The interim authorized (not approved) so-called “vaccines” in Canada have had some updates to their product inserts. However, the same concerns remain. Even though new side effects are being listed, the emergency authorization still allows these to be distributed.
And it’s also worth a reminder that the manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits. Therefore, if this screws up or kills people, the creators are off the hook complete.
1. AstraZeneca
2. Johnson & Johnson
3. Moderna
4. Pfizer
But don’t worry, these vaccines are safe and effective. The proper one for you, is the first one you are offered…. lab-rat.
This article concerns a lawsuit from July 6, 2020, which had previously been talked about. This is the challenge from Vaccine Choice Canada and several individuals which was supposed to end all regulations and medical martial law in Canada.
Instead of that, this lawsuit is no closer to Trial than it was 14 months ago. There are still no defenses filed. In fact, other than Windsor-Essex Country and their MOH, Wajid Ahmed, no one else is even listed as having a lawyer. Rather than file an application for a default judgement, Vaccine Choice Canada has been content to let it sit forever, and just ask for donations. This is clearly designed to go nowhere, but that is never made clear to the people who get solicited for money.
And no, it’s not their only case. There is another filed on October 24, 2019, to challenge mandatory immunization of students. There has been no movement on that since March 2020, when the pleadings ended.
The shoddy work of the 2020 case had been critiqued before, however, it’s long time to take a look at the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario. Let’s see exactly why this is due to fail, assuming it were ever challenged. It’s not enough to say that a document is garbage. Instead, it must be explained “why” that is the case.
Recently, the suit from Action4Canada was critiqued, and much the same defects were noted. That will never get to Trial either.
As with the last review, the pleadings are so awful, that it’s difficult to believe this was done by accident. This doesn’t look like the work of a lawyer with 35-40 years of experience, but someone who is trying to ensure a case gets bogged down.
To be clear, this isn’t a defense of Trudeau, Ford, Tory, or any of their authoritarian operatives. That being said, it’s impossible to pretend that this lawsuit actually stands a chance in Court.
To start off, let’s look at a few parts of the Ontario Rules for Civil Procedure. This will list the specifics which are relevant here.
RULE 2.1 GENERAL POWERS TO STAY OR DISMISS IF VEXATIOUS, ETC.
STAY, DISMISSAL OF FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS, ABUSIVE PROCEEDING
Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
.
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.
RULE 18 TIME FOR DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
TIME FOR DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
18.01 Except as provided in rule 18.02 or subrule 19.01 (5) (late delivery of defence) or 27.04 (2) (counterclaim against plaintiff and non-party), a statement of defence (Form 18A) shall be delivered,
.
(a) within twenty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served in Ontario;
(b) within forty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America; or
(c) within sixty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served anywhere else. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.01.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFEND
18.02 (1) A defendant who is served with a statement of claim and intends to defend the action may deliver a notice of intent to defend (Form 18B) within the time prescribed for delivery of a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (1).
.
(2) A defendant who delivers a notice of intent to defend within the prescribed time is entitled to ten days, in addition to the time prescribed by rule 18.01, within which to deliver a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (2).
.
(3) Subrules (1) and (2) apply, with necessary modifications, to,
(a) a defendant to a counterclaim who is not already a party to the main action and who has been served with a statement of defence and counterclaim; and
(b) a third party who has been served with a third party claim. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (3).
If a Defendant doesn’t file a defence after 20 days, the Plaintiff can go seek a default judgement. This essentially means (if granted) the case would effectively be over. Note: a Defendant can still file a notice of intent, which buys them an extra 10 days. It does not stop the proceedings entirely.
RULE 19 DEFAULT PROCEEDINGS
NOTING DEFAULT
Where no Defence Delivered
.
19.01 (1) Where a defendant fails to deliver a statement of defence within the prescribed time, the plaintiff may, on filing proof of service of the statement of claim, or of deemed service under subrule 16.01 (2), require the registrar to note the defendant in default. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.01 (1); O. Reg. 113/01, s. 3.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOTING DEFAULT
19.02 (1) A defendant who has been noted in default,
.
(a) is deemed to admit the truth of all allegations of fact made in the statement of claim; and
(b) shall not deliver a statement of defence or take any other step in the action, other than a motion to set aside the noting of default or any judgment obtained by reason of the default, except with leave of the court or the consent of the plaintiff. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.02 (1).
According to the Rules, if a Defendant never bothers to file any sort of response, the facts are considered to be admitted. However, an application for default judgement has to actually be submitted.
RULE 24 DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR DELAY
Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.
Although it’s unclear who was served, Rule 24 could apply for a variety of different reasons. It’s also worth noting that Rule 14.08 specifies that a Statement of Claim must be served within 6 months of being filed.
RULES OF PLEADING — APPLICABLE TO ALL PLEADINGS
Material Facts
.
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (1).
.
Pleading Law
.
(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (2).
Documents or Conversations
.
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (7).
In other words, the pleadings should not contain long quotes. References or short mentions are fine, but there isn’t supposed to be entire paragraphs or pages for this. These aren’t some abstract or archaic concepts, but are pretty basic in terms of drawing up documents.
Claim for Relief
.
25.06(9) Where a pleading contains a claim for relief, the nature of the relief claimed shall be specified and, where damages are claimed,
.
(a) the amount claimed for each claimant in respect of each claim shall be stated; and
.
(b) the amounts and particulars of special damages need only be pleaded to the extent that they are known at the date of the pleading, but notice of any further amounts and particulars shall be delivered forthwith after they become known and, in any event, not less than ten days before trial. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (9).
This should be commonsense, but if money is going to be demanded (and there are multiple Plaintiffs), one needs to specify who gets what. This avoids confusion and arguments later on.
PARTICULARS
25.10 Where a party demands particulars of an allegation in the pleading of an opposite party, and the opposite party fails to supply them within seven days, the court may order particulars to be delivered within a specified time. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.10.
A demand for particulars is what gets served when the claim or application is convoluted to understand. This would be another option here. The Defendants could quite reasonably reply with a request that it be made clear what the other side actually wants.
STRIKING OUT A PLEADING OR OTHER DOCUMENT
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
.
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.11.
These Rules around pleadings are pretty similar to Rule 3-1 and 3-7 in the British Columbia Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure. There are minor differences, but the regulations around drafting and serving pleadings is much the same. Now, let’s get into some specific criticisms.
