Zoom Nov 14th replay - bill c-3 urgent public letter

SCROLL DOWN FOR THE MP/SENATE LETTER

WATCH THE LIVE TO GET THE RUNDOWN ON BILL C-3: https://rumble.com/v71sxaw-bill-c-3-update-and-mpsenate-letter.html

Bill C-3 is being crammed through the house with very little debate and is bypassing Parliamentary procedure as Parliament is racing to meet a deadline set by a lower court Ontario longe judge. The Feds missed their deadline to respond to the Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada ruling of Nov 2024, so are working to push this through with very little consideration.

This is our final opportunity to remind the MPs they are accountable to their constituents and bound by Section 9 of the BNA Act to act in the interest of Canadians, not the globalist agenda. Bill C-3 is on the order paper to pass the third reading in the Senate on Nov 19th.

Key issues with Bill C-3:
1. Potential for "chain migration" allowing for unlimited descent, meaning a person could get citizenship through a Canadian relative who only had a brief connection to the country decades ago.
2. Weakens citizenship by making it easier for those with no meaningful ties to become citizens, devaluing what it means to be Canadian.
3. Rejection of amendments such as requiring language skills and security assessments.
4. Lack of core identity, the bill reflects a "post-national" view of Canada and undermines its core identity.

Bill C-3 is not just another bill, it’s a tipping point. And if we don’t respond, nobody will!

Below is an excerpt from the Senate debate on Nov 5th, 2025. In it, Hon. Leo Housakos makes note that this issue has been sitting on thee back bench for a year and is being crammed through to meet an Ontario Superior Court ruling. It's a long read, but the juicy bits have been highlighted. Read the full debate here: https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/451/debates/033db_2025-11-06-e?language=e#18

Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading as critic of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Previously tabled as Bill C-71 in the last Parliament, this bill seeks to respond to the Ontario Superior Court’s decision in Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, commonly known as the Lost Canadians case.

Before getting into the details of Bill C-3, it is important to step back and understand how we arrived at this point where, yet again, the government’s lack of preparation is creating an urgency in this place where a bill is being expedited and sober second thought brushed aside.

In December 2023, the Bjorkquist decision addressed the constitutionality of the first-generation limit in paragraph 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act. The court declared that provision unconstitutional under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and suspended its declaration of invalidity for six months, until June 19, 2024, to give Parliament time to respond.

While a significant ruling, it was not issued by a court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. At that moment, the federal government faced a choice. It could have sought clarification or review from a higher court, as governments often do when constitutional questions touch upon fundamental national policies such as citizenship. An appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario — or even a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada — would have provided guidance and allowed Parliament to legislate on a firm constitutional foundation.

There is a clear precedent for doing so. When fundamental questions of national policy arise, governments have sought higher court clarity before legislating. In Carter v. Canada, for example, the government appealed the Supreme Court of B.C. decision — a court of the same level as the Bjorkquist court — that struck down the Criminal Code’s prohibition on assisted suicide, an issue with deep constitutional and moral implications.

The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling provided national guidance and ensured that Parliament’s response rested on a settled constitutional framework. By contrast, in Bjorkquist, the government chose not to appeal, leaving Parliament to legislate without the benefit of appellate court or Supreme Court clarity.

That decision not to appeal set the tone for everything that followed. By foregoing an appeal, the government chose expedience over clarity and politics over prudence. What should have been a moment of careful legal and policy reflection became a self-imposed race against the clock to advance its ideological vision of citizenship. In doing so, the government limited Parliament’s ability to study the issue properly and reinforced the perception that judicial deadlines are being used as pretexts to rush complex bills through without adequate deliberation.

We have seen this pattern before. During debate on Bill C-7 during last Parliament, which amended the Criminal Code to expand medical assistance in dying, the government likewise cited a court-imposed deadline as justification for limiting debate and accelerating passage.

Instead of appealing the Superior Court of Québec’s Truchon decision to seek clarity, it accepted the ruling immediately and used its timeline to compress parliamentary review on an issue of profound ethical and constitutional importance. That precedent revealed a troubling habit: treating judicial deadlines not as guardrails for justice but as tools for political urgency.

The same impulse is evident here with Bill C-3.

Time and again, the government has shown itself unwilling to prioritize this legislation. Having missed its first June 19, 2024, deadline, it sought multiple extensions with the most recent one — a fifth extension — to November 20, 2025. Now, two weeks before that deadline, with only four sitting days remaining, this chamber is asked to approve, not to deliberate.

Bill C-3 extends automatic citizenship to individuals born abroad in the second generation and beyond, even where there may be limited or no tangible connection to Canada. This broad expansion risks creating new uncertainties and inconsistencies rather than simply addressing the specific inequality identified by the court.

Perhaps most concerning is how the government has treated the court’s ruling, not as guidance for Parliament to consider but as justification to rush complex legislation through without the full rigour of the proper process. In our parliamentary system, due process is not a formality; it is a safeguard. It ensures that legislation is tested, challenged and improved before it becomes law. When a government uses a court-imposed timeline — or any deadline — to constrain Parliament’s deliberation, it undermines the very principles of transparency and accountability that give this institution its legitimacy.

While we are in the early days of the Forty-fifth Parliament, Prime Minister Carney is already showing the same disregard and reflexes for parliamentary process as his predecessor. Rather than allowing both chambers the time needed for meaningful debate, expert testimony and sober second thought, the government is pressing our chamber for the bill’s swift passage to meet a deadline.

What should have been an opportunity for collaboration and careful review has instead become an exercise in executive haste. A clear example is the technical briefing offered today from 12:35 p.m. to 1:15 p.m., ending just as the bells were ringing for this very institution. That timing left barely two hours between the briefing, the debate on legislation that directly concerns the meaning and transmission of Canadian citizenship and a second reading vote. Such an approach leaves little opportunity for careful preparation or informed discussion. When measures of this significance are handled under such conditions, the Senate’s capacity to provide genuine sober second thought is not strengthened but constrained. Rushing complex legislation does not serve the public interest; it serves only the government’s timetable.

