (or Permanent Residence, or Protected Status) under false pretenses count as illegally obtaining a benefit?
Doctrine of unconscionability
65: From the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trying to circumvent proper immigration channels should not be rewarded.
34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
66: If the loophole in S3CA was written in such a way as to circumvent very legitimate national security and immigration concerns, then how valid and enforceable is it?
67: Remember, Aman Owais, (the Government’s lawyer) has pleaded the intent of the agreement was “not” to apply the proper screening rules as long as self-identified “refugees” bypass official border ports. This is claimed to be intentional, not accidental.
68: Notwithstanding that no reasonable person could view it that way, and notwithstanding the Canadian Government has made announcements to cut down on these crossings, how valid are these provisions?
Does this motion meet the “very” high burden to strike out
69: Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.
In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC),  2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC),  2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC),  1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].
The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt,
The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim.
70: This case DOES raise an important point of law, one the Defendant pretends doesn’t exist. Can the Court close a plain and obvious loophole in the S3CA?
71: Can a clearly frivilious, fraudulent, abusive and vexxing defense filed by the Crown be overcome?
72: Note: this does not amount to a rejection of the agreement as a whole. For the most part, it is a fine document.
Amending the Claim a better option
73: The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.
The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).
74: The facts as laid out in the above section are not bare assertions. They can be proven in court, going through the discovery and document production phases. It is not at all plain and obvious that the Claim is baseless.
75: Any flaws in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim could be cured by amending.
Government lawyer misrepresents the facts
76: The Government claims, without any basis, that the S3CA was negotiated with the “loophole” deliberately written in. In essence, they are arguing that although the Canada/US border stretches for thousands of miles, only the few dozen “legal” entry ports should be considered. Anywhere else, people are free to walk across and claim asylum. If this were actually true, it would effectively erase the Canadian border.
77: Bald assertions, without supporting facts, are not sufficient to satisfy the rules of pleading. See Rule 174 and accompanying jurisprudence. This should also applies to motions to strike.
78: Bald assertions, without facts, are baseless. If any part of the claim is “plainly and obviously” without merit, it is the defense raised by the Government.
79: The claim that the S3CA was “intended” to allow illegal border crossings is fraudulent, and an attempt to mislead and deceive the court by Aman Owais. This is plain and obvious given that members of the Government, including Justin Trudeau himself, have publicly stated the need to stop illegal border crossings. The false defense violates Rule 221, as a frivilous, vexous, and abusive misuse of Court procedure.
80: This can and will be proven in a trial.
81: Also worth noting: according to Rule 221, “inconsistent pleadings” can be struck out. So if the Government ever tries to put another spin on this, it will automatically qualify for striking.
82: And to reiterate: the “remedy” suggested makes no sense. A person entering Canada legally would have no interest in the case, since it only covers illegal entry. A person entering Canada illegally would have no reason to pursue the case, as it would be a conflict of interest. This absurd solution wastes court resources.
83: The government also appears to distort the purpose of the case. It is about protecting the Canadian public from illegal immigration, not making things easier for people to cross the border.
84: To add insult, Aman Owais also implies that I have no business attempting this case since I am not a lawyer. Arrogance. Pintea v Johns (2017, SCC) enshrines protections for “all” self-representing litigants. It doesn’t limit it to certain types of cases, or certain Courts.
85: Will closing this loophole have an impact on current and future cases? Hopefully. Otherwise, what would be the point of going to Court?
86: Plaintiff has a right to self represent
87: Federal Court has jurisdiction
88: Plaintiff has both a private interest, and qualifies for public interest standing
90: Allowing fake refugees into Canada violates the doctrine of unjust enrichment & unconscionability
91: Motion doesn’t meet the “very” high burden to strike out
92: Amending the Claim a better option than striking without leave.
93: Note: This is not an attempt to get to court to make a final ruling on the case. Rather, it is to show that there is merit to the case
94: The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG))
95: The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson
96: The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).