1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Pleaded In Statement Of Claim
Rule 25.06(1) states that every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts. This is not at all concise. This 191 page filing is rambling, redundant, and contains bald allegations without underlying facts listed to support them.
As one example, look at page 21 and Cindy Campbell. Instead of briefly stating facts, this goes on and on about her story. These long, bloated paragraphs make it impossible for the other side to simply admit or deny allegations. This is done very poorly. It continues with Groza, Lepe, Spizzirri and Shepherd.
In fact, the bulk of the SoC doesn’t belong here, and would certainly be struck if challenged by the Defendants. More on that coming up.
2. Relief For Each Claimant Not Stated In Statement Of Claim
Rule 25.06(9)(a) spells out that the amount for each Claimant (or person suing), must be stated clearly. On page 18, there is a request for $11 million, but it appears to be against CBC only. Moreover, it isn’t clear who exactly it’s supposed to go to.
Against the Crown and Municipal Defendants, no money is sought, only declarative and injunctive relief. That’s right, Trudeau, Tam, Ford, and co. aren’t being sued for a penny.
Apparently, brevity isn’t the name of the game here. The relief sought runs from page 4 to 18, and is incredibly repetitive and redundant.
3. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim
Rule 25.06(1) does demand that facts be pleaded, however, it also states that evidence MUST NOT be included. From pages 82 to 103, there are many quotes are references to other experts who have differing views. While that is fine in principle, this is not the place to do it. If they have value as experts, then they need to be called to give evidence at a later time. None of that should be in a SoC.
Also, throughout the document, media articles are often cited and included in the footnotes. That may be fine in other contexts, but Court pleadings is not one of them.
4. Long Quotes Also Abundant In Statement Of Claim
Rule 25.06(7) instructs that the “effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material”. In short, we don’t need the entire story told here. Keep it brief.
As just one example, look at page 82. What follows are lengthy quotes from various experts. This goes on for several pages, and should not be included in an SoC. If they are relevant, then the people speaking those words need to be called as expert witnesses at a later date.
5. Making Conclusions Without Supporting Facts
Rule 25.11 allows the court to strike out pleadings that:
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.
Beginning at page 146, the SoC goes on to make sweeping declarations on a variety of subjects, despite having little to no foundation. While the bulk of the content is true, underlying facts haven’t been included. There are references to media articles, but again, that shouldn’t be there. The SoC is such a mess that the entire document would probably get thrown out if a motion were filed.
Despite a lot of the content being truthful, all allegations in the SoC will be open to challenge by opposing parties. Countless witnesses would have to be called to prove this, and much more. This is written up in such a way that it would be impossible to bring to trial in any reasonable amount of time — notwithstanding it just sitting for a year.
6. Issues With Denis Rancourt’s Pleadings In Statement Of Claim
Denis Rancourt’s introduction starts on page 39 of the SoC, and yes, he has quite the accomplished background as a researcher and academic.
However, it doesn’t look like any facts are pleaded that would implicate the Defendants. On page 40, it’s stated that Research Gate removed an article, and on page 41, YouTube removed his videos. But they aren’t being sued, so this is irrelevant. He also claims that CBC wouldn’t air his work, which is probably annoying, but doesn’t seem to give rise to a lawsuit.
Page 42 goes on to assert that Rancourt’s free speech and expression rights have been violated. But this appears to be making bald assertions or conclusions without pleading necessary facts.
On page 86, Rancourt is quoted as an expert, which may cause issues considering he’s a Plaintiff here. He’s also listed as a mask expert in the Police On Guard case.
7. Service Likely To Be Challenged (If It Ever Happened)
This may seem pretty basic, but the addresses for service have to be included in the SoC. All of them must be, even if multiple parties can be served at the same address. Only a handful are in this case (seen in page 2 and 3). Should the Defendants stop ignoring this case, it may become a real problem.
Then again, it’s an open question how many of these parties have been served at all. The only ones we can be sure of are Windsor-Essex County and their Doctor. The Ontario Superior Court in Toronto, replied to several inquiries that there was nothing filed beyond that notice of intent from WEC. No affidavits of service, even months later.
CBC News has obtained an unredacted copy of a lawsuit launched by an anti-vaccination advocacy group against the government response to the coronavirus crisis, the details of which can now be independently verified and publicly reported for the first time.
.
The lawsuit was filed July 6 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto by Aylmer, Ont.-based Vaccine Choice Canada and seven individuals. The legal action is a challenge under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the country’s pandemic response measures, including compulsory face masks, the closure of businesses and the enforcement of physical distancing.
In an August 2020 article, CBC claimed that they had “obtained an unredacted copy” of the lawsuit. They imply they were never served, and only got a copy of contacting the Court itself. Whether this is true or not is unclear, but pretty damning if it is. Interestingly, it’s mentioned how the case might get dismissed because it doesn’t comply with the rules, and doesn’t justify a lot of its allegations. CBC also says that Galati refused an on-the-record interview, but then threatened the network with how they cover the protests. All of this sounds surprisingly believable.
Granted, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines last year. But that ended on September 14, 2020. There’s no valid excuse for a response to have not been sent by now.
The items listed above are not minor errors, but could easily stop an action in its tracks. Hard to believe that all of this was due to sloppiness. This isn’t some rookie associate drafting the SoC.
The reality is that the vast majority of the content in the SoC doesn’t belong here. The originating document is supposed to be concise, brief, and outline the facts to be proven. The drafting was quite shoddy, and doesn’t seem like it was ever designed with a Trial in mind.
8. Dismissal For Unnecessary Delay, Failure To Serve
RULE 24 DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR DELAY
Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.
What we have is a situation where:
[1] The Government won’t try to strike defective pleadings.
[2] The Plaintiff won’t seek default judgement on a non-response.
Nothing has happened to this suit in a year. Outside of collusion or some kind of agreement, there’s no real explanation. But that hasn’t stopped Vaccine Choice Canada and their lawyer from doing a media blitz last summer. Even as donations flooded in, it was never disclosed that what the situation was. Well meaning people were led to believe that this case was being pursued diligently.
In reality, the Defendants could file a motion to dismiss this case at any point.
This case used to be prominently posted on the Vaccine Choice Canada website. It’s now not as easy to find, unless one knows where to look.
Now, there have been recent claims that these affidavits of evidence (in the thousands of pages) were being compiled to drop on the Government. Even if true, no Judge is going to read documents of that length. Additionally, it won’t help when the flawed SoC gets thrown out, for the reasons listed above.
