Shaun Newman Podcast - #603 - Jeff Rath & Eva Chipiuk

Episode Date: March 18, 2024

Eva is a lawyer from Chipiuk Law who cross-examined Prime MInister Trudeau at the Public Order Emergency Commission, Jeff is a lawyer from Rath & Company with over two decades of experience. Both are lawyers who are representing class action lawsuits against the provincial and federal government. We discuss their class action lawsuits and Bill C-63.  SNP Presents returns April 27th Tickets Below:https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone/ Let me know what you think. Text me 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast E-transfer here: [e-mail] Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Phone [phone] – general sales line, ask for Grahame and be sure to let us know you’re an SNP listener.

This is Alex Krenner. This is Dave Collum. This is Bruce Party. Hi, this is Jeremy McKenzie, the raging dissonant. Hello, this is Maxim Bernier. This is Danny Beaufort. This is Chuck Prodnick. This is Vance Crow, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast.

Welcome on the podcast, folks. How's everybody's Monday doing? On this side, pretty good. No complaints. Before we get into anything SNP presents, how about we talk a little silver-gold bull, shall we? this might be the perfect time to diversify some of your hard-earned savings into physical money that can't be printed. I'm talking about gold and silver. The government deficits are running completely out of control, and I think a lot of people are talking about silver and gold, among other things.

Silver and gold, you can, nice and simple. Silvergoldbould.com. You just go there. They're offering a special feature price on everyone's favorite silver coin, the Royal Canadian Mint, Silver Maple Leaf. This offers not available on their site. and has only opened the Sean Newman podcast listeners. That's you. So give Graham an email or shoot him a call.

Today it's down the show notes. And if you want nothing to do with any of that, like I keep saying, I would appreciate if you would even shoot him an email saying, hey, thanks for supporting independent media. Thanks for supporting Sean Newman. It goes a long way. Cal Rock, your trusted partner in surplus oil field equipment, leading supplier of new, used and reconditioned oil field production equipment in Canada.

But that's not all. Tank fabrication, new and refurbers, fluid, storage tanks, trucking, pump tracks, and demolition, calrock.com.ca for all the details and how to get in contact with them. Prophet River, Clay Smiley, back on episode 557. Jeez, that's a while back now, right? Like, that's over, what is that, 50 episodes ago, roughly? Ooh, how time flies. That was rated at Christmas time. They specialize in port and firearms from the United States of America. They service all of Canada. And if you're like, I have no idea what to get that special. someone in your life. They also got gift cards. All you got to do is go to profitriver.com. They are the major retailer of firearms, optics and accessories, and they serve all of Canada. Carly Cawson, team over Windsor Plywood, builders of the podcast studio table for everything

wood. These are the guys. And I tell you what, that sun keeps shining like that. All I can think of is it's going to be deck season. It's going to be deck season. It's going to be sunshine. It's going to be out in the backyard. I can't wait. And when it comes to mantles, decks, windows, door, Sheds, Podcast Studio Table, Windsor Plymouth, stop in today. All right, SNP presents coming to Lloyd Minster. That is April 27th, okay? Alex Craneer, Tom Luongo, Mikel Thorep, Curtis Stone, Chris Sims, Chuck Proudnick, virtual guest, Martin Armstrong. Tickets are sailing.

They're over half sold. I think we got, I don't know, is it 90-some left. So there's a, this isn't 800 tickets. There's only so many of these being sold, and we're already over half sold, so that's pretty cool. And if you keep checking on the site, we keep offering the ability to sit with different guests, so you could buy a table and sit with Craneer, Luongo, Thoreup, et cetera. But Criner, Luongo, Thorup, Stone, all sold. Sean Newman, sold.

Drew Weatherhead from Social Disorder is going to be in there, sold, 222 minutes going to be there, sold. So you got Chris Sims, Chuck Prodnick, and now the cowboy preacher is going to be at, a table. If you want, you can buy that table as well. So there's tables. If you keep checking on the site, you're going to find that I keep updating as we get new people who are going to be in the building. We're going to see if we can to have a little bit of fun with it. I know I'm sitting at a table with Bow Valley Credit Union and Layton Gray is going to be in house. He's going to be at the table as well. So it's shaping up to be a fun day. It starts at 9 a.m. It's going to, well, after supper. It's going to be, there's going to be a lot of.

A lot of cool information being shared that day. I hope to see you there. Tickets in the show notes. And I'm still waiting to unveil Sunday morning. I'm just, once again, finalizing a couple of things. I'm telling you it's getting close. It's getting close. I will tease the cowboy preacher is going to be a part of it, among a couple others.

So Sunday morning is going to be free to the public. That's what I can say. That's, there's your teaser, okay? Everybody keeps asking me, what's Sunday morning? As soon as I have all the details, I will give him to you. Not a second before, but I will tease out. Cowboy Preacher are going to be a part of it. He's going to be at the main event as well.

And if you're looking to grab a table with one of the speakers, Chris Sims, Chuck Pronix, still available. And now Cowboy Preacher going to be at a table as well, if that's what interests you. If not, I just hope you grab a ticket. And sure, that would be a lot of fun. Okay, let's get on to that tale of the tape. The first is a lawyer with Chippeak Law,

who is one of the lawyers who showed up to the Freedom Convoy. She also cross-examined Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the Public Order Emergency Commission, the second owner and lawyer of Rath and company and has over two decades of experience and been at the forefront of advancing rights and interests of First Nations in Canada. Both are bringing class action lawsuits

against the government of Canada. I'm talking about Eva Chippeke and Jeffrey Rath. So buckle up, here we go. Welcome to the Sean Numa podcast today. I'm joined by Eva Chippeke and Jeff Rath. Thanks folks for hopping on. Thanks for having you, Sean. Now, Jeff, you've never been on the show.

Eva, you multiple times, if memory serves me, correct. So I think if people want to, they can go back and listen to Evan and my conversations from the past. But Jeff, you got to give me a little bit about yourself because I've never sat across from you. Although it seems like it's been a long time in the making, I believe there was some email contact at one point. and it's just never amounted anything until the lovely other was like, okay, it's time we all sat down. So, yeah, a little bit of your back. Obviously aware of your podcast, because I've seen transcripts of your interview with Eric

Payne that have been the subject of a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for talking to you about things that now people now accept as being the truth, such as the vaccines don't stop COVID, the vaccines don't stop the spread of COVID. The vaccines won't stop you from killing. grandma, you know, all those types of things, right? So they're now all pretty much accepted as being true, but Eric's still having to deal with a complaint to arising from that letter that he wrote back in September of 2021

that he was on your podcast about. So anyway, you're asking, you're asking what viewership does? That episode of Eric Payne sitting across from me went to the moon and back. And I still have a hard time realizing or fathoming that that episode got, the transcript of it went to the courts.

