Connect with us

COVID-19

More victories for freedom as ArriveCAN charges dropped and fines reduced

Published

5 minute read

Gheorghe and Carmen Neferu

News release from The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that it continues to see dropped charges and significantly reduced fines for Canadians who allegedly violated the Quarantine Act or who chose not to use the ArriveCAN app at Canadian borders.

The Justice Centre has provided defence counsel to eight Canadians who chose not to comply with a mandatory ArriveCAN.

Added together, these eight Canadians received a total of 13 tickets, with combined fine amounts totalling $54,815. Defence counsel provided by the Justice Centre negotiated with the Crown to secure admissions that amounted to fines totalling $1,216, not $54,815. All hearings for these cases were scheduled to take place in April at the Ontario Court of Justice in Mississauga, Ontario.

Here are their stories.

Cory Thorn, along with his wife, Guiseppina Lamacchia, their two small children and Guiseppina’s mother Carmela Lamacchia, were returning from a trip to Italy on September 8, 2022, when they were stopped at the Canadian border. They had not downloaded the ArriveCAN app because they did not feel comfortable with the app. They asked if they could submit the required information on paper but were told they could either use the app or face fines. The three adults were given two tickets each, one for $955 and another for $6,255. Together, the family faced a total of $21,630 in fines for violating two sections of the Quarantine Act: section 58, failing to comply with an order prohibiting or subjecting to any condition the entry into Canada and section 15(1), failing to answer a relevant question asked by a screening officer or to provide the officer with any required information or record. Their trials were scheduled for April 15, 2024. Five of the six tickets were dismissed. Carmela pled guilty to one charge and received a reduced fine of $615.

On September 22, 2022, a mother and her adult daughter, who have requested anonymity, were returning from a trip to Italy when they were each fined $6,255 for failing to use the ArriveCAN app. The women felt uneasy providing private health information through the ArriveCAN app. They offered to provide the information orally to border officials. Their offer was refused. Each had trial dates set for April 23, 2024. The daughter’s charge was withdrawn by the Crown, while her mother pled guilty and paid a significantly reduced fine of $300.

Daniel Sauro and his partner, Gina Campoli, traveling with their one-year-old daughter, returned from a family vacation on September 24, 2022, when each adult was issued a ticket for $6,255 under section 58 of the Quarantine Act for not using the ArriveCAN app. They were uneasy about disclosing private medical information and were concerned about the app’s security. Their trial was scheduled for April 18, 2024 -nineteen months after the tickets were issued. The public health officer did not appear at trial, and so the prosecutor was forced to withdraw all charges.

Gheorghe and Carmen Neferu traveled back to Canada from abroad on August 3, 2022, when they were each given two tickets with fines for failing to use the ArriveCAN app, totaling $14,420 They did not want to answer invasive questions regarding their medical status. Their trials were scheduled for April 8, 2024. The charges against Carmen were withdrawn, while Gheorghe had one charge withdrawn. He pled guilty to the other, paying a reduced fine of $300.

A constitutional challenge to the ArriveCAN app requirement continues to proceed in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Chris Fleury, lead counsel on the Charter challenge to the ArriveCan app requirement, says, “Each and every Canadian who refused to provide their vaccination status via ArriveCAN was also subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine in addition to their ticket. The quarantine had no scientific or public health basis and was a breach of Canadian’s Charter right not to be arbitrarily detained. While we would have preferred that no one was charged in the first place, we are pleased to see the prosecution taking a more reasonable approach to these cases.”

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

Wenstrup Releases Francis Collins’ House Testimony

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Robert MaloneROBERT MALONE 

Wenstrup Releases Former NIH Director Francis Collins’ Transcript, Highlights Key Takeaways in New Memo

WASHINGTON — Today, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) released the transcript from Dr. Francis Collins’ transcribed interview. Dr. Collins helped lead the government’s Covid-19 pandemic response as the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) until his resignation at the end of 2021. In conjunction with the transcript, the Select Subcommittee also released a new staff memo that highlights the key takeaways from Dr. Collins’ transcribed interview. The memo can be found here.