If exposing Trudeau and Ford was important, just imagine what a SoC, properly drafted, could have done. Imagine all of the information and evidence that would have been flushed out during depositions and discovery. Instead, this has been a waste of time and money. In fact, it doesn’t seem like there’s any urgency to bring any of the Constitutional Rights Centre cases ahead.
Despots like Trudeau and Ford are despicable people, but at least we know they are enemies. It’s the people masquerading as allies who are harder to put up with.
To anyone still donating to these scams, think long and hard about it.
Included in the Liberal Party of Canada election platform on page 2 is a promise to indemnify businesses that exclude people based on not taking those experimental “vaccines”. That’s right, not only are the businesses being offered the subsidies they need, but Government will also run interference to keep these requirements from becoming a liability.
But don’t worry. It’s not about tyranny and eliminating your basic human rights. This is done all in the name of safety and security. What could possibly go wrong?
[Page 2] Proof of Vaccination
Canadians want to finish the fight against COVID-19. Millions of Canadians have rolled up their sleeves and gotten their vaccine shots, doing so to protect themselves, and their community. Across the country, thousands of business owners have demonstrated leadership to support vaccine rollout, and now many want to go further. Whether they are managing a multinational or a small coffee shop, business owners should have no doubt that putting the safety of workers, customers, or clients first is the right thing to do.
.
Proof of vaccination systems give people the confidence of knowing that others around them are fully vaccinated. They also help drive increased vaccination rates and give Canadians confidence that it’s safe to go to restaurants,
shops, and out into their communities.
.
A re-elected Liberal government will:
• Launch a $1 billion COVID-19 Proof of Vaccination Fund to support provinces and territories who implement a requirement for proof of vaccine credentials in their jurisdiction for non-essential businesses and public spaces.
• Table legislation to ensure that every business and organization that decides to require a proof of vaccination from employees and customers can do so without fear of a legal challenge.
Not only would the Government be economically subsidizing these “passports”, but they’d be running interference to make sure there was no legal remedy for people concerned with basic liberties. Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.
(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population. At least in theory, there would be adequate long term testing to know what effects will happen years later.
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.
If implemented, there would be no recourse for people who are denied entry (it doesn’t specify exemptions). Also, the indemnified manufacturers don’t seem to be an issue. Great way to implement medical segregation. The pressure to do this makes informed consent — REAL consent — a thing of the past. It seems that “my body, my choice” doesn’t extend to medical autonomy, unless it involves killing children.
One would think that there would be some real opposition to all of this Provincially and Municipally, but there isn’t. Even those who refuse vaccine passports only do so very tepidly.
Doug Ford is doing what he does best: stab the residents of Ontario in the back, again and again. He’s on board with all of this, as are these “conservative” Premiers.
Where are all the constitutional lawyers? Other than holding constant fundraisers, they don’t seem to actually be doing much.
Beyond physical and economic coercion, what else is in there? Since we are looking through the Liberal platform, this is hardly the only objectionable topic. A few points worth noting:
[Page 65] Protecting Canadians from Online Harms
Too many people in Canada are victims of hate speech, which is often amplified and spread on social media. Canadians want action and they want leadership that will put a stop to harmful online content and hold platforms
accountable.
A re-elected Liberal Government will:
• Introduce legislation within its first 100 days to combat serious forms of harmful online content, specifically hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This would make sure that social media platforms and other online services are held accountable for the content that they host. Our legislation will recognize the importance of freedom of expression for all Canadians and will take a balanced and targeted approach to tackle extreme and harmful speech.
• Strengthen the Canada Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate.
[Page 66] Black Canadians Justice Strategy
Anti-Black racism and discrimination are a reality in Canada, and they are acutely felt in Canada’s policing and
criminal justice system. Black Canadians are significantly overrepresented in the federal prison system, accounting for 7.3% of the prison population when they represent only 3.5% of the greater population. The work of grassroots organizations like Black Lives Matters have raised their voices to bring global attention to this issue. Systemic racism, discrimination, and violence against Black Canadians will persist as long as inequality is not called out and addressed.
.
A re-elected Liberal government will:
• Develop a Black Canadians Justice Strategy to address anti-black racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system.
[Page 70] Combatting Authoritarianism and Foreign Interference With authoritarianism, geopolitical competition, and foreign interference on the rise, safeguarding Canada’s national and economic security requires strong action both at home and abroad. We will continue to implement domestic measures to protect Canadians and work closely with our friends, allies, and partners to respond to illegal and unacceptable behaviour by authoritarian states, including China, Russia, and Iran.
.
Specifically, a re-elected Liberal government will:
• Work with G7, NATO, and likeminded partners to develop and expand collective responses to arbitrary detention, economic coercion, cyber threats, foreign interference in democratic processes, and egregious violations of human rights, including through the use of sanctions, support for international institutions, and coordinated action to reinforce the rules of international trade.
• Review and modernize the Investment Canada Act and provide additional resources to support national security agencies in tracking, assessing, and mitigating economic security threats from foreign investment.
• Expand collaboration and information sharing with Canadian partners and across all levels of government with respect to addressing security risks in foreign research and investment partnerships.
• Introduce legislation to safeguard Canada’s critical infrastructure, including our 5G networks, to preserve the integrity and security of our telecommunications systems.
• Continue to work with international partners to hold Iran accountable for the illegal shootdown of PS752 and continue to provide support to the families and loved ones of the victims as they fight for justice and reparations. We will also continue to advance Canada’s Safer Skies Initiative, to prevent such tragic events in the future.
• Increase resources available to our national security agencies to counter foreign interference and to the RCMP to protect Canadians from unacceptable surveillance, harassment, and intimidation by foreign actors.
[Page 75] • Significantly increase the resources of the Canada Revenue Agency to combat aggressive tax planning
and tax avoidance that allows the wealthiest to avoid paying the taxes they owe. This will increase CRA’s resources by up to $1 billion per year in order to close Canada’s tax gap.
• Modernize the general anti-avoidance rule regime in order to focus on economic substance and restrict the ability of federally regulated entities, including financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies, to use tiered structures as a form of corporate tax planning that flows Canadian-derived profit through entities in low-tax jurisdictions in order to reduce taxes back in Canada.
• Work with our international partners to implement a global minimum tax so that the biggest companies in the world are not able to escape the taxes they owe here in Canada.
