“It Ain’t Over”
Freedom activists are critical thinkers!
Our society is so dumbed down and indoctrinated that anyone who is a critical thinker is labeled as a Conspiracy Theorist to avoid critical debates
Did you know: The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ was first coined and used by the CIA to ridicule anyone who opposed the gov’t narrative?
————————————–
————————————–
IMPORTANT
It is important to come out on Saturday to oppose all Gov’t corruption and support others.
There is a reason the BC Gov’t, the Crown (AG) and City of Kelowna are trying to stop our rallies with falsified criminal charges and court injunctions – because our Freedom Rallies are extremely effective at exposing Gov’t corruption to the public.
Gov’ts don’t take legal action for the sake of so doing. It is because of YOUR attendance that we have made a big difference.
We cannot let our corrupt Gov’ts think that by jailing David people will lose interest in freedom.
Courts
Falsified assault charge
Kelowna Courthouse
R v David Lindsay s. 266 Criminal Code Assault – Appeal
Thank you for all your support and belief for freedom!!
Remember the Freedom Principle:
An attack against one is an attack against all.
An attack against all, is an attack against one.
Next Supreme Court Appeal Hearing Date:
Thursday, October 3, 2024 9:00 a.m.
An hour has been set aside, tentatively before J. Beames, for a case management conference for my appeal.
The purpose of this hour-long hearing, is to identify the issues on my appeal from the falsified assault charges, and how we are to proceed with them, including my delay or Jordan appeal.
J. Beames is the judge who, 18 years ago, erroneously declared that I was a vexatious litigant contrary to s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act, as I have never had any court proceeding by me ever declared to be vexatious at any time. Never. None. So, we meet again.
I hope to proceed on the Jordan delay part of the appeal first. If I am successful the rest doesn’t matter and there is no use trying to raise funds for transcripts I may not yet need.
With thanks to everyone for all your previous help, I have all the transcripts required for the Jordan appeal. I have not ordered the actual trial transcripts, hoping I will not need them. Their cost is incredible and hopefully will not be required.
Monday, November 3, 2024 — 2:00 p.m.
Notice of Application to be released from jail until the appeal itself is fully heard
At this time, a hearing will be set for later in the week, to complete my application for release pending appeal.
————————————–
City of Kelowna v David Lindsay et al
Petition to Stop Rallies at Stuart Park
December 3, 4, 5, 2024 10:00 a.m.
1355 Water St.
Kelowna Courthouse
for hearing on my SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) application to strike the City’s Petition against us. (See the B.C. Protection of Public Participation Act)
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003
Our documents in this case are located on our website at:
All City of Kelowna documents and pleadings are now placed on our website for public viewing: https://clearbc.org/city-of-kelowna/
————————————–
————————————–
Candidate Forums
Get your damning questions ready or submit them in advance – check location for details
https://www.kelownachamber.org/events-programs/2024-bc-provincial-election/
Kelowna
Coast Capri Hotel
1171 Harvey Avenue, Kelowna
Kelowna-Mission: Tues 8 Oct register
Kelowna-Lake Country-Coldstream: Wed 9 Oct register
Kelowna-Centre: Thurs 10 Oct register
Vernon
October 3, 2024 6:30 p.m. doors open
Environmental All Candidates Forum
Vernon Towne Theatre
2910-30th Ave.
Vernon
October 5, 2024 2:00 – 3:30 p.m.
Vernon and District Performing Arts Centre
3800-33rd St.
Vernon
November 10, 2024 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Vernon & District Performing Arts Centre
Live Stream
Penticton
October 3, 2024
Okanagan College Penticton Campus 5:30-7:30 p.m.
583 Duncan Ave. W.
Penticton
October 5, 2024 3:00-5:00 p.m.
Penticton Seniors Drop-In Centre
2965 Main St.
Penticton
October 7, 2024 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Summerland Centre stage Theatre
9518 Main St.
Summerland
————————————–
Bill C-293
For re-emphasis, here it is again
A lawyer told me many years ago, there are two ways lawyers try to stop a court case, deny it and make sure it never gets heard (such as a motion to strike the case before it is ever heard), or delay it as long as possible so that even if you win, you lose, as it will cost you so much time, effort and money as to not be worth it.
