Shaun Newman Podcast - #472 - Eva Chipiuk

Episode Date: August 2, 2023

Lawyer from Chipiuk Law who was one of the lawyers who showed up for the Freedom Convoy. Eva also cross-examines Prime Minister Trudeau at the Public Order Emergency Commission. She is now representing Carrie Sakamoto, 47 year old vaccine injured mother, in a 10.5 million dollar lawsuit against the government and the CBC for misinformation and negligence about COVID-19 vaccines. Let me know what you think Text me 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast Patreon: www.patreon.com/ShaunNewmanPodcast

This is Matt Osborne. This is Pat King. My name is Martin Armstrong. This is Alex Kraner. This is Franco Tarzano, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Wednesday. Hope everybody's week is moving along.

Before we get to today's episode, let's get to today's episode sponsors. Blaine and Joy, Stefan, Guardian, plumbing, and heating. All you got to do is go back to episode 337. Jesus, that feels like a lifetime ago now, doesn't it? To find out more about them. They are home of the Guardian Power Station, bringing free electricity to everyone. as reliable off-grid solutions, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and beyond.

All you've got to do is go to Guardian Plumbing.com, where you can schedule your next appointment at any time. The deer and steer butchery. Butcher shop here in the Lloydminster area. They can get your next animal processed. All you got to do is give them a call, 780870-8700. And they're also in the market for butcher. If you're interested in the career of butcher, or you maybe have some background in it, reach out today, 78087080. 700. Erickson Agro Incorporated. That's Irma, Alberta, Kent and Tosha Erickson, family farm raising

four kids growing food for their community and this great country. They've teamed up with the podcast. I've mentioned this plenty of times. And if you're interested in having your business, team up with the podcast, SMP, just to support, hey, I think that's pretty cool and I would love to have you on. So reach out in the show notes, all right. Jim Spenrath and team over three trees tap and kitchen. Of course, I keep pointing always to their live music. They're great food and their, well, selection on the tap. Tews loves the food. I always think it's cool that they support so many local things. It never goes a week, it seems, that gym and team over there aren't doing something for the community.

So, well, I don't know. It's just super, super cool. Either way, call 780-874-7625. I suggest booking reservation. Don't be like me. I've maybe made a couple oopses there. Caleb Taves and Renegade Acres. They've given up, they bought a spot so that we can promote some things in the area or maybe across Western Canada.

I don't know, you tell me. So I've had three different people reach out. So here's the third one. It's Shine Christian Academy. It's a homeschool cooperative located in Streamtown, Alberta. About 20 minutes from Leominster, we are a group of parents that see the need

for alternative education option. We've been working hard to create a safety. and caring environment that provides foundational education in the core subjects. We also strive to incorporate life skills, goal setting, personal responsibility, community building, character development, tying everything back to biblical scriptures. We offer a curriculum that allows each person or each child, sorry, to learn at their own pace and ensures that the concepts are learned before continue on to the next level. Registation is currently open.

For more information, please contact Deanna Franklin 306-821-222. man twos would be happy with that or email shine christian academy 22 at gmail dot com they also have a facebook page okay so there's there's a there's a whole bunch a whole bunch on shine christian academy and i have to give um shoutouts to caleb taves and renegrakega acres uh he stepped up and wanted to promote some things around the area i think that was a super cool idea and so there you have it uh this week shine christian academy if you're uh got an event coming up if you got uh something that you think the community needs to hear about. It's kind of what we're trying to do there.

So either way, shout out to Caleb Taves and Renegade Acres. Now, let's get on the tail of the tape brought to you by Hancock Petroleum. For the past 80 years, they've been an industry leader in bulk fuels, lubricant, methanol, and chemicals, delivering to your farm commercial oil field locations.

For more information, visit them at Hancockpatroleum.com. She was one of the lawyers who showed up for the Freedom Convoy. Now she's representing Carrie Sakamoto, a lady suing the CBC along with the health and government agencies of Canada. I'm talking about Eva Chippeak. So buckle up. Here we go. This is Eva Chippeik and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast.

Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. I have Eva Chippeach joining me today. So thank you, ma'am, for giving me some time. Pleasure. Thanks for having me. You know, for the audience, they got to go back to October 27th, 2022. So a little under a year ago and it feels like a lot of, a lifetime ago, but I guess I'll get your thoughts on it. But that was the only time, I believe,

that you've been on the podcast. We were talking public order emergency commission. And that's a mouthful. Anyways. And by the time, you know, that episode would come out, it was, I don't know how many weeks after that, you actually got to cross-examine Justin Trudeau. And so I guess, you know, I just want to start there for a quick, hot second, because it has been a while since you were on the podcast. Yeah, happy to start there and kind of wrap things up from that public order emergency commission. Well, how are you doing today, Eva? All right. It does feel like a lifetime ago.

