NEWSLETTER

Published : MAY 4, 2021 | Vol. I Issue: 19


Police take Court Action against Ontario Government over COVID Measures Enforcement Duties

PUBLISHED: MAY 4, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre

This is the press conference of the application by police officers filed with the Superior Court to clarify their duties, discretion and obligations under the COVID Measures.

The day after we served the Notice of Application, lawyers for the Attorney General wrote a letter to the Court, for the Court to issue an order to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the case, on the “Court’s own motion”, for being a “frivolous, vexatious and abusive” case, pursuant to Rule 2.1.

The Crown lawyers do not provide a basis as to why it is so we can respond, but if an order is issued, we are allotted 10 pages maximum, to disprove that it is not “frivolous, vexatious and abusive”, without the benefit of reference to evidence not yet filed.

Their Notice of Application can be viewed on the Constitutional Rights Centre website at: constitutionalrightscentre.ca

 

Please watch the PRESS CONFERENCE video below.

Thank you for your continued and kind support of the CRC

 

 

Rocco Galati, BA, LLB, LLM, Executive Director


twittermailtwittermailyoutubeyoutube

Published : APR 29 , 2021 | Vol. I Issue: 18


Police take Court Action against Ontario Government over COVID Measures Enforcement Duties

PUBLISHED: APRIL 29, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre

– PRESS RELEASE –

Ten (10) active, and five (5) retired, Police officers have launched an Application in Ontario Superior Court, to seek clarification, and challenge, the Province’s Covid-measures, and their enforcement, as breaching and violating their Police Oath which Oath includes upholding the Constitution.

Their Notice of Application can be viewed on the Constitutional Rights Centre website at: constitutionalrightscentre.ca

Some of the Applicants will hold a brief press conference, along with their legal counsel, on: Thursday, April 29th at 4:30 p.m. EST

You can join in at: www.wholeheartedmedia.ca

Any questions may be directed to legal counsel at: Rocco Galati

Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
Tel: (416) 530-9864
Email: rocco@idirect.com

Thank you for your continued and kind support of the CRC

 

Rocco Galati, BA, LLB, LLM, Executive Director


twittermailtwittermailyoutubeyoutube

Published : MAR 15 , 2021 | Vol. I Issue: 17


The Role of the Monarchy in Canada in 2021

PUBLISHED: MARCH 15, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre

 

Over the last week, in response to the interview of Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, there has been discussion in the press (CBC (the Current) and Global News) about the difficulties that Canada might face if there were to be an attempt to cut ties with the Monarchy. This debate misses an important point. There are no longer any ties to the Monarchy.

Canada no longer is a Monarchy. Since Patriation, it is a Republic based on a Constitutional Monarchy system. There is no need to cut ties with the Monarchy as Patriation in the Canada Act (UK) and the Constitution Act, 1982 have already cut those ties.

The Patriation of the Canadian Constitution 1982 precludes any action by the UK in Canadian legal affairs. While the Queen could have taken the position that she still was the head of state, not as the Queen of England, but as the Queen of Canada, this option was foreclosed by the decision of the Queen, shortly after the Patriation, to refuse a petition from First Nations bands, under the treaties signed with the Crown, on the basis that she no longer had ANY authority in respect of Canada.

As a matter of practice, for decades, the Governor General (“GG”) has been the effective head of state of Canada. The Queen has not acted in respect of Canada through the GG for decades.

The CRC argued in the Supreme Court Act Reference (Nadon Reference) that the Patriation and the amending formula of the Constitution Act, 1982 precluded Parliament from changing parts of the Supreme Court Act, previously an ordinary statute, that purported to change the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCC agreed and ruled that the constitutional amending formula precluded changing the composition of the SCC without constitutional amendment. This constitutionalized the composition of the SCC, precluding unilateral changes by Parliament.

The same logic applies to the GG. As the CRC argued in the Citizenship Act case in the FCC (Bill C-24), although the Court did not address this issue, the GG’s role and powers are also protected by the Constitution Act, 1982 amending formula. Parliament, the UK and the Queen cannot change the role or powers of the GG without constitutional amendment. The powers of the GG are set out in Letters Patent issued by the Monarchy in the UK. The last one prior to Patriation was in 1947. The CRC asserts that the precedent and logic of the Supreme Court Act Reference makes it clear that the Patriation and amending formula of the Constitution Act, 1982 have constitutionalized the role and powers of the GG as set out in the Letters Patent, 1947.

The GG is no longer subject to directions from or control by the Monarchy since the Monarchy no longer has any legal authority in Canada. The GG, who was, in effect, the head of state, is now legally the head of state.

The ties of Monarchy that bound need not be cut. The ties have already been cut by the UK in the Patriation of the Constitution achieved by the UK Parliament passing and the Queen signing into law, the Canada Act. Many do not realize the implications of Patriation. We are free from the Monarchy. Long live the Republic of Canada!