As with most things, the devil’s in the details. It would be interesting to know what exactly counts as “hate”. It’s likely to be written in such a broad and vague way as to be applied however the politics demands it.
Regarding the overrepresentation in Canadian jails, that could easily be explained by the crime rates, or is that racist to discuss? And who exactly is committing those high rates of violence against blacks?
It’s rather sickening to claim to oppose authoritarianism and human rights abroad, while turning a blind eye to the same sort of thing happening locally.
There’s also large sections on climate change, and the rainbow lobby. Beyond that, gender is woven into pretty much everything. However, that’s to be expected from Trudeau these days.
Of course, this is just a tiny portion of what’s in the platform. Granted, politicians lie all the time, but a lot of these they would actually implement.
Despite the claim of “VACCINE PASSPORTS” being dismissed as a lunatic conspiracy theory in 2020, the World Health Organization has put out its own guidelines for establishing such a system. This issue isn’t just being discussed, but has been studied and written about. Here is the paper they just released. It covers technical specifications and implementation guidance.
Then again, WHO published a paper on MANDATORY VACCINATION back in April 2021, despite repeatedly saying that such predictions were conspiracy theories. Absurdly, WHO admits these so-called vaccines only have emergency use authorization, but were still open to the idea of making them compulsory.
Reading through this paper, disturbing, yet unsurprising things emerge.
Page v: Contributors to this paper are named. These include: Beth Newcombe (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada); Maxwell J Smith (University of Toronto); Stephen Wilson (Lockstep Group); Beverly Knight (ISO TC215 Health Informatics Canadian Mirror Committee); all members and observers of the Smart Vaccination Certificate
Working Group.
Lockstep Group is an interesting name, considering that this “pandemic” is heavily based on the Lockstep Narrative that was laid out a decade ago. Of course, that document came from none other than the Rockefeller Foundation.
And a WHO operative working at the University of Toronto? Who would ever have seen that one coming? It’s not like Rockefeller was a major donor to that school, or was heavily involved in starting up the public health industry.
Page vi: For starters, the funders of this project are listed very briefly. “This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.”
This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.
Then again, GAVI (which Gates finances), Microsoft (which Gates used to run), and the Rockefeller Foundation all contributed to the launch of ID2020, a global digital identification initiative. This was started back in 2016. But connecting the obvious dots is probably a conspiracy theory.
Microsoft is also a partner (along with the Ontario Ministry of Health), of the Vaccine Credential Initiative. But again, nothing to see here.
As for Fondation Botnar: it claims to: “champion the use of AI and digital technology to improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people in growing urban environments around the world. We do this by supporting research, catalysing diverse partners, and investing in scalable solutions.” Not that there would be a business angle here, or anything.
Page xiv: Not too long ago, there was heavy criticism when it was predicted that vaccination would become a requirement for work, education, or international travel? Instead, those uses, are explicitly suggested by WHO as places to implement them.
The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19. The document may also be useful to government partners such as local businesses, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a DDCC:VS solution.
Page 2, Section 1.2: This isn’t just some academic piece or philosophical musings. The authors of this paper fully intend for this to be used by Governments. Furthermore, businesses and trade organizations will be expected to help out in the support of this. We would have a few of those, right? See here and here for some examples.
Page 5, Section 1.5: Remember those International Health Regulations, which Governments insist are not legally binding? Turns out they actually are, and formed part of the basis for this guidance document. Also, the 2005 Quarantine Act was in fact based on anticipated rules of the 3rd Edition WHO-IHR, which came out that year.
Also, those papers which comes as a result of those emergency meetings (8 so far) are binding on countries as well. They are instructions — or at least guidelines — for how to run internal affairs.
As with any digital solution, there are ethical considerations, such as potential impacts on equity and on equitable access, and data protection principles that need to inform the design of the technical specifications, as well as provide guidance on how resulting solutions can be ethically implemented. The following sections discuss some key ethical considerations and data protection principles that Member States are encouraged to – and, where they have legal obligations, must – include in their respective deployments of any DDCC:VS. These ethical considerations and data protection principles have also informed the design criteria for a DDCC:VS outlined in the following section
Page 6, Chapter 2: We start getting into the ethical issues at this point. Strangely, there doesn’t seem to be any mention that these “vaccines” are only authorized by a continued emergency status. Also, there is apparently no moral dilemma over policies that amount to coercion.
While COVID-19 vaccines may eventually be widely accessible, current global distribution is inequitable and there are populations that vaccination programmes may struggle to reach due to, for example, geography, terrain, transient or nomadic movement, war and conflict, or illegal or insecure residency status. These hard-to-reach populations (e.g. refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons) are disproportionately less likely to have an opportunity to be vaccinated and obtain a DDCC:VS.
Page 8, Section 2.1.1: Although there seems to be no concern with coercion of unproven injections onto the general public, they are concerned about people being in the country illegally. Now, this is not because this is morally wrong, but since it will make such people harder to reach.
Chapter 2 goes on and on about privacy of information, but intentionally omits mentioning how wrong it is to pressure people into taking these concoctions in the first place. WHO seems to be very partial and selective about what issues are worth considering. And no, this topic hasn’t been “settled” or anything of the sort.
Chapters 3 through 6 go into considerable detail about technical requirements for how to implement such a system, and how to ensure everyone getting injected has a record of it. The particulars are beyond the scope of this review, but yes, they are building national (and most likely international) databases of vaccinations.
Chapter 7 goes into national considerations, and how countries can implement systems that each other can trust. Apparently, a central authority is to be trusted to maintain and update these records. It also addresses the revocation of vaccination status, not that it will ever be abused.
Chapter 8 gets into short and long term goals. Score another one for the conspiracy nuts, but WHO talks about how this system, once fully implemented, could be used for OTHER health records and databases. It’s almost as if this was meant as some sort of bait-and-switch.
SHORT-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a short-term DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate need of the pandemic that includes a clearly established end date and a roadmap towards discontinuing the DDCC:VS solution once COVID-19 is no longer considered a Public Health Emergency of International Concern under the IHR.
LONG-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate needs of the pandemic but also to build digital health infrastructure that can be a foundation for digital vaccination certificates beyond COVID-19 (e.g. digital home-based records for childhood immunizations) and support other digital health initiatives.