I feel like I got to reach over and jab you with some adrenaline. Let's get going here. I have a step. Let's go. Oh, I don't think you know me that well, Sean, is that I'm always going. Always. So, no, it's been, it feels like it's been three years packed into one of legal work and things that I got, that we were working on, or maybe even more. So it feels like a long time ago, but it was quite an experience, the whole commission.

And then, of course, having the opportunity to cross-examine Justin Trudeau. It's something that, you know, like, I'd be curious, maybe you know this, but like, like, I don't know how many people watched a day of it, let alone got to sit through the entire thing of it, right? And we're like right in the middle of it. And those experiences, well, they just don't leave you because if you were there or if you watched the entire thing, there's things said, things you just can't unsee, I guess, is what I'm getting at. And you are one of the few people that I know that played a small, a big role. I don't know what the size of it. But it doesn't matter.

you were there and you got to witness it firsthand. What did you pull out of that experience? And certainly what did you think of sitting, well, not sitting standing across from Justin Trudeau? It was really an incredible and intense experience, the commission six weeks. It was. It was long. It was nonstop.

And it was, you know, especially for the role that we played. it was really, honestly, very difficult for lawyers to be able to take on that kind of work. We were nonstop getting a lot of things last minute, incredibly redacted, not even ideal working conditions, I would say, but harsh, you know, that you have so much to go through. And it's just such, it was such an important thing that it's looking back, it's just too bad that that was how, the commission chose to set everything up and that they were okay with the process being like that because we raised objections that there were issues with the fairness and reasonableness of how the documents were being provided and the how witnesses were how much time we had with witnesses and things like that so looking back it was a great experience to be there but it would have been nice

to have a team of 10 lawyers, 10 communications, people to really help make it into something different. But we did, I think we did a great job based on what we were able to do. And it was, you know, and this is what I'm hoping to continue to do in Canada, is continue to raise awareness about how difficult it is to hold the government. to account. The government has unlimited almost resources. And guess what? There are resources. It's not like they're creating money. And when we want to challenge the government, it takes a lot of effort and time and money. And we have to be prepared for that if we want to win. And so that's

something that I'm hoping to get more Canadians behind us because being reactive to these things, things is very difficult. Like, that's what we've been kind of doing for the last two years. The Freedom Convoy was beautiful, but it was kind of, it was very reactive. And then the government reacted. And then the commission reacted. And everything's been so reactive. And we need to be more strategic. We need to be more focused. We need to be a more resourceful in those things, in my opinion. And, and then, you know, I think we'll be able to create more positive change. Yeah, fair. I, you're, you're talking. about, I think, being with strategic but being proactive and trying to, you know, identify some

different from where you stand, and maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, but legal cases that have some grounds and that might be able to sway and gain public support here in Canada. Is that what led you to, and I hope I say this right, Kerry Sakamoto, is that what led you to her story, like, or how is it that, you know, and you can certainly give the audience the full story of what you're suing, who you're suing, that type of thing, but how is it that Carrie and her story? Because, I mean, on this podcast now, we've heard, I don't know, and I mean, I'm not the only one, but there's tons of heartbreak in Canada when it comes to what's happened over the last couple of years. What is it about her story that you went,

this is the one and then maybe just tell the audience exactly what's going on. Right. So I recently launched a lawsuit on behalf of Carrie Sakamoto, she's an Alberta woman that was severely impacted, negatively affected by the COVID vaccine. And her story, in my view, is really heartbreaking and unique in many ways. as for, and I could get into that, as for why I'm representing her, it just, that's what happened. And since launching that lawsuit, I've received so many heartbreaking emails, and it's hard to read. But, you know, where I feel it's unfortunate is people are coming to lawyers looking for solutions that the government is supposed to be.

be providing. And it's not the role of a lawyer to provide the support that these individuals are looking for after being vaccine injured or being affected by their government in such a negative way. So it's, again, it's a little bit reactive. What I'm hoping to accomplish in all of the work that I do moving forward is my goal is to help raise awareness about issues. Canada with the government and my screen is going black. I hope that you could see me okay. I can see you okay. Very strange. I can hardly see you now. So I was just playing with the story a little bit distracted. Whenever this happens to, by the way, that we have weird technical stuff, we always blame CIS. So hi, CIS. They hear me talking about bringing accountability

and raising awareness and they don't like it. Well, it's funny, you know, you talk about lawyers playing the role of government a bit. And yet I remember, you know, I got to go back. She's passed away now, which is something odd for the podcast to have a guest who was on. And I'm actually going to pull it up on the phone real fast. But as I do, Carol Crosson was a lawyer in Alberta who passed away. And I remember her telling me if the government didn't break, the law, I wouldn't have a practice. And basically all of her law was going against, you know,

government breaking its own rules and doing things, you know, stupidly and everything else. And I'm butchering it a bit. But, you know, like part of what lawyers have done is help the common man fight and give it a little bit of teeth against the big, bad bully of the government. Right. And Carol Crosson, I just knew her in passing a little bit. And, she was a constitutional lawyer. And that's, of course, the role of constitutional lawyers is that the government has enacted something that seems unreasonable or illegal, and that then the lawyers are coming into question whether that law was implemented correctly and justifiably and all the criteria.