Apply this rationale to Bill C-293. Now, until it is given Royal Assent, there is nothing you can legally do to try and stop its passage, other than lobbying your MP and Senators to not vote for it.
Presently, everyone is focused upon what this legislation purports to permit the Minister of Health and Gov’t to do after its passage. The frightening powers this Bill provides is truly something to oppose in every way possible. Should it be given Royal Assent, the effects and powers under this Bill will need to be challenged as well.
Yet when it is passed, this fixation upon the effects of the legislation, fails to address the initial issue that can and should stop it dead in its tracks, so that it can never apply in the first place. If lawyers frame it correctly.
That is the British North America Act 1867, aka the Constitution Act 1867. (BNA Act, or the Act) Pursuant to s. 91 and 92 of this Act, legislative powers are set out and divided between the Provinces and Federal Gov’t.
The Provincial legislative powers are in s. 92. They were drafted first, are exclusive to the Provinces and were considered to be matters of a local or private nature.
Prior to analyzing the powers of Parliament, it is noteworthy to remember that pursuant to s. 9 of the BNA Act, all legislative powers are vested in the Monarch. The Monarch in turn, is represented in Canada by the Governor General (GG), who has no more powers or duties than the Monarch has. The Monarch cannot delegate to the GG more powers than he/she has in law. This is represented by the Latin maxim in our law: delegatus non potest delegare:
“The maxim deals with ‘delegation’ by an authority of its statutory discretion. What is ‘delegation’? ‘Delegation’, as the word is generally used, does not imply a parting with power by the person who grants the delegating, but points rather to the conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself,”
Unlimited discretion is not permitted to be conferred. The GG does not have unlimited jurisdiction to give Royal Assent to legislation that the Monarch cannot personally so do.
With the Provincial legislative powers being exclusive, Parliament was given all remaining legislative powers in s. 91, with examples or illustrations, and with certain applicable conditions. Here is the opening wording of s. 91:
“It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say…..”
Broken down, this section means as follows:
It shall be lawful…Legislatures of the Provinces.
These are the enacting words of s. 91. This means that all of the following conditions in this paragraph must be complied with and exist for legislation passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent to be lawful, and thus binding in law, ie: in the courts. If any of the following conditions are not met, the Bill or “Law”, is not lawful.
These are those conditions:
-
For the Queen
This means, in conjunction with s. 9, that all legislation is passed in the name of the Monarch, not Parliament. Royal Assent is by the Governor General or by the Monarch personally, as occurred in 1982 with the signing of the Charter.
-
By and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons
This means what it says. The only powers that MPs have in Parliament, is to aid and advise the Monarch. That is all. This has historically always been the case. Parliament cannot pass legislation on its own, nor even with the consent of the Senate. It must be with the consent of the Monarch. Logic and law tell us, that such consent cannot be forced upon the Monarchs against their will. Such consent must be voluntary. Otherwise, Parliament itself would be the Head of State, not the Monarch. It could further result on violations of the Monarch’s Coronation Oath, which is also part of our Constitution.
These are an important set of conditions. For example, consider, what are the limitations upon which MPs can aid and advise the Monarch? Can they advise him/her to give Royal Assent to any Bill at all, or are there limitations or restrictions upon what advice they can give to the Monarch, to pass into law?
The answer is clear – there are serious limitations and restrictions upon what Bills Parliamentary MPs can advise to the Monarch to give Royal Assent to. And more serious Constitutional limitations as to what Bills the Monarch is authorized to give Royal Assent to.
There are important pre-requisite actions required to be taken however prior to the Queen obtaining the advice and consent of the House of Commons and Senate.
Pursuant to s. 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice (MOJ) must read all proposed legislation and ensure that they were Constitutionally compliant in all ways, including in relation to the Charter. The purpose, as set out in s. 4.2(2), is to inform MPs and Senators of the potential Charter effects of the legislation.