5. Order Sought
(a) Dismiss the motion; or
(b) Allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the statement of claim.
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.
Firefighters were warned about string of arsons before destructive Lake Country wildfire
Soon after that disastrous July day, Smith and the other homeowners learned that investigators believed the fire had been set deliberately.
And then this week, there was more unsettling news — police had connected the Lake Country wildfire to 28 other Okanagan arson cases dating back to 2014. The RCMP have set up a task force to track down the person or people responsible.
The fires were set in Naramata, Okanagan Falls, Osoyoos, Oliver, Penticton, Summerland and Lake Country — mostly in the interface areas where wilderness meets human habitation.
The 29 wildfires include, in part, the following:
July 7, 2014, K50209, Naramata
July 7, 2014, White Lake Road, Penticton
July 9, 2014, Richter Pass, Osoyoos
July 15, 2014, Mt. Kobau, Oliver
July 15, 2014, Apex Road, Penticton
July 17, 2014, Reservoir Road / Landfill Road, Penticton
July 22, 2014, White Lake Road, Okanagan Falls
Aug. 11, 2014, Chute Lake Road, Naramata
Aug. 11, 2014, Green Mountain Road, Penticton
Aug. 13, 2014, White Lake Road, Penticton
Aug. 19, 2014, North Naramata Road, Naramata
Sept. 15, 2014, Green Mountain Road, Penticton
July 2, 2015, Canyon View Road, Summerland
Aug. 7, 2015, Pampas Grass Way, Oliver
Aug. 8, 2015, Spiller Road, Penticton
Aug. 11, 2015, Commonage Road, Lake Country
Aug. 11, 2015, Beaver Lake Road, Lake Country
Aug. 12, 2015, Gulch Road, Naramata
Aug. 14, 2015, White Lake Road, Penticton
April 9, 2016, Fairview-Cawston Road, Cawston
Aug. 17, 2016, Commonage Road, Lake Country
Aug. 17, 2016, Oyama Road, Lake Country
July 3, 2017, Pixie Beach, Lake Country
July 15, 2017, Okanagan Centre RoadW, Lake Country
Sept. 1, 2017, Westhills Road, Penticton
Sept. 1, 2017, Old Princeton Hwy, Summerland
This is where things currently are in Canada. “Progressive” politicians in Canada are so eager to push the climate change agenda that they will outright lie about arson in order to suit a narrative.
It’s disgusting. And worse, it potentially helps the actual arsonist(s) get away, by telling the public there was no crime committed.
(Tucker Carlson: Social Costs to Communities Most Important)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s trade deal consultations. CLICK HERE, for archived link to Canada-China free trade. CLICK HERE, for FAQ on Canada-China free trade deal. CLICK HERE, for EPI study. Estimated 3.4M jobs lost from US to China 2001-2017. CLICK HERE, for China’s currency manipulation. CLICK HERE, for Stephen Harper supporting free trade with China. CLICK HERE, for Justin Trudeau supporting free trade with China. CLICK HERE, for Maxime Bernier endorsing free trade with China. CLICK HERE, for NDP response to possible FTA. CLICK HERE, for CATO Institute, Disciplining China. CLICK HERE, for a CATO Institute brochure.
1. From Archived Pages
There have been many concerns with dealing with China. To name just some of them:
Human rights abuses
No respect for intellectual property
Unsafe products entering Canada
To put is bluntly, the answers are not reassuring. They are the political-talk we have come to expect that avoids giving concrete answers.
Canada has robust regulatory requirements and strong enforcement action can be taken on unsafe products entering the country. Regardless of country of origin, if the Canadian government identifies products that do not meet regulatory requirements, enforcement action will be taken. Enforcement action can take a number of forms, including recall.
Canada’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China works to protect Canadian investments in China, and is among the most ambitious investment agreements China has ever ratified.
