Adam Skelly exclusive update constitutional challenge "Reopening Ontario " Act and EMCPA

Published June 18, 2021 2,187 Views

Rumble Adam Skelly and Chris Weisdorf exclusive update constitutional challenge "Reopening Ontario " Act and Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act

Summary of expert reports

As you may have heard, the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario came down on Adam Skelly in an unprecedented heavy handed attack. For daring to dissent, attempting to make a living, employing many at his three Adamson Barbecue restaurants and engaging in non violent civil disobedience, the government brought six separate legal proceedings against him including:

- Provincial Offences Act tickets
- a section 22 order under the Health Protection and Promotion Act
- the illegal seizure of his property and premesis, and invocation of the Trespass to Property Act
- the deployment of 250 police officers, including the mounted unit, to arrest and criminally charge him with trespassing on his own property, mischief and obstruct peace officer
- a section 9 injunction under the "Reopening Ontario" Act
- many more POA tickets against him and his father for operating 1 location without a business licence

Why? To single him out. To make an example of him. To punish him. Adam became the first person in North America to be arrested for disobeying unlawful and arbitrary public health orders. In the age of Canadian government COVID-19 totalitarianism and tyranny, dissent and debate are no longer allowed.

Under Bill 195,‘The Reopening Ontario Act,’ the government can then continue the state of emergency for an indefinite number of years one year at a time by a vote of the legislature, in which Ford’s Progressive Conservative Party has a majority.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association described this as allowing Ford’s administration to “maintain the existing emergency powers while freeing the executive branch of effective democratic oversight.” Ontario is the only province or state in North America with such a law.

Experts and their reports are summarized as follows:

1. Dr. Joel Kettner, former Chief Medical Officer of Health of Manitoba, and professor at the University of Manitoba. He has submitted evidence concerning the following:
• The principles and strategies of public health, in conjunction with the Charter
• The lockdowns, transmission in various settings, mortality rates and ICU capacity
• On reply: public health strategy, epidemiological methodology, the rationality and proportionality of the lockdowns, definitions, and risk factors

2. Dr. Douglas Allen, professor of economics at Simon Fraser University. He has submitted evidence concerning the following:
• A critical economic assessment of nearly 90 lockdown cost-benefit studies
• An analysis of predictive mathematical models, the value of a statistical life, and voluntary versus mandatory lockdown behaviour
• The costs of lockdowns and an alternative cost-benefit methodology
• On reply: an analysis of all costs and benefits was never conducted by the government, almost no evidence has been provided in support of the lockdowns, no recognition of endogenous human behaviour, and a misrepresentation of of excess mortality

3. Dr. William Matt Briggs, former professor of statistics and biostatistics at Cornell, and co-author of The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe. He has submitted evidence concerning the following:
• Misunderstandings and misnomers in the definitions of cases, hospitalizations and deaths
• The woeful inaccuracy of predictive mathematical models
• All-cause mortality and COVID death statistics
• Worldwide statistical analysis of lockdowns
• Comparison to other pandemics
• On reply: no evidence that mask mandates or lockdowns work, putting COVID-19 in perspective with other causes of death, and more on ICU capacity

4. Dr. Gilbert Berdine, Harvard Medical and MIT educated pulmonologist and professor at Texas Tech University. He has treated COVID patients and has submitted evidence concerning the following:
• Criticisms of COVID-19 diagnosis and PCR test inaccuracy/invalidity
• Pathology of exposure, infection, disease and death
• Mortality curves and effects of interventions, including herd immunity
• A comparison between Canada and other countries
• Reasonable alternatives to emergency measures and proper metrics
• Variants of concern, their transmissibility and mortality rates
• An look at Texas and how their cases, hospitalizations and deaths plummeted
• On reply: a visual comparison of cases, mortality and fatality rates in different settings; the lack of asymptomatic transmission; more on variants of concern; no evidence and egregious use of statistics; and further mention of Texas

5. Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale and author of over 300 peer reviewed papers. He has submitted evidence concerning the following:
• Outpatient usage of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with zinc and ivermectin
• An analysis of treatment benefit versus mortality
• Studies of safety and adverse endpoints with HCQ
• Said treatments are reasonable alternatives to emergency measures

6. Dr. Byram Bridle, professor of virology and immunology at the University of Guelph. He had a COVID-19 vaccine candidate in development and has submitted evidence concerning the following:
• An analysis of the population dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus
• The virus is not a problem of pandemic proportions requiring emergency measures
• The inaccuracy and invalidity of PCR tests
• An immunological analysis of asymptomatic transmission and re-transmission of the virus being either negligible or nonexistent
• An analysis of the variants of concern
• An analysis of the effectiveness of masking and PPE containment of the virus
• Prolonged isolation and masking of children can cause irreparable harm
• Ivermectin is a reasonable alternative to emergency measures
• On reply: people are losing confidence in public health authorities due to the misrepresentation of facts and data; many physicians and scientists have operated in an extremely oppressive environment where dissent and debate are forbidden; the government expert's report is devoid of evidence; more on PCR tests; the rationale for emergency measures are flimsy, not peer reviewed or nonexistent; "cases" are not documented by severity; approximately as many people die with COVID in low-risk demographics as those who are killed by lightning strikes; a look at Texas; more on variants of concern; vitamin D is a reasonable alternative to emergency measures, backed by 77 studies cited; more on immunity and asymptomatic transmission; the futility and lack of efficacy of low-cost masking; the aerosolization of the virus makes all non-pharmaceutical intervention measures moot
Dr. Bridle's reply was substantial and represents the final word before the Court in terms of the evidence presented. Once heard, the evidence may not be re-tried or re-weighed. Litigants only get one kick at the can with respect to the presentation of evidence. We've made ours count and have been extremely fortunate to have even one of these experts on our case, let alone six of them.

"Evidence that has not been challenged by the government in favour of the lockdowns.

Evidence that stands on its own; irrefutable and irrespective of the experts who have presented it. Evidence that will stand the test of time.

We present to all politicians, doctors, lawyers, nurses, police, business owners, executives, community leaders, parents, and anyone else who is impacted by the lockdowns, with our expert reports. We enable and embolden you to speak out, since courts generally rule in favour of public opinion during war and times of great peril. It is as much up to you as it is up to us.

Make the case for us. Make the case for yourselves, your friends and family. Seize this opportunity and bring an end to the New Abnormal. Take back your freedom and democracy from unaccountable despots. The real pathogen is political, not biological. Disinfect it by debate and the sunlight that's finally been cast by these 11 reports." Chris Weisdorf