This is a statutory requirement for all legislation, including Bill C-293. Has the MOJ complied with this section? Because its purpose is to inform MPs and Senators of potential Charter effects, they must have this information prior to the introduction of the Bill into the House of Commons and Senate, otherwise the purpose of this statute would be frustrated, with MPs and Senators voting upon a Bill with no idea as to its possible Charter infringements or effects.
In other words, it is to ensure that MPs and Senators have some measure of informed consent, prior to voting on the Bill.
This is done by way of what is called a Charter Statement. Here are some examples of Charter Statements tabled in the House of Commons for previous Bills.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/index.html?wbdisable=true
A similar requirement is set out in the Canadian Bill of Rights (CBR), which applies to all Federal legislation.
Section 3(1) of the CBR statutorily requires that the MOJ, “…shall…examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.”
If any provision of Bill C-293 is inconsistent with any provision in the CBR, the Minister must report this to the House of Commons as early as possible.
To date, the MOJ has not reported any inconsistencies between Bill C-293 and the CBR, to the House of Commons. However, inspection of Bill C-293 shows that indeed, there are many such inconsistencies. That however, is subject to another talk.
These provisions are in place to ensure that prior to MPs and Senators aiding and advising the Monarch to give Royal Assent to legislation, that the Bills do not violate our rights and freedoms that the Monarch is obligated to protect.
-
To make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada (aka POGG)
This is Parliament’s sole exclusive power – the residuum. To legislate in relation to matters that must be for the peace, order and good government of Canada. Bills being recommended for passage must meet all three of these requirements (“and”.)
Significant arguments can be made against many Federal legislation that they fail to meet these requirements.
The 29 listed items in s. 91, are purely examples or illustrations of the Federal legislative power, because Resolution 28 of the London Conference Resolutions (1866-67) listed them as “especially”, which was illustrative of the general residual power of Parliament. They are neither restrictive nor exhaustive.
By its very definition, POGG implies the rule of law. Good government means, fundamentally, that MPs will not fail to comply with their duties or exceed their powers. They will comply with their Oaths. This implies that MPs cannot aid and advise the Monarch to give Royal Assent to legislation which is contrary to the Monarch’s Coronation Oath promises, which remain the foundation of our Constitution in Canada, nor contrary to any other Constitutional provision, including the BNA Act.
Peace and order in Canada, should mean just that. Statutes should contribute to no (or little) crime and a structured society based on the rule of law…and God’s laws as protected in the Coronation Oath of the Monarch, in our Constitution.
The SCC has ruled that this POGG power encompasses three aspects: emergencies, gaps in Constitutional language, and national concerns. Gov’ts are relying upon national concern for Bill C-293 as this is the broadest and most encompassing. Emergencies, which all pandemics are by nature, are temporary. This is a corrupt way to avoid that.
However, to constitute a national concern, the following points are considered by the Courts, which Bill C-293 does not meet:
-
Is the matter distinguishable from a national emergency which is only for legislation “of a temporary nature;”
Yes, health is an ongoing issue.
Pandemics, if they truly exist, are only temporary. This does not make them an emergency either. Bill C-293 purports to treat health emergencies as a permanent national concern, which of course, they are not.
The Department of Health Act (DHA) does not address any national emergencies, only regular health care issues.
-
Is it a new matter that did not exist at the time of Confederation, or a matter that although “of a local or private nature in a province” has become “matters of national concern;”
No, it is not a new matter. Health was considered when the BNA Act was drafted and left to the Provinces, except for ports of entry. Infectious diseases are not a national concern, or the flu and common cold would be included. This has never been the case.
-
Does it have a “singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern” and does it not encroach on provincial jurisdiction so much that it unbalances the distribution of law-making powers; and
It has no such features. Further, it does significantly encroach on Provincial jurisdiction. The Federal Gov’t uses health care funding as a weapon against the Provinces.
-
In regard to its distinctive nature, how would other provinces be affected by “a provincial failure to deal effectively with the control or regulation of the intra-provincial aspects of the matter.”[17]
Each Province must deal with its own health care situation. And who determines what such a failure actually would be? Other Provinces may not even be experiencing, and may not ever experience health problems as may be occurring in other Provinces.
