Connect with us

COVID-19

Judge puts Freedom Convoy trial on hold until summer

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Justice Heather Perkins-McVey is giving both sides more time to build a case.

The judge overseeing the trial for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber adjourned the court proceedings until August to allow for the government to prepare legal arguments to back its claim that the leaders were “co-conspirators” as well as give time to the defense to prepare their case that the leaders are innocent.

The months-long court case started on September 5, 2023, in an Ottawa courthouse.

On Day 38 last Friday, the Democracy Fund (TDF), which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, noted in a legal update that Justice Heather Perkins-McVey stated that she would not hear the “Carter application before closing arguments” but that “it will be heard simultaneously.”

The government has been hoping to use what is called a “Carter application” to help them make their case against Lich and Barber by trying to prove that the leaders were “co-conspirators,” meaning that accusations placed against one leader automatically apply to the other.

The government’s “Carter Application” asks that the judge consider “Barber’s statements and actions to establish the guilt of Lich, and vice versa.”

A Carter application requires that the government prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there was a “conspiracy or plan in place and that Lich was a party to it based on direct evidence,” and, as such, the defense is asking the judge to dismiss the application.

According to the TDF, Perkins-McVey delayed the trial until August so the government and the defense have time to “prepare their submissions without knowing the exact evidence admitted by the Court against each defendant.”

“This is because the Court’s ruling on the Carter application determines whether the statements of one defendant can be attributed to the other,” the TDF said.

Thus far, the government has asserted “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.”

The reality is that Lich and Barber collaborated with police on many occasions so that the protests were within the law. Lawrence Greenspon, Lich’s counsel, and Barber’s attorney, Diane Magas, have said they will argue against the Carter application.

The trial will resume August 13, with extra court dates planned for August 14-15 and August 19-23. LifeSiteNews has covered the trial extensively since it began last year.

Court will allow some ‘extra’ statements from Barber to be submitted

The court also ruled Friday that only some extra statements of Barber will be allowed to be admitted as per the “one statement rule.” Perkins-McVey will soon issue a ruling “shortly,” the TDF reported.

Day 37 included some “important” updates, according to their legal team, as their lawyers argued that allowing video to be entered as evidence would provide “context and completeness” into why they led the protests.

Last Thursday’s court proceedings saw Magas continue her “submission on the admissibility of statements of videos made by her client (Barber).”

Day 37 also saw the defense move to argue that the “Carter application should be ‘bifurcated’ — that is, it should be heard and ruled upon by the Court before closing submissions.”

On Day 36, lawyers argued that video statements made by the leaders should be allowed as “evidence of the truth.”

The trial resumed for one day, on March 7, for only the second court date since the new year, with Perkins-McVey deciding to dismiss an application by the Freedom Convoy leaders that asked the court to throw out so-called conspiracy charges.

Lich and Barber are facing multiple charges from the 2022 protests, including mischief, counseling mischief, counseling intimidation and obstructing police for taking part in and organizing the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy. As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for weeks before she was granted bail.

Besides the ongoing trial, Lich and Barber and a host of others recently filed a $2 million lawsuit against the Trudeau government for its use of the Emergencies Act (EA) to quash the Freedom Convoy in 2022.

In early 2022, thousands of Canadians from coast to coast came to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14.  Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23.

The EA controversially allowed the government to freeze the bank accounts of protesters, conscript tow truck drivers, and arrest people for participating in assemblies the government deemed illegal.

During the clear-out of protesters after the EA was put in place, an elderly lady was trampled by a police horse and one conservative female reporter was beaten by police and shot with a tear gas canister.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta Sheriffs Branch

Crown appeal against acquitted peaceful protestor Evan Blackman back in court June 19

Published on

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a hearing date for Evan Blackman’s summary conviction appeal has been set for June 19, 2024. The hearing will take place at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa.

The Crown’s evidence against Blackman at his trial consisted of a 14-minute drone video, with no sound, and the testimony of one officer from the scene. For nine minutes of that video, Blackman is seen as part of a group of protestors standing across from a line of police officers on Rideau Street in downtown Ottawa. Blackman is shown de-escalating the situation by holding other protestors back and putting his hand up to stop them from confronting the officers. He is then seen kneeling in front of police for the five minutes prior to his arrest. At one point, while on his knees, he takes off his hat, puts his hands on his chest, and starts singing Canada’s national anthem.

The Ottawa Crown Attorney’s Office is appealing Blackman’s acquittal on charges of mischief and obstructing the police relating to his participation in the Freedom Convoy protests, specifically on February 18, 2022, the day police conducted an “enforcement action” – clearing Ottawa city streets following the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the federal government four days prior.

Blackman was acquitted after a one-day trial on October 23, 2023. The Justice Centre provided lawyers for Blackman’s defence at that trial and continues to support him throughout this appeal.

At trial, Mr. Blackman pled “not guilty” to all charges. The judge dismissed the case against him due to limited evidence and the poor memory of a police witness on key elements of the criminal offenses.

After his February 18, 2022 arrest and release the same day, Blackman discovered his three bank accounts had been frozen pursuant to the Emergency Economic Measures Order.