Well, went to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Yeah. Yeah. Just somewhere someone's like, uh, Sean Newman said this thing. And then they're just,

they're role playing it as they read it out in front of an audience. I'm like, that's, that's strange to me. Oh, I know. That was the time. No.

And I know, how dare somebody go on a podcast and speak the truth about vaccines, right? Because of course, everything that Eric wrote back in 2021 is obviously, turned out to be absolutely 100% true. And of course, the College of Physicians and Surgeons is still accusing him of quote unquote misinformation

without ever once identifying specifically what it was that he said that constituted misinformation. I was actually quite heartened today to see a whole bunch of charges in the United States thrown out against Rudy Giuliani and Georgia for that bogus election interference case on the grounds that they hadn't sufficiently particularized the charges. because of course that's what Eric and I have been saying from day one with regard to these complaints.

It's like we'd like to respond to them, but can you please tell us specifically what it was that Eric said that constitutes misinformation and the response is we get her. You know what he said. You know what he said. It's like, no, no, no, but we know what he said, but we don't know what he said that constitutes misinformation, right? Because everything he said turned out to be true. So I'm not sure how, you know, you guys can continue to substantiate these complaints. I mean, that's a, you know, that's kind of a separate issue when we talk about our vaccine class action lawsuit, I guess that we came on to talk about today. I mean, that's one of the big issues that we're dealing with is the fact that I really would have loved to have been able to sue the College of Physicians and Surgeons for their role in promulgating all the misinformation and disinformation and lack of information in and around the vaccines.

But of course, you know, you have an obligation to your clients to get them, you know, a judgment as quickly as possible. and you know, you just end up in a whole bunch of motions with regard to, you know, regulatory immunity and how regulatory bodies like the CPSA are like judges and they can't be sued and all that kind of stuff. So unfortunately, in this class action lawsuit that we brought on behalf of all of the people that have been horribly vaccine injured in the province of Alberta, you know, the lawsuit is limited to an action against the government of Canada and the government of Alberta, who we say conspired, to commit assault and battery every citizen in the providence of Alberta by withholding relevant information from them with regard to the risks associated with the vaccine.

And then on top of it, of course, we had a Dina Hinshaw promulgating misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation to use all the liberal buzzwords, you know, on the daily, you know, starting out by telling people if they got vaccinated, they wouldn't get COVID, then, oh, people are getting COVID with the vaccines. Okay, we were wrong about that. just tell them now that if they, you know, don't get the vaccines, they're going to kill grandma. Oh, well, I guess we're wrong about that because this big UC Davis came out, study came out in 2021, showing that people that were vaccinated were just as likely to spread

COVID as people that were not vaccinated. You know, and when I say vaccinated, you know, I'm well aware of the fact that these injections, you know, are really not vaccines in the traditional sense. They don't prevent the disease. They don't do anything to keep the disease from spreading. at the end of the day, the best they could come up with is if you get vaccinated, you're less likely to go to hospital. But then when all the stats started coming out with regard to the third booster shot, it was clear there were more people hospitalized that it had three shots than it had none. You know, that narrative kind of went by the wayside too, right?

So then when that narrative went by the wayside, it's like the best they can say is if you get vaccinated, you're less likely to get sick and die. And even that's really arguable. And that's part of what our lawsuits about, especially when you deal with children under the age of 18. You know, during the height of all this COVID nonsense, and I mean, you were doing your part to spread the truth. Our office was doing our part. I had a website set up. It was called Rathen Company COVID litigation.com. And we were publishing in real time all the various letters that we were sending to the CPSA, that we were sending to Teresa Tam, that we were sending to Justin Trudeau, that we sent to every college and university in the province, warning them that there.

were going to be, you know, a libel for harms caused to their students if, you know, children were forced to be vaccinated to go to university, play sports, whatever it was, right? You know, as a result of university policies. So we're publishing all of that stuff in real time on our, on our website. Again, that was wrath and company, COVID litigation.com. And you'll see a letter, you know, letters on there that I sent to Trudeau, Tam, Hinshaw, Kenny, where we attached, what I think is one of the most egregious. documents to have been ignored by the government during the pandemic, which was this,

it was called the table 14 of the Pfizer-EUA application, so emergency use application document. Well, and this document showed that if you're under the age of 18, Pfizer told the government, well, you know, if you're under 18, these vaccines will notionally save the life or hypothetically save the life of one child per million. And the number was that low, because as we all know, kids weren't dying from COVID. Like it was unheard of. But you look at that same table. What they showed was something, you know, in the high 60s,

then it was 67 or 68. I don't remember the exact number of children would be hospitalized with myocarditis. And more shockingly, Pfizer admitted that 34 children per million would be, would end up in the ICU with myocarditis. Of course, they didn't add the, you know, the additional table, how many projected deaths of children in the ICU with biocarditis because that would dwarf, you know, by a factor of 10 or 15, the number of children that they would notionally save. And you talk to any, you know, pediatric cardiologist or any pediatric ICU specialist, they'll tell you that if kids go into

the ICU, you know, as many as a third, you know, a quarter to a third of them are going to die, you know, whether it's from staff infections, complications from the disease, they went in with whatever it was. You know, you have a, you know, if a kid is sick enough to go into a cardiac ICU with a serious cardiac issue, you know, a good number of them are going to die. And experts that I've talked to said, yeah, out of 34 kids in the ICU per million, you can expect as many as 15 of them, you know, 10 to 15 of them to die from, you know, being in the ICU.

So if you think about that, and I'll get ever to talk about this next, even this new standard that the government brought in to get these vaccines approved, right? On the basis of the balance of harms or the vaccines more harmful or less harmful, you know, than the potential side effects or outcomes of the vaccine, clearly on a balance of harms perspective, they had no business whatsoever approving these vaccines for children. Because quite clearly, you know, you could have 10 to 15 times more children being killed by the vaccine than we're at risk of. dying from COVID. And of course, we all know that take the vaccine and you won't kill grandma's

and her story was bullshit. She's my language, it's false. We all know that the, you know, take the vaccine and you won't get COVID story was false. We all know that the now take the vaccine and you won't get a sick story was false, right? But still, they're pushing those, to this day, they haven't withdrawn the vaccines for use from children in Alberta. And the dad has been there from the outset that the vaccines will kill more children than COVID. It's shocking. me. Ever. So yeah, I could just add on to that and what Jeff was getting at is that when the government of Canada approved the vaccines generally, when they approve it, there's a requirement you would think that they're safe and effective, especially given we heard that, you know,

for the three years that it's been approved. But what the government did is they issued an interim order where they removed the requirement that it be safe and effective and changed it. with this new test that said it had to be more beneficial than harmful. And given what Jeff is actually adding now, it really even questions how they even approved it on this new test that you would expect would be a lesser, not as high to achieve, but even on this less harm than benefits, it seems that they were off on that as well. So does that make it a slam dunk for class actions or not even not even close? Well, I mean, it's always difficult when you're dealing with vaccine products, you know, and medical issues because they could always try to claim that, you know, whatever, you know, whatever happened to your client or whatever happened to the person claiming damages, you know, was caused by some sort of quote, I quote, I quote, preexisting condition.