-
In relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces
Parliament’s power is not the power to pass laws – that is for the Monarch. This provision imparts a further restriction on such powers to pass laws by the King in Parliament.
Parliament’s residual power to legislate must be in relation matters not coming within the exclusive legislative powers of the Provinces.
To determine if legislation is a Federal or Provincial legislative, power, one must determine what the “matter” is that is being legislated for, ie: to look at the pith and substance of the act.
Once the “matter” is determined, then it must be further determined as to whether to be in the enumerated classes of subjects in s. 92 and if so, that ends the matter, or should end the matter, as these Provincial powers are exclusive, and local by their very nature. If not, it is a Federal legislative power under s. 91, which must be for the peace, order and good government of Canada, not the individual province(s).
Originally, s. 91 and 92 were claimed to be “watertight compartments” but the SCC has drilled so many holes (exceptions, but ifs, expansive definitions, etc.) into the compartment as to almost render the divisions of powers a colander.
But they are still in our Constitution and must be applied.
To summarize the above:
The Monarch
By and with the advice and consent of the House of Commons and the Senate
Can make laws
These laws must be for the peace, order and good government of Canada
These laws must be in relation to a “matter” that does not come within the enumerated classes of subject assigned to the Provinces in s. 92.
One would think that to be pretty simple. But as usual, lawyers intentionally and nefariously get in the way of such simplicity. Dealing then with Bill C-293, An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.
First, what is the “matter” that is being legislated for? In pith and substance, this is a matter in relation to an alleged pandemic, which is a health issue and involves health care. A pandemic is generally defined as:
“a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease over a whole country or the world at a particular time.” (Oxford Dictionary)
According to this definition, the common cold or the regular flu would be considered a pandemic. This is far too broad a definition to be of any significant legal use.
Interestingly, Bill C-293 has no definition section provided to define any of the words it utilizes in the Bill. This is absurd, and leaves this Bill open to so much interpretation as to be intentionally vague and overbroad, both Constitutional impediments to valid legislation.
Some legal questions immediately come to mind.
What is a pandemic and when does one begin in Canada – after people catch an infectious disease in two Provinces? Three?
How serious does the infection have to be to constitute a pandemic: death only, injuries? Or simply infectious, ie: a cold? 100 people, 1 000 000 people?
What is the “risk” that is required to exist or be mitigated against? How is this defined?
Does the fact that 1/100 000 people with comorbidities may die from contacting a flu, justify locking down airports, bus and rail stations again?
What is actually allowed to be done to mitigate such risks, and to what extent? To prevent a common cold transmission, do we lock down airports again? Laws must be reasonable and Bill C-293 provides no limits to powers therein, which alone is unreasonable.
That this Bill involves, in pith and substance, the matter of health care, can be seen by the opening wording (An Act to establish the Department of Health), the requirements it imposes on the Minister of Health for Canada in s. 3.1 to a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan, and s. 4.11 to amend the DHA accordingly. Though the Minister must work with and advise other Ministers, it is clearly a matter in relation to health.
No matter how one analyzes it, health, including prevention of disease, has historically and presently, always been a local and/or private concern, hence the Provincial control over hospitals, clinics, health care and prevention, etc., and historically the treatment and care for the ill, by families, friends and local communities.
Health matters are encapsulated in s. 92(7), “The Establishment, Maintenance and Manages of Hospitals…,” as well as to s. 92(16), “Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.” Health matters of all types and kinds, including communicable and infectious diseases, are strictly private in nature, evidenced by the doctrine of doctor-patient confidentiality, which stands on the same platform as lawyer-client confidentiality, if not more so.
There is nothing in the DHA that references national emergencies, gaps in Constitutional language, or national concerns, beyond Provincial health jurisdiction. Indeed, almost all of this Act relates to the same health issues that the Provinces have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over.
Examine the following sections of the DHA:
2(1) There is hereby established a department of the Government of Canada, called the Department of Health, over which the Minister of Health, appointed by commission under the Great Seal, shall preside.
