Laws in Canada
Why does no one use them?
My first personal experience with a discrepancy between laws and reality was with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA).
The Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons restricted me from seeing anyone with COVID or suspected COVID shortly after I saved the lives of 3 elderly patients with Ivermectin.
Surprisingly other physicians who have had their COVID patients die from malpractice seem to have free reign from the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons to continue experimenting on their patients with deadly black box warning medications.
How is it that as an ER doctor, I am forced to discriminate against COVID and suspected COVID patients, while other physicians, such as the one I described in “A Deadly Day in the ER”, seem to have the blessing of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta to apply deadly treatments indiscriminately?
Aren’t there laws against discrimination against patients?
Well it just so happens that in the second paragraph of the Canadian Human Rights act, genetic characteristics and disability are two prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Shortly after losing my job and having my medical license restricted to the point of not being able to see most patients in the ER, I informed the lawyers assigned to me by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) that my practice was being unlawfully restricted by the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons. (The CMPA is the Canada Wide Malpractice Insurance organization that provides lawyers to Canadian Physicians for lawsuits and threats to their licenses.)
The Queens Counsel Lawyer Karen Pirie a partner at law firm Gowling WLG https://gowlingwlg.com/en/ refused to touch the issue of the CPSA committing a human rights act of Canada offense. Despite me spelling out the details of the human rights act of Canada and how the CPSA was forcing me to discriminate against patients with “suspected” disability from COVID, this Queen’s Counsel lawyer for an international law firm refused to apply the Canadian law.
Some time after my lawyer refused, I directly informed the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta that they were violating the Canadian Human Rights Act by forcing discrimination based on disability. Thus far they have not removed the restrictions on my practice in response to this fact.
As usual I used the process of discrepancy analysis to figure out why.
The farthest I got with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta is that they simply had no qualms about violating human rights. In my opinion, this is an extremely dangerous situation for a College that purports to espouse ethics for the benefit of patients.
However, the fact that no lawyer in the past 2 years has argued or even helped with my case since I was forced out of Emergency Medicine is even more troubling.
One would think that lawyers looking for a quick win against the tyrrany that happened over the past 3 years would be all over my case. “ER doctor fired for giving safe medication and saving 3 lives, then forced to violate the Canadian Human Rights Act by the College of Physicians.” sounds like it would be a foundational case in law right?
The Canadian human rights act, first signed in 1976, in the second paragraph provides a slam dunk legal win against a morally bankrupt College of Physicians in Alberta — a College of Physicians and Surgeons that banned a safe and life saving medication, while turning a blind eye to patients dying from known to be deadly medications.
One would think lawyers would be all over me, fighting for a percentage of a pro bono lawsuit guaranteed to win against a small provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons.
However, to date, no lawyer has offered me any help. Not even the JCCF (Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms) based in Alberta.
And therein is the discrepancy! A clear law, a small physician licensing body, and a clear violation in writing! How come no lawyer or law firm wants to “Win” this case! The violation of the Canadian Human Rights act is still posted publically on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta website! Everything I’ve warned about came true. By fact AND Canadian law I am in the RIGHT.
So why is no lawyer lending a hand?
The easiest payday in Canadian history?
A 2 page argument from the second paragraph of the Canadian Human Rights act?
I looked for clues. And what I found was in the letters QC, which in Canada means Queen’s Counsel. (This term has since been changed to KC, meaning Kings Counsel)
QC is a title awarded to the most senior lawyers, or lawyers who have made significant contributions to the legal profession or in public life. According to wikipedia, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Counsel) QC or KC lawyers are not allowed to act against the Crown. By giving high title to accomplished lawyers, and ensnaring them into loyalty to the Queen (now King) of England, the Crown is removing threats of law coming from accomplished lawyers.
But wouldn’t the Crown want the rule of law in Canada? To see if this is true or not, we’ll haveto look at the Crown more carefully. Observing the kinds of violations of law that happened in ALL the Crown’s “territories” may yeild answers.
New Zealand, Canada, Australia and even Britain all endured vaccination mandates, lockdowns and restrictions prohibiting safe treatments for COVID. If the problem exists throughout Commonwealth Nations under the Crown, could the souce of the problem BE the Commonwealth? Or more specifically the CROWN?
If so, what exactly did the Crown do?
If we were to look at the Rome statute adopted in 1998, and enforced in 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.” is a WAR crime.
The COVID vaccine was definitely a medical experiment. With the extreme risks of mRNA injections, there was certianly no medical reason justifiable to force the healthy to take such an experiment. Yet throughout the commonwealth people were coerced to take COVID vaccinations.
So did the Crown committ a war crime on its people throughout the commonwealth?