And there's always ways to shuck and jive and shuffle things off into the ether. But that being said, I mean, you know, there's a lot of people that, you know, like where, you know, literally, you know, they've been healthy up to the point of getting the vaccines. And within two weeks, you know, are experiencing serious cardiac issue, right? Like in our office, believe it or not, we had, we had our vaccine policy was it's not of an employer's business is who gets vaccinated and who doesn't. And everybody go talk to your own doctors and take your best medical advice, do whatever you want. If you want to wear a mask, if you don't want to wear a mask, if you don't want to wear a mask, you don't have to. wear a mask, all that kind of stuff, right? It's like whatever makes you comfortable.

And notwithstanding the work that we were doing, 10 out of 12 employer people in my office, like lawyers and staff in my office, got vaccinated. And of the 10 people that got vaccinated, we had three people with serious cardiac complications immediately following, like within two weeks of the vaccines. And a senior, so we had a 30% myocarditis rate in our office. So, you know, this idea that somehow or other that, you know, that these complications, are rare or they're mild or whatever it is is nonsense one of the senior lawyers in our office that got vaccinated on the advice of his doctor who did not advise him of all the potential risks of

the vaccines did not advise him of you know the the fact that the vaccines could cause myocarditis has both myocarditis and vasculitis and there's a real good question as to how many years and you know it has actually documented through you know cardiac contrasting die MRIs to show the actual permanent damage to his heart muscle and vascular system as a result of these vaccines. So, you know, we think that these cases are a lot more common than the government is willing to acknowledge. We know for a fact through, you know, affidavit evidence that we have from physicians that have tried to report vaccine injuries to the vaccine injury report system in Canada, that that system is actually designed to make reporting these conditions virtually,

not impossible, but extremely difficult. I mean, the initial intake form to fill out one vaccine injury form takes the average doctor about an hour to fill out. And then nine times out of ten, the report is rejected by the government of Canada, you know, or by the people that are, you know, gatekeeping the system. because the whole system is designed, keep reports from being made rather than accurately recording

how many people have been vaccine injured. Well, I mean, just by taking a look at my friend's circle and guys I play hockey with, etc., the government numbers are bogus. They're a bunch of, just a bunch of crap, because we can all see them playing out in society, Jeff, over and over and over again. Oh, 100%.

I don't know a single person, who's died of COVID. But I know literally dozens of people that have suffered vaccine injuries. Everything from, you know, Guillain, like, who ever heard of Guillem-Barre syndrome before the COVID vaccine came along, right? You know, people with Guillem-Beré syndrome. I mean, our poor client, Carrie Sakamoto, the entire left side of her body is paralyzed and she suffered permanent brain damage as a result of following Dina Hinshaw's negligent

advice to sign up for the magical Dr. Hinshaw-Turisa Damme vaccine buffet. So it's like, oh, well, you've taken the now, we acknowledge to be dangerous and harmful AstraZeneca vaccine. Well, now that you've taken this vaccine that kills people, we still want you to get other vaccines so you can mix and match that harmful vaccine that it might kill you with the Pfizer vaccine and the, you know, and the Moderna vaccine. That's what you should do because that's what Justin Trudeau, our dear leader did. And that's what, you know, Hinshaw was saying publicly as the doctor for all Albertans

when we're all her patients. she's advising us all to sign up for the vaccine buffet if we'd gotten the harmful astrozenica vaccine. Well, that's what Kerry Sakamoto did. And within a very short period of time following the Pfizer vaccine, the entire left-hand side of the body was paralyzed. You know, and if you want to talk about negligence, you know, of Hinsha, there's no studies that indicate that the vaccine buffet is safe or effective, first of all, right? And, you know, how does, you know, mixing one vaccine that's never been tested with another vaccine that's been withdrawn from the market because it's dangerous and it kills people? Like, how does that make any sense whatsoever? Like if you're going to follow the science.

Well, where was the science around that? Where were the studies to indicate that Dr. Hinshaw's vaccine buffet was safe, let alone effective? You know, so that's what we're dealing with here. It's just gross incompetence and negligence, you know, right? across the board from the top down. Yeah, and I could just add a little bit. You asked if it's a slam dunk. I don't think any lawyer will ever say it is,

but I think we have some very strong arguments. And the claims that we're making is number one, is there was a statutory duty on Health Canada. Once they saw that there were more issues maybe than they expected, whatever that is, they have an obligation to recall a therapeutic drug vaccine in this case or that's what they're calling it. They haven't done so. Also, and Jeff just went into it very well about the negligent misrepresentation,

particularly with this vaccine cocktail, to tell Canadians and Albertans that this is safe and effective when there's absolutely no studies to show it, what else can you call that? So I think there's a very strong argument there, a breach of fiduciary duty, and then one that was added. And it sounds kind of, you know, maybe outlandish if you haven't looked at the evidence, but we also claim that there was a conspiracy to commit assault and battery. And when you look at the facts, I don't think it's very, you know, it's hard to get there because what we've been saying, as you heard, is that they're going around saying it's safe and effective, knowing it wasn't approved to be safe and effective. Meanwhile, suppressing information,

about the harms and the dangers. And people were taking the advice of public health when they had that information, you know, behind the scenes and not providing it to the public. So what else do you call that? Well, and neither Teresa Hinshaw, Teresa Tiberg Dina Hinshaw. They're kind of like the board.

They've been assimilated, dude. But anyway, neither Tammar Hinshaw. Not only did they have no basis to say that these vaccines were safe and effective. especially with regard to children, we provided them data to show the opposite, that not only were the vaccines not safe and effective, they weren't safe for children, and on top of it that a child getting the vaccine would be more likely to die from the vaccine, according to Pfizer's own data, than they would be to die from COVID.

So what parent in their right mind would have had their child vaccinated if Hinshaw and Tam told the truth to parents and said, well, you know, as far as it goes, you can get your kid vaccinated, You know, that's up to you. But know that if your child gets vaccinated, they're 10 to 15 times more likely to die from the vaccine than they are to die from COVID, right? What parent in their right mind having been provided that information would have gotten your child vaccinated? And oh wait, if you're under 20 years old, your chance of dying from COVID is like 0.001. Like it's no. And again, your chances, you know, if you accept Pfizer data,

and your chances of dying from the, dying from the vaccine are point zero zero, zero one five, right? Or, you know, zero one five. But it goes up. Yeah. But it goes up. You're far more likely to die from the vaccine. And I might add, Jeff, we already know they're not being clear. So it might even be higher than that.