That's one thing, because yes, we should always be holding our government to account in that way and I do hope Canadians get a little bit more, start questioning things and even, yes, becoming more litigious. Our neighbors to the south are way more litigious. And we have courts and lawyers for a reason. There's no reason to say, oh, I don't want to get involved. It's not appropriate for me to do. That's quite the opposite.

And again, we're paying for the courts. We're paying for all of it. So we might as well utilize it. And then in respect to what I was saying about support, in this case, yes, the goal is to show and hold the government to account in Kerry's case, 100%. But where it's a little bit different than, you know, Carol Crosson in a constitutional practice is that this isn't just a law that was offside or the government went,

a little bit too far. This is about harms that were committed because of a vaccine message and mandates and approval process in Canada. And there were harms that were caused on people as a result. And in this case, it's a vaccine injured person. And like I said, there's so many of those. That's a little bit different than just a law is overreaching

or it can be justified. This is a harm was committed. And we're suggesting that that harm is because of the government actions and breaches they've committed, that somebody's life has been altered and they have physical and psychological damages as a result. So I could get into the lawsuit maybe a little bit. It might be a good time to talk about it. Sure. And just before you do that, I wanted to point out to the listeners, if they're wondering,

we keep mentioning Carol Cross. and it was episode 210, and it was back October 11th, 2021. So that's a long time ago. Regardless, sorry, to interrupt, Eva, carry on. And actually, you bring me to a good point, too, is that with any constitutional challenge, there often when I was doing that work earlier, people always asked, can we do a class action? Can I be involved in the lawsuit? And that's great.

However, it only takes one person in a constitutional challenge to set a precedent because if a law is found to be unconstitutional, illegal or unjustified, it's unjustified for all Canadians or provincially if it's a provincial law. So to add, you know, a hundred thousand clients or make it a class action or a hundred people, it just makes it a little bit more complicated, quite a bit more complicated actually for the court. for the judges, for the lawyers to be able to assess it all. So that's one thing I wanted to say about that. And then with this lawsuit, you know, if we could set a precedent, then that's going to be beneficial to all Canadians. So that's one message that I'm hoping to share with Canadians just in advance, that it takes one case, one precedent to affect everyone in Canada.

And so Carrie Sakamoto, 47-year-old vaccine, injured mother files $10.5 million lawsuit against the government and the CBC for misinformation and negligence about COVID-19 vaccines. That's what the conversation topic of today is. That's exactly what you're doing. Where does it? I don't know. Actually, there's probably more to it than what I just read off.

I don't even know where to go, Eva. Is it like this is like three year thing, five year thing? Are you even going to get close? Because if you can prove this out, like, I mean, it opens the door for thousands upon thousands of Canadians to walk in and pillage the CBC, the government, etc. I don't know. Lead us through it. Yeah. So definitely, and I'm just going to take some notes so that I get the questions in that you asked.

But certainly this could set a precedent, and this is why we're doing what we're doing. This is about holding the government to account for, again, their actions and breaches. So first, I just wanted to say that Carrie was supposed to join. She just isn't feeling very well today. And generally, she would give an overview of her experience what exactly had happened. And hopefully we could come back on the show when she's feeling better. You can explain that because I will get into why that's important and why she's doing what she's doing as well. So in terms of the lawsuit, like you said, it's a large lawsuit against the federal government and some of the agents there,

public health officials particularly, AHS, so that's the Alberta Health Services, the Regional Health Authority in Alberta, and the CBC. And one of the main claims that we've made is that the federal government and the Minister of Health federally approved these COVID vaccines in Canada. And what many Canadians, I don't think, appreciate is that normally when you approve a therapeutic drug in Canada, it has to be safe and effective. And, you know, that would make sense. that's the purpose of having these regulatory bodies. For the COVID-19 vaccine, they removed the requirement that the COVID vaccine be either safe or effective.

So I don't think many Canadians know that number one. Is that because of emergency use? So there was an interim order, but what they did is they put in a different test. and that test was that there had to be more benefit than there is harm of the vaccine. But what we're asking the court and what is in the statement of claim is, how do you know that the COVID-19 vaccine is more beneficial than it is harmful if you're not measuring for safety or effectiveness? It becomes a circular argument.

It's objective. So how is it approved and remains on the market? once issues are identified. So that's a big thing. And then so it's been approved without it being required to be safe or effective or under the same criteria. But I'm sure you remember and all your viewers remember, what was the messaging from the public health officials, from the CBC, from all of the health authorities? Safe and effective.

