COVID-19
Judge agrees with Tamara Lich’s counsel that saying ‘hold the line’ was not a call to insurrection
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/tvrd-lifesite-freedom-convoy-image-2023-12-01.jpg)
From LifeSiteNews
What the Freedom Convoy leader told truckers in the Ottawa anti-COVID jab mandate protest ‘could mean, stay true to your conscience and convictions,’ Judge Heather Perkins-McVey said on Day 29 of the trial
During the trial of Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber earlier this week, Lich’s legal counsel argued that her use of the rallying cry “hold the line” during the 2022 protests did not imply she was calling for people to engage in illegal activity.
Attorney Eric Granger said that his client had continually called for peaceful protests in her public statements, noting her social media presence as proof.
Granger then said that Lich’s “hold the line” statement could be interpreted in many ways.
Judge Heather Perkins-McVey agreed, saying, “It could mean, stay true to your conscience and convictions. “
On February 17-18, 2022, video footage emerged of Lich and Barber’s arrest by members of the Ottawa Police Service (OPS).
While being led away, Lich told truckers in the Ottawa anti-COVID jab mandate protest to “hold the line.”
On Day 29 of the trial, which took place on Tuesday, Granger again made it a point to the court that Lich and Barber should not be considered co-conspirators in their criminal trial.
As noted in a Day 29 trial update by The Democracy Fund (TDF), which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, Granger referred to the court a video posted by Lich on February 16, 2022, in which she “appealed for love, respect, and prayers for police officers.”
“Drawing attention to a text exchange between Lich and Barber on February 17, 2022, Granger highlighted apparent disagreements between them regarding the statements made in the video,” the TDF noted.
“He submitted that this suggested Lich and Barber were not engaged in a common unlawful purpose, as required in the Carter test.”
The trial is currently at the stage when the defense counsel for Lich and Barber take turns calling witnesses before the court.
On Monday, which was Day 28 of Lich and Barber’s trial, the defense argued that a Crown request to make criminal charges against one leader apply to the other leaders should not be allowed because there is no evidence the pair worked in a conspiratorial manner.
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.”
Lich and Barber can’t be treated as a ‘single’ entity, lawyer argues
In court on Tuesday, Granger again emphasized the need for caution in treating “Lich and Barber as a single entity,” as noted by the TDF.
He told the court that he questioned the Crown’s “allegations of conspiracy, particularly in light of Barber’s diverse statements.”
He made it a point that there is no evidence Lich broke the law before her arrest. He argued that trying to interpret Lich’s “hold the line” statement as a call for violence is purely speculation, given that she has a known calm persona.
When it came to connecting Lich with Barber, Granger said there is no evidence “of Lich’s and Barber’s participation in Ottawa coexisting,” as noted by the TDF.
Multiple convoys took to Ottawa organized by various individuals. Granger told the court that the Crown’s evidence fell short for it to make a case for use of the Carter application and urged the court to dismiss it.
Barber’s lawyer stresses that evidence shows protests were peaceful and there was no ‘conspiracy’
Barber’s lawyer, Diane Magas, began her submissions before the court Tuesday and called into question the Crown’s material submissions concerning the date when an alleged agreement to conspire between Lich and Barber took place.
She noted the different legal definitions of riot and unlawful assembly, “arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly contradicted any tumultuous activity during the convoy protest,” as mentioned by the TDF.
“She highlighted numerous text messages and social media statements made by Barber and Lich, with no indication of an agreement for unlawful purposes. She asserted the legality of actions such as setting up a GoFundMe account and obtaining fuel for trucks. Magas emphasized the peaceful nature of the protests and the absence of evidence linking Barber and Lich to any unlawful plan.”
Magas again stressed that when looking at text exchanges and Barber’s public statements, and the fact he had cooperated with police, there was no agreement between the two to engage in an unlawful purpose.
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 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.
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. LifeSiteNews has been covering the trial extensively.