I think that's what we're worried. Let's be clear. What they've admitted to so far. And I think what they've admitted to is telling, because they don't update the vaccine injury numbers on an ongoing. going basis. And I suspect that the harms from vaccine injuries requiring hospitalization and leading to death are probably exponential, you know, are increasing exponentially over time. That's what all the experts predicted at the front end of this, right? You know, when they

tested the mRNA vaccines initially on, on make, all of the make that were studied within the study were dead within two years, right? All of them, right, when they were testing the stuff on animals, right? So, you know, I suspect that over time, we're going to see almost an exponential uptick in deaths and injuries attributable to the vaccines, but they're doing everything they can to bury it. But even with burying it, the government of Canada has admitted to over 11,000 serious adverse effects from the vaccine, and they've admitted to over 400 deaths directly attributable to the vaccine. We know that the number is way higher than that, but to put that 400 number into perspective,

that's more, you know, you know how scared of firearms Prime Minister Trudeau is. right? That's more people than were killed, you know, or murdered firearms in Canada last year. So you think that this would be some sort of national priority. And the same way he wants to take away everybody's guns, maybe he should take away everybody's vaccines. Like, you know, like, it's just ridiculous that they've murdered 400 people or killed 400 people with these vaccines, but they're not taking the vaccines away from people. Like, it's just mind-boggling to me. How important was Ingram that that court case and, in opening up so that class actions be filed,

or was it important at all? I don't know. Well, no, I mean, I think Ingram really is important. It's obviously, as far as I'm concerned, it's a watershed. You know, and I have to say this because I was leave counsel, but it was kind of a watershed moment in COVID litigation because we actually succeeded in getting a judge to rule that every single Hinshaw order issued throughout the pandemic was illegal, right?

But I think, and well, Ingram was dealing with business clubs, and was dealing with, you know, all the so-called MPIs, like non-pharmaceutical interventions. What it demonstrates is the degree to which Dina Hinshaw was a completely gross incompetent, right? She's supposedly the chief medical officer of the province of Alberta. She's allegedly making decisions that impacted on billions and billions and billions of dollars within the provincial economy, bankrupting businesses, driving suicides, you know, all of these horrible things that she was responsible for with the idiotic ordinance that she issued, right? And she was so incompetent that while being paid $500,000 a year, she didn't even know the limits of her own authority under the statute

under which she was acting. So, you know, I think the degree to the, you know, the degree to which the Ingram decision underlines what a gross incompetent, Dina Hinshaw is. you know, helps to, you know, certainly buttresses, you know, our case with regard to what she was doing on vaccines. I mean, obviously, we're looking forward to discovery on, you know, on this case. So we can actually get our hands on all of the, you know, internal emails and documents where all of these evil little bureaucrats are sitting around in the background talking about how they're going to hide information from the public, you know, with regard to vaccine harms. and what studies they're not going to do. And, you know, it's good enough just to take Teresa's Tamm's word for it. And even though all these people are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year

as so-called medical professionals within our public health system, that not one of them thought it was important to do any due diligence or fact-checking with regard to the ridiculous statements being made by Teresa Tamm and others. I don't know how closely you followed Teresa Tamm and her, you know, and her ill in the part of the Public Health Agency of Canada. But Tam is loony tunes. There's no other way to describe it. I mean, she came out with a report late last year

where she declared breathlessly that climate change is the number one public health emergency facing Canadians and that the largest drivers of climate change were abelism, capitalism, and heteronormativity. Right? So this is Teresa Tam, right? So, you know, some crazy lunatic communist that wants to, you know, solve climate change by wiping out, you know, capitalism, able-bodied people wanting to work and heterosexual people wanting to have families. We're apparently, we're all the biggest drivers of climate change in the gut.

And we need to be eradicated. Enter Bill C-63, Jeff. I mean, I'm curious what two lawyers have to say after reading that, because I'm like, I assume this conversation, you know, without conversation. conversations like this, you know, how many, how many people know what the heck is going on? Well, if Bill C-63 passes, Sean, you'll never be allowed to speak to me ever again. Because, like, quite literally, and I actually read the thing from cover to cover the other day, because I was listening to all of the things that were being reported to the American media about how they were bringing in a class of thought crimes in Canada, whereas if,

if somebody believed that somebody was going to say something in the future that could offend the hate provisions of the act, right, that that person can be. put into house arrest, have an ankle monitor put on them, be subjected to Tamara Leach like bail conditions where we're told who we are and are not allowed to talk to. And like I said, you and I won't be allowed to talk. And I'm sure about sure about that, et cetera, et cetera, all on the presupposition that somebody might do something in the future. You know, and in fact, I mean, that part, and I thought, no, this is crazy. Like even Trudeau's not that nuts, right? So I picked up the statute and I read it from cover to cover.

And I have to tell you, Sean, it's even worse than what the American commentators and other commentators like Viva Fry and others have been saying, right? Because one of the things that everybody misses, because everybody kind of skips over generally the definition section in a statute, right? Well, in this bill, right, in the definitions, they define inciting hatred and violence. Okay? It's like, you know, and Harmful content means, and then it lists off a bunch, and it says content that foments hatred, content that incites violence, and content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. Okay, but no, no, there's another section in there, and I refer to it as the anti-trucker provision. They put a provision in there that say that any content that encourages other Canadians to deny service,

services with access to service serious disruption of services, facilities, you know, etc., is an incitement to violence. So anybody as an example that would take a picture of all of the thousands of Canadians standing on overpasses, cheering on the truckers and posting pictures of all the popular support that the truckers had, along with the caption, Go Truckers, not even F. Trudeau Go Truckers, just go truckers. that under this statute would now be seen as an incitement of violence and would be a crime punishable under the under the act and then on top of it the other thing that people are missing i've had conversations about this with uh conservative members of parliament in ottawa um is the penalty provision allows them to penalize social media providers facebook twitter you know google you know youtube whatever right for up to six percent of their gross global annual revenue per offense. So let's just use Facebook as an example. Last year, their gross global revenue is reported to the shareholders, was $145 billion U.S. So if someone were to post pictures of cheering Canadians on the bridge,

cheering on the truckers, and saying, go truckers. Facebook could be fined as much as $13 billion Canadian for not putting in Chinese, you know, communist party. type tools onto their platform from preventing anybody from expressing any support for anybody engaged at any type of protest that the government of Canada deemed to be a serious disruption to a facility system, etc. Right? That's in the bill.

And Pete, everybody's missed it. Every commentator that I've looked at has completely missed that provision in the bill. It's insidious. And I'm telling you, if this bill passes, like we may as well forget living in Canada. of the country won't be the same one we grew up. Eva, you, what do you think of C63? Yeah, well, 100% agree with what Jeff is saying. It just is, it's outrageous to see how far the government is going.

