top of page


Tuesday 7 - [9]-24... 


Verses for today:

Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded.

2 Chronicles 15:7 KJV


... and that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;

1 Thessalonians 4:11 KJV


Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:58 KJV




Legendary Investor Warren Buffett proposed a Solution to the Nation’s Borrowing Issue more than a decade ago.


"I could end the deficit in five minutes,” he told CNBC’s Becky Quick in a 2011 interview. “You just pass a Law that says that any time there's a Deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are Ineligible for Re-Election.”




Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel 

It's the worst in my lifetime. TODAY we’re filing a major lawsuit to fight back.

Israelis live in constant fear as deadly Hamas and Hezbollah rockets continue to rain down devastation – hundreds of jihadist rockets in just the last few weeks.


Yet as Israel is on the brink, fighting for its very survival, Biden has threatened a "red line" and has even withheld military aid. This – compounded with the malicious betrayal by the radical Left – is incredibly dangerous.


We’re expanding our multipronged initiative here at home, with our office in Jerusalem, and at international tribunals. We’re submitting a major filing to defend Israel at the International Criminal Court. TODAY we’re filing a new lawsuit against the Biden Administration over its betrayal of Israel, withholding crucial aid.


This is why we need you now more than ever.

As we expand our legal work through our office in Jerusalem, at the U.N., and on Capitol Hill, we urgently need your Tax-Deductible support. Have your gift DOUBLED through our Life & Liberty Drive. $50 becomes $100; $25 becomes $50 to defend Israel.

We will not allow Israel's enemies to succeed in eradicating the Jewish state. But we need you to take urgent action with us.

Jay Sekulow

ACLJ Chief Counsel

Swiss company announces world’s first “Bio-processor” made using human brain tissue – The Expose:

A Swiss technology startup has just announced the world’s first “bioprocessor” constructed from 16 “human brain organoids.”

Without even knowing what any of that means, you can already tell this is bad. But you don’t know the half of it yet.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

Recently corporate media has been running scare stories about artificial intelligence (“AI”) using massive amounts of energy.  For example, last week Quartz wrote “Big Tech is turning to nuclear power because it needs more energy for AI.”  The next day, The Guardian wrote that “Google’s emissions climb nearly 50% in five years due to AI energy.  And Fudzilla’s headline was even mor demand e dramatic: “AI’s energy appetite might kill the power grid.”


We know they use the Hegelian dialectic to manipulate public opinion; a problem is created, a reaction is generated, and then a solution is offered. And we know that they use the problem-reaction-solution process repeatedly to maintain control and influence over populations.  So, ever since the scaremongering stories about AI needing massive amounts of energy started flooding the newsfeeds, as James Corbett said, we’ve “been bracing for impact.”

“After all, we know that hysteria campaigns are generally used to prepare the public for some horrible new “solution” that the technocrats have lying in wait for us,” he added.

“Well, guess what? That ‘solution’ is here, and it involves a computer made of living human brain tissue!”

The solution is provided by a Swiss startup called FinalSpark, which has launched the first online platform providing researchers access to a “living computer” made from brain “organoids.”

A brain organoid is a three-dimensional (“3D”) tissue derived from human embryonic stem cells or pluripotent stem cells, capable of simulating the architecture and functionality of the human brain. In other words, artificially grown, in a laboratory, human brain tissue.


FinalSpark published a paper in May about how its “Neuroplatform” has been constructed.  The paper has the ominous title ‘Open and remotely accessible Neuroplatform for research in wetware computing’.

Wetware is a slang term that refers to biological software, which can include bio-implants, living neurons integrated into silicon chips, or even thought-controlled devices. To those who have already lost their humanity, wetware is the software that belongs to a living organism, such as the instructions contained within its DNA.


Wetware computing combines biology and computing to create a new type of computer system. Unlike traditional computers that rely on silicon-based hardware, wetware computers use living neurons and biological materials to perform computations.

In 2023, scientists from Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, Maryland) and scientists from other universities in the US and Europe authored a roadmap for developing biocomputers from brain organoids.

“We call this new interdisciplinary field ‘organoid intelligence’ (OI),” Professor Thomas Hartung of Johns Hopkins University said. “A community of top scientists has gathered to develop this technology, which we believe will launch a new era of fast, powerful, and efficient biocomputing.”


As explained by eeNews, the 3D structure of brain organoids increases the culture’s cell density 1,000-fold, meaning that neurons can form many more connections.  Also, brain organoids have a superior ability to store data.