Alberta
Crown recommends 9 years in prison for Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade protesters
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/tvrd-ls-coutts-blockade-freedom-convoy-image-2024-09-05.jpg)
From LifeSiteNews
Originally charged with conspiracy to commit murder, Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert were convicted of mischief and weapons offences during the Coutts blockade in 2022. They’ve already spent more than two years in prison awaiting their trial.
The Crown recommended nine years in prison for two men linked to the 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade protest in Coutts, Alberta.
On August 29th, Crown prosecutor Steven Johnston declared that Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert, who were convicted of mischief and weapons offences at the 2022 Freedom Convoy, should receive nine years in jail despite already spending more than two years in prison awaiting their trial.
“Mr. Carbert and Mr. Olienick believed they were at war. They were prepared to die for their cause. The very real risk is that a firefight would have occurred,” Johnston claimed.
Olienick and Carbert have already spent more than two years in prison after they were charged with conspiracy to commit murder during 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade protest in Coutts that protested COVID mandates.
Earlier in August, they were finally acquitted of that charge and instead found guilty of the lesser charges of unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and mischief over $5,000. Olienick was also found guilty of unlawful possession of an explosive device.
Olienick and Carbert have been jailed since 2022 when, at the same time the Freedom Convoy descended on Ottawa to protest COVID restrictions, they joined an anti-COVID mandate blockade protest at the Alberta-Montana border crossing near Coutts. The men were denied bail and kept in solitary confinement before their trial.
At the time, police said they had discovered firearms, 36,000 rounds of ammunition, and industrial explosives at Olienick’s home. However, the guns were legally obtained and the ammunition was typical of those used by rural Albertans. Similarly, Olienick explained that the explosives were used for mining gravel.
Now, they are being recommended to spend nine more years in prison despite their lawyer pointing out that they have already spent 929 days in jail, which equates to nearly four years given the accepted valuation of granting extra credit for time served while awaiting trial.
Justice David Labrenz is set to give his decision on September 9th.
The men were arrested alongside Christopher Lysak and Jerry Morin, and all four were charged with conspiracy to murder. At the time, the “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the Emergencies Act, which allowed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy occurring thousands of kilometers away in Ottawa.
Under the EA, the Trudeau government froze the 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.
Recently, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the Emergencies Act.
Many are pointing out that the two were being unjustly held as political prisoners similar to those in communist countries.
It’s unclear why the two Alberta men are denied bail while dangerous criminals are allowed to roam free thanks to Trudeau’s catch and release policy.
Indeed, this policy has put many Canadians in danger, as was the case last month when a Brampton man charged with sexually assaulting a 3-year-old was reportedly out on bail for an October 2022 incident in which he was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon.
COVID-19
Australian Senate report ignores obvious: excess deaths began after COVID jab rollout
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/tvrd-ls-australia-covid-vaccine-image-2024-09-03.jpeg)
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
It is considerably more likely that the sudden jump in excess deaths was caused by the vaccines rather than the virus. The same pattern is being repeated across heavily vaccinated countries.
When the Australian Federal Senate announced an inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, there was little hope the participants would undertake a dispassionate examination of the possible effects of vaccines on the population. The report has now been released and it did not disappoint; or, rather, it did disappoint.
The report was an exercise in misdirection and concealment by bureaucrats, industry bodies, and political parties. It did, though, settle the question of whether what the Australian authorities did was due to incompetence or darker motives. Based on the non-arguments proffered it is clear that there has been a sustained and organized exercise in lying.
The Senate committee, according to the state broadcaster, the ABC, found that “COVID-19 was the main cause of excess deaths in 2021, 2022, and up to August 2023”. It is a message that has been repeated across the mainstream media, providing an apparent reason to forget about the whole COVID problem.
Bindi Kinderman, general manager of the People and Place Division of the ABS, told the inquiry COVID-associated deaths were behind the unusual rise in death cases between 2021 and August 2023, adding that “in 2020, COVID-19 ranked as the 38th leading cause of death in Australia. In 2021, it moved up to the 34th position.”