4(1) The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the promotion and preservation of the health of the people of Canada not by law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada.
(2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Minister’s powers, duties and functions relating to health include the following matters:
(a) the administration of such Acts of Parliament and of orders or regulations of the Government of Canada as are not by law assigned to any other department of the Government of Canada or any minister of that Government relating in any way to the health of the people of Canada;
(a.1) the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada;
(b) the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the spreading of diseases;
(c) investigation and research into public health, including the monitoring of diseases;
(d) the establishment and control of safety standards and safety information requirements for consumer products and of safety information requirements for products intended for use in the workplace;
(e) the protection of public health on railways, ships, aircraft and all other methods of transportation, and their ancillary services;
(f) the promotion and preservation of the health of the public servants and other employees of the Government of Canada;
(g) the enforcement of any rules or regulations made by the International Joint Commission, promulgated pursuant to the treaty between the United States of America and His Majesty, King Edward VII, relating to boundary waters and questions arising between the United States and Canada, in so far as they relate to public health;
(h) subject to the Statistics Act, the collection, analysis, interpretation, publication and distribution of information relating to public health; and
(i) cooperation with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and improving public health.
From this it can be seen, that the DHA is a law, in relation to a “matter”, which in pith and substance, is health care and/or health issues. This is encompassed in s. 92 of the BNA Act.
The underlined parts above, could be in relation to Parliament’s power to legislation in relation to a “matter” that is in relation to quarantines in s. 91(11) of the BNA Act, involving as it does ports of entry into Canada. But that does not alter the rest of the DHA which is an action in relation to the “matter” of health care and/or prevention.
The DHA needs to be challenged immediately as being unconstitutional and ultra vires (outside the jurisdiction) of Parliament.
If the DHA is in relation to the “matter” of health, it cannot be, in pith and substance of a local or private nature.
Let’s examine s. 12 of the DHA:
Provincial or municipal boards not affected
12 Nothing in this Act or the regulations authorizes the Minister or any officer or employee of the Department to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any health authority operating under the laws of any province.
This is an express admission that health is a local or private concern and is within the exclusive legislative powers of the Provinces. That alone should end the debate and be an admission that Parliament is passing the DHA which it should not be so doing.
Attacking the DHA would render Bill C-293 unconstitutional as well. Both are in relation to the “matter” of health. We need to attack this Bill, once it becomes law, as a matter of health under exclusive Provincial jurisdiction.
The Federal Government is attempting to circumvent this by claiming it is of national importance, therefore it is now within Parliamentary legislative powers. If this was the case, as noted above, Parliament could legislation in relation to every transmittable disease including the common cold. This is absurd and not what was intended by the drafters of the BNA Act.
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has further contributed to this problem by claiming that because health issues are “amorphous”, either level of Gov’t can legislate upon it. This is not true. Health is and historically always has been a Provincial, local or private matter. Just because something can be transmitted to someone in another Province, does not change the character of the pith and substance of the issue.
Clearly the draftsmen of the BNA Act gave Parliament the power to stop infectious diseases from coming into the country (quarantine – which is at ports of entry), but gave “matters” of infectious diseases that are in the country, as well as all other health issues, as being in relation to local or private health care under s. 92.
Another issue of immediate challenge, is that Bill C-293 is void for vagueness and overbroad. It will authorize the Federal Gov’t to do virtually anything to stop an alleged pandemic. Consider the following provisions of this Bill:
A pandemic is not even legally defined in the Bill – this is the crux of the entire Bill. I suspect this was done to avoid immediate attention to the conflict with exclusive Provincial legislative powers and leave this up to the compromised, politically appointed judiciary.
-
2
The purpose of this Act is to prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to the Government of Canada’s efforts to do so.