“We’re reaching the physical limits of silicon computers because we cannot pack more transistors into a tiny chip. But the brain is wired completely differently. It has about 100 billion neurons linked through over 10^15 connection points. It’s an enormous power difference compared to our current technology,” said Hartung.

Read more: Roadmap shows how ‘wetware’ can power AI computers, eeNews Europe, 28 February 2023

A little over a year later, FinalSpark published its paper on the world’s first bioprocessor. The paper is full of jargon that is difficult for a layman to understand.  Fortunately, Tom’s Hardware published an easier-to-understand article about FinalSpark’s Neuroplatform.


The operation of the Neuroplatform currently relies on an architecture that can be classified as wetware: the mixing of hardware, software and biology. The main innovation delivered by the Neuroplatform is through the use of four Multi-Electrode Arrays (MEAs) housing the living tissue – organoids, which are 3D cell masses of brain tissue.


Each MEA holds four organoids, interfaced by eight electrodes used for both stimulation and recording. Data goes to and fro via digital analogue converters (Intan RHS 32 controller) with a 30kHz sampling frequency and a 16-bit resolution. These key architectural design features are supported by a microfluidic life support system for the MEAs, and monitoring cameras. Last but not least, a software stack allows researchers to input data variables, and then read and interpret processor output.


Why do these scientists want to create computers out of living brain tissue? Because of “climate change” and energy efficiency... FinalSpark says its Neuroplatform is capable of learning and processing information, and due to its low power consumption, it could reduce the environmental impacts of computing … FinalSpark claims that training a single LLM like GPT-3 required approximately 10GWh – about 6,000 times greater energy consumption than the average European citizen uses in a whole year. Such energy expenditure could be massively cut following the successful deployment of bioprocessors.


As James Corbett explains below, it gets worse.

Slaves in a Jar

The following is from the article ‘Scientists Create Organic Slave Computers! (What Could Go Wrong?)’ published by The Corbett Report on 7 July 2024.


if you agree with me that this story is perverse, horrific and deeply disturbing...

Where is Technology taking us?

Donna Warren


               ADDITIONAL READING:

The dark origins of the Great Reset and the fraud that is Klaus Schwab

Does this weird 500-year-old shark hold the secret to human health and longevity?

Have you ever heard of the Greenland Shark? The diminutive, dull-looking fish that you'll probably never come within 700 miles of in your lifetime?

Rest assured they are some of the strangest animals you're ever apt to learn about:


Greenland sharks have the longest lifespan of any known vertebrate, estimated to be between 250 and 500 years. They are among the largest extant species of shark, usually growing to between 7.9 and 23.0 ft long and weighing between 880 and 3,090 lb. They reach sexual maturity at about 150 years of age, and their pups are born alive after an estimated gestation period of 8 to 18 years.


That is quite a list of accomplishments.

Now, it turns out that we may have some practical knowledge about how this beast stays alive for half a millennium:

The elusive Greenland shark — long marveled for its baffling extreme longevity — does not suffer a significant drop in its muscle's metabolic rate as it ages, according to fresh research presented this week at the Society for Experimental Biology Annual Conference in Prague. ...

"Most species show variation in their metabolism when they age," said lead researcher Ewan Camplisson, a PhD student at the University of Manchester, England, to the Telegraph.

Scientists have long thought that the shark is so long-lived because of the "deep, bone-chilling waters of the north Atlantic Ocean that make for sluggish energy-conserving movements."

So basically, they thought it was freezing itself into longevity.

But the metabolic piece of the puzzle could ultimately be the secret to their success — and it could help the rest of us live a little longer, too:

... researchers have now discovered new metabolic muscle clue involving the shark — the world's longest-living vertebrate species — and say it could end up helping to treat human heart disease.

'We want to understand what adaptations they have that allow them to live so long,' Camplisson said.

'By studying the Greenland shark and its heart, we may be able to better understand our own cardiovascular health. These are issues that become progressively more common and severe with increasing age.'

Just nobody tell the sharks we're thinking of this or I think they'll probably excuse themselves from the chat!

Not the Bee


Second Gentleman Emhoff Tests Positive For COVID-19, VP Harris Negative

By Aileen Barro on

 July 8, 2024

Doug Emhoff, the second gentleman, has tested positive for COVID-19 but is currently asymptomatic.

According to the Associated Press, Emhoff is isolating at home and working remotely, while Vice President Kamala Harris has tested negative and continues her scheduled activities.