I don't know what it is, thinking that they're going to keep us safe and effective, the way they did with the vaccine kind of thing. Like, they just go so over the top that, it's ridiculous to see. And one thing I just wanted to note is like this, we still have this opportunity to, you know,

talk about these very important issues and matters outside of mainstream media. And just to give you some context, is mainstream media today has not mentioned one word about these very important class actions in Alberta that Albertans really should have information about business owners that lost income and, you know, know, even Jeff had mentioned some committed suicide, you know, the damage that was at, here's a lawsuit, a class action that is, has been made in their name, really, and not one mention of it.

This is like, what are they, what is the mainstream media talking about, if not these vitally important issues? And let's face it, John, with the business, that business loss class action lawsuit, in some ways it's a much more advanced or you know as a stronger basis from a liability perspective than the vaccine case right because the vaccine case you have to prove on an individual by individual basis that they were harmed by the vaccine but we have a court order in alberta saying that every single one of dina hincha's orders shutting down on businesses locking people in their homes all of the foolishness that she engaged in was ultra viaries the public health Act or patently illegal, right? So as far as I'm concerned, in that case, we already, in effect, have a ruling on liability. And, you know, the mainstream media is just trying to pretend like it never happened. The same way that they tried to pretend the Ingram case didn't happen. And it got very, very little play in the, you know, in the mainstream media because obviously

it runs counter the narrative of CBC, CTV, Global, the Toronto Red Star, you know, all of the Liberal Party. Yeah, Liberal Party bought and paid for it. media, right? So, you know, it's, it's very troubling that, you know, Trudeau, you know, is going after, you know, independent, what's the only remaining independent media left in Canada through this so-called expansion of the hate crimes bill. Because, you know, the reality, the reality of it is what's going to end up happening? And the conservative party of Canada has already been speaking to Google. They've been speaking to Facebook, et cetera. And those

companies are telling the conservatives that if Bill C-63 passes, they're just, you're just, going to shut their platforms down in Canada and no Canadians will have access to their platforms anymore because what CEO acting as a fiduciary that has obligations to their shareholders is going to be willing to risk multiple multi-billion dollar fines for offending, you know, Trudeau's thought crime bill, right? So, you know, let's face it. I mean, like how many Canadian users are actually on Facebook, right? 10 million, maybe. There's probably more illegal aliens in the United States than there are Facebook users in Canada. So, you know, as far as Facebook would be concerned

from a cost-benefit risk perspective, it's a no-brainer. You know, if Bill C-63 shuts down or comes down, they'll just shut their platform down to all Canadians. Same with Google, same with Twitter. Because what company is going to want to risk? You know, and it's not the Canadian revenue that's at risk, right? The government of Canada isn't even limiting the fines

to 6% of whatever revenues generally in Canada. No, 6% of their gross. global revenue, not even EBDA, not even 6% of EBITA. It's 6% of gross global revenue. So the government's literally saying billions of dollars in fines if you do not bring in, you know, Chinese designed, you know, filters to keep anybody from saying anything on social media that Trudeau won't like. So, you know, and I think it's very intentional.

I think they're basically trying to shut down social media prior to the next election so that the only remaining, you know, media outlets where Canadians can get their information from with regard to the next election is going to be from the Trudeau paid for, you know, bought and paid for legacy media. It's very troubled. Yes, well, welcome to Canada, 2024, where, you know, you think you're going to get a reprieve, but we just don't. And as it gets closer and closer to 2025 in an election, sadly, I guess I'm not that surprised, Jeff. I wish I could sit here and go like, I'm really surprised.

No, we all know that Trudeau's not going down without a bit of a fight. This 63, sticking on it just for a second. You know, two lawyers here. I feel so honored. When I read it, man, they put a lot in there. Like, there's a lot on child pornography. And when you talk about it being insidious, it's like they just slide a few things in there because if you just do a quick glance, you're going to see like child pornography.

but what person wants that floating around on the internet? No one. And yet what you're talking about and what I've heard Viva talk about is something a lot more concerning that people need to pay attention to. Well, let's face it. I mean, I personally feel that the reason, you know, the reason, you know, child pornography is in there and genocides in there. It's just so that they can attack their critics.

Oh, wow, if you're against this bill, you're in favor of genocide and you're in favor of child pornography. You know, keep in mind, and that's going to be coming from Justin Trudeau, who literally his roommate when he was a teacher at Point Grey, in fact, was convicted of possessing child pornography. And I think it's an open question to, you know, what degree of access, Justin Trudeau add to, you know, his roommate's computer. I mean, you know, I'd like to know the answer to that.

But without a doubt, it's a matter of public record that, you know, that Trudeau's roommate when he was a teacher at Point Grey and a fellow teacher at Point Gray Academy was convicted in 2010 of a number of counts of possession of child pornography. How many, what, apologies? What year did Trudeau teach with this guy? Oh, it was like two, it was, you know, the 2000s. It would have to go back and take a look for 2004, 2005, something like that. So like five years after roughly of them teaching together, he's convicted of having child porn art agree on his computer?

Correct. But again, you know, people like that don't change. I mean, once a paedophile, always a pedophile. So I have a hard time believing that when Trudeau and his roommate were, you know, together that the person didn't have these same predilections, right? And my only point, my only point in bringing that up is that, you know, I find it really interesting that 14 years later Trudeau's now taken an interest in stamping out child pornography.

You'd think you would have had a much greater interest in it, you know, eight or nine years ago as a result of his association with his roommate. And maybe he should have thought about doing something about it, you know, 10 years ago. You know, I don't understand. I don't think it's in that bill for any reason other than so that if somebody complains about some of the more draconian aspects of that bill, that they can be told, oh, you're in favor of child pornography

or you're in favor of, in genocide. And even the genocide provisions, I mean, it also vaguely defined, right? Who's going to be convicted of promoting genocide? Like, you know, like if you're a Palestinian and you're chanting from the river to the sea, most Israelis and Jews will consider that to be promoting genocide. If you're an Israeli and you're saying that I fully support

the Netanyahu police action in Gaza, the Palestinians are going to say you're guilty, you're promoting genocide. So are we just going to lock them all up for life? I mean, that seems to be what the bill is suggesting, or is it what everybody fears that only people that are on the wrong side

of the political argument are the ones that are going to get jailed for life? Don't we all know the answer? Don't we all know the answer? Like, I mean, there's a reason why we're all on this show tonight. Like, I mean, come on. We all know it's going to be selective. of is it not?