A possible FTA could include provisions that would help to mitigate the risk of IP infringements. We would like to hear from you on your experience with IP rights in the context of the Canada-China commercial relationship. Additionally, Canadian firms are encouraged to raise any IP problems they have in China or other overseas market with the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service.
This all sounds lovely, but to a critical person, this seems more like an attempt to emotionally soothe than to persuade with facts.
3. Major Job Losses
Looking at the Economic Policy Institute Study, shown here, from 2001 to 2017, the US lost 3.4 million jobs to China as a result of a growing trade deficit. China can produce much cheaper and in much higher numbers.
Both increased imports and technical products have done a number on the US job market, who simply cannot compete.
While this is an American study, it would be wise to use it as a cautionary tale for Canada as well.
CURRENCY MANIPULATION EXPLAINED
One unfair way to gain an advantage over a foreign competitor is to manipulate the currency. China has been doing this for a long time, and it leads to an economic advantage that few can match. The Forbes article explains it well.
First, a bit of background. The Chinese currency, called the renminbi, is what’s known as a policy currency. That means that unlike the U.S. dollar, which rises and falls in value in free market trading, the currency’s value against the dollar is set by the People’s Bank of China, an arm of the Chinese government.
While the PBOC has gradually tried to make the value of the renminbi more reflective of market forces, setting trading bands in which the renminbi is allowed to fluctuate every day, in the last analysis it is still under government control. Put another way, the value of the renminbi is manipulated by the government and always has been. It’s just that when Beijing was manipulating the value so that the renminbi appreciated against the dollar in the last few years, nobody in Washington complained.
When the Chinese Government manipulates its currency, it does so in order to artificially cheapen the costs of its products, and to gain an advantage over competitors.
In a “free market” world, this sort of thing should never be allowed.
4. CATO Institute Hypocrisy
Note: CATO calls itself a public policy institute, dedicated to free trade, liberalization and free markets. It is based in the US. But its conflicting observations are disturbing. From their website, they post an article which contains these remarks:
The Trump administration believes that the international dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) offers no effective remedy for these practices, and prefers an approach that relies mostly on unilateral tariffs. The administration sees the issue as follows. China’s mercantilist state systematically discriminates against foreign products and foreign producers in China while forcing foreign companies to hand over their intellectual property (IP) as the price of access to China’s large and growing market. China engages in widespread cheating in its trade practices, including not only high tariffs, domestic content requirements, and other traditional forms of protectionism, but also rigged regulations that erect trade barriers by favoring Chinese companies and outright theft of foreign IP. And, Trump and his trade cohorts say repeatedly, there is virtually nothing the United States can do under current WTO rules to stop this predatory Chinese behavior.
Worth noting is that CATO doesn’t dispute the accuracy or factual basis of Donald Trump’s claims. They don’t dispute the one sided advantage that is posed here. However, there is an interesting brochure that CATO released:
Supporting China’s membership in the WTO in 2001 was not a mistake by the United States. All 163 other members of the WTO, including the United States, are much better off because China is inside the rules-based global trading system and has not been left outside it. China has made great strides since 2001 toward full compliance with the rules of the WTO trading system.
An organization which promotes liberalized trade is okay when one of its members blatantly acts against the rules and its principles. Okay.
5. Main Canadian Parties Support This
Despite all the problems outline above, it is: SUPPORTED, by People’s Party. SUPPORTED, by the Conservative Party. SUPPORTED, by the Liberal Party
A potential free trade agreement raises many questions that are yet unanswered. China has no free press, torture is widespread, workers do not have a right to collective bargaining, and hundreds of human rights defenders and dissidents have been detained.
Environmental protections, labour standards, and human rights must be at the forefront of any trade and investment discussions, and any trade deal must support Canadian jobs, not just focus on selling Canadian resources to be processed abroad.