Doug Emhoff tested positive for COVID-19 after experiencing mild symptoms. Despite this, he is currently asymptomatic and remains fully vaccinated with three booster shots. Emhoff is isolating at home and working remotely.


Vice President Kamala Harris, who is married to Emhoff, has tested negative for COVID-19. Harris was tested out of an abundance of caution and remains asymptomatic. She is continuing her planned schedule without any disruptions.


Emhoff's Health and Vaccination Status

Emhoff's current positive test marks his second bout with COVID-19, the first being in March 2022. Despite the initial mild symptoms, he is now asymptomatic. According to Liza Acevedo, Emhoff “is fully vaccinated and three times boosted” and “currently asymptomatic, continuing to work remotely, and remaining away from others at home.”


Meanwhile, Harris has a busy schedule, including campaigning for President Joe Biden's reelection in Las Vegas on Tuesday. Her negative test allows her to proceed with these activities without any hindrances.


Harris Continues with Campaign Activities

The Vice President's negative test result is crucial as it ensures her availability for upcoming campaign events. This follows a timeline of previous COVID-19 cases among prominent political figures, including President Biden's positive tests in July 2022 and subsequent "rebound" cases after antiviral treatment.


Emhoff's positive test and Harris's continued negative status are being monitored closely. Harris's ability to remain active in her duties highlights the importance of routine testing and precautionary measures.


Previous COVID-19 Cases Among Political Figures

This is not the first instance of COVID-19 affecting high-ranking officials in the administration. Emhoff's initial positive test in March 2022 and Harris's positive test in April 2022 underscore the ongoing risk of the virus. President Biden's experience with COVID-19, including a rebound case, further illustrates the virus's unpredictable nature.


Both Harris and Emhoff's experiences reflect the ongoing challenges public officials face in navigating their responsibilities amidst the pandemic. The administration continues to emphasize vaccination and booster shots as key measures in combating the virus.


Health and Safety Precautions

Liza Acevedo noted that Harris was tested “out of an abundance of caution.” The Vice President's negative result has enabled her to maintain her commitments without interruption. Harris's adherence to health guidelines serves as a model for the public.


Emhoff's decision to work remotely and isolate at home aligns with recommended health protocols. His vaccination status and booster shots have likely contributed to his asymptomatic condition, emphasizing the efficacy of these preventive measures.



Doug Emhoff's positive COVID-19 test has prompted necessary precautions, with Emhoff isolating and continuing his duties remotely. Vice President Kamala Harris remains unaffected and is actively engaged in her campaign efforts. This incident reiterates the importance of vaccination, booster shots, and routine testing in managing the pandemic among public figures. Harris's ability to maintain her schedule without interruption highlights the effectiveness of preventive measures.

Capitalism Institute


Marco Rubio corners CNN host with historical fact that upends popular leftist narrative about Trump: 'He didn't do it then':

Democrats warn that Trump will subvert — or end — American democracy if he wins the election.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) used history on Sunday to upend a popular liberal talking point used to incite fear about Donald Trump's potential return to the White House.


For nearly a decade now, Democrats and media activists have claimed that Trump is a fascist and authoritarian who will unconstitutionally seize dictatorial-level power if elected president and bring an end to American democracy.

'He will be too busy undoing all the damage of this disastrous presidency.'

On CNN's "State of the Union," host Dana Bash asked Rubio if the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity makes him "comfortable," suggesting it empowers the president beyond what the Constitution says. Rubio, in response, provided the context for the court's ruling: It only became necessary when the Justice Department was weaponized to target Trump.


The senator's observation prompted Bash to jump to Biden's defense.

"Donald Trump has said that he would go after Joe Biden, that he would go after members of the Biden family. That's never something that we have heard Joe Biden say," Bash claimed.

"Donald Trump has said that — no, he hasn't," Rubio fired back. "I watched the debate ... and he was asked, and he said, 'My vengeance will be winning and restoring America — making America great again. ... He has repeatedly said that his revenge will be to make America great again, to undo all [of the Biden administration's] bad public policies."

That's when Rubio pointed out a historical fact that undermines the argument that Trump will become a fascist dictator.


"By the way, he was president for four years. He didn't go after Hillary Clinton. He didn't go after Joe Biden. He didn't go after Barack Obama. He didn't go after any of their consultants," Rubio explained.

"We didn't see under him what we're seeing now," he added.


Bash, however, ignored that fact. Instead, she followed up by asking Rubio essentially to promise that Trump will not "go after any Democrats, any of his political opponents."