What I was going to just add is we already have criminal charges for child pornography and incitement of, you know, hatred. Well, not that exactly, but death. Like if you're encouraging death or causing inciting a crime, there's already laws for that. There's criminal code violations there. And what is this all about? We just, you know, we just answered. that. Well, and if you think about it too, like, you know, genocide in and of itself is a, you know,

is a crime that isn't committed by an individual or a group of individuals. Genocide itself is a crime that's committed by a state. You know, so I was asking, I wrote a substack recently on Bill C-63. And that was one of the things that I was saying, you know, somewhat facetiously is if genocide can only be, you know, committed by a state or a state actor, you know, is Trudeau really saying that he's so weak-minded that if his buddies in the W-EF or elsewhere are encouraged, him to commit genocide, that he's going to do it, and that those people should be jailed for life by promoting him or encouraging him to commit genocide? Like, why don't we just get him a T-shirt that says, Justin, say no to genocide?

And he can look at it in the mirror every day and remember that he shouldn't commit genocide. Like, you know, the whole thing to be, it's like, you know, what the hell is this promotion of genocide and nonsense about any way, give it out vaguely defined it is, right? And then if you look at how, you know, how, you know, the UN defines genocide, it could be, you know, destroying a native language is genocide. So, you know, I mentioned this on Vibu's show the other day. The, you know, Treaty 8 requires the government of Canada to educate Treaty 8 First Nations people in the religion, language, culture, their choice. But government policy over the years has been not to provide free language education, not to provide any language education, right? So that those languages are becoming dead languages.

Is Trudeau guilty of genocide? I think under the, you know, under the UN definition, I think there's a good case to be made that he's presiding over the genocide of pre-endene people in treaty, in the face of concrete treaty promises that children should be, you know, educated in the language of their choice, all of which promises that he's continued to break while he was prime minister. So, you know, is he going to be jailed for life for promoting genocide by not as Prime Minister of Canada not living up to the treaties and not providing, you know, billions of dollars in remedial Korean-Dennae language education? I, you know, it wouldn't hurt my feelings.

Wouldn't hurt a lot of people's feelings. What's the timeline on this? You know, we've got work, people worked right up now, right? They're all sitting there. I don't know how many. On Bill C. 63? Let's start with, let's start with 63 because I've been text about it so many times. and let's just go timeline there. So then you can go like, listen, people should email, call their MP and be all over them about this, right?

I'm going to channel my inner Chris Sims wherever you're at and just be like, you should call and harass your MP because this is a big, big, big, big, big, big issue. What's the time? But more than harassing your MPs, you should also be writing your MLAs and writing Daniel Smith

and writing your provincial trainers because it's clear that property and civil rights in a province or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. And Bill C63, and that's another thing that we haven't talked about about the bill, it's got some of the craziest and most extensive search and seizure provisions that any bill has ever had in Canadian history. Maybe, you know, with the exception of going back to the Japanese internment during World War II, you're going to have this digital safety commission that's set up,

and you're going to have these digital safety commission inspectors. So they're kind of going to be like Canada's new KGB, right? So the Digital Safety Commission inspectors are now going to be empowered by the statute. And they're going to have the power to go into any business, anywhere in the country, without a warrant, and seize any documents, any financial records, any computer file, anything that could provide proof of, you know, the alleged offense or potential offense that you might commit in the future under the Act, along with all your financial records. Because God knows we need to figure out what your gross global income is. so that you can be fined accordingly, right? All of that without a warrant,

the only time that they need a warrant under the statute to go in and seize all of these books and records and computer equipment and so on is if they're going into a dwelling house. So, you know, they brought in, like, it's just a massive overreach on the part of the government. I obviously don't think it's going to withstand charter scrutiny. As we've seen with the liberals, they don't care.

The NDP, they don't care. It's just like the emergencies, that stuff that they invoke. You know, in effect, what they're doing. doing through C63 is putting Canada under a permanent state of emergency under an emergencies act order that we're all going to have to live under where, you know, without limitation, they can go into law offices and seize your legal files. They can seize your medical files. They can seize whatever data or information they want without a warrant as long as the information

is not in your house, at which point they have to get a warrant, right? It's crazy stuff. and, you know, I think it's a massive overreach of the federal criminal law power. And, you know, unlike, you know, the provincial premiums like Daniel Smith that better start standing up for property rights in the same way that she's failed to do on the gun control file. She's failed to invoke property rights with regard to this idiotic steam to force Albertans into driving EVs by telling us by 2035 that the sale of gas powered cars in Alberta is going to be illegal, you know, et cetera, et cetera. ignoring, of course, I don't know if you've seen the math on that, ignoring the fact that to do that, to replace every gas-powered vehicle in Alberta with an EV is going to require the government to contouple the size of the Alberta power grid, right?

You know, notwithstanding the fact that all of this stuff is so stupid, you know, we don't have Daniel Smith standing up like she should to be saying, wait a minute, you're now trenching on property and civil rights in the province, and we're going to invoke the Alberta Sovereignty Act and we're just going to say no, none of these stupid laws are going to be enforced. And if anybody from the Digital Safety Commission shows up in Alberta, we'll be throwing them in jail. You know, that's what I think should be happening, quite frankly. Yeah. I think I just want to reinforce what Jeff is saying is that one thing I've noticed is Canadians do put a lot of time and effort into the federal government.

I think we've empowered them with more than they should be empowered. with, I think Canadians really have to start looking at what jurisdiction there is. And we need, as provincial governments, really stand up for ourselves. Because when that decision came out on the environmental stuff, and Gibo said that's just an opinion, we know that we're lost on that end. We really need the province to stand up and say, this has got way too far here. And yeah, I think it's an excellent. advice for all Canadians to, you know, have these discussions with neighbors and their elected

officials provincially. I mean, the good news, what I'm hearing from Ottawa is that I think the conservatives are, you know, are getting their, you know, getting their head around the fact that they're going to have to fight Bill C-63, you know, tooth and nail. You know, unfortunately, Pierre Pauliam has a bit of a tendency to, you know, sit and twiddle his thumbs and wait for the polling to come in. I wonder what the polls are going to say. Yeah.

Yeah, figure out which way the parade is going so he can run to the front of it and pretend to lead the damn thing. But, you know, what I understand is that Bill C-63 and its present form is going to die on the order paper. We can't count on that. I mean, everybody needs to be, you know, writing their member of parliament and telling them that we want them to use every procedural avenue, you know, at their disposal to, you know, literally shut down parliament if they have to you to prevent this bill from passing this term so that it dies on the order paper. I mean, hell, even the Toronto Red Star was criticizing this bill. I mean, that'll tell you how bad it is. When the Toronto Star says that something that the liberal government is doing is bad, you know, it's really bad.

You know, and I guess Margaret Atwood came out the other day. Even Margaret Atwood, you know, who's never seen a government check that she hasn't been willing to take in the form of a grant or whatever it is for being, you know, Canada's laureate of letters, you know, has come out against the bill, right? So even liberals are appalled by this bill. Jeff, you ever think of doing stand-up? You could probably just probably up and just ask. And just roll.