Our role in this chamber is not to expedite the government’s schedule but to uphold Parliament’s duty of review. The Senate was never meant to be a rubber stamp for executive convenience; it was created to provide sober second thought, especially when a bill affects something as fundamental as who we are — our citizenship.

At its core, Bill C-3 extends automatic citizenship by descent to the second generation born abroad and introduces a new requirement that a parent must have spent at least 1,095 days — roughly three years — at any time in life, physically present in Canada before the child’s birth or adoption in order to transmit citizenship.

The bill also restores citizenship to Lost Canadians, who lost or never obtained it under earlier provisions of the act. In short, Bill C-3 broadens who can automatically inherit Canadian citizenship while setting out a limited physical-presence test for those transmitting it.

The bill defines a “substantial connection” to Canada as 1,095 cumulative days — about three years — of physical presence in Canada before the birth or adoption of a child abroad. Those three years can be accumulated at any point in a person’s life; a parent does not need to have been born in Canada to pass on citizenship. As a result, citizenship would now be multigenerational as parents no longer have to be born in Canada.

This could translate to having a family living permanently outside of Canada with multiple generations born outside of Canada gaining citizenship.

In committee in the other place, amendments were adopted to strengthen this framework by specifying that those three years of physical presence must be accumulated within a five-year period preceding the child’s birth or adoption, a reasonable amendment. This mirrored existing structures in the Citizenship Act, such as residency requirements for naturalization, and would have ensured consistency and clarity.

By requiring that those three years fall within a five-year period, Parliament would have upheld a clear and familiar standard of current, demonstrable connection. Yet despite this alignment with existing principles of the Act and strengthening the legislation, the government decided to overturn every amendment adopted in committee in the other place.

Furthermore, extending citizenship automatically to individuals with little or no enduring connection to Canada risks eroding coherence in the law. The Citizenship Act has long sought to balance fairness with tangible connection, which gives citizenship both meaning and stability.

When policy moves too far toward automatic entitlement without ensuring a demonstrable link to the country, that balance begins to weaken. Citizenship has always reflected a balance between the responsibilities of the state and the participation of its people. It is more than a passport or a piece of paper; it is a commitment to place, community and reciprocity. When we extend it broadly, without any expectation of participation or shared obligation, we risk diluting not only its legal meaning but its civic purpose.

It is worth recalling, colleagues, how previous governments addressed similar challenges. In 2006, during the conflict in Lebanon, Canada undertook one of the largest civilian evacuations in its history, airlifting tens of thousands of citizens and dual nationals to safety. That extraordinary operation also underscored difficult questions about connection, residency and the obligations that accompany citizenship, concerns widely discussed at the time as issues of “citizens of convenience.” Rather than ignoring those lessons, the government recognized the need for a balanced approach that upheld both mobility and accountability.

Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Parliament pursued that balance through concrete legislative reform. In 2009, Bill C-37 restored citizenship to those who had lost it under the former retention rules and ensured that it could be automatically passed to the first generation born abroad, a solution that respected fairness without opening the door indefinitely.

Later, in 2014, Bill C-24 modernized the oath, reinforced the responsibilities that accompany citizenship and addressed cases of fraud or false representation. These reforms strengthened confidence in the system by making citizenship meaningful, deliberate and accountable.

Conservatives have consistently supported efforts to correct the injustices experienced by the Lost Canadians, those who, through outdated provisions such as former section 8 of the Citizenship Act, were stripped of or denied citizenship through no fault of their own. Successive governments acknowledged this injustice, and Conservative members have backed targeted remedies to restore citizenship to those unfairly affected. That, colleagues, was a balanced path, one rooted in fairness, clarity and respect for both the individual and the institution of citizenship.

In contrast, Bill C-3 departs from that tradition. At the end of the day, colleagues, citizenship should never be treated as something to be handed out casually. It is far more than a legal status; it is a shared commitment that must be protected with clear standards and meaningful safeguards. Citizenship is, at its core, a social contract, a relationship between the state and the individual that carries both rights and responsibilities. It reflects not only what the state owes to its citizens but also what citizens owe to the values, institutions and traditions that bind our country together.

Honourable senators, while we recognize the legal realities before us, including the court’s suspension of invalidity and the uncertainty that missing the deadline would have created for families abroad and for officials administering citizenship, that does not excuse the government’s approach. We supported the procedural motion to ensure this chamber could meet the court’s timeline, not out of deference to the government’s haste, but out of respect for Parliament’s responsibility and the rule of law.

Yet, the fact remains that the government has chosen ideology over process and haste over prudence. It has taken a court decision and turned it into a broad legislative exercise without the benefit of full parliamentary debate. While we support certain provisions in Bill C-3 that address section 8, correcting the injustices faced by the Lost Canadians and related to adoptions, the bill in its current form goes well beyond the necessary remedy. By dismissing reasonable amendments that would have strengthened the bill and aligned it with the principles already found in the Citizenship Act, it asks this chamber to endorse uncertainty rather than reform.

For those reasons, honourable senators, we cannot support Bill C-3 in its current form. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)

***Public Interest Letter to the Member of Parliament:***

lenametlege.diab@parl.gc.ca
info@gg.ca
mark.carney@parl.gc.ca
reception@scc-csc.ca

doug.downey@pc.ola.org

CriminalTrialOffice-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca

Toronto.SCJ.CRIMINALINTAKE@ontario.ca

mcu@justice.gc.ca

attorneygeneral@ontario.ca

sean.fraser@parl.gc.ca

Leo.Housakos@sen.parl.gc.ca

COPY. THE SENATORS, EMAILS LIVE IN THIS DOCUMENT FOR YOU TO COPY AND PASTE: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TUzSmDvW7PmH9bMfqWRsov_lVAuE_yOU3QfIhK29B8U/edit?usp=sharing

COPY YOUR MP, find your MP here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/search

Copy and paste the content below in your email:

SUBJECT LINE: Bill C-3 Constitutional, Procedural, and Public-Interest Failures

COPY:

Minister Diab,

I am writing to express serious and urgent concerns about Bill C-3, a bill that threatens the integrity of Canadian citizenship, undermines national identity, and was advanced through Parliament on a foundation of legal ambiguity, political haste, and procedural negligence.