The Liberals have failed to take action to address steel dumping by Chinese companies which put Canadian businesses at a dangerous disadvantage. China also has a questionable record on currency manipulation and unfair trade practices, and does not have market economy status, which means it would be very difficult to have a level playing field in a free trade deal.
There are also concerns about protecting the intellectual property of Canadians and the behaviour of state-owned enterprises in China, including through the takeover of Canadian companies that work on sensitive technologies.
Before making a decision on whether to begin formal negotiations, the government needs to clearly address all these concerns, and consult with Canadians before rushing into a deal that is against their interests.”
What the hell? Why am I agreeing with the NDP on this? Since when did an openly socialist party become the voice of reason?
The again, a NATIONALIST approach would also conclude free trade with China is a bad idea.
6. Not Worth It
Watch the video with Tucker Carlson, at the top of the article. He explains that it is a better way to ensure stability of communities and jobs than to look at a purely profit motive. Well worth a watch. While the talk relates to automating vehicles — and putting truck drivers out of work — the same rationale can be applied here.
While there may be some benefits to an agreement with China, there are simply too many social costs to Canada that need to be seriously looked at:
How many jobs will be lost?
What will happen to communities with major job losses?
What about environmental protection?
Would we be rewarding sweatshop conditions?
Can we protect people’s intellectual property?
Will we be undercut by currency manipulation?
Is getting cheaper products worth the social cost?
It’s not all about GDP, stock prices, or corporate profits. What will a free trade agreement with China do to Canada?
Author’s Note: The topic of online trolling was originally meant to be brought up as satire. However, the actual text of the law merits a serious piece.
DEFAMATORY LIBEL laws are still on the books!
CLICK HERE, for a prior review of Bill C-71 (firearms) CLICK HERE, for a prior review of Bill C-75 (terrorism) CLICK HERE, for global efforts to ban criticism of Islam. CLICK HERE, for “defamatory libel” in the Criminal Code. CLICK HERE, for previous version. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. CLICK HERE, for R. v. Stevens, 1993 CanLII 14706 (MB PC). CLICK HERE, for cases linked to R. v. Stevens. CLICK HERE, for R. v. Lucas, (1998)
FROM THE CRIMINAL CODE
Definition of newspaper
297 In sections 303, 304 and 308, newspaper means any paper, magazine or periodical containing public news, intelligence or reports of events, or any remarks or observations thereon, printed for sale and published periodically or in parts or numbers, at intervals not exceeding thirty-one days between the publication of any two such papers, parts or numbers, and any paper, magazine or periodical printed in order to be dispersed and made public, weekly or more often, or at intervals not exceeding thirty-one days, that contains advertisements, exclusively or principally.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 261.
Definition 298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 262.
299 A person publishes a libel when he
(a) exhibits it in public;
(b) causes it to be read or seen; or
(c) shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by any person other than the person whom it defames.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 299; 2018, c. 29, s. 31.
Punishment of libel known to be false
300 Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 264.
Punishment for defamatory libel
301 Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 265.
Extortion by libel
302 (1) Every one commits an offence who, with intent
(a) to extort money from any person, or
(b) to induce a person to confer on or procure for another person an appointment or office of profit or trust,
publishes or threatens to publish or offers to abstain from publishing or to prevent the publication of a defamatory libel.
(2) Every one commits an offence who, as the result of the refusal of any person to permit money to be extorted or to confer or procure an appointment or office of profit or trust, publishes or threatens to publish a defamatory libel.
(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 266.
Proprietor of newspaper presumed responsible
303 (1) The proprietor of a newspaper shall be deemed to publish defamatory matter that is inserted and published therein, unless he proves that the defamatory matter was inserted in the newspaper without his knowledge and without negligence on his part.
General authority to manager when negligence
(2) Where the proprietor of a newspaper gives to a person general authority to manage or conduct the newspaper as editor or otherwise, the insertion by that person of defamatory matter in the newspaper shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be deemed not to be negligence on the part of the proprietor unless it is proved that
(a) he intended the general authority to include authority to insert defamatory matter in the newspaper; or
(b) he continued to confer general authority after he knew that it had been exercised by the insertion of defamatory matter in the newspaper.