-
3(2)(a)
set out a summary of mitigation strategies that the Minister of Health intends to implement in order to prevent the risk of and prepare for disease outbreaks that could lead to pandemics, as well as a projected timeline for their implementation
The goal of reducing the “risk of” a pandemic, is used repeatedly throughout Bill C-293. Yet, risk is not defined either. Is it a 1% risk, or 99% of transmission of an infectious disease or agent? Is it if there is a risk on an airplane only? Will it permit Gov’t Checkpoint Charlie searches at Provincial borders? (yes) And yes, these provisions will provide statutory authority for the Federal Government to bring in vaxx passports once again in the future, as well as possible forced vaccines upon you. As long as some unknown “risk” is minimized, virtually anything will be allowed.
Bill C-293 is similar to an emergencies declaration, but to permit it to be ongoing with no limitation dates. That is a further problem, because as previously stated, all pandemics are temporary. That there is no limitation period is frightening and will allow any future Gov’t to simply claim that there is a pandemic because an unknown number of people have an infectious disease in the country (or falsify statistics as was demonstrable done with COVID-19), and the lockdowns and health restrictions will continue indefinitely.
By its very nature, pandemics, if they truly exist, are cross-border phenomena and are temporary in nature, and thus fall more in line with emergency powers, as opposed to s. 91 powers. Gov’ts don’t want this…they want power forever, which is what Bill C-293 unconstitutionally purports to so do.
Finally, pursuant to s. 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, every statute must be construed and applied so as to not, “…abrogate, abridge or infringe or authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared…” There is no s. 1 override or demonstrably justifiable clause.
My analysis of Bill C-293, is that there is no “notwithstanding” clause in the Bill, that the eventual statute will operate despite the CBR. Consequently, Bill C-293, upon becoming a statute, cannot be interpreted or applied in any manner contrary to the provisions of the CBR. This includes s. 1:
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
Bill C-293 purports in some way, to illegally deny or infringe a), b), c) above directly, and d), (e) indirectly. The Gov’t already controls the press.
What the eventual plan will be from Bill C-293 is publicly unknown, but do not doubt for a second, that those behind the scenes promoting this already have these actions ready to be inserted into the plan. And they will not promote rights and freedoms – they will destroy them.
Let’s attack both Bill C-293 and the DHA directly at its source, the BNA Act, and get a qualified, committed lawyer to assist us in so doing.
Meanwhile, you can still personally contact the Senators and your MP and demand that they vote against this Bill. The TMF Report recently commented that MPs have to respond to letters sent in the mail by Canada Post. This may not be the case with emails. To ensure mail is delivered, it may cost a bit, but you can use Expresspost or Registered Mail.
Telling your MP or Senator a story may allow them to raise the issue on the floor of the House or Senate as well.
https://rumble.com/v5eb7q9-bill-c-293-with-wayne-peters.html
————————————–
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Digital-ID-Surveillance-and-the-Value-of-Privacy_Justice-Centre-for-Constitutional-Freedoms.pdf
————————————–
Please remember other innocent people who have stood up for our rights and freedoms against our tyrannical governments during COVID-19 and to the present, who are now in the midst of their ongoing, oppressive trials:
Tamara Lich
Chris Barber
The Coutts prisoners: Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert
Pat King
Tommy Robinson
and many other real victims.
NOTE: Jury decision in the Coutts trial was rendered and the jury determined that they were innocent of the primary charge of conspiracy to commit murder against police officers.
Despite this, they remain in custody now for over 900 days.
Justice Labrenz unbelievably sentenced Carbert to 6 ½ years for possession of a restricted firearm and six months for mischief (to be served concurrently), and Olienick to six years possession of a restricted firearm and six months for mischief, as well as a six month sentence for possession of an explosive also served concurrently, for a similar total of 6 ½ years. Less 900 days (credited to equal about four years).
Make no mistake, no one goes to jail for this length of time on these types of criminal offences.
An appeal by the Accused should now have already been filed.
The Crown, Mr. Johnston, to no surprise has already appealed as well.
Counsel for the accused has submitted a sealed envelope that could implicate one of the prosecutors in criminality. No details have yet been provided, but it is said to be part of the appeals process.
An application will be made shortly to have the prisoners released pending the hearing of their appeal.
