In court on Monday, the defense teams of Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber again argued that the Crown has failed to establish that a criminal conspiracy existed between the two defendants
The trial of Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber resumed Monday with the defense arguing that a Crown request to make it so that criminal charges against one leader should apply to the other leaders as well should not be allowed to take place, as there is no evidence the pair worked in a conspiratorial manner.
The trial is currently seeing the defense counsel for Lich and Barber take their turn in calling forth witnesses before the court.
On Monday, counsel for Lich, Eric Granger said to the court, “Ultimately, our submission is what’s required in order to invoke the co-conspirators exception, if there’s something more, a plan that’s more focused and specific than an overarching commonality of purpose.”
Granger said that there needs to be a “very specific plan or common design that’s criminal in nature” in order to prove that Lich and Barber are somehow legally responsible for leading the Freedom Convoy in the commission of alleged crimes, a case he says the Crown does not have.
“And that’s where we ultimately are to say that the evidence falls short of establishing circumstantial evidence and agreement between more than one individual to engage in one of the various criminal plans alleged by the Crown,” he said.
As noted by The Democracy Fund (TDF), which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, in a Day 28 trial update, Granger contended that after “27 days of trial and testimony from 16 witnesses, the Crown had failed to provide enough evidence to satisfy the three required elements of the Carter test [to prove conspiracy].”
“He particularly emphasized the absence of evidence pointing to a conspiracy between Lich and Barber, the lack of direct evidence against her, and the dearth of admissible acts or declarations,” added TDF.
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.
Last week, on sitting day 27 of the trial, Lich and Barber’s legal counsel argued that the Crown to date has not been able to prove the organizers participated in a conspiracy to break the law or encourage others to break the law, and that therefore the case should be tossed altogether. The defense’s application came after the Crown abruptly decided to end its case last Monday, telling the court it would not call forth any new witnesses.
Defense argues Lich and Barber shouldn’t be responsible for each other’s statements
On Monday, the defense teams for Lich and Barber told the court they intended to bring forth two applications, the first being a call to dismiss the Crown’s “Carter application.”
The Crown’s so-called “Carter Application” asks that the judge consider “Barber’s statements and actions to establish the guilt of Lich, and vice versa,” TDF stated.
TDF noted that this type of application is very “complicated” and requires that the Crown 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.”
Granger argued that a specific and inherently unlawful “criminal plan was a prerequisite for establishing a conspiracy.”
He said that the alleged plan to lift “COVID-19 restrictions lacked inherent unlawfulness, distinguishing it from cases involving crimes like murder or drug trade.”
Granger then unpacked the “‘furtherance’ requirement, asserting that declarations were only admissible if made within the course of the conspiracy.”
Granger then scrutinized the “five conspiracies alleged by the Crown, highlighting their divergence from established legal precedents.”
TDF noted that Granger underscored the absence of “evidence linking Lich to any inherently unlawful objectives, pointing to instances where police provided assistance during protests. Granger further challenged the Crown’s claims of aiding and abetting, emphasizing the lack of any witness interactions with Lich.”
The full details of the defense’s second application brought before the court are not yet known, but the Crown, as noted by TDF, “expressed uncertainty about the nature of the second application and sought a court order compelling the defense to disclose details.”
Justice Heather Perkins-McVey however intervened, “asserting that she would not order the defense to reveal their case on record.”
“Instead, she suggested that the Crown could engage in discussions with the defense outside the courtroom,” noted TDF.
In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come 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.
During the clear-out of protesters after the EA was put in place, one protester, 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.
Lich and Barber’s trial has thus far taken more time than originally planned due to the slow pace of the Crown calling its witnesses. LifeSiteNews has been covering the trial extensively.
Most Canadian nurses were hesitant to take COVID jab: gov’t data
Researchers found that over 50 percent of nurses in Canada and nearly a third of doctors were hesitant to take the experimental COVID vaccine, but did so anyway to keep their jobs amid workplace mandates.
A recently unveiled survey has found that a significant number of Canadian healthcare workers, including most nurses, were hesitant to take the experimental COVID shots, and only did so because it was mandated across the sector.