You are already aware that Bill C-3 is being justified on the basis of the Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada ruling (2023 ONSC 7152). What Canadians have not been told is this:

Bjorkquist was not a Supreme Court or appellate decision; it came from a single judge of the Ontario Superior Court.
The ruling declared the first-generation limit unconstitutional and suspended invalidity for six months, which expired in June 2024 and was extended FIVE times since then.
The government had clear options: appeal, seek clarification, or submit a reference to the Supreme Court, these are the established processes when dealing with questions of national policy, citizenship, and constitutional rights.
Instead, the government chose not to appeal, creating artificial urgency and using the suspended deadline as political pressure to force a rushed bill through Parliament.

This was a political choice, not a legal necessity. Other governments have appealed similar lower-court rulings to ensure clarity and stability as seen in Carter, Truchon, and other major constitutional cases. The refusal to appeal Bjorkquist abandoned that principle and set the stage for the legislative chaos now unfolding.

Because of that failure, Bill C-3 is being rammed through with limited debate, overturned amendments, shallow committee hearings, and virtually no opportunity for Canadians to understand the consequences. Even the Senate has acknowledged the government’s pattern of exploiting court deadlines to bypass sober second thought.

Beyond procedural misconduct, the substance of Bill C-3 is deeply flawed:

It opens the door to chain migration, enabling citizenship claims from people with no real connection to Canada, simply because an ancestor spent a short period here decades ago.
It devalues Canadian citizenship by extending automatic eligibility to those with no meaningful ties or obligations to the country.
Reasonable amendments requiring language proficiency, security screening, or even a recent, demonstrable connection to Canada were rejected.
It embeds a post-national ideology that strips away any notion of core Canadian identity or responsibility.
It expands IRCC’s discretionary power while simultaneously reducing the standards for citizenship acquisition.
It creates new “lost Canadians” by destabilizing existing statuses and introducing a vague, abusable “substantial connection” test.
It imposes enormous future costs on Canadians through new administrative burdens, litigation, and generational claims.

This is not responsible lawmaking. It is a radical restructuring of Canadian citizenship disguised as a remedy for a narrow court ruling.

The responsibility for this bill, its legal fragility, its rushed process, its ideological overreach, and its long-term consequences rests with those who choose to advance it. Canadians deserve clarity, not chaos; stability, not experimentation; and competent governance, not political theatre.

You now have full knowledge of the constitutional, procedural, and societal consequences of Bill C-3. If you continue to support this bill in its current form, you will be knowingly endorsing a measure that weakens citizenship, destabilizes Canada’s identity, and harms the very people you were elected to serve. Advancing it anyway would be a betrayal of your duty and of Canadians themselves. You are now on notice.

Respectfully,

[Your Name], Concerned Canadian

Friday Zoom Oct 17 Reolay - Check Your emotions

This week we are doing something a little bit different, we'll explore a healing technique to help you evolve your emotions giving you immunity to mind control.

It's no surprise that media, and Government, use behavioural consultants to develop "mind control programs" by using emotionally charged tactics that overshadow critical thinking.

The good news... we hold the power to overcome these influences and we can do this through Ho'oponopono.

Tonight, we'll learn how we can use this technique to:

• Prevent mind control, by releasing emotional triggers from past trauma.

• Heal, understand how past pain can fragment the self and discover a method to release, and restore emotional balance.

• Control your life by reclaiming your power through conscious choice and alignment from within.

Join us with an open mind and ready to reconnect with your own power and regain control of your world!

Watch the replay here: https://rumble.com/v70fwrw-s4t-friday-zoom-oct-17th-hooponopono.html

Friday Zoom Oct 3 - While You've Been Distracted

This week, we’re cutting through the noise, the division, the distractions and digging into the big issues hiding in the shadows. False flags, psyops, and the endless media spin keep Canadians looking in the wrong direction, while critical changes are pushed through Parliament unnoticed.

Canada Post to Discontinue Door-to-Door Service:
Canada Post has planning to discontinue door-to-door service, one of the reasons for the union strike. There’s a catch… did you know that Canada Post owns 91% of Purolator and that many of the Canada Post executives are also sitting on the Purolator board, including Canada Post's President and CEO, Doug Ettinger?
Bill C-9, Combatting Hate Act:
Expands hate-crime provisions, removes the Attorney General’s oversight on prosecutions, and criminalizes the “public display” of certain symbols. Civil liberties groups warn it could chill free speech, criminalize protest, and give prosecutors broad unchecked discretion.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-9/first-reading

Bill C-2, Strong Borders Act
Introduces sweeping “lawful access” powers hidden in border legislation. Agencies could demand private subscriber info and metadata from internet providers without a warrant, with blanket immunity for companies that comply. A massive expansion of surveillance under the guise of border security.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-2/first-reading
Bill C-8, Cybersecurity Act / Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act
Grants the government power to order telecoms and infrastructure providers to “do anything, or refrain from doing anything” to secure networks, including building backdoors. Non-compliance can bring huge fines, while there is no compensation if companies are harmed by government orders.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-8/first-reading

These aren’t small changes. They’re part of a coordinated shift toward centralized control, surveillance, and suppression of dissent. Don’t miss this session, it’s time to stay informed and connected.

Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88194918110

Rumble link: https://rumble.com/v6ztwfc-s4t-friday-zoom-oct-3rd-while-youre-distracted.html

EI Case Shaking up the System

A critical Employment Insurance (EI) case is heading to the Federal Court of Appeal and this deserves national attention. This case directly challenges the legality of how EI benefits were assessed during the COVID-19 mandates, a process that impacted tens of thousands of Canadians and their families.