Just roll. I don't need to say it. At one point, you had me and Evan just sitting here in speeches. I don't know. I don't think I got anything to add here. Well, I try to be entertaining sometimes. That's why the podcast format is so much fun. You can just sort of let her rip enough some fun with it.

But I mean, that be said, these are very serious issues. right? I realize it's serious. We'll fundamentally change our country. Well, you think about, you think about, you know, you talked early on, both of you, you know, about, I haven't talked COVID, you know, in this in depth in a while. Like I just, to me, to go back to those days when we originally, you know, had the Eric pain and everything else, you know, those were wild times.

But if we didn't have the ability to do this, which as wild as it got back then, you could still have the podcast rolling and talking to people and and and and passing information along. I mean, you look at the the trucker convoy. How did it spread so widely? Everybody just started sharing it. I mean, they pretty much would have to lock up half the country to put us all away. But if you put it to a sense of like, no, they'll probably pick on a few. I mean, look at the Coots, the Coots for.

Look at the Coots 2 still in there. Right? Like it's going to be selective. And, you know, without. ability to do this. I don't know where a coat. Well, I mean, we probably would have never got out of COVID. I don't know how you would have got out of COVID. No, and to be clear, I mean, I think what, you know, I mean, Bill C-63 is going to give Trudeau the ability to lock up half the country, make no mistake about it, right? But, you know, again, they're going to do what they did during

COVID. I mean, you know, we're hearing now, the documents are coming out that there were internal working group within the government of Canada and the government of Alberta, there were strategizing as to how to combat, you know, anti-coval. COVID vaccine narratives. I won't call it misinformation. They call them it misinformation, right? And part of their strategy is, well, you know, we need to make some examples of people, right? And, you know, we've got to get out there. We've got to make big visible examples, you know, so they're locking pastors. They're, you know, taking Chris Scottowey in handcuffs, chaining up his restaurant, you know, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, very publicly going after, you know,

Eric Payne, you know, all these accusations of misinformation. being levied at doctors, you know, doctors' offices being raided by the CPSA hit squads, you know, where they're seizing doctors' records to see if, you know, a doctor had the temerity to write a mask exemption or a vaccine exemption or, you know, whatever it was because heaven forbid that anybody be exempted

from the foolishness, right? It was all very, you know, at the highest levels, they were getting together to figure out how to terrorize people into submissions, right? So we need, you know, they need a legal framework to do it within, right? And in Alberta, they were using the Public Health Act because all the bullshit charges were levied into the Public Health Act. Of course, when we won Ingram, all those charges had to drop because how can you sustain a charge under an illegal order, right? So, you know, literally, you know, our office winning Ingram is what ended up killing every single COVID charge in the province of Alberta with the exception of the Coots charges because those charges were based on, you know, criminal code, uttering threats, you know, this trucked up, you know,

allegation of attempted murder when it was, you know, basically from what I understand, and a bunch of drunk guys around a campfire shooting their mouths off about what they would do if the RCMP attack them, right? You know, that's been, you know, that's been, you know, stretched into an attempted murder charge, right? You know, so those things are kind of the exception, but that's, that's the whole point of, you know, the government strategy. It's like make examples, make examples. So let's find, you know, somebody that's offside of whatever it is. And then we're going to charge them and we're going to, you know, bankrupt them and we're going to give them the maximum fine for an individual under C63, which is in the millions of dollars,

which would bankrupt a person, right? And then, oh, and they're really magnanimous, too, under the statute is that they've made it clear that if you can't pay the fines, you won't go to jail. You can just be bankrupted, right? So they can seize all of your stuff, but once they've literally taken your last four, right, you're free to go, you know, as a penniless pauper that can then throw themselves on the mercy of the government and hope that they get universal basic income fast in time so that you can own nothing and be happy. Right. I mean, it's a pretty dark world that we're going to be living in, I'm telling you.

Well, I just wanted to add, given what you said there, Jeff, that they were looking to, you know, terrorize citizens. Is one thing with the Emergencies Act that doesn't get highlighted enough, I think, is that CIS originally told the federal government, do not invoke the Emergencies Act because you've already pushed people away. This is going to cause more extremism because this is government overreach and that's what they're, you know, hear about. And to hear you say that now, again, I just reminded me of that.

And like, it'd be interesting to actually hear what some honest police officials would say about this act. And I'm sure they would agree that this is going to far and it's just going to continue to push people. people away. And how many RCMP officers resigned from the force because they couldn't bring themselves to enforce these laws? You know, a lot of them took early retirement. A lot of them, you know, like Danny Buford as an example, you know, left the force because he wasn't going to be forcibly vaccinated against his will to, you know, continue to have

the pleasure of, you know, being on sniper overwatch, you know, for Prime Minister Trudeau, right? you know, I mean, a lot of, a lot of people lost their jobs and left, you know, left their employment with the federal government, gave up their iron rice bowl, you know, because they couldn't stomach what the government was doing. Yeah. You know, and it's going to get even worse because we're not even going to be able to talk about it anymore. Like, we're not going to have forums like this where we can get together and say, wow, like, this is really bad. And it's like, oh, well, you're encouraging people to protest and you're encouraging people to cause a serious disreservation. of service. As an example of that serious disruption of service thing, not that I'm advocating

anybody to do this, but if every trucker who was offended by, you know, be reading about how, you know, nauseous diesel exhaust it is and how, you know, people hate truckers so much in Ottawa and how much they hate, you know, listening to truckers, honked their horns and whatever, if every trucker said, okay, fine, like, you know, until such time as you guys invent, like, electric trucks to deliver all your groceries and gasoline and stuff you need to function in Ottawa, you know, we're just going to stop delivering to Ottawa. We're not going to come to Ottawa anymore. We're just going to stop going there altogether, right? And I'm not obviously encouraging people to do that or calling for a boycott. But if somebody were to do

that, under the definition of inciting violence in the new Bill C-63, even calling for a boycott of goods to Ottawa would be inciting violence under the definition of encouraging people to cause a serious disruption into the provision of a service. So, I mean, think about that. You know, it literally goes, you know, they've thought this through and they've literally put these provisions in that bill to permanently prevent under Canadian law any form of, you know, any form of convoy or any other form of like protest from happening again. A bunch of farmers decided as an example, you know, that they wanted to, it's like,

hey, you know, we don't like what they're doing with the carbon tax and the fact that we can't afford to farm anymore because, you know, the amount of taxes on carbon and fuel and all of our inputs into our farming operation are such that we're going bankrupt. And if somebody said, hey, I have a great idea. Let's get all of our combines out on the highway one and we'll slowly drive to Regina or slowly drive to wherever to protest, right? That would be inciting violence under the, under the statute because you're encouraging a serious disruption of facilities and services. So even, you know, that type of protest like you've seen in France and Germany and the rest of it would now be a crime in Canada. You know, forget about freedom of assembly,

forget about, you know, freedom of speech, forget about, you know, any of that. You know, that's all, you know, going to be verboten under, you know, Bill C-63 until somebody succeeds in finding a Canadian judge that's willing to stand up to the government and say no. You know, and we saw what happened with the judges through COVID. I mean, you know, two men. any of them were willing to roll over and buy into the government narrative. I mean, you know, the airport incarceration case that we did, Justice Grant, and thought, well, you know, three days of, you know, incarceration without a warrant, you know, isn't that big of a deal to return to your country.