(3) No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he sells a number or part of a newspaper that contains a defamatory libel, unless he knows that the number or part contains defamatory matter or that defamatory matter is habitually contained in the newspaper.
Selling book containing defamatory libel
304 (1) No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he sells a book, magazine, pamphlet or other thing, other than a newspaper that contains defamatory matter, if, at the time of the sale, he does not know that it contains the defamatory matter.
Sale by servant
(2) Where a servant, in the course of his employment, sells a book, magazine, pamphlet or other thing, other than a newspaper, the employer shall be deemed not to publish any defamatory matter contained therein unless it is proved that the employer authorized the sale knowing that
(a) defamatory matter was contained therein; or
(b) defamatory matter was habitually contained therein, in the case of a periodical.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 268.
Under 301 defamatory libel is punishable by up to 2 years. However, in Section 300 publishing defamatory libel is punishable by up to 5 years. What exactly is the difference?
Bill C-75 (terrorism and other offences) included provisions to make terrorism eligible to be tried summarily (for lesser punishments). However, mean words is automatically indictable. Seriously?
Obvious question: but in a free society, why would civil infractions be criminalized?
Under Section 298(1) and (2), irony and satire seem to be included.
Under Section 303, newspaper editors are “assumed” to be liable. So much for the presumption of innocence in our criminal “justice” system.
However, when publishing a “book” (under Section 304), the publisher is assumed not to be have known.
DEFENSES TO DEFAMATORY LIBEL
Well, there are some defenses, which is good to know. For example, it’s not a crime if bad things are said in the context of divorce proceedings, or parliamentary or judicial proceedings.
Fair report of public meeting
308 No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes in good faith, in a newspaper, a fair report of the proceedings of any public meeting if
(a) the meeting is lawfully convened for a lawful purpose and is open to the public;
(b) the report is fair and accurate;
(c) the publication of the matter complained of is for the public benefit; and
(d) he does not refuse to publish in a conspicuous place in the newspaper a reasonable explanation or contradiction by the person defamed in respect of the defamatory matter.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 272.
309 No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 273.
Fair comment on public person or work of art
310 No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes fair comments
(a) on the public conduct of a person who takes part in public affairs; or
(b) on a published book or other literary production, or on any composition or work of art or performance publicly exhibited, or on any other communication made to the public on any subject, if the comments are confined to criticism thereof.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 274.
When truth a defence
311 No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel where he proves that the publication of the defamatory matter in the manner in which it was published was for the public benefit at the time when it was published and that the matter itself was true.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 275.
Publication invited or necessary
312 No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter
(a) on the invitation or challenge of the person in respect of whom it is published, or
(b) that it is necessary to publish in order to refute defamatory matter published in respect of him by another person,
if he believes that the defamatory matter is true and it is relevant to the invitation, challenge or necessary refutation, as the case may be, and does not in any respect exceed what is reasonably sufficient in the circumstances.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 276.
Answer to inquiries
313 No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes, in answer to inquiries made to him, defamatory matter relating to a subject-matter in respect of which the person by whom or on whose behalf the inquiries are made has an interest in knowing the truth or who, on reasonable grounds, the person who publishes the defamatory matter believes has such an interest, if
(a) the matter is published, in good faith, for the purpose of giving information in answer to the inquiries;
(b) the person who publishes the defamatory matter believes that it is true;
(c) the defamatory matter is relevant to the inquiries; and
(d) the defamatory matter does not in any respect exceed what is reasonably sufficient in the circumstances.
Good to know that truth is a valid defense. Also, “public benefit” considered to be a defense. But don’t we have something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Aren’t there fundamental freedoms guaranteed to us? Let’s take a look.