"Yes, he was president before, and he didn't do it then. He's already said that he wouldn't do that," Rubio answered. "He will be too busy undoing all the damage of this disastrous presidency."


Earlier in the interview, Rubio noted that not a single prominent Democrat "was chased around, persecuted, prosecuted" when Trump was president from 2017–2021.

The BLAZE Media


Shocking story connects Trudeau to Grisly Pickton Pig Farm Murders!

I had to use an internet archive to find it.


Does A Transfected Pig Farm Family Reveal an Ortis Compromised Node? with David Hawkins:

Publication date:  2022-04-15


Does a new development in the Pickton Pig Farm case prove David's point about Dr. Cameron Ortis' PhD thesis and compromised nodes in cyber security?Subscribe to the David Hawkins' Reverse CSI YouTube Channel – David Hawkins’ Discovery CSI Fridays on SubscribeStar and Patreon

Addeddate                 2023-08-20 17:57:08


Identifier                     youtube-Di4GXwlwqB0


Scanner                       TubeUp Video Stream Mirroring Application 2023.05.29

Year                             2022

InterNet Archive

Patrick Bestall


Democrat ally shocks the nation by uttering these four words about Kamala Harris:

It’s been a bad go for the Biden admin lately. It’s about to get even worse.

Because what was just said about Kamala Harris by a top Democrat ally just changed everything.

The question hanging over the head of the nation is whether or not Joe Biden will actually be the nominee for the Democrats and make it to the ballot-casting season in the general election this November. It’s been dominating news headlines everywhere, and rightfully so considering this is extremely unprecedented.


It’s a sad situation seeing Joe Biden clearly so unfit for office while his close family members and allies essentially hold him hostage. What is funny though is seeing the media make a complete 180-degree turn right before our very eyes. The turnaround in the narrative concerning Joe Biden’s fitness was so swift, it’s enough to give you whiplash. Literally as soon as the debate ended, the media was calling for Joe Biden to step down and giving him negative press.


Why are they doing that? Well, they want their guy to win. When your guy can’t win by the looks of it after reading the writing on the wall, you want your corner to win. The media can see that Joe Biden is seriously up against it and it would require a miracle the likes of which American politics has never seen for Biden to win a second term to the White House. They are trying to drum up support for someone else to step in and run against their vowed enemy, Donald Trump.


Joe Biden and his allies, however, are digging in their heels. In ABC’s interview with the president, Joe Biden made it extremely clear that he believes he’s the only one qualified to lead the nation and beat Donald Trump. This is ironic considering he’s never able to make anything else clear, ever.

The dam is breaking though, and now a top Democrat strategist and data analyst is saying that it’s simply better for Joe Biden to step aside and let Kamala Harris take her shot.


CNN Analyst Suggests Kamala Harris as Stronger Candidate Over Biden

In a recent analysis, CNN data reporter Harry Enten expressed his willingness to consider Vice President Kamala Harris as a viable alternative to President Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket. Enten shared his perspective during a discussion on CNN Newsroom with host Pamela Brown, citing polling data that indicates Harris’ stronger performance with independent voters.


Enten’s remarks come in the wake of a challenging June 27 debate for Biden against former President Donald Trump. Biden’s performance, marked by moments of hesitation and verbal missteps, has fueled ongoing discussions about his viability as the Democratic nominee. Despite these concerns, Biden has remained resolute in his decision to continue his campaign.


Delving into the polling data, Enten highlighted the comparative advantage Harris holds over Biden. “If you look at the average of polls, Harris does slightly better than Joe Biden against Donald Trump,” he noted. According to Enten, Biden trails Trump by three points nationally, whereas Harris narrows that gap to just one point. The key factor, Enten explained, lies in Harris’ appeal to independent voters.


“Among independents, Donald Trump leads Biden by four points,” Enten elaborated. “However, Harris is up five points against Trump. This is the main reason why Harris is performing better overall against Trump than Biden. She simply does better with independent voters.”


The debate’s aftermath has also seen a growing chorus of Democratic voices urging Biden to step aside. Texas Representative Lloyd Doggett was the first to call for Biden’s withdrawal, followed by statements from Representatives Raul Grijalva, Seth Moulton, Mike Quigley, and Angie Craig. Additionally, New York Representative Jerry Nadler and three other Democrats echoed these sentiments in a recent phone call with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.


Enten also addressed the broader public perception of Harris compared to Biden. “There are fewer voters who have an opinion of Harris than of Biden, and many tend to have a negative opinion of Biden,” he said. Enten suggested that given Trump’s unpopularity, Harris might have a better chance of swaying independent voters.