Defence counsel have already raised the issue of the jury being pressured into a rushed verdict so as to be released for the August long weekend. This would not be surprising. Other concerns about the jury have already been expressed by counsel that they were culturally biased in relation to a firearms possession charge.
————————————–
Wins of the Week 40 with Ted Kuntz
And Dr. Trozzi
————————————–
————————————–
Action4Canada
Guidelines for Peaceful Protesting/Gathering/Rallies and/or Attending Events (eg. Council Meetings, School Boards, Handing out Flyers)
https://action4canada.com/know-your-rights-guidelines
Check out A4C for some of the most successful actions and strategies available to us!
And a big thank you to Tanya for all her hard work and dedication and support for the Christian principles that founded our nation!
————————————–
CASH UPDATES
In a mixed set of updates here. The Bank of Canada (B of C) has recently announced plans to suspend introduction of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) to the public.
https://www.kitco.com/news/article/2024-09-20/bank-canada-suspends-plans-introduce-cbdc-public
While this may sound victorious on its face, and there is much positive to say when such plans are shelved or put on hold, please remember the use of the word “suspend” as opposed to “cancel”.
Has the B of C simply decided to wait on the outcomes and research from other countries and then simply tag along?
In this past summer, the B of C was recommending Canada provide its own CBDC for digital payments. This apparently has been suspended or now put on hold. We can only hope for some permanency to this decision.
We need a Constitutional amendment that 100% absolutely provides for the mandatory use and acceptance of cash for all transactions – in any amount. So, if you wish to pay $1 000 000.00 for a house in $100/bills, you should be allowed to so do. That is privacy.
Conversely, Google has announced that the Google Wallet can now function as digital ID, based on the selling point of course, of convenience to the exclusion of all privacy. Once privacy is lost, so is freedom.
“Imagine starting a vacation like this,” Google Wallet executive Alan Stapelberg wrote in a blog post last week. “You arrive at the airport and breeze through security by tapping your phone to a reader, scanning your boarding pass and ID. While waiting to board, you grab a drink at an airport bar, tapping your phone to prove your age. When you arrive at your destination, you find your rental car and leave the lot without stopping for an in-person ID check because you already provided the necessary information in the rental car app. You check into your hotel online and your key is issued straight to your digital wallet. You do all of this with your phone — no physical wallet required.”
https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/google-announces-digital-id-wallet
REMINDER
New Credit Card Fees & Lack of Privacy
It is starting – Use cash as much as possible – use credit cards or digital only if there is no other alternative.
The Bank of Canada is admittedly planning for digital currency. It claims that it will not replace cash – BUT – and here is the caveat, it will continue to use cash “notes for as long as Canadians want them.”
In other words, if you don’t use cash, you will lose it. Reading between the lines, it is clear that the Gov’t will simply issue press releases and polls showing most Canadians don’t use and/or don’t want cash, and then the Bank of Canada will claim it has to eliminate cash because few people are using it or want it, and it is, ironically, too costly to maintain printing the notes and coins.
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/digitaldollar/#what-digital-canadian
Bill Still, the US Patriot and author of the incredible documentary, The Money Masters, outlines the results of recent polls showing that 86% of Canadians fear the digital dollar!!! Wow.
87% of Canadians have heard or are aware of the Bank of Canada’s CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency), and 82% are strongly opposed to it!!
Companies will not use digital currency if we are not using digital currency!
It will cost them too much in lost business.
Here are two awesome posters that you can distribute to all businesses to put on their entrance doors, advocating for the use of cash. Print on 8 1/2 x 11 glossy hard stock for best results.
For Business owners:
The dangers of digital gov’t ID and currencies are here… you need to use cash as much as possible. As recognized by Freedom Rising, there are many inherent dangers of using digital currency. What do you do, not if, but when:
The internet is down
There is a power outage
The card reader malfunctions
Your phone battery dies or doesn’t work for other reasons
WE SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS WELL:
Your phone is stolen
Your passwords are co-opted
Your credit/debit card strip is damaged – needs replacing
There are errors in relation to the quantum of $$ on your card
Gov’t limits your purchases/CRA liens the balance on your card
AND MANY OTHER DANGERS
CLEAR has promoted the non-use of digital currencies and credit/debit cards as much as possible, for years.