Page 60: The references used are listed. It’s worth mentioning that the first few have to do with people making counterfeit records. This seems designed to push the narrative that such things are unreliable, and that only a digital system can be run.
Page 60: Reference #13 stands out. It is actually a paper published in 2015, concerning home-based vaccination records as a way to advance immunizations, particularly for children. Now, this was mainly manual (not digital) at the time, but now we are in the next generation.
Page 63: the paper outlines an example of what a digital pass would look like. A QR code would be visible, but inside, there would be the personal information about what shots the person had. Interesting that it’s referred to as a National Vaccine Card. That was something else previously dismissed as a tin-foil hat ranting.
Back in December 2020, the WHO put out a call for nominations for “experts” for the Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specifications and standards of an incoming vaccine passport system. In an Orwellian twist, these passports (or digital passes, or whatever name one wants) are framed as a sort of human rights issue. Even as the WHO and their puppets are reassuring people that these “movement licenses” are a fantasy, they are recruiting people to look at the feasibility.
At what point can it no longer be denied that all of this is very well planned and coordinated?
In a move that surprised no one, B.C. has announced its own vaccine passport, coming into effect on September 13, 2021. People who want to have some fun in their lives are about to have far fewer options.
There is the line near the end: “The measures will be time limited through to Jan. 31, 2022, subject to possible extension.” of course, subject to possible extension is a built-in loophole that will allow this to
A call to the Government, specifically, Patient & Client Relations, confirmed that this is exactly what they intended to do. There is no mistake or misunderstanding. The lack of qualifiers or exemptions in the directive were not the result or carelessness on someone’s part.
A few takeaways from this call:
No state of emergency needed to do it
No exemptions in order currently
No plans to put exemptions in later
No need to have approved vaccines (interim authorization is fine)
No guarantee this ends on January 31, 2022 (spoiler: it won’t)
The person on the other end of the call was pleasant enough, but clearly working from a script. It appeared that such inquiries were anticipated in advance. And where will this take effect?
(UPDATE) On Wednesday, August 25, I tried again. Someone different answered the phone, and she was much more hostile and testy than the previous one. It’s unclear whether she knew nothing about the vaccines themselves, or was coached on how to deceive and mislead. But it doesn’t really matter, as the result is the same.
A few takeaways from this 2nd call:
She doesn’t know (or lies) about vaccines not being approved
She doesn’t know (or lies) about risks to pregnant women
She doesn’t know (or lies) about risks to nursing mothers
She doesn’t know (or lies) about BCHRC having exemptions put in
She refused to specify where exactly in the law this was legal
Also, it was impossible to get through on the regular phone line, after that first call. Perhaps they are blocking numbers of people who ask difficult questions. Considering what they are trying to do, that isn’t too farfetched of an idea.
Another difference from the last call: this woman was very eager to get off the phone once it became clear that hard questions would be asked. She is little more than a mouthpiece and a gatekeeper.
And all of this comes despite M275, which cancelled the State of Emergency on June 30, 2021. Also, M273 cancelled the other measures. To reiterate, this isn’t being done under any emergency order, but is simply dictated by Bonnie Henry and her handlers.
To any university or college students, consider your options. This also applies to living in residence, and could very well be extended beyond that. In fact, more announcements are expected soon.
Other Provinces, like Quebec and Manitoba, are already implementing their own version.
Such moves will likely kill most of the rest of these industries. And that appears to be calculated. However, this seems even more insidious than at first glance.
As a few examples: BCRFA, the British Columbia Restaurant and Foodservices Association; BCHA, the B.C. Hotel Association; and ABLE BC, the Association for Beverage Licensees, openly promote the myriad of Government handouts that are available to their members. They do this at the same time they support vaccine passports and mask mandates, driving away both employees and customers. But, it doesn’t really matter to them, since the Government — or taxpayers — will just bail them out.
Not only are businesses in hospitality subsidized by CEWS, but so are the trade groups that represent them. These are just a few of the many examples.
BCRFA goes even further, actively trying to import a replacement workforce under “Express Entry”. This is no doubt because we don’t have enough people unemployed here already.
Collapsing the economies of B.C. other Provinces, and elsewhere, can only be explained as being deliberate. However, until that happens, taxpayers will be subsidizing organizations that are complicit in perpetuating this fraud and medical tyranny.
Where’s Action4Canada in all of this? They have been fundraising for a year, and “claim” to have retained Rocco Galati to sue the B.C. Government? Not holding out much hope for that. Even if a Statement of Claim is eventually filed, no guarantee it will ever go beyond that.
Over the last 20 years or so, Rocco Galati has tried to project himself as a constitutional lawyer, fighting for the interests of Canadians, and humanity as a whole. However, looking more into it, I’ve come to believe that this image and persona are entirely artificial. I think he’s actively working against Canadians.
Since this will almost certainly result in more threats, a little disclaimer is needed. This is based on information readily available, and also, there is no intent to mislead or deceive. Given the circumstances we face, truth becomes even more important. Keep in mind, the Ontario Libel and Slander Act contains many built-in defenses for writers and publishers. Furthermore, anti-SLAPP laws prevent people from suing simply to shut another person up.
For extra information, Overdue Revolutions wrote a detailed article on July 17, 2020, outlining many of the same concerns. It is well worth a read, as is the overall “resistance” to Trudeau being controlled. One point the first article was spot on about predicted that Galati “appearing” to challenge Trudeau in the July 6 lawsuit would convince others that it was all taken care of — and that any outcome can be manufactured. However, the plan seems to be to leave it in limbo, at least for now.
Now, getting to the heart of the matter:
As a starting point, it’s a little strange that a person who claims to be censored is in the Canadian media so often. CBC has hosted Galati countless times over the years. True threats to the establishment aren’t given airtime on the national news.
It’s also curious to note that the CBC never threw Galati under the bus over that bogus July 6 lawsuit. Sure, they did a half hearted piece about how this poorly written, and rambling document was likely to be dismissed. And it would have been. However, they could have done so much more damage if they reported that it was still sitting a year later. Then again, lawyers for Trudeau, Tam, Ford, etc…. could have exposed this. It’s been covered many times on Canuck Law. Have to wonder when the “establishment” media and politicians protect the “resistance” lawyer who’s taking them to task.
1. Comments Like This Never Questioned By The Public
This video is a clip from a January 2015 interview, posted in February (see 10:45). Apparently, there are too many white men on benches, and this “white supremacist” system is appalling. The topic wasn’t relevant to the issue of banking practices in Canada, or the COMER case, but the contempt and disgust spills out anyway. In fairness, this was 6 years ago, but is there anything to indicate his views have changed at all?