The full transcript can be found here. Below are important exchanges from Dr. Collins’ transcribed interview:

The hypothesis that the Covid-19 pandemic was the result of a lab leak or lab-related accident is not a conspiracy theory. Despite previously disagreeing with the lab-leak theory — both in public and in private — Dr. Collins testified that the lab-leak hypothesis is indeed not a conspiracy theory.

Majority Counsel: “All it’s calling for is a “yes” or “no.” Is the possibility of a lab leak a conspiracy theory?”

Dr. Collins: “You have to define what you mean by a lab leak.”

Majority Counsel: “Putting aside de novo, the possibility of a laboratory or research-related accident, a researcher doing something in a lab, getting infected with a virus, and then sparking the pandemic. Is that scenario a conspiracy theory”?

Dr. Collins: “Not at this point.”


Majority Counsel: “We have talked about this an awful lot, I think I know the answer to the question, but I want to ask it. Is the origin of Covid-19 still unsettled science?”

Dr. Collins: “Yes.”

The “6-feet apart” social distancing guidance that federal public health officials endorsed was likely not based on any science or data. Dr. Collins agreed with Dr. Fauci that he has not seen any evidence to support the “6-feet apart” directive — which was promoted by public health officials and caused widespread economic and social damage to Americans.

Majority Counsel: “Moving on to social distancing and the various regulations surrounding that. On March 22, 2020, the CDC issued guidance describing social distancing to include remaining out congregant settings, avoiding mass gatherings, and maintaining a distance of approximately six feet from others when possible. We asked Dr. Fauci where the six feet came from and he said it kind of just appeared, is the quote. Do you recall science or evidence that supported the six-feet distance?”

Dr. Collins: “I do not.”

Majority Counsel: “Is that I do not recall or I do not see any evidence supporting six feet?”

Dr. Collins: “I did not see evidence, but I’m not sure I would have been shown evidence at that point.”

Majority Counsel: “Since then, it has been an awfully large topic. Have you seen any evidence since then supporting six feet?”

Dr. Collins: “No.”

NIH often lacks the necessary subject matter expertise to ensure US taxpayer funds are spent safely. Concerningly, Dr. Collins was unaware of any NIH policy that ensures foreign laboratories comply with US standards and are not at odds with U.S. national interests.

Majority Counsel: “Thank you. We’ve asked a number of people regarding the vetting or certifying process of foreign labs that receive U.S. dollars. Do you know what that process is?”

Dr. Collins: “I do not.”

Majority Counsel: “To your knowledge, does NIH certify foreign labs that receive U.S. dollars?”

Dr. Collins: “I don’t know that.”


Majority Counsel: “Again, what we’re trying to figure out is if, like, you get a proposal that has a foreign lab on it, if the NIH would do all the work themselves, or if they would call the State Department, or if they would call some other department to try to determine if that foreign lab is reputable.”

Dr. Collins: “I don’t know.”

The Trump Administration led the charge to rightfully terminate and later suspend EcoHealth Alliance, Inc.’s grant in April 2020. Dr. Collins testified that he supported every enforcement action suggested by the Trump administration and executed by the NIH.

Majority Counsel: “Moving into 2020. Before we start with individual letters, we asked Dr. Lauer and he testified that he would not sign or send a letter that he disagreed with. Do you have any reason to doubt that assertion?”

Dr. Collins: “No.”

Majority Counsel: “Do you agree with every enforcement action the NIH took against EcoHealth?”

Dr. Collins: “Yes.”

Dr. Collins claims that Dr. Fauci invited him to participate in the infamous February 1, 2020 phone call that allegedly “prompted” the public narrative that Covid-19 originated from nature and that vilified the lab-leak hypothesis.

This testimony directly contradicts earlier statements made by Dr. Fauci.

Majority Counsel: “How were you made aware of this call?”

Dr. Collins: “I was, I think – again, it’s four years ago – initially informed by Dr. Fauci that the call was happening. And then, I think I got this email forwarded about what the agenda was going to be from Dr. Farrar, who was clearly the person organizing the call.”

Majority Counsel: “Did Dr. Fauci ask you to join the call?”

Dr. Collins: “Yes.”


There we have it. Ex-director NIH Francis Collins had NO data and has not seen any data to support the social distancing edicts from HHS.