Safe and effective. Yes. So are these agents, and that's the question we're putting to the court, can they go around, especially public health agents during a time of when people were incredibly vulnerable, put in a lot of trust into the public health officials, and then they went around Canada telling everyone it's safe and effective when the approval process wasn't even required to have that. So do we just wash our hands of this? do we let it go or do we ask whether this was correct? Do we ask that these public health officials in these roles of authority, do they have to be held to account? And that's what we're asking the government, the court, excuse me.

What's the time frame on something like this? Right. And there are a couple other parts to the lawsuit that we could get into. No, no, I'm sure. You know what? Pin, I bounce around, and everybody knows this. Pin the time frame. Get to the other parts of the lawsuit, please, and then I'll buggy about time frame. I'm just, you know, me, I always want things to move fast, and I know the world of government and law and other things moves in my world a little too slow. But hey, what other parts do you have in this as well? Yeah, so one of the parts that is really important to, and that's why it's always nice to,

to have Carrie share her story is that a big component of it is the suppression from the media about vaccine injured people. So Carrie is a lovely woman and went through a heartbreaking time where her life was at risk. And she said after she left the hospital, she's like, I made it my mission to tell people in Canada to help explain. what happened so doctors know because it's also novel everything she's experiencing they didn't know what was going on and so she's like i i she reached out to all of the mainstream media outlets in canada and they all shut her down so and she'll she says this all the time they keep calling my life misinformation and you can you you you can't do that to people no it's it's

pure insanity is what it is. And once again, on this side, you know, it's, we've talked to several different people that have had some tough goes in, in this realm. And the fact that nobody will touch them is, you know, well, in here, I actually wrote down what was in, was in the press release, you know, in the fall of 2021 and into early 2022, Kerry reached out to many Canadian mainstream media networks, including CBC to tell them her story so they could share the impacts of adverse events from the COVID vaccines with the public medical doctor. She was advised that they could not report on information that negatively

reported on the COVID vaccines. And I mean, that's something that's come to light. I believe it's with Blacklocks reporter specifically to that, how if it was viewed as negatively, they took, you know, they wanted to make sure that the vaccine role of it had no negative impact, that it didn't affect the public to look on it negatively. And so, you know, they suppressed stories. This is, you know, folks, this is why Sean's sitting here is so angry at other media outlets that are the main ones that are getting our tax dollars to do this to ourselves. We're funding the thing that's, that's blocking us out from all the information that we all wanted or desperately needed at that point in time. Exactly. So that's another component of the lawsuit. And we allege that

there was misfeasance, so an abuse of public office, because not only was that information known, but they suppressed it, they censored it. And these are questions, we need answered as Canadians. Is that right for these officials to be doing that, to be essentially manipulating citizens in that way? And these are the questions we're asking the government. So going back to Carrie's, why Carrie, too, is,

She, like I said, is made it a mission to help people understand and she was shut down. So that is a big component. She really is a very strong woman going through what she did and then even wanting to take it upon herself to, you know, help relay that message to Canadians because she wanted to help. Well, I look at what you're trying to do, Eva, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. but you are going up against a juggernaut. And when you're, when you have your, you know, you're, you know, carry, she has to be, I don't know, if airtight is the right wording on it, but like, she can't have any holes in the story. Like she had, like it has to be so, and picture perfect folks is the complete opposite of what I want to say. But that's the only thing that comes to mind because when you're going up against a juggernaut, they're going to try and twist and turn and slow down the process.

and everything else. So her story has to be airtight. And that means it in the worst possible way for what we're talking about. Well, you know, it's funny because I've been representing some amazing yet how they've been labeled some people over the last two years. But all we've shared with them is you have nothing to hide. You keep telling your story. Be honest.

Be truthful. because that is their life story. In Carrie's case, it's a little bit different because she actually has, and it's so unfortunate to say, and here is that brain damage, and so her memory is bad. So we'll have to have a lot of experts

helping her through that process, but I suspect she's going to say many things that were incorrect, but that's her story. That's her life right now, and it's really hard, you know, for her and her family to be going through. That's not my biggest concern because we can get support.

My concern is that these government agents are going to, and this is where we're going to get into how long this case is going to take, is are they going to try to wash their hands of it, get out of it? Because the first thing they're going to say, especially somebody like the CBC who's a defendant, is we never told Kerry to get the vaccine, nor did we inject carry with the vaccine. We have nothing to do with this lawsuit.

That likely will be one of our first challenges. But that's not the only factor of this lawsuit. I hate the CBC. You know, when you say things like that, Eva, I'm sure riles up the entire audience, but it's like, you know, the amount of, the amount of coercion that happened with not only the CBC, but a whole bunch of different media agencies was insanity back then.