Have to say, this rant comes across as pretty racist. Can you imagine if those remarks were directed at another group? Also, it was an interview, intended to be aired, not things said at a private event.
2. Representing Assets, Strange Cases
The law is a very broad field, and a lawyer will encounter many types of clients and cases in their careers. However, here are a few that might make people take notice, as they are unusual:
Galati represented Abdurahman Khadr in 2003, a suspected terrorist who was brought back to Canada. Khadr claimed to be a CIA informant, making his representation by Galati very odd. After all, this was a lawyer who prided himself on working against the Government.
Another noteworthy client was Delmart Vreeland, supposedly a Naval Intelligence Officer. He was arrested in 2000. Vreeland claimed to have information about upcoming attacks that needed to be prevented.
Galati challenged the appointments of 2 Justices: Marc Nadon (Supreme Court of Canada); and Robert Mainville (Quebec Court of Appeal). What motivated these, and was there was some client behind the scenes? Also, getting paid for the Nadon case must have been important, given the applications to the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada.
3. Bank Of Canada, COMER Canada Infrastructure Bank
COMER, the Committee on Monetary & Economic Reform, sued the Federal Government in 2011. On paper, this seemed a noble and worthwhile goal, although there may be more than meets the eye. Overdue Revolution covers it pretty well, including the founders of the organization. Strange how the Canadian Infrastructure Bank seemed to rise from the ashes of this case. It’s an organization handing out money for construction and development, and is even less accountable than the Bank of Canada.
The other consequence of losing the Bank of Canada case means that any future challenge to the banking system will be next to impossible. Read into that what you will.
Now, Rob Carbone, of the fake “Republican Party of Canada”, claims to own the Canada Infrastructure Bank. He hangs around the protests a lot, pretending to be a wealthy businessman, larping as a billionaire, apparently with access to trillions of dollars in assets. Supposedly, Chris Saccoccia is planning to become Finance Minister one day. The entire story is nonsense.
4. Citizenship For Convicted Terrorists/Traitors
June 25, 2014, Galati and Manuel Azevedo sued the Governor General of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada, and the Immigration Minister. This was to stop Bill C-24, which would have stripped the dual nationals of their Canadian citizenship if convicted of terrorism or treason. This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but letting monsters enjoy rights they don’t deserve.
Curiously, Galati and Azevedo tried to use their own dual citizenships (Italian and Portuguese respectively), in order to gain private interest standing. On January 22, 2015, the Application was dismissed by the Federal Court. An appeal was filed (File #A-52-15).
It would have been nice to know who was really behind this challenge. Presumably, Galati and Azevedo are busy lawyers with a lot to do. A bewildering choice, unless there was someone behind the scenes, directing the action. Could they have picked a less deserving class of people?
After Trudeau took office in late 2015, Bill C-6 was one of the first pieces of legislation introduced. Hearings began in April 2016. The Bill passed, making the Appeal moot, and it was formally discontinued in September 2018.
One of Galati’s clients in 2006 was Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, who was (allegedly) one of the Toronto 18 suspects. The charges against him were eventually stayed. The ringleader, Zakaria Amara, was scheduled to have his Canadian citizenship stripped away following his conviction and life sentence. However, he won’t now. Just a thought, but this may be the real reason (at least in part), why Galati and Azevedo challenged Bill C-24.
True, everyone has the right to representation, even accused terrorists. That being said, this is a bizarre way for these lawyers to become household names.
5. The Boyle & Khadr Families
In 2003, Galati worked to secure the release of Abdurahman Khadr, older brother of Omar Khadr. He was being held on suspicion of terrorism. Supposedly, he “implored the public earlier this week to not judge him since he did not face any charges while in American custody for the past two years. But at the same press conference, Khadr later admitted that in the summer of 1998 he attended a notorious training camp in Afghanistan, which Osama bin Laden is rumoured to have visited.”
This is not to imply that Galati is involved in terrorism, but again, it’s certainly unusual for a tax lawyer to take this path. Of all the areas of law that are out there, why is a person drawn to terrorism cases? However, there would later be new ties to the Khadr Family revealed.
If your wife is pregnant, taking her backpacking through a warzone in Afghanistan isn’t really the best idea. But that’s what Joshua Boyle supposedly did. Allegedly, they were kidnapped in 2012 and held prisoner for 5 years. However, they had 3 children in the meantime, making their “captors” some of the nicest people imaginable. The story is farfetched, to put it very mildly.
On December 19, 2017, photographs were posted of a meeting meeting between Trudeau and the Boyles. Now, people can’t just get in to see the Prime Minister, as they would have to be cleared by the RCMP. Interesting, that Trudeau didn’t see him as a threat. Interesting, to have a Twitter account with the name BoylesVsWorld.
Boyle used to be married to Zaynab Khadr, making him the former brother-in-law of Omar Khadr. This is the convicted terrorist who attacked the American army and was captured in 2002 in Afghanistan. Khadr became a multimillionaire as a result of a lawsuit years later. Trudeau handed over $10.5 million of taxpayer money, without putting up any real resistance.
Boyle was later charged with 19 offenses, including assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement. He was acquitted by the Judge.
As a bit of an aside, Joshua’s father, Patrick Boyle, was a connected Judge with the Federal Court, in the tax department. Galati got his start in law working with the Government as a tax lawyer. But that’s probably a coincidence.
While the above sections related to past and historical information, let’s look at something more recent: the so-called challenges to the medical martial law imposed by various Governments.
6. Controlled Opposition To Lockdowns In Canadian Courts
In December 2020, Galati filed a defamation suit against a bunch of people and a few media outlets over comments and publications involving Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, (file #CV-20-00652918-0000)
While touted as being a way to fight back against censorship of doctors, this does no such thing. Instead, it sues a variety of people and organizations over mean words. And suing private individuals won’t result in policy changes. Looking at the statement of claim, we can see what exactly it being sought. Quoting pages 5 and 6:
With respect to Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill:
.
