Connect with us

COVID-19

Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich says Ontario gov’t still withholding $5 million in donations

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

In a recent podcast, Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich said that there is about $5.5 million in citizen donations ‘locked up in an escrow’ and ‘seized by the Government of Ontario.’

Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich, who is currently on trial for her role in organizing the historic protest, says the Ontario government is withholding $5.5 million of donations raised for the movement in 2022.

In a May episode of the conservative-leaning podcast “Stand on Guard,” Lich told host David Krayden that $5.5 million Freedom Convoy donations given through GiveSendGo are currently frozen by the Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative Ontario government.

“It’s locked up in an escrow I think,” Lich said. “There’s about $5.5 million that are locked up in an escrow seized by the Government of Ontario.” 

“They have a seizure order on it, as well as a forfeiture order on it,” she explained. “So I mean, the outcome of our criminal trial is definitely going to affect that.” 

Currently, Lich is being tried for her involvement in the Freedom Convoy which featured thousands of Canadians gathering in downtown Ottawa to call for an end to COVID regulations and vaccine mandates in the winter of 2022.  

At the time, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had disparaged unvaccinated Canadians, saying those opposing his measures were a “small, fringe minority” who hold “unacceptable views” and do not “represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other.”  

While the trial is still ongoing, Lich promised that if the donations are ever returned, “we’ll do what we said we were going to do, we’ve got registration forms, from some of the truckers and people that were in Ottawa, to reimburse them, as well.” 

“As you know, we always wanted to donate what was ever left over to the veterans, that was always our goal,” she continued.  

As the protestors refused to give up despite their low funds and the freezing Canadian winter, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act (EA) for the first time in Canadian history.   

Among the measures taken under the EA was freezing bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the protest.   

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.  

Eventually, Trudeau’s use of the EA was ruled to have violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley. 

According to the January ruling, the EA is meant to be reserved as a last resort if all other means fail. In Mosley’s judgement, this threshold was not met and thus, the Trudeau government violated the rights of Canadians.

Shortly after the ruling, Trudeau announced that he would be appealing to the Federal Court of Appeal, where he has appointed 10 of the 15 judges.

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

COVID-19

Kansas AG sues Pfizer for misrepresenting COVID shot as ‘safe and effective’

Published on

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach sues Pfizer for falsely claiming COVID shot is ‘safe and effective’

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Kansas’s approach of attempting to penalize Pfizer for misrepresenting the shots’ risks, rather than the risks themselves, could help get around the PREP Act, and if successful would establish a model for other states to follow.

Kansas Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach announced on Monday that he is suing pharmaceutical giant Pfizer over “multiple misleading statements” about the health risks and ineffectiveness of its mRNA-based COVID-19 shot, in a case that if successful could mark a turning point in the ongoing battle against the controversial injections.

“Pfizer misled Kansans about the vaccines’ risks, including to pregnant women and for myocarditis,” the complaint states, according to a press release from the attorney general’s office. “Additionally, Pfizer claimed its vaccine protected against COVID variants, despite data showing otherwise. The pharmaceutical giant also suggested its vaccine prevented COVID transmission, but later admitted it had never studied whether its vaccine stopped transmission.”

“The complaint also alleges that Pfizer coordinated with social media officials to censor speech critical of COVID-19 vaccines and declined to participate in the federal government’s vaccine development program, Operation Warp Speed, to avoid government oversight,” Kobach’s office further says.

READ: The Telegraph admits COVID shots may have helped cause over 3 million excess deaths

Among its attempts to deceive the public, Pfizer maintained its own adverse event database, which included cases not reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but “did not publicly release adverse events data from its database.” It also “did not disclose that its trial included only healthy individuals and excluded unhealthy individuals” and therefore “did not possess a reasonable basis to represent that it was safe for individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, who were immunocompromised, or who were pregnant or breastfeeding,” according to the lawsuit.

The complaint maintains that Pfizer’s misrepresentations, which helped the company earn $75 billion in two years, constitute violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, “regardless of whether any individual consumer ultimately received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”

In a statement to Fox Business, Pfizer responded that its claims “have been accurate and science-based. The Company believes that the state’s case has no merit and will respond to the suit in due course.”

READ: Pfizer reportedly withheld presence of cancer-linked DNA in COVID jabs from FDA, Health Canada

significant body of evidence links significant risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative. Among it, VAERS reports 37,647 deaths, 216,757 hospitalizations, 21,741 heart attacks, and 28,445 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of May 31, 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.

READ: Canadian father files $35 million lawsuit against Pfizer over son’s jab-related death

In Florida, a grand jury impaneled by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is currently investigating the manufacture and rollout of the COVID shots. In February, it released its first interim report on the underlying justification for Operation Warp Speed, which determined that lockdowns did more harm than good, that masks were ineffective at stopping COVID transmission, that COVID was “statistically almost harmless” to children and most adults, and that it is “highly likely” that COVID hospitalization numbers were inflated. The grand jury’s report on the jabs themselves is highly anticipated.

One long-standing impediment to holding Big Pharma accountable for the above issues has been the federal Public Readiness & Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, which, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Near the beginning of the COVID outbreak, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) invoked the act in declaring the virus a “public health emergency.”

READ: 33-year-old father dies of immune disorder linked to Pfizer COVID vaccine, doctors say

Under this “sweeping” immunity, CRS explains, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those countermeasures are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from those countermeasures, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”

Kansas’s approach of attempting to penalize Pfizer for misrepresenting the shots’ risks, rather than the risks themselves, could help get around the PREP Act, and if successful would establish a model for other states to follow.

Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

How Did a Small Group Do This?