But first, let’s look at a silly comparison: what are the punishments for advocating genocide?
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF CANADIAN CHARTER
318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Definition of genocide
(2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General
That’s right. Advocating genocide is an indictable offense, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
Think that through. Insulting people publicly can be treated just as harshly as actually calling for people to be exterminated.
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF CANADIAN CHARTER
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
On the surface, yes, fee speech, belief, expression and opinion are guaranteed. Yet these “defamatory libel” laws are still on the books. So what happens when they collide?
1. Is s. 300 of the Criminal Code of Canada an infringement of freedom of expression as guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. If s. 300 of the Criminal Code is an infringement of the Charter can it be upheld under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society?
While I have struck down certain portions of ss. 298 and 299 for failing the proportionality test under s. 1, this result has no impact in the present case in view of the findings of fact previously made by this court.
Accordingly, I find Mr. Stevens guilty of the offence under s. 300
of the Criminal Code as charged.
This Judge rules that yes, it is a violation of the Charter, but a justifiable one under Section 1.
 In his reasons for sentence ((1995), 1995 CanLII 4081 (SK QB), 132 Sask. R. 71), the trial judge stated “that John David Lucas was the instigator and Johanna Erna Lucas was his follower” (p. 74). This finding raises the possibility that Mrs. Lucas’s knowledge might have derived at least in part from what she was told by Mr. Lucas, and she may therefore have believed that the message was true even though in fact it was not.
 In the absence of findings of fact by the trial judge related to subjective knowledge, there is insufficient evidence before this Court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Lucas knew that the messages on the placard she carried were false. Accordingly, her conviction must be set aside.
 Ordinarily, a new trial would be ordered. However, in light of the Crown’s statement that in the circumstances the Crown would not proceed with a new trial, I would direct an acquittal of Mrs. Lucas.
An acquittal here, but only because the person didn’t know the statements weren’t true.
DO WE HAVE FREE SPEECH?
To a point, yes. However, a free speech absolutist would argue that no, that isn’t free speech.
However, in the world of everyone criticizing everyone, this type of law seems to easy to be abused. One person’s satire and trolling is another person’s hate and defamatory libel.
There are several other cases to go through. But the point here remains:
DEFAMATORY LIBEL laws are still on the books!
There are plenty of “civil” cases for defamation even in recent years. However, “criminal” cases for defamation seem to be a thing of the past. Probably since there are far more important things for police and prosecutors to busy themselves with.
Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.
CLICK HERE, for a copy of the claim. CLICK HERE, for link to Chicago Police Department. CLICK HERE, for Tina Tchen and Michelle Obama. CLICK HERE, for talks between Tina Tchen and Kim Foxx. CLICK HERE, for talks between Kim Foxx and Smollett’s family. CLICK HERE, for donations made by George Soros to Kim Foxx. CLICK HERE, for the Soros-Foxx connection. CLICK HERE, for Mark Geragos and Michael Avenatti. CLICK HERE, for Avenatti and Kim Foxx. CLICK HERE, for Avenatti and Geragos backstory. CLICK HERE, for Geragos threatening to depose Mayor Rahm Emanuel. CLICK HERE, for Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral scandal.
Toto, I guess we’re not in MAGA Country anymore.
8. Abel responded to Defendant via text message that he and Ola were scheduled to depart the evening of January 29, 2019.
9. After Abel confirmed the date and time of his trip, Defendant texted Abel, “Might need your help on the low. You around to meet up and talk face to face?”
10. That same day, January 25, 2019, GPS records and video evidence indicate that Defendant drove Abel from Empire’s Cinespace Studio to Abel’s apartment. During the ride, Defendant stated that he was unhappy with the way his employers handled a racist and homophobic letter he had allegedly received three days earlier, and, as a result, he wanted to stage an attack where Abel would appear to batter him.