The transcript itself documents that Director Collins had evidence that masking would harm children.

From the transcript:

Q: In the realm of masking, obviously masks became this big to-do during the pandemic. One of the specific aspects that we are interested in is the science and data that supported it for children. So the WHO recommended against masking children less than five because masks are, I’m quoting, not in the overall interest of the child, and against children 6 to 11 from wearing masks because of again, quoting, the potential impact of wearing a mask on learning and psychological development. The United States recommended masking kids as young as two, so directly contradicted the WHO’s recommendation on that. 

Do you recall what science or data backed up that recommendation?

Collins: I have no knowledge of that. 

Q: Okay. There are now studies coming out regarding learning loss from both school closures and childhood mask wearing — for masks specifically, kids not being able to see adults form words and things like that and it’s causing speech issues. Are you aware of those issues? 

Collins: In a general way, yes. 

Q: Do you agree that there’s learning loss and other unintended consequences of mask-wearing? 

Collins: I have to depend on the experts who assess those things who have evidence, they say, that that’s the case.


This is all the evidence required to conclusively demonstrate that the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) needs a complete overhaul.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • Robert Malone

    Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Biden’s Navy secretary says he has ‘no regrets’ about firing 5,000+ unvaxxed sailors, Marines

Published on

Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

“You’re firing qualified people who are well-trained, and you sit here so smugly [and] act like none of that has any impact on the readiness of our Navy.”

The secretary of the U.S. Navy told senators that he has “no regrets” about the firing of thousands of sailors and Marines who declined to take the COVID-19 shots.   

During a Capitol Hill hearing, Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) pressed Secretary Carlos Del Toro on the impact that both DEI (“Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion”) training courses and COVID jab mandates have had on Navy recruitment and pushed back against the Navy’s prioritization of “climate change” over keeping pace with America’s adversaries.    

Schmitt asked Del Toro about the 1,878 sailors and the 3,746 Marines who were fired for not taking the COVID shot: “Do you regret that?”  

“I have no regrets,” declared the Navy chief.  

“You have recruitment challenges,” said Sen. Schmitt. “You’re firing qualified people who are well-trained, and you sit here so smugly [and] act like none of that has any impact on the readiness of our Navy.”  

Del Toro, a Biden appointee, added that “we recontacted 3,500 of the 4,800 people who were fired. You know how many actually decided to come back to the Navy? Two.”

“Shocker,” declared Schmitt, who indicated that it was no wonder the disenfranchised personnel all but unanimously chose not to return because of “the level of disrespect they received from their government.”  

The Navy has attained less than 70% of its recruitment goal for the first half of 2024, according to a statement from Sen. Schmitt’s office, and is expected to be short roughly 6,700 sailors from its 2024 recruitment goal of 40,600.   

In 2023, the Navy fell short of its recruiting goal by 20%.  

Sen. Schmitt suggested that the COVID-19 jab firings aren’t the only reason that recruiting is down.   

“Do you believe that the obsession that the political leadership has right now with DEI has helped or hurt recruiting efforts?” Schmitt asked Del Toro.  

“I don’t think DEI has hurt recruiting efforts at all,” claimed the Navy Secretary.  

Schmitt went further and suggested that the Navy is indoctrinating its personnel through its DEI 101 materials, promoting “cultural Marxism.” 

Last June, Secretary Del Toro hosted a Department of the Navy DEI Summit with senior Navy and Marine Corps leaders.   

“In order to maintain our strategic edge, the Navy and Marine Corps team must operationalize innovative and cohesive initiatives, rooted in DEI’s goals,” insisted Secretary Del Toro at the DEI summit, according to Sen. Schmitt’s office.   

“The Navy’s DEI 101 online training facilitator guide focuses on the need to nurture a culture that ‘values diversity and emphasizes inclusion,’” despite the fact that a recent Department of Defense survey reported that “just 2% of the workforce lists racism as a problem,” noted Schmitt’s staff. 

Schmitt’s office also noted that the Navy ceded the title of the world’s largest Navy to Communist China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in 2020 and that currently, the Navy is retiring more ships than it is building, shrinking the Navy as the PLAN continues to grow. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X