You know, I was looking through your document and I was just like it almost unnerves me to hear the different campaign modos, you know, the safe and effective. Obviously, we all heard a ton of that. We were in it together. This is our first shot. First vaccine is the best vaccine. Mix and match. After, you know, the AstraZeneca debacle, you know, as all these countries started pulling it and you could see it, but Canada wouldn't pull. it and they finally do and then they're like just get the next one it's not a big deal

and you're like well where's the journalism to to show that where's the evidence can we get to the bottom of this you know shot of hope campaign trust the science you know it just goes on and on and on and on and oh my my anger is gonna get the best of me this morning but I mean like I just when I hear that out of CBC what we didn't do anything it's like yeah I actually just heard a politician tell me that behind closed Well, I didn't really do anything. It's right. You didn't do anything.

Isn't that the first truth statement out of a politician's mouth? Anyways, I'm going on a side tangent. I apologize. But, you know, it's things like this where I hear, you know, that it's, you know, you're trying to keep the conversation going. You're trying to force the government's hand and the uphill battle you face. You know, I hats off to people trying because, I mean, obviously should we? We just whitewash it away and act like it never happened?

I know. A woman's life. Many a person's life has been drastically altered. And if they don't talk about it and try and stand up for their rights and personal freedoms here in this country, they all disappear awfully quick. Yeah. And, you know, just reading those hashtags and slogans again every time it gets me. And we have a team of people that have helped to pull up the messages again. Because we're all quick to forget.

And so the one fella that was doing it, he's like, I need to take a break. It was just so much and so heavy. And then I just happened to come up upon a clip. I don't know how, but it was Alberta Health Services representative. And he said, don't just walk to get your vaccine. Run. It's like, is that okay? Should we, we should be questioning whether all of this is okay.

And that's what this lawsuit is part. Yeah. The media reinforced the, well, this is just my own, my own thought. The media reinforced the politicians, the health officials, etc., etc. It was this like kind of like weird, you know, they're almost eating themselves, you know, in a way. They reinforced everything. Media said they were doing the right thing, so they believe they were doing the right things.

So race and get your shot, and it's not a big deal. And we never did anything harmful to anybody. And then there's a whole bunch of people that, you know, lost jobs, lost livelihoods, etc., etc. There was people who went out and got it and then got like, you know,

crazy side effects. Certainly death in there is a part. But, I mean, I remember, and man, that's a long time ago, folks. Conrad, and I'm forgetting his name. He was a fishing guide, Adam Conrad. No, there it is. Adam Conrad was a fishing guide out of Saskatchewan.

And he'd gotten Pfizer and then had been raised to the hospital. I can't remember if it was three or four different times to be shocked. He had to go for surgery. Like, because of how bad it just messed him up, you know? And at that time, nobody, well, you can't tell that it was the shot. And you're like, are you people insane? Like, we are actively suppressing people's stories in Canada. once again Eva and you're getting me off on a side track here because I get fired up when I

when I think back to it you know when you talk about a guy doing some research for you and being like I just need a break you know last year I had a comedy show just so we could have a break just so we could laugh a little bit man it's it's tough to walk back through some of the some of the things that were done and said and then to have no to just distance you know like as a government agency will you know it's just like how we didn't do anything wrong there was nothing there I get they can't admit guilt because if they do that, it's over awfully quick and they're going to be advised otherwise. But there's a lot of human lives that have stood in the balance. And, you know, that's really tough to hear.

I don't want to get under your skin more. But I feel like I should share this part. When I was preparing the lawsuit, I obviously looked at the statutes, the laws that are enacted, that the health minister has to abide by and the CBC. So the CBC is regulated by the Canadian Broadcasting Act. And so I looked at what's required by the CBC and other media outlets that are, you know, I don't know. Like, are you regulated by the Canadian Broadcasting Act?

No, okay, so they are. and I was looking at what duties and responsibilities they have and they don't have an obligation under law to provide accurate information. They do, Sean, have a requirement to be inclusive. I just thought I, you know. I'm scrolling through the document because I read that this morning. I'm like, what?

And I had to read it like three times where it says, do not. Do you remember what part of that, what number that was, Eva? I should have, I should have, I should have. Yeah, it would have been earlier. So right after the facts, um, legal duty, public duty, statutory duty, something like that. It's, it's funny because I, I literally read it this morning.

I'm like, what? Like what? Yes. Yes. And, and this is why you don't see too many lawyers jumping up right now because under law, they don't have a requirement. But when you talk to go to court, I just want to say you could go to court and ask, especially in provincial court, the court to address things like this. So they can create torts of misrepresentation or misinformation.

You can't do that in federal court. Have you been warned by other lawyers not to take the, like just basically like Eva, you're running into a brick wall. Why would you do this? Like have you had conversations like that with different lawyers? or nobody really, nobody's really worried about you. I'll pass. You can't do that, can you? I can.