Currently, the RealClearPolling average shows Biden trailing Trump by 3.3% in a national head-to-head matchup. This margin widens to 4.9% when factoring in independent candidates like Cornel West, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.


“If I were a Democratic donor or activist, I might be willing to take a roll of the dice because, at this point, Biden is doing significantly worse than he has ever done against Trump, especially among independent voters,” Enten concluded.


As the Democratic Party navigates the complexities of the upcoming election, the debate over the most effective candidate continues to evolve, with Harris emerging as a potential frontrunner in the eyes of some analysts.

D.C. Daily Journal


Dr. Charles Hoffe’s Tribunal: The Facts Will Not Be Ignored [This is HUGE]

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Tribunal rules against blanket judicial notice of significant facts.


Yesterday, during Wins of the Week, we reported that Dr. Charles Hoffe and his lawyer, Lee Turner, successfully opposed the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC's application. The College sought an order from the panel to take judicial notice of their version of the facts concerning the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccine and SARS-CoV-2, but this application was defeated.


As promised, we're publishing a detailed report on this matter. It begins with a letter from Lee Turner, JD, explaining the situation, followed by the complete collection of documents, starting with the CPSOBC's explanation of the decision.

Subject: Judicial Notice Decision for Dr. Charles Hoffe

Date: July 5, 2024 at 12:58:16 PM PDT

Hello everyone,

I wanted to let you all know that we were successful in defeating the application of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC where they sought an order from the panel taking judicial notice of their version of facts concerning the safety and effectiveness of the covid vaccine and SARS-CoV-2.  I am providing this to you (some who are lawyers and many who are not) so you are aware of this positive decision.   In my opinion, this decision is a clear win for Dr. Hoffe and for anyone who is facing similar arguments by government or public health officials or institutions in a disciplinary context.  While the panel made it very clear that they have not accepted or rejected our expert evidence at this stage, they have now seen it.


This is the first decision of its kind in Canada that I am aware of in a disciplinary hearing context that provides such thorough and clear reasons as to why judicial notice should not be taken of these disputed facts. It should be of use to all other health professionals who are facing a similar situation and likely will be of assistance in other civil cases within the court system. Although this decision is not binding on a court, it is written in a manner that you would normally see in a court decision and the reasoning and the legal arguments made are sound and would be persuasive to a court in my opinion. One of our panel members is a retired BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal judge.  I would not be surprised if he wrote the decision or at least had some significant input. 


I will highlight what I consider to be the key aspects of the decision, but I have attached the decision for your review.  Please feel free to share this decision on your social media and with any lawyers or individuals that you think this may help.  I have also attached the College’s application and my reply to the College’s application which shows the legal arguments. I have attached Dr. Hoffe’s affidavit but have not provided all of the exhibits due to its length but I can certainly do so if someone would like it.  If you would like the attachments as well just let me know and I can send them to you through dropbox or secure docs.  I have not attached the College’s reply where they attack the reliability and weight of our expert reports, but I could certainly do so if someone wants it. 


In paragraph 4 of the decision, the panel details the 8 “Notice Facts” (which actually contain more than 8 facts) that the College was seeking judicial notice of. In paragraph 8 of the decision the panel sets out what they are prepared to take judicial notice of. I have no issue with the facts that they did take judicial notice of as I think they are facts. These facts do not help the College in proving their charges against Dr. Hoffe in any way. As a result of this decision, the College will be required to prove their case by presenting evidence that is subject to testing through cross-examination.


At paragraph 12 of the decision the panel reiterates their previous criticism of the College for bringing this judicial notice application approximately 2 weeks before the then scheduled start of the hearing which was to occur between March 1-14th 2024. It is also important to note that the panel began or opened the hearing on May 31, 2024. This is important because the College is not allowed to introduce new expert evidence or documentary evidence unless it is provided to us at least 14 days before the hearing commences.


They have indicated that if they lost this application they were going to be getting 8 additional experts and potentially 2 or 3 additional lay witnesses. I will be opposing any such argument. The Health Professions Act contains these provisions regarding the exchange of evidence to be utilized at a hearing, and it also contains a loophole that allows the panel to ignore these rules if not doing so would unduly prejudice one of the parties (s.38(4.2))  However given the fact that the Colleges recognize that Dr. Hoffe is entitled to a very high level of procedural fairness, and that is the reason s.38 (4.1) is in the HPA, I am hopeful we will be able to persuade the panel that they should not exercise their right to use s.38(4.2) in this instance to allow the College to essentially have a do over in terms of providing evidence to justify the charges set out in the citation and in their letter of particulars.