According to a survey conducted by the Public Health Agency of Canada, results of which were obtained February 19 by Blacklock’s Reporter, 59 percent of healthcare workers were hesitant to take the experimental COVID vaccine, but many chose to put aside their concerns as the shot was mandatory to keep their jobs.
“The prospect of losing their employment played a role in their decision to get vaccinated or not,” the report, titled National Cross-Sectional Survey Of Health Workers Perceptions Of Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness, found.
“They expressed significant hesitation towards COVID-19 vaccines due to the speed of vaccine development and their perception of the potential for side effects,” it continued.
The research found that 31 percent of doctors and 54 percent of nurses admitted “some level of hesitancy” to take the shot. The report found that “concerns about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines were among the largest factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy.”
LifeSiteNews has published comprehensive research on the dangers of receiving the experimental vaccine, including heart damage and blood clots.
A recent study done by researchers at the Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest found that 17 countries have a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots and boosters.
However, despite their concerns, the report found that 89 percent of healthcare workers took the shot, mostly due to fears of losing their job.
“Vaccine mandates were one of the most commonly reported reasons for getting vaccinated among respondents with a high proportion of nurses indicating it was the sole reason for vaccination,” the report said.
“You had to get them to keep your job,” researchers quoted one health care worker.
Another revealed that vaccines were “developed in a matter of a couple of months and handed out like candy.”
“I have a family and a mortgage it was like, what would I be able to do to make the same amount of money?” a third questioned.
According to the report, 8 percent of workers refused the shot entirely, 87 percent of whom said they were concerned about the long-term effects of the vaccine, while 72 percent said they rejected that the vaccines were being mandated.
64 percent of those who remained unvaccinated despite mandates said they lacked “confidence in Canada’s regulatory system,” 52 percent thought “the impact of COVID infection is greatly exaggerated,” 45 percent had religious reasons, and 20 percent were planning to become pregnant. Respondents were allowed to select more than one reason for opposing vaccination.
Notably, the survey found that “the proportion of self-reported infection did not vary significantly based on vaccination status,” meaning vaccinated healthcare staff were just as likely to transmit COVID as vaccinated ones.
Currently, vaccine mandates for healthcare workers are still in place in many jurisdictions across Canada, despite a critical staff shortage in plenty of hospitals. While some provincial governments have lifted their mandates, many hospitals still require the experimental vaccine as a condition of employment.
However, many healthcare workers have refused the vaccine and are appealing the mandates. In November, hundreds of British Columbia healthcare workers joined together to sue Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry for ongoing COVID shot mandates preventing them from working.
Similarly, Ontario pro-freedom Dr. Mark Trozzi plans to appeal after he was stripped of his license for critiquing the mainstream narrative around the COVID-19 so-called “pandemic” and the associated vaccines.
Large new study finds COVID jabs carry increased risks of heart, brain, blood diseases
The study of 99 million jabbed people found ‘significantly higher risks of myocarditis’ after mRNA COVID shots, as well as increased risks of pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and other diseases.
A new COVID-19 jab study being billed as the largest to date has found increased risks of rare heart, brain, and blood disorders, yet the organization behind the controversial shots continues to defend them.
The study, published this month in the journal Vaccine, looked for 13 neurological, blood, and heart related medical conditions in 99 million jabbed people across eight countries, according to a press release from the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN). It “confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” as well as identifying “[o]ther potential safety signals that require further investigation.”
“[W]e observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273” (both mRNA shots), the study says, “as well as pericarditis after the first and fourth dose of mRNA-1273, and third dose of ChAdOx1 [adenovirus-vector vaccines], in the 0–42 days risk period.”
“Another potential safety signal was identified for ADEM after the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, with five more observed than expected events based on 1,035,871 person-years and 10.5 million doses administered,” it continued. ADEM stands for acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, an autoimmune disease that involves serious brain and spinal cord inflammation. “[H]owever, the number of cases of this rare event were small and the confidence interval wide, so results should be interpreted with caution and confirmed in future studies.”
The study also found a 2.5 times higher risk of the immune disorder Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with the AstraZeneca shot, as well as potential signs of increased risk of transverse myelitis, another type of spinal cord inflammation, associated with the viral-vector jabs.