A thorough legislative intent analysis (Rizzo framework) using Hansard transcripts shows that adjudicators ignored key statutory obligations under the EI Act (section 29(c)) and the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, (section 64). Specifically, they refused to examine whether employers acted unlawfully, wrongly claiming such investigation was outside their jurisdiction.

Key Findings from Matthew’s EI Case

Statutory Breach, “Just Cause” Analysis Ignored
- The Employment Insurance Act requires adjudicators to weigh 14 statutory factors under s.29(c) before denying benefits.
- Instead, adjudicators were directed to skip this analysis altogether.

Behavioural Economics Memo (BE-Memo)
- Internal government documents show a behavioural-economics approach was used to design denial strategies.
- The memo guided decision-makers to predetermine outcomes rather than apply the law.

Engineered Templates
- Standardized decision templates replaced individualized assessments.
- These templates were designed to funnel adjudicators toward findings of “misconduct,” regardless of circumstances.

Mass Denials by Design
- Thousands of Canadians who lost jobs due to mandates were denied without fair consideration.
- Denial rates spiked from 0% to nearly 20% during this period.

Systemic Misconduct
- The government outsourced this process to consulting firms (e.g., KPMG) to build the system.
- This shows a coordinated effort to sidestep Parliament’s intent and avoid legal obligations.

Wider Impact
- Not just an error in individual cases, the entire adjudication process was corrupted.
- This undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in the EI system.

The “BE-Memo” (Behavioural Economics Memorandum) and the pre-engineered decision templates were deliberately imposed on adjudicators as a means of bypassing the legally mandated analysis. Instead of considering the fourteen statutory factors outlined in section 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act, decision-makers were funnelled into a rigid template that predetermined outcomes.

These templates served a dual purpose:

Avoiding statutory compliance, by steering adjudicators away from applying the “Just Cause” factors, which Parliament required them to weigh.
Mass denial by design, allowing uniform, large-scale rejection of claims tied to mandate-related job loss, without individualized assessment.

The use of such tools is not a minor administrative shortcut. It represents a systemic violation of statutory duty and calls into question the independence of the tribunal process itself. Thousands of Canadians were denied fair adjudication, not because of their circumstances, but because the system was engineered to exclude the very analysis the law requires.

This is a cornerstone of the claim: that the federal government knowingly replaced the rule of law with a template of convenience, using behavioural-economic tools to pre-determine denials. Such conduct not only prejudiced individual claimants but also undermines confidence in the integrity of the Employment Insurance system as a whole.

Please join the Justice 4 EI Misconduct to stay informed and get important updates to sent your inbox HERE: https://substack.com/@justice4eimisconduct

Watch the Part I replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v6wcssa-s4t-friday-night-zoom-july-19-ei-case-shaking-up-the-system.html

Watch the Part II replay HERE:https://rumble.com/v6x03ry-stand4thee-friday-zoom-aug-1-part-ii-ei-federal-challenge.html

Part III replay here: https://rumble.com/v6y8xja-s4t-friday-zoom-aug-29-ei-misconduct-part-iii.html

Part IV replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v6yjlmo-s4t-friday-night-zoom-sept-5-ei-part-iv.html

Part V replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v6z6zci-s4t-friday-zoom-sept-19th-ei-public-interest-letter.html

EI MISCONDUCT PRESS RELEASE IS READY!

Please share this press release with all alternative news outlets, journalists, and influencers you know. The more exposure this story gets, the harder it will be ignored. Together, we can shine a light on this injustice.

Together, we can show the Court, and the country, that this was never just one man’s case. It’s a national injustice demanding accountability.

Download HERE

Friday zoom May 30th - christine massey

Since 2020, Christine has filed over 200 Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to health agencies around the world, asking for records proving the isolation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly from a patient sample, without the use of animal or lab-grown cell cultures. Not one has confirmed the existence of COVID.

Massey's work has gained traction among activists and anyone who is questioning the legitimacy of the pandemic response and narrative. She continues to educate the public through independent media and her social channels. Check out her Substack HERE: https://substack.com/@christinemasseyfois.

Below are the links shared during the Zoom:
1. Fluoride Free Peel: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca
2. Christine's latest post on the bird flu hoax: https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/bird-flu-hoax-alert-us-animal-and
3. Roman Bystrianyk Twitter: https://x.com/RBystrianyk/status/1824894452097245467
4. Dr. Mike Yeadon, transmission failure: https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/transmission-failure
5. Spanish flu, germ warfare: https://www.jermwarfare.social/p/michael-bryant-spanish-flu-myth
6. DNA barcoding: https://ibol.org/about/dna-barcoding/
7. Leaked PHAC video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob0xqGC125U
8. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and 9. The Forgotten History: https://dissolvingillusions.com/
10. McMaster inhaled COVID vaccine: https://healthsci.mcmaster.ca/made-at-mcmaster-inhaled-covid-19-vaccine-begins-phase-2-human-trial/
12. Bio Solutions inhaled vaccine: https://immunebiosolutions.com/en/immune-biosolutions-a-step-closer-to-the-first-inhaled-antibody-treatment-for-covid-19/
13. Bowen Island 2021 article, B.C. ostrich farm developing antibodies that could put an end to coronavirus: https://www.bowenislandundercurrent.com/coronavirus-covid-19-local-news/bc-ostrich-farm-developing-antibodies-that-could-put-an-end-to-coronavirus-4216550
14. Has a virus ever been proven to exist: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/has-a-virus-ever-actually-been-shown-to-exist
15. Canuck law, ostrich farm, part 1: https://canucklaw.ca/universal-ostrich-farms-1/
16. Canuck law, ostrich farm, part 2: https://canucklaw.ca/universal-ostrich-farms-2/
17. Canuck law, ostrich farms, part 3: https://canucklaw.ca/universal-ostrich-farms-3/