(a) General damages as against the Defendants, as follows:
(i) As against the personal defendants, jointly ad severally, $4,000,000.00 for express libel and slander and by innuendo and irresponsible publication;
(ii) As against the print publication defendants, The Pointer, Societe Radio-Canada, and the Hamilton Spectator, $750,000. For libel and negligence;
(b) Aggravated damages as against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000,000;
(c) Punitive damages as against the Defendants, jointly, and severally, in the amount of $1,000,000;
(d) An interim and permanent injunction requiring the retraction, removal, and prominent apology for any and all defamatory publication and/or remarks by the Defendants;
(e) Prejudgement interest pursuant to s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C43; and
(f) Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis and such further or further relief as this Court deems just.
With respect to Dr. Ashvinder Kaur Lamba:
.
(a) General damages as against the Defendants, Dr. Angus Maciver and Dr. Nadia Alam, as follows:
(i) As against the person defendants, jointly and severally, $4,000,000.00 for express libel and slander and by innuendo and irresponsible publication.
(b) Aggravated damages as against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000,000;
(c) Punitive damages as against the Defendants, jointly, and severally, in the amount of $1,000,000;
(d) An interim and permanent injunction requiring the retraction, removal, and prominent apology for any and all defamatory publication and/or remarks by the Defendants;
(e) Prejudgement interest pursuant to s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C43; and
(f) Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis and such further or further relief as this Court deems just.
Even if this lawsuit is successful, nothing will change in the big picture. Sure, Gill and Lamba may become millionaires in the process, and apologies might have to be issued. That said, lockdown regulations and policies will not be impacted in the slightest.
To everyone donating to the Constitutional Rights Centre, you will never see a penny of this money. You’re just subsidizing private litigation.
Looking up the case online, it seems that many defendants don’t have lawyers. However, in situations like this, it’s fairly common to pool funds to have a single lawyer represent multiple people. According to the records, the next scheduled appearance is September 27, 2021.
Feel free to read the Statement of Claim, which is publicly available. The 2 Plaintiffs are seeking at least $12.75 million, over rude tweets and publications.
Just a personal take, while distasteful comments were made, these are hardly worth suing over, and don’t merit such an action. Even taking everything at face value, this is not $13 million in damages. And such a claim would probably be thrown out if a SLAPP Motion (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) were filed. And again, even if the Plaintiffs won, it would create no policy changes whatsoever.
As for the comments that Gill goes around blocking people, there is a high degree of truth to that. Besides, how can a person sue another for commenting on someone else’s blocking rates? Rempel may still be on top, but she’s facing some competition.
A source close to this mentioned that depositions took place in July. That’s interesting the case is moving ahead, considering how insignificant it really is.
A private defamation gets Galati’s attention, but these don’t. It’s been addressed repeatedly on this site how 2 claims by Vaccine Choice Canada remain in limbo. One is from October 2019 and involves mandatory vaccination of Ontario students (CV-19-00629801-0000). Another is the infamous one from July 2020, which would end all measures completely, (CV-20-00643451-0000). Supposedly, a group called Action4Canada will be filing a lawsuit in B.C., but hasn’t, even after fundraising for a year.
What litigation people pursue privately is their business. When one repeatedly asks for money to support litigation, it becomes everyone’s business.
There have been rumours circulating that there are all these Affidavits ready to drop on Trudeau and his cronies, and it’s all coming together. Thousands of pages of evidence is about to be submitted, and the Courts will fix it all. Basically, trust the plan. Don’t worry, there is a major effort behind the scenes, and everything is being taken care of.
[1] Diligently push a case that impacts nothing long term.
[2] Let potentially groundbreaking cases remain idle.
The Defendants in the July 6, 2020 case (excluding Windsor-Essex Country and their CMOH) haven’t even bothered to lawyer up. And no attempt was made to force a default judgement. A cynic may wonder if there was collusion involved, an agreement by all parties to do nothing. The Statement of Claim was written up in such a piss poor manner — and maybe that was deliberate — that it would be struck by any challenge filed. Considering that the Claim alleges serious human rights violations, it seems odd to be worth only $11 million, far less than the defamation case.
Considering that the real cases (again, publicly funded) are going nowhere, how exactly can Galati justify spending his time patrolling Twitter, dropping Section 5 threats, and then start suing nobodies?
One could argue that this is just a convoluted strategy, or that there is some grand plan. However, this looks like an effort to “appear” to be fighting against the Trudeau/Ford agenda, while ensuring that it continues. In short, this seems to be an attempt to neutralize real opposition.
Interesting side note on the Sgt. Julie Evans case: the Attorney General used Rule 2.1.01 to try to get the case dismissed. This is the Police on Guard for Thee. However, it’s meant for very obviously defective cases. If the AG was serious about this, why not use a regular Motion to Strike? Was the goal to launch a half hearted effort to make it appear to challenge the case?
While claiming to be opposed to Trudeau, and the medical martial law measures, Galati’s law firm has been receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Check the link out. Pretty hard to be against the system when the system is subsidizing your office. Although it doesn’t say the total amount, it could be substantial, given the expenses law firms can incur.
8. Selling Basic Information To Self Represented Litigants
This offer no longer appears to be available, but it was in late Fall 2020. For the low, low rate of just $90, you could purchase half filled Court forms to sue businesses and the Government. Of course, it came with the disclaimer that this didn’t mean you were represented, and that Galati and Co. were indemnified from any consequences. This meant the lawyers assumed no responsibility, no matter what ultimately happened. This is pretty much the safety that vaccine manufacturers enjoy. People would literally be sold the rope to hang themselves with, and the lawyers drafting the papers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Just a hunch, but perhaps this product was stopped because it was a liability. The Law Society of Ontario may view this as selling legal advice, regardless of whatever disclaimers were added. We see more of the same pattern with these legal challenges:
[1] Divert attention with relatively minor matters.
[2] Ensure the big cases never move ahead.
Sure, desperate people could purchase these forms if they wish, and some will buy anything. Now, where does the money from these purchases go? Where does all of the donations for the “lawsuits” go? Unfortunately, too few people ask those difficult questions. This isn’t something where you can just write a cheque and forget about.
Just like with the Gill/Lamba suit, such claims against private parties will not result in any public policy changes. Sure, some will win their cases, but it doesn’t mean the Provincial dictates suddenly become void. There will be no lasting effects outside of individual claims.
Now, had some basic informational videos (not advice) been posted instead to let Canadians know of their options, that would have been a really stand up thing to do. However, this comes across as pretty scummy.