I would have permitted them to lock people up for two weeks, right? So, you know, there's not a lot of sympathy at the judicial level for this, you know, so, you know, that's the problems. I mean, everybody had better, you know, like get it through their heads that they need to be writing their MPs, writing their MLAs, writing their premiers, and saying in no uncertain terms that this bill cannot stand. Looks like I'm going to have to put in a request to have the premier back on the show, Jeff. That's what I'm going to have to do.

I really think you should. And I mean, you know, and I think that you need to be asking her what she's, what specifically she is doing to stand up for property rights in the province of Alberta. You know, like why hasn't she told Trudeau that as far as she's concerned, you know, all of his prohibitions on, you know, thousands of different types of firearms previously not restricted, you know, how that is a massive overreach of the federal criminal law power into property and civil rights in the province. You know, I mean, that's, you know, guns are child property.

And in fact, you know, Daniel Smith has just stood by and let Trudeau declare huge classes of chattel property in the province of Alberta to be unlawful. And I mean, we're talking classes of property that nobody's ever had. a problem with. Have you ever read about somebody walking into a bank with a 28-pound 50-caliber target rifle to rob a bank? I mean, most guys couldn't even pick it up and bring it to the shoulder. I can, but I mean, not very many people can, right? You know, it's ridiculous that, you know, that all of these, you know, these firearms have been prohibited by the Trudeau government. It's almost like, you know, that somebody sent a letter off to the Chinese communist and said,

hey, when you invade Canada, which firearms are going to cause you the most angst or they to remain in the hands of the public. And the Chinese communists gave them a list. And the Trudeau government said, oh, okay, you know, fair enough. And, you know, we'll let you know when we can renew your invitation to come and train into our winter warfare training base in Petowala, right? I mean, honestly, that's what we're dealing with. I mean, you know, I often refer what I'm writing to, you know, the current government

of Canada is the, you know, the Justin Trudeau liberal Chinese Communist Party government of Canada. Because, I mean, that's what we're dealing with. You know, and it's almost like Bill C-63, right? Let's pass Bill C-63 in Canada. And when Trudeau passes that in Canada, the Chinese go, yeah, we'll just apply it to Hong Kong, right? Because it's probably more restrictive than anything they've got going in Hong Kong right now. And they'll go, what's the big deal?

That's what they do in Canada. It isn't Canada a liberal democratic country? Or, you know, like, why shouldn't we have the same laws in Hong Kong as we have in Canada? You know, we now have, you know, Chinese party government inspectors that can come into your house. with a little warrant and sees all of your documents and records and whatever else without even due process or a warrant, which I think might even actually be required in Hong Kong right now. Right? Like, I mean, there's seriously passing laws in Canada that, you know, would not have been passed

in Albania, you know, Mayanbar, China, you know, communist China. I mean, that's how Bar C63 goes in terms of its restrictions of rights and the idea that you can literally create thought crimes and preemptively place people. people under house arrest because, you know, we've looked at their past record of public speaking and things that they previously said in public indicates us that they're not the least bit repentant. They haven't been reeducated, you know, a la, you know, Jordan Peterson. And because they haven't, you know, been willing to undergo reeducation in our reeducation caps, we better lock them up in their home, put an ankle monitor on them and impose Tamara Leach like

bail conditions on them so that they don't talk to dangerous radicals like Sean Newman on his podcast. I am a dangerous radical. Yep. And somewhere somebody just clipped that, I'm sure, and is putting it out everywhere. Um, final thoughts. Alberta lawyer says Sean Newman is a dangerous radical. That's right. I'm a dangerous radical.

Um, well, I'm not. Needless to say, I was being sarcastic and facetious, but anyway. Before I let you guys out of here, any final thoughts. We've, I don't know. Eva, you, you, we've, we've given the reins over to Jeff here, uh,

to, to have his way on 63. and I've been certainly enjoying it. Any final thoughts here before I let you guys out of the studio? No, well, I just think that it's a reminder. Please go to the website, Rath & Company. That's where the two class actions are listed. You could read them. And if you think that you're in one of those categories for businesses

or affected with the vaccine injury, and this is restricted to those in Alberta, we've had inquiries outside of Alberta and even outside of Canada on both of those. so you can fill out the online application. And keep talking about this. Inform your neighbors. Inform your elected officials.

This is going on because it seems like, unfortunately, the word is still being suppressed, and it's important that people know about these things. Again, yeah, rathamcompany.com is the website. And just so everybody knows, like the way that the law class actions in Alberta works, unless you opt out, you're deemed to be in.

So, you know, upon certification, we will be representing every vaccine injured person in the province of Alberta, unless you contact our office to opt out. Same with the business class action. But that being said, in order to get a handle on the scope of the problem and the scope of the damages, we're encouraging everybody to go out that's been vaccine injured or suffered business losses as a result of the illegal Hinshaw orders to go to ratham company.com, go to one of the tabs or both of the tabs because you, you know, it could be vaccine injured. and out of business that was illegally shut down. You know, fill out the intake forms, provide an estimate of what your losses are and what the harms are that you've suffered, and all of that will be going into our database and people from our office will be reaching out to you and providing new updates on an ongoing basis with what's going on with both of those lawsuits.

So, Sean, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I've really enjoyed meeting you on your podcast today. And any time, you want to back, feel free. Well, the next time we'll do it in person. We'll just have you guys to the studio. and do it in person. That would, we're going to make you take a little road trip. You know,

the sun's shining today. And as we get closer to, you know, springtime, I like talking about it because it makes me happy that, you know, the sun's going to be out shining.

No snow. Roads would be nice to travel on. We'll have you guys take a little trip to the east, a little border city action. We'll have you in studio next time. I'd happily come up. And if Daniel Smith accepts your invitation,

give you a call because I have a number of questions. see in my fuck house. Sure. I sure. You can get it in line with about 50 million others that just, when they hear she's coming on, it's just like the text line just goes and sounds like, oh man, this is going to stress me out. But yeah, I tell you what, we're going to see if we can't get her back on because why wouldn't

we with all the different things going on regardless? Thanks for hopping on you too. I appreciate you bringing me up to speed on class actions and 63. I think very, very important information for everyone to hear. Thank you very much, John. Have a good day. Thanks for having us.