18. Canuck law, ostrich farms, part 4: https://canucklaw.ca/universal-ostrich-farms-4/

19. Canuck law, ostrich farms, part 5: https://canucklaw.ca/universal-ostrich-farms-5/

20. Canuck law, ostrich farms, part 6 https://canucklaw.ca/universal-ostrich-farms-6/

21. Canuck law, ostrich farms, part 7: https://canucklaw.ca/universal-ostrich-farms-7/

20. Canuck law, ostrich farms, part 8 https://canucklaw.ca/universal-ostrich-farms-8/

22. Glowing masks detect COVID: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/10/scientists-ostrich-cells-glowing-covid-detection-masks
23. CFIA statement: https://www.canada.ca/en/food-inspection-agency/news/2025/05/update-on-the-cfias-actions-at-an-hpai-infected-premise-at-a-british-columbia-ostrich-farm.html

Two corrections from previous public statements:
1. There is no evidence the eggs were injected. The documents state the hens were injected with the dead virus, see: https://www.bowenislandundercurrent.com/coronavirus-covid-19-local-news/bc-ostrich-farm-developing-antibodies-that-could-put-an-end-to-coronavirus-4216550
2. The cull order was not issued by the court, the role the court played was to dismiss the appeal and gave the CFIA the green light to cull the birds, see: https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ostrich-Ruling-Of-Justice-Zinn.pdf

DOWNLOAD RESOURCES FOR FARMERS:
1. Please download the Inspector Forms and have them ready at your farm or ranch should you be visited by inspectors. Back yard chicken farmers would be well advised to do this as well:https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn%3Aaaid%3Asc%3AUS%3A0c5252f8-5267-4468-825d-2e27945abd1a/?promoid=QGMZPG6T&locale=en-US&mv2=ahome&x-product-location=RecentsNew&x-product=CCHome&filetype=application%2Fpdf&viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
2. No trespass sign: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1k5D38CmxCtZx4-SOZ8PU5E_EFVeo3iZJ?usp=sharing

Thank you for your attention regarding the important conversation with Christine and her work!

sat may 10th zoom with Amanda ridding

Amanda Ridding returns for a special Stand4THEE Saturday Zoom session, bringing her insight and passion in uncovering the truth about Canada and our Constitution.

Don’t miss this chance to hear from Amanda and engage in a powerful discussion on the most pressing issues we face in Canada, the de facto Government... and actions we can take to course correct!

Key take-aways:

There is NO legal instrument that creates the role of the Prime Minister. The leader of the PRIVATE party with the most seats becomes Prime Minister
Political parties are PRIVATE unincorporated associations; please see Olumide v. Conservative Party of Canada (“OlumideFC”):

“In the case of Galati v. McGuinty, 88 All-Canada Weekly Summaries (3d) 1165, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with the status of political parties in the context of a complaint similar to that advanced in this case. There, the Court held: “The absence of government action is a radical defect in the plaintiff’s claim. The Ontario Liberal Party is not a government actor. It is a private unincorporated association. Its objects may be political in nature, but that is insufficient to drape it with the cloak of government authority.”

ALL CAPS name is a very real artificial legal person, or entity, which can otherwise die because it has never breathed life., our SIN registry is UPPER CASE
Anything which is tied to land is a covenant runs with the land. Acts of legislation are bound between the territorial Land for which is was made and either the GG or LG of a province, as the case may be
Three versions of Canada:

“Canada” = proper noun
“Government of Canada” = proper nou
“CANADA” = not proper noun (not a fiction, as it does exist)

Link to the chat text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YwtzhL9_E3_VBufb6MHBR491VwsFYds6/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=118010217996772877595&rtpof=true&sd=true

How can we create change?

Change your mindset and take back your authority by trusting that YOU are the ONLY authority over YOU.
As there exists no covenant in law to establish the entity known as Prime Minister. If you agree and accept there is no such thing as a Prime Minister, it is your duty to object and deny the existence of a Prime Minister every time someone tries to discuss what the alleged PM is doing next.
Working together to take legal action to demonstrate the truth and using the Constitution and the law as the mechanisms of the truth! Planning has begun to bring forward a legal action for as many Canadians to partake in as a possible!

If you missed last week's Zoom (May 2nd) with Amanda, please watch it HERE: https://rumble.com/v6svpp7-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-may-1st-special-guest-amanda-ridding.html.

And be sure to check out, and subscribe, to Amanda's Substack HERE: https://amandaridding.substack.com.

If you like his content, and would like to support our channel, please consider buying us a coffee to help cover our costs. Thank you! https://www.buymeacoffee.com/stand4thee

Watch the replay HERE;

ZOOM REPLAY May 2nd-Amanda ridding

Unplug from the Matrix with special guest Amanda Ridding!

The system of the beast is not just political — it is spiritual. It seeks to sever us from God by reshaping how we see ourselves: not as children of God with dominion, but as subjects of the state. Through bureaucracy, propaganda, and fear, it reverses the natural order — making the public servant the master, and the people the slaves.

But we are made in the image of God — and just as He is Creator, we are co-creators. Law is a reflection of us: our relationships, responsibilities, and conflicts, recorded on paper. It exists because of us, not over us.

Criminal law governs public wrongs — breaches of the social contract. Civil law deals with private harms — breaches of contracts and torts. One protects the collective, the other the individual.

When we formed Canada’s system of government, we created three branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — in our image. This wasn’t random. It was to divide power, so no one branch could dominate. We knew then: absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But over time, the administrative state — unelected and unaccountable — has quietly absorbed both legislative and judicial power. This concentration is a theft of authority and a warning: we are not just facing legal overreach, but a spiritual coup.

Watch the replay to lean how to break free from the chains!

Learn more about Amanda and the work she is doing by signing up to her Substack HERE: https://amandaridding.substack.com

Watch the replay here: https://rumble.com/v6svpp7-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-may-1st-special-guest-amanda-ridding.html

SPECIAL ZOOM REPLAY APRIL 23 - MILK CrATES

The Law Society of New Brunswick has filed a cease-and-desist application against Mitchell Albert, accusing him of “practicing law” by supporting Tommy Craft—an illiterate man battling the province over the theft of his home—as a McKenzie Friend.

At the April 22 hearing, Law Society rep Norman Bossie raised concerns that Mitchell’s milk crate was secretly recording court proceedings. It wasn’t—it was just a crate.