Suggested Solution:
Withdraw money on Saturday/Sunday from the bank or bank machine, and then leave your money at home if you are scared to carry it with you, and just carry the amounts of cash for each day’s purchases for the week.
NO MORE CARDS!!!! NO EXCUSES!
USE CASH $$$$$$$$$
Do you want to be the next person to be “unbanked” because of your political beliefs????
Get these cards below at the CLEAR booth to give out everytime you use cash – or print your own to hand out!
Make Business sized cards to hand out at all your cash purchases!
————————————–
Kindness of the week
To Lloyd and Jacqui, who have kindly filled in for me at our Kelowna Freedom Rallies!!
And….
To all our kind and wonderful volunteers who make this all possible…including these newsletters!
Thank you!!!
————————————–
Sunday Paper Deliveries
Next delivery day:
Summer Holidays
(Weather Permitting)
————————————–
CLEARBITS:
A must insight to making informed voting choices.
https://politicalscorecards.ca/
————————————–
Pastor Reimer acquitted of all charges related to protest against Drag Queen Story Hour in Calgary
https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/pastor_reimer_not_guilty_protesting_drag_queen_story_hour_calgary
————————————–
The Liberal appointed Speaker of the House of Commons, recently supported the cover up of those traitors in our Gov’t, claiming it was not that important an issue to be addressed at the present time.
————————————–
Two CTV officials were fired recently for cutting and pasting words from Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, making him appear to say something in fact he did not say. Unfortunately, these two officials are simply the scapegoats, as this has happened before and will happen again, until so doing is criminalized.
https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/slobodian-ctvs-poilievre-hit-was-not-journalism/58230
————————————–
Freedom of expression is being further limited to only what you are allowed to say by the Gov’t.
Winnipeg (Communist) City MP introduces private member’s Bill to criminalize denial of alleged residential school system was genocide, or attempted genocide. This would now be classified as hate speech.
https://x.com/Harry__Faulkner/status/1839405095865479181?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
————————————–
Of the 16 cities in the world with the highest % of foreign-born populations, half of them, are in Canada. 5 of the 6 highest are in Canada. This has to stop before our entire culture is replaced and destroyed.
https://x.com/Bret_Sears/status/1841500344930472287?t=nylxTYDwdFFg9Jktk7FC3A&s=19
Freedom Rallies
Publicity is the soul of justice
https://academic.oup.com/book/35276/chapter-abstract/299868899?redirectedFrom=fulltext
“It ain’t over till it’s over”
Next Kelowna Rallies:
Saturday
October 5, 2024
Stuart Park!!
October 12, 2024
Hwy 97 & Cooper
Join us for important announcements on the local, legal scene, and informative speakers!
October 5, 2024 12:00 noon
Vernon Freedom Rally
12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. @ Polson Park
Join Ted for the Largest rally in the North Okanagan, and growing weekly!
North Okanagan Shuswap Freedom Radio
http://s1.voscast.com:11464/stream
—————
October 5, 2024 12:00 noon
Kamloops Freedom Gathering
Valleyview Centennial Park
—————
October 5, 2024 12:00 noon
O.K. Falls Freedom Rally
11:30 a.m.
Across from Esso Station
—————
October 5, 2024 12:00 noon
Oliver Freedom Rally
12:00 p.m.
Town Hall
—————————————
CLEAR Telegram
With almost 550 members now and growing, join us in our C.L.E.A.R. Telegram group! Please remember: no foul language, abuse or vulgarity for any posts, keep posts relevant to today’s freedom issues, humour is fine, be respectful at all times. Government officials, police, agents or their posts are not accepted nor permitted on this site. Please ensure as best you can, that material you post is accurate and correct. Posting false or incorrect information is not acceptable.
Help us ensure all posts are verified for correctness.
Opinions and discussions on relevant issues are also encouraged.
This is a private group for trusted people and friends only.
https://t.me/+SWxndPh1I9F2Iu-q