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By JEFFREY A. TUCKER

“You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.”

A very interesting study appeared last week by two researchers looking into the pandemic policy response around the world. They are Drs. Eran Bendavid and Chirag Patel of Stanford and Harvard, respectively. Their ambition was straightforward. They wanted to examine the effects of government policy on the virus.

In this ambition, after all, researchers have access to an unprecedented amount of information. We have global data on strategies and stringencies. We have global data on infections and mortality. We can look at it all according to the timeline. We have precise dating of stay-at-home orders, business closures, meeting bans, masking, and every other physical intervention you can imagine.

The researchers merely wanted to track what worked and what did not, as a way of informing future responses to viral outbreaks so that public health can learn lessons and do better next time. They presumed from the outset they would discover that at least some mitigation tactics achieved the aim.

It is hardly the first such study. I’ve seen dozens of such efforts, and there are probably hundreds or thousands of these. The data is like catnip to anyone in this field who is empirically minded. So far, not even one empirical examination has shown any effect of anything but that seems like a hard conclusion to swallow. So these two decided to take a look for themselves.

They even went to the next step. They assembled and reassembled all existing data in every conceivable way, running fully 100,000 possible combinations of tests that all future researchers could run. They found some correlations in some policies but the problem is that every time they found one, they found another instance in which the reverse seemed to be true.

You cannot infer causation if the effects are not stable.

After vast data manipulation and looking at every conceivable policy and outcome, the researchers reluctantly come to an incredible conclusion. They conclude that nothing that governments did had any effect. There was only cost, no benefit. Everywhere in the world.

Please just let that sink in.

The policy response destroyed countless millions of small businesses, ruined a generation in learning losses, spread ill health with substance abuse, wrecked churches that could not hold holiday services, decimated arts and cultural institutions, broke trade, unleashed inflation that is nowhere near done with us yet, provoked new forms of online censorship, built government power in a way without precedent, led to new levels of surveillance, spread vaccine injury and death, and otherwise shattered liberties and laws the world over, not to mention leading to frightening levels of political instability.

And for what?

Apparently, it was all for nought.

Nor has there been any sort of serious reckoning. The European Commission elections are perhaps a start, and heavily influenced by public opposition to Covid controls, in addition to other policies that are robbing nations of their histories and identities. The major media can call the victors “far right” all they want but this is really about common people simply wanting their lives back.

It’s interesting to speculate about precisely how many people were involved in setting the world on fire. We know the paradigm was tried first in Wuhan, then blessed by the World Health Organization. As regards the rest of the world, we know some names, and there were many cohorts in public health and gain-of-function research.

Let’s say there are 300 of them, plus many national security and intelligence officials plus their sister agencies around the world. Let’s just add a zero plus multiply that by the large countries, presuming that so many others were copycats.

What are we talking about here? Maybe 3,000 to 5,000 people total in a decision-making capacity? That might be far too high. Regardless, compared with the sheer number of people around the world affected, we are talking about a tiny number, a mico-percent of the world’s population or less making new rules for the whole of humanity.

The experiment was without precedent on this scale. Even Deborah Birx admitted it. “You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.” The experiment was on whole societies.

How in the world did this come to be? There are explanations that rely on mass psychology, the influence of pharma, the role of the intelligence services, and other theories of cabals and conspiracies. Even with every explanation, the whole thing seems wildly implausible. Surely it would have been impossible without global communications and media, which amplified the entire agenda in every respect.

Because of this, kids could not go to school. People in public parks had to stay within circles. Businesses could not open at full capacity. We developed insane rituals like masking when walking and unmasking when sitting. Oceans of sanitizer would be dumped on all people and things. People were made to be afraid of leaving their homes and clicked buttons to make groceries arrive on their doorsteps.

It was a global science experiment without any foundation in evidence. And the experience utterly transformed our legal systems and lives, introducing uncertainties and anxieties as never before and unleashing a level of crime in major cities that provoked residential, business, and capital flight.

This is a scandal for the ages. And yet hardly anyone in major media seems to be interested in getting to the bottom of it. That’s because, for bizarre reasons, looking too carefully at the culprits and policies here is regarded as being for Trump. And the hate and fear of Trump is so beyond reason at this point that whole institutions have decided to sit back and watch the world burn rather than be curious about what provoked this in the first place.

Instead of an honest accounting of the global upheaval, we are getting the truth in dribs and drabs. Anthony Fauci continues to testify for Congressional hearings and this extremely clever man threw his longtime collaborator under the bus, acting like David Morens was a rogue employee. That action seemed to provoke ex-CDC director Robert Redfield to go public, saying that it was a lab leak from a US-funded lab doing “dual purpose” research into vaccines and viruses, and strongly suggesting that Fauci himself was involved in the cover-up.

Among this group, we are quickly approaching the point of “Every man for himself.” It is fascinating to watch, for those of us who are deeply interested in this question. But for the mainstream media, none of this gets any coverage at all. They act like we should just accept what happened and not think anything about it.

This great game of pretend is not sustainable. To be sure, maybe the world is more broken than we know but something about cosmic justice suggests that when a global policy this egregious, this damaging, this preposterously wrongheaded, does all harm and no good, there are going to be consequences.

Not immediately but eventually.

When will the whole truth emerge? It could be decades from now but we already know this much for sure. Nothing we were promised about the great mitigation efforts by governments turned out to achieve anything remotely what they promised. And yet even now, the World Health Organization continues to uphold such interventions as the only way forward.

Meanwhile, the paradigm of bad science backed by force pervades nearly everything these days, from climate change to medical services to information controls.

When will evidence matter again?


Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

 

Author

  • Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading

Trending

X