Apart from the obvious problem that the 34th leading cause of death is hardly likely to be responsible for extreme changes to death levels, the ABS found in its own reporting that in 2021 the mortality rate in Australia from respiratory diseases was the second lowest on record (after 2020). There were 1,122 deaths attributable to COVID-19, less than a third of the number who died from influenza in 2019.
That suggests that any attempt to blame Covid-19 for the excess mortality had to begin at 2022 – after the mass vaccination.
References to 2021 were only made to create the false impression that the excess deaths started earlier than they actually did. The reason? Because there was a desire to avoid comparisons of what happened before the mass inoculation with what happened after.
The deception becomes especially obvious after looking at the ABS’s own data on excess deaths. In 2020, when Australians were being warned that a deadly disease was ravaging the country, excess mortality was actually negative: minus 3.1 per cent. In 2021 it was a comparatively modest 1.6 per cent above average. But in 2022, after the mandating of jabs, it soared to 11.7 per cent before falling to 6.1 per cent in 2023.
Additionally, in 2022 the number of deaths from Covid increased more than nine times from the 2021 level, invalidating the claim that the “vaccines” provided protection.
READ: Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear high-profile cases against COVID mandates
It is routinely pointed out that “correlation is not causation”; that just because two things coincide does not necessarily mean one causes the other. That also works in reverse. Without some kind of correlation there is no reason to look for causation. There is no correlation between COVID infections, which the ABS said started in March 2020, and excess mortality. So why would the virus suddenly have started causing excess deaths in 2022, when by that time it had mutated and become less deadly? The timeline does not add up.
A study entitled Too Many Dead by the Australian Medical Professional’s Society (AMPS) makes this point. “Why did the official death rates attributable to COVID-19 disease only become notable after the vast majority of Australians had received allegedly ‘safe and effective’ vaccines for the infection? Furthermore, why did the much milder Omicron variant take such a toll on a heavily vaccinated population, if indeed the much-repeated therapeutic claim of protection from severe illness and death was in effect?”
It is considerably more likely that the sudden jump in excess deaths was caused by the vaccines rather than the virus. The same pattern is being repeated across heavily vaccinated countries. According to the OECD, excess mortality is still high, at levels comparable with what happens during war time. In Australia excess mortality is still running about 10 per cent above average, according to the OECD. A study in the European Society of Medicine into the effect of vaccine boosters in Australia has found there is a “strong correlation” with the excess mortality.
A dissenting report by Senator Ralph Babet, who instigated the inquiry, makes the most interesting reading. Babet notes that there was a lot of suppression of submissions, which is unusual in such an inquiry. Only half were uploaded for public viewing.
“The submissions that the committee chose to suppress by taking as ‘unpublished correspondence’ include those from professors, doctors, medical specialists, academics, actuarial and subject matter experts, as well as concerned Australian citizens,” Babet wrote. He pointed to delays and road blocks, unreliable or unavailable data, and limited investigation of vaccine-related deaths.
It is no surprise that almost no-one will come forward to take responsibility for what appears to be the greatest man-made medical catastrophe in Australian history. It is no surprise that politicians, bureaucrats, health bodies and industry groups lack collective conscience and honesty. They are only interested in lying to protect themselves.
The question that remains unanswered is: “What kind of government and health system is left once it has lost its integrity and credibility?”
-
Brownstone Institute14 hours ago
Why Did Zuckerberg Choose Now to Confess?
-
Agriculture11 hours ago
Glimpse into the Future of Food
-
illegal immigration13 hours ago
Illegal immigrants crossing from Canada into USA in record numbers
-
Alberta12 hours ago
‘Coutts Two’ Verdict: Bail and Mischief
-
Bruce Dowbiggin10 hours ago
From Deal With It: A Cruel, Senseless Fate Ends A Brilliant Career
-
National1 day ago
Unemployment Surges as Trudeau’s Policies Wreak Havoc on the Economy
-
Crime2 days ago
Officials Arrest Father Of Suspected Georgia School Shooter
-
Addictions1 day ago
B.C. addiction centre should not accept drug industry funds