Chris Fleury, lawyer for Blackman, notes that if his client had been convicted, his intention was to bring an application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, seeking a remedy for the freezing of Mr. Blackman’s bank account. If Mr. Blackman’s acquittal is overturned on appeal, he intends to file this application.

Chris Fleury says, “The limited evidence available at Mr. Blackman’s trial showed Mr. Blackman attempting to de-escalate a volatile situation between police and protestors on February 18. He pled not guilty to the criminal offences that he was charged with, and the trial judge ultimately agreed and found him not guilty. This appeal is an attempt by the Crown to reframe findings of fact that they disagree with as legal errors. Mr. Blackman and I are looking forward to our day in Court at the appeal hearing.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

COVID Is Over — But Did We Learn Anything From It?

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By PETER ROFF

 

The lockdowns instituted during the COVID pandemic were only supposed to last a few days. Remember “14 days to flatten the curve” was all that was needed to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed by patients infected with the rapidly spreading novel coronavirus.

Two weeks turned into three, then months. Schools were closedBusinesses were shut down. Commercial activity in the world’s most powerful nation ground almost to a halt, but the virus kept killing, mutating and spreading.

States like California and Kentucky enforced the lockdowns with ruthless efficiency. The free exercise of worship and assembly was crushed on the altar of public health and safety.

Was it worth it? The Committee to Unleash Prosperity’s report, “COVID Lessons Learned: A Retrospective After Four Years,” says no. Its authors, who include the Hoover Institution’s Dr. Scott Atlas (who served as an adviser to the White House Coronavirus Task Force), Johns Hopkins University economist Steve Hanke and the University of Chicago’s Casey Mulligan conclude, by using publicly available data and peer-reviewed studies, that the lockdowns cost more lives than they saved.

Atlas, Hanke, Mulligan and Phil Kerpen, president of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity (CTUP) and the fourth and final co-author, conclude: “The ordered shutdown of our schools, churches, and businesses brought little health benefits while imposing multi-trillions of dollars of long-term societal costs.”

“We did not focus on theories or models. We looked at cold, hard facts,” Kerpen says. “The evidence is overwhelming. Lockdowns, school closures, and societal panic/disruption resulted in a staggering number of excess non-COVID deaths in the United States versus zero in non-lockdown Sweden.”

Kerpen estimates that the policies implemented during the lockdowns saved approximately 16,000 lives while causing about 400,000 extra deaths and imposing staggering economic costs, including the loss of 49 million jobs.

Other adverse consequences stemming from the lockdowns cited in the report include a $6 trillion increase in government debt, hundreds of thousands of business bankruptcies and hundreds of thousands of excess deaths from loneliness, depression, alcoholism, drug abuse and delayed hospital care in part due to the forced social isolation.

In the U.S., catastrophes like COVID are usually followed by the appointment of bi-partisan, blue-ribbon commissions to study everything and issue recommendations we’re told will prevent something similar from happening again.

That hasn’t been done this time, which reinforces the suspicion in some minds that COVID-era policymakers who are still in a position to influence the conversation are hiding something. Having made a hash of things, they just as soon allow it all to slide down the memory hole.

Even in China, where popular opinion doesn’t matter, the investigation into the origins of the virus hit a stonewall thanks to what news reports have called “bureaucratic infighting.”

Too many people think the lockdowns worked. They’re ignoring the data. The CTUP report shows them to be wrong. It’s a call for a further probe that searches for the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it might be. Without it, how can we be sure the public’s health and safety will be protected the next time, not to mention our civil liberties?

The CTUP report offers a few “lessons learned” that should inform policymakers’ decision-making in the next crisis. One is that “Leaders should calm public fears, not stoke them.”

“Conventional wisdom pre-COVID was that communities respond best to pandemics when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted,” the authors conclude. During the pandemic, responsible officials in the public eye “intentionally stoked and amplified fear, which overlaid enormous economic, social, educational, and health harms on top of the harms of the virus itself.”

As hard as it is to argue against that, it’s easy to suggest the crisis was used as a political club. What of it? Suppose public health officials, the media, and other policymakers deliberately ignored sound science and proven pandemic countermeasures to inflict political damage on a president they wished to see booted from office. Does that matter? The answer is yes, it does.

There’s more to be learned because there’s more to be studied. None of the nations that used lockdowns to prevent COVID from spreading can report that they worked as intended.

“The best-performing major country in the world was Sweden,” Kerpen says, “which did not employ mandatory lockdowns. Yet, to the extent that official and unofficial commissions in many countries have issued reports, they say the principal lesson to be learned from the pandemic is to lockdown harder and faster. The evidence doesn’t support that. It tells us that the lockdown policies must never be imposed again.”

If Kerpen is correct, and the evidence suggests he is, then policymakers are drawing the wrong conclusions. Lockdowns were a failure, not a success.

Other ways must be found to prevent a future outbreak from turning into a pandemic, hopefully, before the next crisis presents itself.

A former U.S. News & World Report columnist and United Press International senior political writer, Peter Roff is an acknowledged expert on U.S. politics and the policy process. His take on politics and policy appears frequently in print and on U.S. and international broadcasting outlets. Email him at RoffColumns AT gmail.com. Follow him on social media AT TheRoffDraft.

Continue Reading

Trending

X