Despite the flimsy basis of the claim, Bossie continued arguing Mitchell’s courtroom help amounts to unauthorized practice. The Society also cited Mitchell’s and others’ social media posts, demonstrating the province is closely monitoring public discourse.

To top it off, anonymous allegations—read: hearsay—from the “kitty litter crew"were thrown in for good measure. We'll give them an A+ for effort!

Rebecca's Federal challenge regarding the appointment of Mark Carney as the Special Advisor and Chair of the Liberal Party's Task Force on Economic Growth is still a work in progress.

The focus on the claim is asking the crown to PROVE in law Trudeau has the lawful authority to appoint an official and to provide the order in council affirming the appointment.

If you want to assist Rebecca in this endeavour, please sign the declaration affirming your support HERE. You can read the claim HERE.

Watch the replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v6shjad-special-stand4thee-zoom-wed-april-23rd-recording-milk-crates-the-kitty-litt.html

Friday Night Zoom Replay jan 10th - Prorogue

What about this prorogue?

Let's start with the basics. Prorogue means to "end the Parliament session". This happens organically at the end of a session, however, in this case it was Trudeau who requested to prorogue and the Governor General (GG), Mary Simon agreed to it. The PM can only request it, the GG must agree to it. Read more on proroguing Government HERE: https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_08_6-e.html

What is the impact of proroguing? It means that all debates cease, all committees are dissolved, and all bills are terminated. In short, the House is no longer operating and when the next session does start, current bills need to be reintroduced, and committees reformed.

While it may be true that a member's bill isn't affected in the house, Bill C-293 had moved to the Senate and was at committee. That committee has been dissolved, and they need to reform the committee at the next session... and we'll be ready for them when they do! Bills C-293 has been archived with the previous session, read that HERE: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-293

But when you get down to it, does this really matter? Is this just another distraction from bigger issues? We know it's an election year so unless a "snap election" is called, what is going to be the result of this prorogue, other than killing some horrible bills and giving us some breathing room!

Watch the replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v680nzy-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-jan-10-what-is-the-impact-of-prorogue.html

Friday Night Zoom Replay Dec 27th -What's UP in 2025?

After four years of dedication and hard work, Stand4THEE is incredibly proud of all we have accomplished. We are truly grateful for the unwavering support of our passionate and committed community – we couldn't have done it without you!

As 2025 approaches, we would like to take this time to reflect on our journey and embrace new opportunities to drive meaningful change that reaches far beyond ourselves.

We invited you to join us to share your thoughts and ideas of how Stand4THEE can re-focus on current issues and how we can support the community.

Here is what we heard:

1. Do a better job of promoting us and the work we do.

2. Host interviews and special guests.

3. Host educational podcasts.

4. Finish what we start!

Bill C-293 action
Grand Jury, Trudeau4Treason
Proviate criminal charges

5. Create working groups on specific topics/issues.

6. Citizen support group/communal trust.

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and insights and we’ll be working on realigning our goals and objectives and meaningful action in 2025!

Watch the replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v63g9y2-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-dec-27th-whats-the-future-of-stand4thee.html

Friday Night Zoom Replay Dec 20th - Water IS Essential

We are thrilled to share Isabelle's recent legal victory against the City of Ottawa!

Isabelle had been without water for 3 weeks when the City of Ottawa cut off her water services after she refused to allow the smart meter installation. She finally got her day in court and the court examined the municipality's authority to terminate water services and found that the City had overstepped its legal boundaries.

The judge ordered the immediate restoration of Isabelle's water service, reaffirming that municipalities must operate within the confines of their lawful authority and that municipalities do not have the authority to cut off water services. Congrats Isabelle!

This is an excellent ruling that will support Jaime in her battle against the Town of Kingsville. Watch Jaime's story HERE.

Jaime's next appearance is on Mon, Jan 6th @ 9:30 AM in Windsor Superior Court. Please come out to support!

Links from the Zoom:

- Link to No Trespass sign: https://stand4thee.com/flyers-and-handouts

- Neptune Technology Group; https://www.neptunetg.com/smartcities/

- Municipal Act; https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25

- EMF Help Center - Smart Meter; https://emfhelpcenter.com

- Book; lady https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/194525268-under-a-rock

- Canadians 4 Safety; https://www.facebook.com/C4ST.ORG/

Watch the replay here: https://rumble.com/v61ckqz-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-dec-20-water-is-essential.html

Friday Night Zoom Replay Oct 18 - Taking on the Town

Woman Battles Town to Stop Smart Meter!

Jaime’s battle began in 2023 when the Town of Kingsville sent out a notice informing the community the Town is moving from the existing water meters to Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) SMART technology meters. There was no prior notice shared to the residents and therefore no proper consultation.

Jaime’s been diagnosed with lesions on her brain through an MRI scan and suffers severe migraines, dizziness, tingling and burning sensations when she is exposed to EMF technology. She has shared this diagnosis and a doctor’s note that expressly states Jaime is to avoid SMART technology yet the city employees involved in this case have disregarded her condition and the medical note. In doing so, the staff involved have contravened the Regulated Health Professions Act and this carries a hefty penalty.

On Oct 10th, city workers appeared at her house unannounced. She was prepared and had placed the “No trespass” signs on her property and she exercised her right as the owner/occupier of her property and with the assistance of the police the workers left.

Now Jaime is taking the Town to court! Join us to tonight to hear her story!

Links from the Zoom:

- Link to No Trespass sign: https://stand4thee.com/flyers-and-handouts

- Neptune Technology Group; https://www.neptunetg.com/smartcities/

- Municipal Act; https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25

- EMF Help Center - Smart Meter; https://emfhelpcenter.com

- Book; lady https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/194525268-under-a-rock

- Canadians 4 Safety; https://www.facebook.com/C4ST.ORG/

Watch the replay here: https://rumble.com/v5j7tbp-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-oct-18-taking-on-the-town.html

Friday Night Zoom Replay Oct 11 - CULLEN'S VICTORY

Glory to God! WE did it! All charges were dropped, and my acquittal was upheld!