Interesting. Interesting. So I just take that, okay, fair enough. That's interesting. You know, my own, I always joke with Layton Gray, you know, because me and him will get talking and I say, ah, you lawyers. And he always, I got such a rough taste in my mouth with lawyers in the middle of COVID, because I was told over and over again by a bunch of different lawyers, you know,

like, ah, no, there's nothing wrong happening here. And that really, really bothered me. I was like, where are the lawyers who, like, can't see what the heck is going on? Now, obviously, there's a whole bunch of you out there. I don't mean to say that it's everyone. But certainly there's a healthy majority of lawyers who, like, ah, the letter of the law says it's fine, this is fine, everything's fine. And I'm like, I'm sitting in a burning building and we're all going, it's fine.

And the people who got the fire extinguisher, at least in my burning, are all going, oh yeah, you can't do anything with it anyways. Don't worry about it. It doesn't work. And I was very, very shocked. So I'm just curious because, you know, you're a lady who's put her head up a couple different times and now you certainly are all over again. Well, what I can say about that is it is very risky, professionally, financially,

financially to be doing these things. And I can say after the last making myself more. known publicly. You get some love, but you also get so much hate. And it really is hard. So it's not a comfortable position to be in. I think lots of people would prefer to keep their heads down. This is not something I woke up one day or this has been my life mission to do this. Oh, I want to become a famous lawyer. Quite the opposite. I never had any intention of anything like this. But I felt, you know, with the convoy and other things, people just weren't stepping up. And I was, I thought a more sophisticated, more reputable, more experienced lawyer would do something.

But they didn't. When you talk about the amount of like hate thrown your way, what are they upset about? Oh, it depends who you ask. Are you talking about online hate? Like just people online? Oh yeah. And that's something I've said so many times is if we were living in the same reality as online messages and vitriol, there would be street fights on every corner of every street.

And that's not reality. and I particularly don't find that helpful or exemplary from our elected officials. So I think that that needs to change. But the way that people are engaging, adults are engaging online, is terrible. I act like a schoolteacher sometimes. I'm like, can you please behave like adults? Thank you. Certainly if you're talking group chats, I've seen it there.

But as soon as you've just done, like, the public forum of social media, I don't even know who I'm interacting with anymore. So I actually don't even read it. And I'm not saying I get trolled or whatever else that much. I could or I couldn't tell you because I really don't care. I post things and then I just, I just leave it alone. Like I don't know, I haven't read, you know, in the middle of COVID, Eva, you could probably have a feel for this.

when I went from talking hockey to talking to doctors, lawyers, professors, etc., etc., etc., etc. You can imagine there was some outrage in there because there was. And eventually you just went, ah, fuck, whatever. I don't know. What am I going to do? Right? Like, what can I do? You go get mad on social media and life will move on.

And social media itself is a very, very unique, powerful tool. But to get caught up and worry about all the comments in there when they won't say 99% of it to your face, it ain't worth my time like it just it just isn't and uh and yet you know some people make their living or their life or or get their uh you know get their joys out of absolutely attacking people out of uh you know there's a whole bunch of different uh creative ways to just elicit emotion out of people and i just never under i've never understood i just i just don't so um i would uh suggest don't look at all the the crap they're saying about you because i mean when you're standing up to if not the mob here certainly the giant machine that is government that

certainly is not going to want to admit any wrongdoing or any fault you're in for a tough tough task that might be understanding it a bit and what you were talking about with a thing that might annoy me is this is what I'd read this morning it was government age this is from your document government agencies including public health regional health authorities publicly funded health care providers and the national public broadcaster do not have a legal duty to protect the health and safety of the public, provide the public with fair, accurate, and independent information, or act in the best interest of the public. That's why you face such a giant mountain. And as I've read that, I'm like, think about that. The national public broadcaster does not have to a legal duty

to protect the health and safety of the public. You're like, okay, provide the public with fair, accurate, and independent information. Really? And act in the best interest of the public. What? Isn't that journalism? Isn't journalism supposed to be in the best interest of the public? Hey, I stand.

For the government. Right? Like, so that's what you're up against. Yeah. And so going back to the lawyers and the risk, I am taking the risk, I am willing to stand up because I think it's so important. But I think if we, and I think I started with this, could be a bit more strategic and coordinated. And there's more of us than there are them in government.

If we could get behind a message, I believe more lawyers will stand up. But we have to work together. We have to be more united. and I don't know if I'm seeing that right now. When I go to some events and things like that, there's so many people that are giving up or don't know what to do or how to do it, but we have to stay engaged.

That's the only way democracy works if we engage and we've been incredibly apathetic for a long time and we have to be more engaged now rather than less. And one thing I couldn't even believe to show you how people are already being apathetic is I just found out that in Alberta, there were less people that voted in this recent election than the last one. I think if I go my own from where I said, Eva, one of the hardest things to get my brain around is kind of what I alluded to earlier is, you know, I want things to move fast. I remember, like, think about this. This will make, maybe it won't make you chuckle.

