Prime Minister & Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland sued by Freedom Convoy protestors
Prime Minister & Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland sued by Freedom Convoy protestors
"This lawsuit is our battle cry!"
Disclaimer
I personally do not advocate any process or procedure contained in any of my Blogs. Information presented here is not intended to provide legal or lawful advice, nor medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevent any disease. Views expressed are for educational purposes only.
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Thank you, Patricia.
“BREAKING: On the 2-year anniversary of the Federal Government illegally invoking war measures against its citizens and targeting key protestors in Ottawa by freezing their bank accounts, today Tamara Lich, Chris Barber, Tom Marazzo, Danny Bulford and other protestors who were targeted by @JustinTrudeau and @cafreeland have filed lawsuits against the Federal Government,” he stated on X.
“Sec. 24 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives Canadians the right to sue their government for damages when Charter rights are violated.”
The lawsuits seek $2 million in damages for each plaintiff.
Second lawsuit
Hours later on Wednesday’s Valentine’s Day — the two year anniversary that Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act — a second class-action lawsuit consisting of twenty plaintiffs was announced, this time by Loberg Ector LLP, a law firm based out of Calgary, Alberta.
“The Plaintiffs in this action seek compensation and related relief arising from the unjustified and unconstitutional actions of the Liberal government, as well as the actions of certain police agencies and Canadian financial institutions who followed the unlawful orders of the Liberal government, and other defendants who participated in or promoted these actions.”
What rights and freedoms?
In AD 1302, Papal Bull Unam Sanctum formed the first and largest Trust through Pope Boniface VIII claiming ultimate authority over all Earth including all real man living and dead souls on behalf of the papal office [Vatican] as follows:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm
In other words, real man living souls have privileges ordained by the Pope and his handlers unless otherwise stated in man-made fictions of law.
The bible reads: Soul is an integrated living being, comprising both physical and non-physical parts. https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/what-does-the-bible-say-about-the-soul.html.
Factual examination of Supreme court ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that an elected representative in Canada has no legal duty to his/her constituents.
J. WILTON LITTLECHILD M.P. v. Citizens of Canada Docket No. 9012000725 10TH December, A.D. 1990
Supreme Court ruling excerpts explained in the video below:
It appears that the action is a claim of a breach of duty on the part of the M.P. of the Plaintiffs. It seems clear on the authorities and I note in Roman Corporation which has been cited, that if I have any doubt on this application, as to whether the Plaintiffs have a cause of action, I must give the benefit of that doubt to the Plaintiffs and refuse the application and leave the matter to be decided at a trial.
However I am satisfied the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Defendant. I know of no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal requirement. I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation case, where he said:
"It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada, free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in
parliament.
So it appears to me that the only remedy existing for the Plaintiffs is the remedy provided by our Constitution in the right to vote in a future election.
So I am satisfied that no court can compel the Defendant to account to his constituents.
So under the circumstances I am dismissing -- or I am allowing the application to strike out the Statement of Claim and it will be struck out accordingly.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4232/index.do?q=tort+and+&pedisable=true
What’s the point [pun intended]?
June 19, 2023
What’s the point in voting when it doesn't matter who puts their name on a ballot and there is nothing in place in Canada to hold them responsible if they do not represent you? 13:19 mins
Roman Corp. v. Hudson’s Bay Oil & Gas Co., [1973] S.C.R. 820
Date: 1973-05-07
“It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada, free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in parliament.”
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4232/index.do?q=tort+and+&pedisable=true
Maxim of law
In whatever manner a thing is constituted, in the same manner it is dissolved.
In other words, consent of real man living souls created the problems, now it’s up to real man living souls to learn foundational knowledge to legally and lawfully fix the problems.
To be continued.
Without prejudice and without recourse
Doreen Agostino
Our Greater Destiny Blog
courtcases
Let the lawsuits begin, time to take down the liberal government.