9. Controlled Opposition To Lockdowns In Canada
It’s typically wrong to judge people by the company the keep. However, in this case it’s relevant. Beyond the Courts, the psy-op is preserved by managing and controlling the protests against these measures. Many of the people leading them come across as grifters and subversion agents, while others present as intelligence operatives. After a bit of searching, it becomes clear that it’s the same group of people running everything. Let’s take a quick look.
As addressed earlier, it seems that the anti-lockdown political efforts aren’t a real solution. People like Maxime Bernier claim to support freedom, but will never talk about the experimental nature of these “vaccines” being pushed on children. Likewise, a party that cannot put together a basic structure in 3 years should not be taken seriously. This principle also applies to the Republican Party (Carbone), New Blue Ontario (Karahalios), and Maverick/WExit (Hill), who have each had a year or more. None of them even have an internal constitution, effectively making them dictatorships. Rob Carbone, of course, supposedly is in control of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
You also have to question the thinking of those promoting the rise of unelected people. Yes, traditional parties have failed. So let’s get rid of that, and install someone not chosen by his people, and not restricted by any constitution or governing documents. If you want to save Canada, get rid of democracy. It’s absurd, trading one set of tyrants for another.
Even so-called renegade politicians like Roman Baber and Randy Hillier will only go part way. They’ll complain that these measures are heavy handed, but never call out the medical fraud for what it is. They feed “hopium” to the masses, trying to delude others into believing a political solution is possible.
Kelly Ann Wolfe has been one of the prominent voices from the beginning. However, she has asked (or claims to have asked) the Canadian Military to intervene, and is in talks with the U.S. Armed Forces See 18:30 in the video. Strange how she can openly call for the Government to be overthrown, but is allowed to speak openly. Not a peep from anyone here. You’d think that Wolfe calling for a military dictatorship would be a cause for concern, but apparently not.
Think these groups don’t all run in the same circles? They do. Wolfe is just one of them, and it’s pretty chilling that such a person is so intertwined in the “resistance”. Think of this as a corporate empire, where the different logos are used to camouflage the fact that the companies all have the same owners.
Considering the “Fed vibes” that Wolfe gives off, it’s fair to ask to what degree these protests are used as a way to monitor citizens. Why are these people leading the opposition? Because they’re ensuring that things go nowhere, following the wisdom of Vladimir Lenin.
Patrick King claims to have attended Bilderberg, which is interesting. He doesn’t really come across as an investigative reporter. King is a co-Founder of the WExit Party (now Maverick), which makes it clear it doesn’t actually oppose the lockdowns the Provinces push. He’s also part of the Yellow Vests.
Vladislav Sobolev used the “pandemic” as an opportunity to start up a clothing line with his company, Hugs Over Masks. Yes, global tyranny is here, but let’s make some quick money selling sweaters and T-shirts. One of the reasons protests fizzled out is that people like Sobolev were simply using them as an opportunity to make money. Now, are these grifters were just in it for profit, or was there a deliberate attempt to drive away real support?
Chris Saccoccia, a.k.a. Chris Sky, came out of nowhere to emerge as the “freedom fighter” for Canada. While he does say a lot of truthful things, his behaviour and appearance are a complete turnoff to normies. Maybe that was the point of selecting him, to make resisters seem like crazies. In fact, it would be difficult to hand pick a better choice. He also started a GoFundMe, and has a (defunct?) business. There’s also this site, Mothers Against Distancing, or MAD, which is pretty sparse. Of course, he doesn’t really need to work, since his father, Art Saccoccia, is a wealthy developer.
Sky also got himself arrested for (allegedly) threatening to kill Doug Ford. The story goes that Rob Carbone turned him in — or made it up — after their relationship soured. While this may be legitimate, it comes across as a psy-op to give the police an excuse to crack down even harder on peaceful demonstrators.
The clip came from Wolfish, and is of Lamont Daigle of The Line. From this, it comes across in a creepy way. Beyond that, this “organic” group is part of an international chain, and seems to support violence to achieve its goals. Wolfish did a great piece on organization. It’s unclear if this really is an Antifa style outfit, or is just Feds pretending to be.
It was since brought to the attention of this site that the clip is actually part of a larger interview, related to the screening of the film “Jesus Meets The Gay Man“. The clip from the above video (from Wolfish) starts at about 3:10 in the full interview. Granted, it talks about someone else in his life being a pedophile, but he appears to be sympathetic about it. The shorter clip doesn’t seem to be taking what was said in the interview out of context. Yes, it’s all on the subject of forgiveness and understanding, but rather offputting here.
In any event, go read the article on The Line, and its more eyebrow raising aspects. It’s a long one, but well worth the time.
Hanging out with these people seems like a good way to end up on a watchlist, or at least get bamboozled into buying useless junk. It’s best to not get involved with them.
Odessa Orlewicz (or is it Munroe?) was an actress about 20 years ago. She was in a few films, including Freddy vs. Jason. She promotes the grifting of Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada. Her husband, Norbert, went to Langara College to study theatre. He has a formal education in acting, which should set off alarms. Are these 2 even married, or is that just a cover story they use?
In fact, a lot of the people involved seem to be performers as well. Check out their IMDb page. Maxime Bernier, James Coates, Lamont Daigle, Len Faul, Galati, Artur Pawlowski, Adam Skelly and many others all have roles in the series. Is this all just some grand production? At times it seems like it. They recently discarded Chris Sky from the cast, and perhaps Patrick King will take up the role.
Seriously, had anyone heard of many of these “freedom fighters” prior to the Spring of 2020? They all know each other, and it seems to have been the case prior to these lockdowns.
A couple exceptions: Ezra has been around writing for years in a variety of publications. Carpay has been with the JCCF a long time, which has launched challenges against a variety of measures. So it was unfair to lump them in with newcomers. (correction from original)
There is more, but overall, the entire “opposition” movement seems designed to subvert real challenges, and deter Canadians from banding together for mutual interests. While it could be dismissed as a few bad apples, it appears too coordinated. This looks like an effort to pretend to oppose martial law, while ensuring it continues on. The Court aspect is important, but it’s part of a larger agenda.
Anyhow, these are some thoughts on why I believe Galati acts as a form of controlled opposition to the Government. I don’t buy the crafted persona he sells to the public. Aside from the company he keeps, how are any of the cases he takes beneficial to Canadians? How is endless fundraisers with Vaccine Choice Canada or Action4Canada productive, when they don’t result in anything? With all of the information presented, does he really have the public’s interests at heart?