Maybe I'll show how sad Sean was back at the start. I interviewed Julie Panessi around episode like 200. So this is like the beginning of Sean going down this rabbit hole that he's never come out of. And I'm sitting there and I'm going to her. So Julie, you know, you just lost your job, you know, ethics professor. You know, like, so how long are we in this for? Like three months, six months? And the look on her face of like, no, like decades.

And I'm like, oh. Right? And even then, I don't know if I truly believed her. Honestly, like, we're talking, we're talking 2021, right? We're in 2023 now. And certainly we've removed out of the lockdowns and everything else, but there's a lot of insanity going on. But go back to the, sorry. One thing I'll just, I heard this story, and I think it's just appropriate, given what you said, is in the United States, because lots of people who are like, oh, the laws are charter's garbage. and laws are garbage and lawyers are garbage. Sure, some of them with all of those might be. But in the United States, and I don't recall the fellow's name, but it was a black man that went to the Supreme Court about segregation, and he was dismissed.

A hundred years later, under the same constitution, Rosa Parks' case changed everything. So you could see law does take time. I anticipate in these days, given social media and the ability to message, it wouldn't take that long and we're not in that kind of situation. But that's what some people have to appreciate, too, is it does take time. Nothing changed in that case that I just mentioned in the United States. It was the same constitution.

It was the same issue of segregation and 100 years later. it was addressed. Again, I don't expect it to take that long, especially if we unite, especially if we work together, especially if we pull our resources, because the government does have just so much more resources than one individual has, for example. Yeah, well, the ability to cause change right now, you know, just take a look at Elon Musk buying Twitter and the ability to all of a sudden see a whole bunch of stuff that was being suppressed for so long, right?

It's pretty evident. You have to have the right individual get behind it. Helps when it's the richest person on the planet or one of them. But I mean, I think, you know, when you talk about people giving up, a friend of mine, after Ottawa is probably summer 22, is, I would say, you know, a few months after Ottawa, he was really depressed because people were giving up back then. And I kept telling, I don't think people are giving up. I think people are taking a breather.

They are taking a much needed breather because they have been fighting with every last ounce of strength they have. You know, and the truth of the matter is, is I think a lot of us just need to get our brains wrapped around that it's going to take time and effort. And it's not a hundred-yard dash. It is anything but that. But that's the joys of life, you know. And David Parker would say, you know, politics is not a spectator sport. You have to get involved. Get involved.

And if you get involved, things can slowly change over time, and they will. But if you don't get involved, then things are going to slowly change over time, and they will. And it won't go the way that you want it to. It will actually go worse and worse. And then it will take more and more time to get out of the said hole that we keep digging ourselves into. Very much. yeah we just need to be more engaged and so I'm trying I'm trying to do that not obviously with this lawsuit but in general like I just took it upon myself to start a podcast about politic like issues political issues and understanding you know the relationships of different government agencies and jurisdictions federally versus provincially so much confusion and municipally as well and legal rights so that people just are more empowered to understand. And then I've launched also a new organization called

Empowered Canadians, which is that's exactly the goal is to help Canadians understand and appreciate and be able to be active participants in democracy. I just heard so many people, like when I started to message and talk about the cases we were in, so many people were thankful for the information I was providing and there was almost a desperation in their responses that, you know, saying some was looking for somebody to help explain that to me or whatever. And there was just such a need that was missing. So I'm hoping that we can help empower Canadians to feel more comfortable and confident in the systems that we live in.

Speaking of a little bit, like when it comes to knowledge and understanding like that, I mean, that's how, you know, you can be confident in where you stand and why you stand there. I was reading the, now I don't even know. Is it the court briefing, the statement? It shows who the defendants are, the plaintiff, et cetera. Once again, I don't know the legal jargon here. In this case? Yes.

It's a statement of claim in this case. Thank you. And it even says that there, and I just couldn't see it. Can you explain to me? I just don't understand. I'm so confused when I first started reading it. It has defendants and then it has a list of, you know, okay, so I'll read them off. His Majesty, the King and Right of Canada, Attorney General of Canada, Minister of Health, Chief Public Health Officer, Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, National Advisor Committee on Immunization, Dr. Celia Lorenzo, Alberta Health Services, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

I have two questions. One is, why are two of them crossed out? Why is His King, Majesty, the King and Right of Canada and National Advisory Committee on Immunization? Why are they both canceled out? What does that mean? So I'll explain what it is, is that we amended the statement of claim. And when you amend a statement of claim in Alberta, so we filed an original statement of claim that didn't have any red marks or, crossed out.