It further noted that “[p]otential underreporting across countries may have led to an underestimation of the significance of potential safety signals. It is important to recognize the potential for false negatives, especially when detecting associations with lower confidence intervals below 1.5 that maintain statistical significance.”
Yet on February 12, GVDN also published a blog post doubling down on the dominant medical establishment positions that the COVID shots “reduce the incidence of infection,” despite the jabs’ failure to stop transmission, and that fears about dangers “are often based on misinterpretation of data, anecdotal evidence, or preliminary research that does not stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.” The author of the post, Helen Petousis-Harris, was one of 35 authors to whom the new study is credited.
The first in a series of reports by a Florida grand jury impaneled to investigate the COVID jabs recently concluded that COVID was “statistically almost harmless” to children and most adults and that it is “highly likely” that COVID hospitalization numbers were inflated, seriously undermining the presumed need for vaccines.
Follow-up reports on the shots themselves, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under former President (and likely 2024 Republican presidential nominee) Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative, are still pending. However, there is already a large body of evidence affirming they carry significant health risks, which the public health establishment and its allies in government and media have been largely unwilling to explore.
The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 37,100 deaths, 214,248 hospitalizations, 21,431 heart attacks, and 28,121 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of January 26, among other ailments. An April 2022 study out of Israel indicates that COVID infection itself cannot fully account for the myocarditis numbers, despite common insistence to the contrary.
Jab defenders are quick to stress that reports submitted to VAERS are unconfirmed, as anyone can submit one, but 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 overreporting.
A 2010 report submitted to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS’s) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) warned that VAERS caught “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events.” On the problem of underreporting, the VAERS website offers only that “more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones” (emphasis added).
In 2021, Project Veritas shed light on some of the reasons for such underreporting with undercover video from inside Phoenix Indian Medical Center, a facility run under HHS’s Indian Health Service program, in which emergency room physician Dr. Maria Gonzales laments that myocarditis cases go unreported “because they want to shove it under the mat” and nurse Deanna Paris attests to seeing “a lot” of people who “got sick from the side effects” of the COVID shots but adds that “nobody” is reporting them to VAERS “because it takes over a half hour to write the d–mn thing.”
Further, VAERS is not the only data source containing red flags. Data from the Pentagon’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) shows that 2021 saw drastic spikes in a variety of diagnoses for serious medical issues over the previous five-year average, including hypertension (2,181%), neurological disorders (1,048%), multiple sclerosis (680%), Guillain-Barre syndrome (551%), breast cancer, (487%), female infertility (472%), pulmonary embolism (468%), migraines (452%), ovarian dysfunction (437%), testicular cancer (369%), and tachycardia (302%).
Leading COVID shot manufacturer Pfizer donated more than $8.5 million to political candidates, leadership PACs, trade associations, and party committees representing both parties last year, fueling suspicion as to why only a handful of nationally prominent GOP officeholders, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Wisconsin’s Sen. Ron Johnson, are opposed to the company’s shot.
Federal taxes hurting B.C. wineries and craft brewers
Oil sands technology competition to generate low emissions carbon fibre moves into final phase
TDF expresses concern over Election Canada’s new mis/disinformation policy
Greater oil and gas export capacity will boost Canadian dollar – and productivity
Justice2 days ago
Quebec teacher challenges Education Minister’s gender transition policy
Canadian Energy Centre2 days ago
Hubs are the future of carbon capture and storage: Why Alberta is an ideal place to make it happen
Energy2 days ago
Bill Banning Oil and Gas Ads Won’t Pass, and Rightfully So
COVID-191 day ago
DeSantis, medical experts review first Florida grand jury findings on COVID-19 policies
Energy1 day ago
Proposed legislation seeks to suppress speech about climate change and fossil fuels
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta looking to ban electronic vote tabulators ahead of next provincial election
COVID-191 day ago
Funeral director says 25% of bodies now have ‘fibrous clots’ in arteries after COVID shots
Uncategorized1 day ago
Barriers to care persist but access to MAiD keeps expanding