From the ruling:

" The Crown's appeal from Blouin J.'s order is dismissed. The defendant's appeal from De Filippis J.'s order is allowed. The conviction is quashed, and an order is substituted dismissing the information. The Crown's appeal from sentence is dismissed as moot. "

Cullen and Chris Wiesdorf joined us in a post win celebration to discuss the case and this HUGE win for Cullen and Canadians!

This win PROVES that the court does regard public opinion so a tremendous THANK YOU to everyone who submitted the public interest letter, shared Cullen’s story and SHOWED up in Welland!

Trust that YOUR voice made a difference in this ruling!

LINK TO CULLEN'S FACTUM HERE:https://stand4thee.com/court-case-studies

Watch the replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v5il8v9-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-oct-11-cullens-win.html

Stand4thee Friday Night Zoom Sept 20th- Jam Packed Night!

We are so sadden to report that we received the call this morning that Tommy's home has been destroyed. We found out the province the pushed through a city permit and demolished his home even though litigation is pending. We’ll discuss the next steps for Tommy.

Bill C-293, the Pandemic Treaty is moving through the senate with only 2 more readings. Can the Senate kill a bill? Yes, they can through a "hoist", "reasoned" or "deferral motion"!

Also, Cullen's appeal is coming up fast! One of the most important cases in Canada. We need to fill the court room on Oct 11, @ 10am in Welland!

Finally, is small claims the right venue for suing the government over the Emergencies Act?

Links shared in the Zoom:

- Public interest for King v McDonald: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1piEIk-5BBtzvjZyXT7iY5jEJt1INFxRz/edit

- Download the senate letter for Bill C-293, WHO Pandemic Treaty HERE: https://tinyurl.com/3u4bnpxv

- Senate procedures on how the Senate can use Hoist, Reason or Referral to KILL a BILL: https://sencanada.ca/en/about/procedural-references/notes/n5?fbclid=IwY2xjawFa4thleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfbwSp4koh9tMn1J8zA9bPvG1xDnC6r6zBHENAg1_1IBkUEQFOdRYEHzyg_aem_w4a0weBZdOtW9u3GS2EG

- Bird flu summit NY Oct 2nd: Senate procedures: https://sencanada.ca/en/about/procedural-references/notes/n5?fbclid=IwY2xjawFa4thleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfbwSp4koh9tMn1J8zA9bPvG1xDnC6r6zBHENAg1_1IBkUEQFOdRYEHzyg_aem_w4

- Federal courts are statute, therefore bastard courts: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about-the-court/jurisdiction

- History of Courts Ontario explaining inherent jurisdiction: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/about/history/

- Fundraiser for Loving Mom fighting the CCLA's challenge of New Brunswick's Policy 713: https://www.givesendgo.com/leave-our-kids-alone

Watch the live replay HERE:https://rumble.com/v5fqhmt-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-sept-20-jam-packed-night.html

stand4thee Friday zoom Aug 23 - Court of Injustice

Rebecca shared the incredible corruption she faced during her trial in Mississauga this past week.

On Tues, Aug 20th, Rebecca returned to the Mississauga courthouse to finish the trial for failing to comply with a section 58 the Quarantine Act for not complying with the unlawful demand to perform a PCR test.

It was obvious the JP arrived to the courtroom with a guilty verdict. Rebecca stood up against perjury, bullying, attempted sabotage and intimidation and eventually forced the hand of the prosector to drop the charges.

The actions of the Crown Patterson, JP McLear and Court Admin Polley, are unacceptable and expose the corruption of the court.

Plus get the latest on the battle to save Tommy's home. The province is in for a long battle, they most likely won't win!

Links discussed in the Zoom:

1. Quarantine Act: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/q-1.1/FullText.html

2. Contraventions Act: https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.7/FullText.html

3. Application of Provincial Laws Regulations: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-96-312/FullText.html

4. Department of Justice Act: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/j-2/FullText.html

5. Department of Health Act: https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-3.2/

6. Constitution Act: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/FullText.html

Watch the replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v5c53cd-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-aug-23rd-court-of-injustice.html

stand4thee Friday zoom Aug 3 - who is the government

How well do you know the Canadian Government system?

Before going too far into this topic, it’s fair to state that everyone is feeling that there are major concerns in our current world and that change is needed.

However, there is a growing trend to “exit the system” or to create a “new system”. You will hear terms like “de facto” government or fingers being pointed at the Crown as to the cause of the significant local and international issues we are currently facing.

While we can assume that most who hold this viewpoint are sincere and believe this to be the only way, we need to peel back the onion to get an understanding of the bigger picture. This starts with developing a solid awareness of the government framework that makes up Canada.

Let’s start with a few questions that we will discuss as a group:

Who is the head of state in Canada?
Who/what makes up the government of Canada?
What is the role of the MPs?

It’s key that we understand the framework of Canada and the roles of the Government. Through this we will very quickly realize the perversion that has taken place in the house and the legislature. Out of this realization we can look to restore true government and seek accountability.

Links from the discussion:

1. Constitution Act 1867 – 1982, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/FullText.html

2. Trudeau Infrastructure Announcement 2020 Toronto, https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/pm-trudeau-on-toronto-floods-canada-public-transit-fund--july-17-2024?id=5c880b70-b22b-4ff7-9723-48529eb800e2 – at the 7:11 mark

3. Amanda Ridding’s Substack, https://amandaridding.substack.com

4. Rules of Civil Procedure, Small Claims, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980258

5. Charter of Rights, Chartepedia, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html

6. Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule B, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html

7. Municipal Act, Ontario, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25

Watch the replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v59i09o-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-aug-2nd-who-is-the-government.html

Stand4THEE Friday Night Zoom July 19th - Much to Do!

There is a lot going on, and we had a LOT to talk about!

