Game Theory and Government

How Canadian politicians make their get away using "Freedom Lawyers"

This year there’s been a series of dangerous legal cases about vaccine mandates making their way through Canadian courts. The latest case is this one:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc284/2023bcsc284.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALaHNpYW5nIHlvcmsAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1#_Toc130975116

This legal petition about vaccine mandates in British Columbia, Canada is a request to a judge for:

1. quashing and setting aside of the Order, to the extent that it requires individuals to have received the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in order to work in hospital and designated community settings; and

2. a declaration that continuing the Order is unreasonable, as there is no reasonable basis for the exercise of emergency powers under the PHA, and the vaccination mandate is not a reasonable or effective way to address the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

In addition to the above. the original petition asked for “Petition costs” and “Such other relief as the Court deems warranted and just”.

---

Where’s the Problem?

This petition for a judicial review does not demand any accountability from politicians, government employees and politically appointed ministers for their actions that caused harm to individuals.

All that is asked for is court costs and “Such other relief as the Court deems warranted and just”. A settlement with such a loose request could get anywhere from $10 per person for the first 100,000 people who can prove they were harmed, to full restitution for everyone who lost a home, their job or died.

What’s the likelihood of the latter scenario?

Well that depends on the argument being made.

If the argument is:

The Health Minister, Politicians and Premier of BC have committed:

1. War crimes under Section 8 Paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute internationally enacted since 2002. (Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;)

2. a violation of Articles 3, and 23 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (#3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. #23: Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment...)

3. a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. 1976 / 1985: ( https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html#h-256800 )

Then there might be a chance we could have a meaningful win. “Such other relief as the Court deems warranted and just” that includes full restitution of damages would be reasonable.

---

However after the first 3 days of argument, we have yet to see any application of meaningful Candian Law, Criminal Law or International Law. We’ve only seen hours of scientific arguments. On the third day, yesterday, November 22nd, the judge seemed somewhat confused about our rationale, when one of our “expert” scientists did not do the best job explaining her area of scientific expertise to the non-scientist judge.

---

What’s the Danger of a Scientific Argument in a Court of Lawyers?

If lawyers and judges were all scientists there wouldn’t be a problem. They would be competent to make scientific decisions. They would immediately recognize the ridiculousness of any claim that a treatment is safe or effective without real world data.

However, in the real world, few lawyers are also doctors, and even fewer judges are. So by making only a scientific argument in a court, all it takes is one “scientist” to present a contrary opinion for a judge to decide whichever way he pleases; because in his non-scientifically qualified seat as a judge, one scientific expert is as good as another.

In Canada, why judges decide in the favor of criminals I explain here:

---

Without an argument using Law, there is no possibility for justice.

In science there’s no penalty for making a mistake. Scientists prove each other wrong all the time. That is the process of science. It is questions and finding answers, questioning the answers, and then increasing knowledge in the process.

However in Canada, all the legal challenges thus far have left the door wide open for Politicians, Government Appointees, and Health Ministers to get away with violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and War Crimes.

Can science ever be used to overrule Human Rights? Should science ever be used to overrule human rights?

(Why is no Canadian Lawyer talking about this in a courtroom?)

Why are lawyers trying to argue science?

Is it because by arguing “science” there’s no penalty for the perpetrators?

---

Is this Intentional?

For me as a doctor, it would be incompetent of me to ignore medicine.

But lawyers in Canada are IGNORING LAWS, and no one is questioning it in Canada’s so called freedom community. We have to ask Why?

Are Canada’s legal fights just an ACT to get money?

---

Game Theory

From the perspective of a politician, a political appointee, or any government employee such as a health minister, if there is no personal consequence for harming others, such as fines or jail, why would anyone in government do anything honestly? If doing wrong unto others is more profitable and brings more career advancement, and if there are no consequences, nothing stops politicians and government employees from stealing from the people, assaulting people and worse.

Here is a heartbreaking example of government employees committing child abuse.

Especially when government agents can make an excuse that the “science”, or any claimed “science” at that time justified their actions, a violation of human rights is no barrier to crimes against humanity. They can get away with the harms they did to others for the benefit of themselves without fear of accountability.

In fact the child abuse detailed in my article about A Child and a Ventilator continues to this day:

In Canada, politicians, government employees and political appointees such as ministers of health, “ACT” for the government. If they should do some wrong unto people while “Acting” for the government, the government pays their bill at the expense of the people. So really there is every incentive for Canadian politicians to harm people for profit, since the people will pay either way, and they will pay nothing, regardless of how egregious their violations of Human Rights. My series of 3 articles on baby Theo above shows how social workers and doctors act to cause harm with no fear of consequences, with the full support of lawyers and the Canadian court system.

---

Are Canadian Lawyers Really Saboteurs?

I cannot speak for all Canadian lawyers, but the ones I’ve seen so far seem intent on giving the judicial system ample opportunities to set case precedents excusing government employees and politicians from the harms they’ve done in the name of public health.

The “freedom” lawyers accomplish this by only making arguments with “science” which has no penalties and ignoring the international and Canadian criminal laws where there are penalties for wrongdoing. If Canada’s freedom lawyers were fighting for justice, they’d be arguing with the laws I mentioned above.

---

What does a real legal case look like?

What does the response from the government of Canada look like when LAWS are brought into a courtroom?

This legal suit that I filed under equity law, posed an immediate threat to the Crown. Because there was no lawyer carefully manipulating my arguments to give the perpetrators who harmed my family an easy way out, the Attorney General intervened immediately. Less than a month after I filed my suit, the Crown through the Attorney General tried to halt my case.

The court system then decided in favor of the Crown under King Charles less than 3 months after the lawsuit began. (A far cry from the “freedom” lawyer suits that we’ve had so far in Canada, where the cases drag on for years without any restitution of harms.)

---

What is the solution?

If the problem originates with the Crown, acting through the attorney general in my case, and oath to Crown lawyers sabotaging other cases, then any solution must address the crown. We have to get to the source of the problem.

In this regard we in Canada should learn from our neighbors to the south, where an entire nation was built by lawful men and women taking the law into their own hands and discovering they had the strength to separate from an unlawful King.

We in Canada must find the courage to do the same.