Is there a war going on?
Perhaps there isn’t a war going on, or at least none that is advertised on mainstream media. Are there other international laws that the Crown might have broken?
Articles 2, 3, and 23 deal with safety and security of the person with the fair right to work without discrimination. Employment vaccine mandates, and coercion to take experimental injections all seem to be violations of employment and “Safety and Security of the person” within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights created in 1948.
If the entire commonwealth suffered these violations, who is the purpetrator?
The Crown? Or someone above the Crown using the Crown as an agent?
For all intents and purposes inside the Commonwealth, whether the Crown is the source of the criminal acts, or the Crown is an agent performing criminal acts on behalf of another makes little difference. The roots of criminality are embedded in the fabric of every commonwealth country through the legal system and lawyers.
Does this explain the lack of legal interest in helping me continue my work as an ER doctor? Because all the KC lawyers in Canada work for the Crown?
Or do all lawyers in Canada, by swearing an oath to the law society, also serve the Crown too?
Surely if any lawyer or firm wanted to win the biggest case in Canadian history, international laws would surely make for a win.
(Especially when pitted against provincial or local mandates that are in clear violation of international laws!)
But the “freedom” lawyers in Canada seem to be endlessly “fundraising”, and no one seems to be fighting “pro bono” to win a share of what will probably be the biggest settlement in Canadian history.
What does this discrepancy mean?
If viewed in the context that all lawyers have an oath to the Crown, and the likelihood the Crown is the source of all the crimes against humanity that occurred in Commonwealth countries like Canada, then Canadian lawyers “fundraising” off the volunteers and supporters in the freedom movement can only have 1 purpose.
To remove as much money and resource as possible from people fighting for truth and human rights in Canada.
Addendum: A couple months ago, I explained the Canadian Human Rights act, the Rome statute and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to a KC lawyer who was a family member of one of the freedom organizers in southern Alberta. After listening to me, she asked me if I was talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada.
Here’s the discrepancy that caused me to end the conversation:
For a lawyer to attain the title of Kings Counsel, they probably have to be a good listener. Many times the best arguments are won when someone’s own words are used against them. So any accomplished lawyer should be a very careful listener. I suspect Kings Counsel lawyers are no exception.
So why would a King’s Counsel lawyer deliberately “mishear” me after I talked about the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Rome Statute, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Why would she ask me if I was talking about a completely different piece of legislation?
The conclusion I came to is that she was trying to move me off the points that would lead to a effective legal win, by turning me onto a piece of legislation that has no hopes of winning any legal case as the Canadian Charter of Rights makes all rights and freedoms subject to the opinions of “Judges”.
The one thing I noticed with lawyers in Canada is that they always seem to be trying to move people off their positions. The times I’ve heard people in the freedom movement use lawyers, more often then naught, the legal counsel seems to be constantly trying to push people off of any true statement they make. (Even if it is a slight change to true statement with an adjective or qualifier.) Once the victim/client is moved slightly off their true position, Canadian lawyers will repeatedly ply with verbal attrition, moving their clients further and further from any truth in the statement that they might have started off with.
Thank you for fighting. Thank you for continuing the fight.
In times of war the law and the courts don't work as they should. And to be clear we are at war.
War is no longer troops shelling a town into submission or tanks driving down the boulevard of a conquered city it is the control of Words and Thoughts and Freedoms without a bullet being discharged. But there are casualties and deaths, just from a different weapon.
Daniel, (with no disrespect to your salutation as a doctor) I half remember you talking with Christopher James whom operates a website known as "A Warrior Calls". Please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe you have finally reached the point of enlightenment where you have finally discovered that a great deal of what Christopher James has been active with is a realization that indeed, both the laws of Canada as well as our legal system do not work in the citizens favor, or are being manipulated against us. You, as well as many others have become victims of our own system. The system has been assembled/manipulated against us, and it does seem that the lawyers as Christopher James suggests are indeed liar's per se' and even John Carpay of the JCCF has had cases thrown out. And then, can we possibly mention corrupted judges within the system whom seem to be protecting the system?
At this juncture, what would be your best way to attack the system? Find a lawyer that is either retired or about to retire to represent you that has "no skin in the game" and understands what you are up against, this too may be a difficult task. Or, the other option is to fight the system yourself, which I assume is a daunting task? Not to mention what judge your case would come against.
I see Canadian lawyers fight cases (think Rocco Galati) based on our constitutional right get struck down.
Where to turn to? Have you even considered fighting this case yourself?
I have several other suggestions, however, this public forum may not be the place to suggest same. Should you reach out, a few alternative ideas could be tabled. Willing to comment on same.
Paul Draper