11. Video evidence shows that Defendant and Abel reached Abel’s apartment at approximately 5:00 P.M. on January 25th. When they arrived, Ola, who was then living with Abel, came out of the apartment and sat with Defendant and Abel in Defendant’s vehicle. Once
inside, Defendant asked Ola if he could trust him and Ola assented.
12. After Ola attested to his trustworthiness, Defendant and Abel and Ola (the “Osundairo Brothers”) discussed their plan to stage a fake racist and homophobic attack on Defendant. Defendant directed the Osundairo Brothers to stage the fake attack on the evening of January 28, 2019, near his apartment building in Streeterville. Defendant and the Osundairo Brothers agreed that the Osundairo Brothers would catch Defendant’s attention, and the fake attack would begin when the Osundairo Brothers called Defendant an “Empire F—– Empire N—.”
In the lawsuit, Chicago claims the entire attack was staged, and that it was rehearsed ahead of time. Regarding the racist letter referred to in Paragraph 10, Smollett is also under investigation for sending it to himself.
48. For the next two weeks, the CPD expended significant resources investigating Defendant’s false report of a high-profile hate crime and physical assault. Over two dozen CPD officers and detectives participated in the investigation, ultimately spending weeks investigating Defendant’s false statements. During the course of CPD’s investigation into Defendant’s false statements, CPD has incurred 1,836 overtime hours, which resulted in the City paying $130,106.15 in overtime pay as result of Defendant’s false statements.
49. Eventually, after an extensive investigation using interviews, surveillance videos, Office of Emergency Management pod videos, in-car taxi camera videos, rideshare records, bank records, and a store receipt, CPD identified the Osundairo Brothers as the perpetrators of the alleged attack.
That is expensive, no question. But a little clarification on the pay rates
$130,106.15/1836hr = $70.86/hr, which is seems high even for overtime
If overtime is double time, it’s $35.43/hr
If overtime is time and a half, it’s $47.24/
50. On February 13, 2019, the Osundairo Brothers returned from Nigeria. They were immediately and separately detained upon their arrival at O’Hare. CPD investigators thereafter obtained testimony and corroborating evidence from the Osundairo Brothers that showed Defendant had orchestrated and staged the attack with the cooperation of the Osundairo Brothers, and that Defendant’s police report was false.
51. On February 14, 2019, CPD officers interviewed Defendant again about the Still Photo that he had said on Good Morning America showed his attackers. Defendant again stated that he was certain that the Still Photo depicted the men who had attacked him.
52. CPD officers then told Defendant that the men in the Still Photo had been identified as the Osundairo Brothers.
53. Defendant made further false statements by claiming that his only relationship with the Osundairo Brothers was as trainers and social acquaintances, claiming that they could not have been his attackers.
The attack was staged, then the brothers fled the country. They were arrested when they returned.
WHAT DO THE LAWS SAY?
About the False Statements Ordinance:
56. Subsection 1-21-010(a) of the FSO provides that:
[a]ny person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or regulation, or who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in connection with any application, report, affidavit, oath, or attestation, including a statement of material fact made in connection with a bid, proposal, contract or economic disclosure statement or affidavit, is liable to the city for a civil penalty of not less than $500.00 and not more than $1,000.00, plus up to three times the amount of damages which the city sustains because of the person’s violation of this section. A person who violates this section shall also be liable for the city’s litigation and collection costs and attorneys’ fees.
Note: While triple the damages is optional, court costs and the fine are not. But this is not the only count Smollett is facing in this civil complaint.
About the Cost Recovery Ordinance:
64. The CRO provides that “[a]ny person who causes the city or its agents to incur costs in order to provide services reasonably related to such person’s violation of any federal, state or local law, or such person’s failure to correct conditions which violate any federal, state or local law when such person was under a legal duty to do so, shall be liable to the city for those costs.” MCC § 1-20-020.
