COVID-19
Federal court rules COVID shots don’t stop transmission of virus, sides with anti-mandate lawsuit

From LifeSiteNews
Judge R. Nelson affirmed that the COVID injections do not ‘prevent the spread of COVID-19’ and ruled in favor of a group of plaintiffs suing the Los Angeles school district for mandating the experimental jabs.
An appeals court ruled that mRNA COVID-19 shots do not prevent viral transmission and therefore that mandating COVID injections lacks legal basis.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday vacated the dismissal of a lawsuit against a California school district for mandating COVID shots, brought forth by the Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical freedom, and other plaintiffs.
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) had required that employees get the injections or “lose their jobs,” which the plaintiffs said “interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment,” the appeals court noted.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had defended LAUSD’s jab mandate on the grounds that the 1905 Supreme Court decision Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld the right of states to mandate smallpox vaccinations.
READ: CDC discloses 780,000 new reports of serious side effects after COVID-19 vaccination
However, in an opinion penned by Judge R. Nelson, the Ninth Circuit appeals court said that the whole basis of Jacobson was the assumption that vaccines prevented the transmission of smallpox, whereas the plaintiffs in this case “have plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively ‘prevent the spread’ of COVID-19.”
“At this stage, we must accept Plaintiff’s allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply,” wrote Judge Nelson.
The plaintiffs also asserted that the mRNA COVID shots are not “traditional” vaccines, in part because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its definition of a “vaccine” in September 2021, from a product that “produce[s] immunity” to a “preparation” which “stimulate[s] the body’s immune response.”
“Their complaint’s crux is that the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is not a vaccine,” Nelson explained. “’Traditional’ vaccines, Plaintiffs claim, should prevent transmission or provide immunity to those who get them. But the COVID-19 vaccine does neither.”
READ: Japan’s most senior cancer doctor: COVID shots are ‘essentially murder’
As LifeSiteNews has previously reported, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, affirmed during a European Union (EU) hearing that the pharma giant did not test the ability of its mRNA COVID-19 jabs to stop transmission of the virus, but pushed them through anyway to keep up with “the speed of science.”
This contradicted prior claims by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and other prominent U.S. “experts” that the vast majority of people who had gotten “fully vaccinated” would not get or transmit COVID-19. U.S. President Joe Biden also falsely asserted that people who had gotten jabbed couldn’t spread COVID to others. Their claims lent credence to efforts in the United States and abroad to require people to get injected with the experimental shots before being allowed to participate in social life.
Dr. Anthony Fauci himself declared numerous times that people who take the injections become “dead ends to the virus,” before later reversing himself, as others supporters of the COVID jabs have done, including Bill Gates.
Small’s admission that Pfizer did not determine whether the COVID shots could stop transmission prompted Member of European Parliament Rob Roos to publicly declare that it was “shocking” and “even criminal” that governments allowed vaccine passports to become a reality when Pfizer had not even tested whether the shots stopped transmission.
READ: ‘So many have died’: Former Japanese minister apologizes for COVID jab-linked deaths
A significant body of evidence links serious risks to the COVID shots. Among it, VAERS reports 37,544 deaths, 216,213 hospitalizations, 21,668 heart attacks, and 28,366 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of April 26, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.
COVID-19
Court compels RCMP and TD Bank to hand over records related to freezing of peaceful protestor’s bank accounts

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice has ordered the RCMP and TD Bank to produce records relating to the freezing of Mr. Evan Blackman’s bank accounts during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest.
Mr. Blackman was arrested in downtown Ottawa on February 18, 2022, during the federal government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act. He was charged with mischief and obstruction, but he was acquitted of these charges at trial in October 2023.
However, the Crown appealed Mr. Blackman’s acquittal in 2024, and a new trial is scheduled to begin on August 14, 2025.
Mr. Blackman is seeking the records concerning the freezing of his bank accounts to support an application under the Charter at his upcoming retrial.
His lawyers plan to argue that the freezing of his bank accounts was a serious violation of his rights, and are asking the court to stay the case accordingly.
“The freezing of Mr. Blackman’s bank accounts was an extreme overreach on the part of the police and the federal government,” says constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury.
“These records will hopefully reveal exactly how and why Mr. Blackman’s accounts were frozen,” he says.
Mr. Blackman agreed, saying, “I’m delighted that we will finally get records that may reveal why my bank accounts were frozen.”
This ruling marks a significant step in what is believed to be the first criminal case in Canada involving a proposed Charter application based on the freezing of personal bank accounts under the Emergencies Act.
Alberta
COVID mandates protester in Canada released on bail after over 2 years in jail

Chris Carbert (right) and Anthony Olienick, two of the Coutts Four were jailed for over two years for mischief and unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose.
From LifeSiteNews
The “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, which allowed it to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy
COVID protestor Chris Carbert has been granted bail pending his appeal after spending over two years in prison.
On June 30, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Jo-Anne Strekaf ordered the release of Chris Carbert pending his appeal of charges of mischief and weapons offenses stemming from the Coutts border blockade, which protested COVID mandates in 2022.
“[Carbert] has demonstrated that there is no substantial likelihood that he will commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice if released from detention pending the hearing of his appeals,” Strekaf ruled.
“If the applicant and the Crown are able to agree upon a release plan and draft order to propose to the court, that is to be submitted by July 14,” she continued.
Carbert’s appeal is expected to be heard in September. So far, Carbert has spent over two years in prison, when he was charged with conspiracy to commit murder during the protest in Coutts, which ran parallel to but was not officially affiliated with the Freedom Convoy taking place in Ottawa.
Later, he was acquitted of the conspiracy to commit murder charge but still found guilty of the lesser charges of unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and mischief over $5,000.
In September 2024, Chris Carbert was sentenced to six and a half years for his role in the protest. However, he is not expected to serve his full sentence, as he was issued four years of credit for time already served. Carbert is also prohibited from owning firearms for life and required to provide a DNA sample.
Carbert was arrested alongside Anthony Olienick, Christopher Lysak and Jerry Morin, with the latter two pleading guilty to lesser charges to avoid trial. At the time, the “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, which allowed it to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy occurring thousands of kilometers away in Ottawa.
Under the Emergency Act (EA), the Liberal government froze the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the Freedom Convoy. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out. At the time, seven of Canada’s 10 provinces opposed Trudeau’s use of the EA.
Since then, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the Emergencies Act, a decision that the federal government is appealing.
-
Alberta7 hours ago
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
-
Crime6 hours ago
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Health5 hours ago
RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
-
Bruce Dowbiggin8 hours ago
The Game That Let Canadians Forgive The Liberals — Again
-
Alberta1 day ago
COVID mandates protester in Canada released on bail after over 2 years in jail
-
Crime2 days ago
Project Sleeping Giant: Inside the Chinese Mercantile Machine Linking Beijing’s Underground Banks and the Sinaloa Cartel
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta uncorks new rules for liquor and cannabis
-
armed forces1 day ago
Canada’s Military Can’t Be Fixed With Cash Alone