And then we made some changes so that we amended the statement of claim. And in Alberta, you have to show what those changes are very loudly. Sure. Yeah. And I would say to the listener, like I'm looking at it, and it's very bold.

It's in red. It pops out. And I'm like, what the heck is? Anyways. Yeah. Anyways. I appreciate that.

Not many people understand it. And I guess different jurisdictions don't do it that way. I don't think that's the way it's done in Ontario. And it's called a fresh, fresh amended statement to claim or something. Okay. So there's different names, but here you do it red and you do it underlined or highlighted or crossed out if you're crossing something out.

The reason why we crossed out those two, I don't really want to get into the specifics at this time, but there was a reason for it. And those were the changes we made. So there's certain people. and people have asked why didn't we add more people you know the list could have been 10 pages long but i think we got the right people as defendants and um in order to show who what and how they're accountable and we'll see from there where it goes so uh i guess actually that adds in a question then is so this is Alberta so is this a lawsuit just against like i know it says Canada

Minister of Health, Chief Public Health Officer, so is this a federal court case, a provincial court case? It doesn't matter. It was just where it was filed. It is a provincial court case, and the defendants are federal, some of them are federal agents. So in this case, not all cases can be brought in either provincial or federal court. In this case, I think we could have done both, but it just made more sense.

Again, I won't get into all of the reasons, but there are certain cases that could not be brought in Alberta jurisdiction. So there's a list of things that can only be brought in federal court, and they have more to do with only things the federal government deals with, like military or taxation, I believe, and I could be wrong. And let me back up a little bit too. This is probably why not too many lawyers go on podcasts and talk about the law, because we don't know everything.

I don't know everything. And I will stand to be corrected. And I am all about learning and growing. That's a very healthy statement. I interviewed a lot of people through COVID who knew everything. And I remember Bruce Party coming on and saying, I don't know. And I'm like, well, Bruce, you know how healthy a thing that is to say? Like I appreciate that because, well, even to this day, it sticks out, right?

Because so many people won't say, I don't know. Well, here, I'll ask one other then, because, I read it, I'm like, what does that mean? You have Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2. What does Jane Doe signify when you have a person? Well, actually, I don't know. What does Jane Doe 1 and 2 mean? So they're described in the facts.

Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 are the individuals who injected Carrie with the vaccines. And it's Jane Doe because we don't actually know who they are. Gotcha. Okay. Well, I don't want to, like, I appreciate you doing this and I appreciate you, you know, let me slam you with different questions, different thoughts, as always. Is there anything else you want to make sure that people know about the court case before I let you out of here? Well, I do hope that we could come on and share her story because, like I said, that is part of her goal and admission. And there will be lots of opportunities, I think, to update so we can do that at another time when she's feeling bad. better. But this is going to take a lot of help from Canadians and support. This is, we anticipate, going to be a big challenge with lots of heated, you know, exchanges in the law and setting precedence.

This is something new. All of COVID, everything that we experienced for the last three years has been unprecedented. So it would be great to have Canadians behind and helping carry through this time and helping resource this. So we're helped and supported by a couple organizations. Empowered Canadians is one. And also the Institute for Freedom and Justice is a charitable organization. So you could get a tax receipt. But just getting Canadians behind this.

What I'll do. What I'll do is you can email me or shoot me a message with, if people want to support it. We can put the links in the show notes that way. They just scroll down and if they want to support, they can. They can just click on it in the way they go. That's nice and easy. You know, I guess it brings me, I don't know if you told me or if my ears turned off,

which is highly probable. Did we talk, like, are there key dates coming up that people should be paying attention to or this has just been filed and now you sit and wait for how long until anything starts to roll? Yes. That's the answer. We're sitting and waiting right now. And not surprisingly, the defendants, they've all acknowledged the statement of claim,

but they've asked for an opportunity to review. So we've given them that time. And we're not going to push it. This is not something that we're taking lightly on any side. But there is no date at this time for any next steps. Okay. Well, I appreciate you hopping on, Eva, and doing this and we'll look forward to some updates here in the future.

Thanks for having me. Hey, thanks for tuning in today, guys. I hope you enjoyed it. Today's episode has been brought to by Calrock Industries with new used and refurbished oil and gas equipment in stock. Cal Rock is your best bet when it comes to finding equipment that fits your needs is within your budget and is ready as soon as you need it. They can even custom manufacture tanks and other equipment for your specific application. They're located here in Lloyd Minster, but I'm sure they can serve you wherever you are at. All you got to do is go to calrock.ca for more information.

I also want to remind people that Patreon, I just started posting back on it. We're going to give her a go here for the next six months. So if you want to go down in the show notes, you can click on that. Feel free to support. Don't support. It's behind a paywall,

so the money is coming back to the podcast. We've got a little behind the scenes action happening there. So I love to see and hear your guys' comments on that. Either way, we'll catch up to you on the next episode.