65. Under the CRO, “‘costs’ includes all costs of the city incurred in relation to the provision of services by the city or its agents, regardless of whether the city would have otherwise incurred those costs, including but not limited to wages and benefits of personnel involved in providing such services, reasonable costs of equipment used in the provision of such services, costs of materials expended in providing such services, costs of storing hazardous or any other materials recovered during the course of providing such services, or any other costs allocable to the provision of services.”
66. In addition, “[i]n any action brought under [the CRO], the City of Chicago shall also be entitled to recover a penalty in an amount equal to the city’s litigation and collection costs and attorney’s fees.” MCC § 1-20-060.
67. The City is entitled to recovery of the costs of necessary services provided by the City in order to provide services in investigating and responding to Defendant’s violations of the MCC, together with its litigation and collection costs and attorney’s fees. MCC § 1-20-010
It appears that the City of Chicago is trying to go after Smollett on “both” the FSO and CRO. A bit of double dipping, but let’s see what it adds up to
Under False Statements Ordinance
Fine of $500-$1000.
Up to triple the $130,106.16, or $390,318.45
Under Cost Recovery Ordinance (CRO)
City’s expenses of $130,106.15
Penalty equal to city expenses of $130,106.15
Collection and attorney’s fees
Other costs as directed by the court
In worse case scenario, Smollett would be looking at FIVE TIMES the cost of the investigation, or $650,530.78. This is on top of potentially double the lawyers’ fees and a $1,000 fine.
In short, this could plausibly top $1 million if the Judge came down hard on Smollett. But given Smollett’s connections, it’s possible he could skate on this as well.
WHY WERE THE CHARGES DROPPED?
From the USA Today article: Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx earlier this month released a series of text messages and emails to and from Tina Tchen, a prominent Chicago attorney and former chief of staff to Michelle Obama, and an unnamed Smollett relative.
The messages were sent to convey the family’s unease with how police were handling their investigation of an alleged attack on the actor at a moment when police were still classifying Smollett as a victim, according to Tchen.
“I know members of the Smollett family based on prior work together,” Tchen said in a statement. “Shortly after Mr. Smollett reported he was attacked, as a family friend, I contacted Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who I also know from prior work together. My sole activity was to put the chief prosecutor in the case in touch with an alleged victim’s family who had concerns about how the investigation was being characterized in public.”
Foxx said she recused herself from the investigation because of her contacts with Tchen and the Smollett family member. The prosecutor wrote to Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson after the contacts to convey that the family wanted the FBI to take over the investigation, according to copies of emails and text released by the State’s Attorney’s Office.
It is openly admitted that Michelle Obama’s Chief of Staff, Tina Tchen reached out to the State’s Attorney, Kim Foxx. Not difficult to conclude that an agreement was made to make the charges disappear.
Jussie Smollett knew Barack and Michelle Obama
Smollett and Obama dislike Trump, who wants strong borders
George Soros (the Open Society), wants to break down national borders.
Soros dislikes Trump’s agenda
Soros donates $408,000 to State’s Attorney, Kim Foxx.
Tina Tchen is Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff.
Tina Tchen contacted Kim Foxx, the State’s Attorney.
Foxx claimed to have recused herself, but did not.
Foxx directly contacts Smollett’s relative
Charges are arranged to be quietly dropped
Smollett’s lawyer, Mark Geragos, named as co-conspirator in extortion case.
POLICE WRONG ABOUT MOTIVE?
When Smollett was arrested, the Police Superintendent claimed that it was a publicity stunt in order to gain attention and to attract a higher salary.
But this seems to be a bigger picture.
Smollett is friends with the Obamas.
George Soros is a major donor to the Cook County State’s Attorney.
They all dislike Trump and his border policies
Is there anything to Geragos-Avenatti, or coincidence?
This seems to be a deliberate ask to spring their puppet, Smollett.
Yes, Smollett staged the hoax, but doing it for a pay raise doesn’t seem to be the reason. It’s hard to know where facts end and where conspiracy theories begin.