Thank you for your continued and kind support of the CRC

 

Paul Slansky, Operational Director (Criminal and Quasi-Criminal)


twittermailtwittermailyoutubeyoutube

Published : MAR 12 , 2021 | Vol. I Issue: 16


Money & Finance Under Covid: A conversation with Catherine Austin Fitts

RE-PUBLISHED: MARCH 12, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre

 

The censored discussion under Covid has been about “cases, cases, cases” and the measures that spring from those unscientific and unreliable “case counts” based on a debunked PCR test at 35+ Threshold Cycle rate. The measures saturating the censored media are: lockdowns, social distancing, masking and vaccines.

What is not being discussed is the monetary, financial, and economic impact and agenda of the measures. Why? Very few people understand it, or can explain it in clear and concise terms, from a perspective of its human impact. Those who do will not talk about it because they are involved in the profitable and greedily monstrous agenda.

An exception to this is Catherine Austin Fitts. Please watch my video, conversation with her. It concerns the financial well-being of you and your family.

Thank you for your continued and kind support of the CRC

 

Rocco Galati, BA, LLB, LLM, Executive Director


twittermailtwittermailyoutubeyoutube

Published : MAR 8 , 2021 | Vol. I Issue: 15


Your Rights to decline a Vaccine in the context of Employment.

RE-PUBLISHED: MARCH 8, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre

 

This short video answers the questions received by the CRC on this topic.

It provides the CRC’s view on what your rights are to decline a vaccine in the context of employment , whether in the public or private sector.

 

Thank you for your continued and kind support of the CRC

 

Rocco Galati, BA, LLB, LLM, Executive Director


twittermailtwittermailyoutubeyoutube

Published : MAR 4 , 2021 | Vol. I Issue: 14


The mainstream media, feeding off the CPSO with respect to Dr. Kulvinder Gill, continues to spread its addiction to its own “misinformation”.

RE-PUBLISHED: MARCH 4, 2021 | by the Constitutional Rights Centre

The mainstream media, feeding off the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s (CPSO) website and the ICRC’s decision with respect to Dr. Kulvinder Gill, continues to spread its addiction to its own “misinformation”.

In its decision to impose a “caution” the CPSO Committee selectively, and in bad faith, throughout its process, selectively takes comments by Dr. Gill out of context.

It knowingly and intentionally ignored the renowned avalanche of world scientific and medical opinion, cited and submitted by Dr. Gill in support of her statements stemming from, supported by, and agreed upon by peer-reviewed scientific and medical publications, eminent professors and world experts up to, and including, Nobel Prize winners.

Moreover, neither the College nor the Province of Ontario have any constitutional jurisdiction to curtail free speech as “unprofessional” or “inappropriate”. While the CPSO baldly states that Dr. Gill’s statements were “factually wrong”, it does not tell us why, nor does it address the avalanche of evidence put before them that indicates that Dr. Gill’s statements are factually right. Ultimately the Superior Courts will determine the issues(s) of who is factually right. Moreover, and to the point, whether making such statements and opinions is “inappropriate” or “unprofessional”. When speech is “inappropriate” and “unprofessional”, and completely divorced from the treatment of patients, it is not medical oversight, it is pure censorship based on intolerant, unscientific, and non-medical politics.

The CPSO has, akin to a Vatican Committee of Cardinals, politicalized and weaponized Public Health dogma and mantra, to gag free speech, by medical and scientific experts. We saw a similar phenomenon during the Catholic Inquisition.

In its decision the CPSO, knowingly and intentionally provides absolutely NO evidence, nor any reasons, for its bald conclusions whatsoever. Moreover, in bad faith, it refused to address the extensive evidence and legal submissions made to it, which fully supported Dr. Gill’s opinions, as stemming from and enunciated by peer reviewed studies by scientific and medical experts from all over the world.

The CPSO decisions(s) will be the subject of an HPARB appeal, Divisional Court application for Judicial Review, as well as an action for Constitutional relief and damages over its unconstitutional stance towards free speech as well as its bad faith and abuse of authority in its conduct over doctor(s) who uphold their oath to “first, do no harm” and do not support the non-scientific and non-medical dogma of governments, bureaucrats, and public health officials harming Canadians.

All of the above was made clear to the CPSO throughout the process, falling on deaf ears, without being addressed. The Superior Courts will now deal with it.

Dr. Gill has yet to be cautioned and will be appearing for her caution. The flagrantly flawed and bad faith decisions are not the caution.

Thank you for your continued and kind support of the CRC

 

Rocco Galati, BA, LLB, LLM, Executive Director


twittermailtwittermailyoutubeyoutube