First, we’ve been digging around into government ArriveSCAM contracts and well, things aren’t as they seem. Most of you are probably familiar with Botler, the original whistleblower, and GC Strategies contractor currently in the hot seat for ArriveSCAM. What if there were no contracts found for Botler nor CBSA contracts for GC Strategies in the Government database? Wouldn’t that raise an eyebrow given the committee is ONLY focusing on GC Strategies, who has NO history of contracts with the CBSA?

We've been doing forensics and there is a whole lotta mistruths going on in the committee. Here are the findings of this preliminary ArriveSCAM contract research from the Fed government database:
1. Dalian was awarded $8 million in CBSA contracts 2019 - 2023

2. Coradix was awarded a staggering $63 million in CBSA contracts
Note: the entirety of Coradix contracts totals =$1 BILLION DOLLARS IN 10 YEARS

3. BDO awarded $44 million in CBSA contracts from 2020-2024

4. KPMG awarded $973,000 in contracts from 2018 – 2023

5. Botler AI = ZERO CONTRACTS

6. GC Strategies = ZERO CONTRACTS

Total IT contracts with CBSA in 5 years = $115 MILLION!

All the spreadsheets from these contracts have been archived for your perusing HERE.

If this has piqued your curiosity you can do your own search on the Federal contract database HERE.

Also, a follow up on the Quarantine Act win, R v Fernando that found the PCR test unlawful per section 14.1 of the Act. GREAT news for anyone continuing in court. Yesterday in R v. Szacon the defendant's charges under section 14.1 were dismissed after being arraigned! This means, if you have charges for PCR, request the charges be dismissed if the Crown doesn't.

Finally, we have direction from a process server so let’s discuss as a group the next steps for serving the small claims to the Liberal criminals! Read the rules for service of small claims HERE.

Watch the replay HERE: https://rumble.com/v57msth-july-19-2024.html

Friday Night Zoom Replay June 28 - BIG Win!

In 2022 alone, over 19,000 Canadians refused to comply with the unlawful Quarantine Orders totalling a whopping $15 million in fines and countless hours in the courtroom. Many, despite their best arguments, were convicted and forced to pay thousands of dollars in fines.

The tides are turning friends! On June 26th in the Ontario Court of Justice on appeal, Judge Monahan was compelled to overturn and acquit a fine of $5,000.00 to Ms. Fernando, a traveller who refused to consent to a PCR test. The argument had been brought before the courts countless times; section 14 of the Quarantine Act clearly states that a foreign instrument cannot be inserted into the body as a screening tool and without success.

Chris Weisdorf, (a non- lawyer) presented excellent arguments and Judge Monahan, who is a seasoned Superior Court Judge, agreed and ruled in Chris’ favor and the conviction was overturned!

The following arguments are now cemented in this case law, R. v. Fernando:
- The Justice of the Peace had not addressed the argument under section 14 of the Quarantine Act;
- The Act doesn't allow for the use of PCR as screening test as it's a foreign object entering the body;
- The Quarantine Act specifically says that screening technology maybe used that does not involve entry into the human body;
- The Governor General may not deny entry of a Canadian Citizen into the country when they're entering from a country with a communicable disease when Canada is prepared (which Canada was);
- The PCR test met the Oxford dictionary definition of an instrument;
- The PCR test met the Oxford dictionary definition of a foreign body;
- The Order in Council did not expand the powers to health agents;
- Pre-arrival tests performed in other countries were not part of this ruling;
- The refusal was lawful and should not have been found guilty by the Justice of the Peace.

In addition to this win, If you were charged AFTER Oct 26, 2021, you might want to consider firing up your appeal application!

On Mon, April 22nd during Rebecca's trial for failing to do the PCR test at Pearson Airport it was discovered that the Public Health Agency of Canada screening and quarantine officers were failing to follow the rules in the Quarantine Act.

The PHAC screening officers are REQUIRED to follow these sections of the Quarantine Act... instead, the PHAC screening officers and the PHAC quarantine regional managers made a unilateral decision to disregard the requirements set out in section 16(1)(b) of the Quarantine Act.

Quarantine Act: Screening technology14 (1) Any qualified person authorized by the Minister may, to determine whether a traveller has a communicable disease or symptoms of one, use any screening technology authorized by the Minister that does not involve the entry into the traveller’s body of any instrument or other foreign body.

Obligation to inform16 (1) A screening officer shall immediately inform a quarantine officer, and follow any directive of that officer respecting the traveller, if (b) a traveller has refused to be screened by the screening officer under subsection 14(1), or a person authorized to use the screening technology has informed the screening officer that a traveller has refused to be screened under that subsection;
The PHAC officers had ONE job... to administer the Quarantine Act in its entirety. They were not there to decide which parts of the act to exclude, that is above their pay grade.

What does this mean for the rest of us? First, it confirms WE CAN WIN in the court. Second, it solidifies that those responsible for enforcing law are obligated to follow the law!

If you are still battling charges for refusing the PCR test when returning to Canada this is your new argument! If you WERE convicted, you need be EXONERATED and your money returned to you!

Links from the Zoom:
- Link to CanLii to request the ruling be uploaded; Here is the link to Canlii: https://www.canlii.org/en/feedback/feedback.html - Case info: Name of court, board or tribunal - Ontario court of justice Case name - Peel Region Date of decision - Wed, June 26, 2024 Docket or file number Name of judge or adjudicator - Judge Monahan
- Link to Cullen's fundraiser to buy transcripts for his appeal and legal consultation, the most significant cases in Canada today; https://fundrazr.com/02Lo10?ref=ab_AVbHmQaNFazAVbHmQaNFaz

- Fund raiser for Byron Carr, https://fundrazr.com/c2OiLf?ref=ab_0DDzM3_ab_4CSkMvokaXh4CSkMvokaXh&utm_campaign=campaign-launched-notification&utm_medium=email&utm_source=05-2024
- Link to Industry Advisory Table: Link to advisory table, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing-outreach-collaboration/industry-advisory-roundtable/members.html

Watch the replay here: https://rumble.com/v54e3ap-stand4thee-friday-night-zoom-june-28-quarantine-act-win.html