At paragraph 14 the Panel confirms that the College intends to tender expert evidence from Dr. Trevor Corneil. Although the College tried to suggest in their application materials that Dr. Corneil was simply offering background facts, when his report was originally served on Dr. Hoffe's former counsel, counsel for the College confirmed they were serving his report as an expert report. They have also previously made this commitment to the panel in other appearances.


My belief is the reason they are doing this is so that they can try to bolster their argument that they need 8 additional experts as they have previously stated, if they were unsuccessful in their judicial notice application. It is also important to note that the panel recognized that the 8 expert reports that we have tendered in response to the judicial notice of application were tendered for the purpose of supporting the veracity of the various statements made by Dr. Hoffe that he is now being persecuted for.


The College has suggested some of the additional experts they intend to call will include a cellular biologist, a virologist, a cardiologist, a hematologist and a gynecologist. (Paragraph 17). The panel summarizes the College's rationale for their application in paragraphs 15-22.  The panel points out the inconsistent position taken by the College with respect to the reliability of your expert evidence (paragraph 29-30).


The Court explains why it was prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that there is a potential for the Covid virus to cause death or other serious effects but in doing so emphasized that the level of that risk is one of the central issues in dispute. The panel notes that some of the evidence provided by Dr. Hoffe's experts confirm that the risk of severe disease and death is extremely skewed to those above 70 years of age, especially those with multiple comorbidities.

The court noted our submission that the data shows that there is a very high survival rate for those under age 70. The panel also chose to highlight some of our other arguments at paragraph 47 which I think is a good sign that they are paying attention to the submissions and felt them worthy of mention. Paragraph 48 summarizes their conclusions on this issue.


The facts that the College sought judicial notice of that were dangerous to Dr. Hoffe's defence were those in items 2-5. Thankfully the College declined to take judicial notice of any of those items (paragraph 49). The College agreed with our argument that these facts were too broad and imprecise to be the subject of judicial notice (paragraph 52), not to mention that they are not true. The panel was not about to draw that conclusion in the context of the judicial notice application however. That determination will be left to be determined after the hearing has concluded based upon the evidence presented at the hearing.


With respect to the suggestion that the virus does not discriminate, the panel accepted our argument that this was too vague to be a proper fact for judicial notice and made note of our argument that the virus does indeed discriminate in terms of who is more likely to be infected and the seriousness of the consequences to certain individuals if infected.


The panel endorsed important language in a decision rendered by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal where it held that the safety and efficacy of any drug is always relative and as a rule the safety and efficacy of a pharmaceutical product cannot be discussed in such a blunt fashion as to say that it "is" or "is not" safe and effective. The endorsement of this principle is important. (See paragraph 58).


The Panel concluded that it cannot reach an accurate and reliable conclusion on the issues raised by the College without hearing from Dr. Hoffe's experts and permitting them to be cross-examined. (Paragraph 70).

The panel makes it very clear that they have not made any determinations about the reliability of our expert evidence but does point out on a number of occasions that the College admitted that the evidence we have presented contradicts their "Notice Facts" that they sought judicial notice of.


This admission necessitated the College to make the arguments in their Reply about the reliability of, and weight to be given to, our expert opinions. (Paragraph 88).

Another conclusion of the panel that is important is where they state that appellate courts have shifted away from using judicial notice to resolve scientific questions about the safety and efficacy of pediatric Covid 19 vaccines and moved towards a presumption in favour of parental decision-making that is consistent with Health Canada recommendations in family law proceedings. These decisions conclude that parents and courts are entitled to rely on Health Canada's recommendations as indicating the course of action presumed to be in the best interest of children, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. 


While I suspect we all agree that Health Canada has not earned the privilege to be granted such a presumption, I suspect we also agree that there is compelling evidence to the contrary. The key is making sure that the people with the right qualifications clearly present that evidence to the courts and these panels so that we can start to turn the jurisprudence around on this issue and demonstrate that Health Canada should not be entitled to such a presumption.  Our expert opinion, and this case overall, presents an opportunity to begin this process. 

While the panel quotes the troubling Court of Appeal decision out of Alberta in Holden v. Holden, at paragraph 93, which stands for the proposition that courts do not need to second-guess Health Canada for the purpose of deciding whether it' s recommended vaccinations are in a child's best interests, they do endorse a very useful quote from a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in paragraph 95 which I believe is critically important.


The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in OMS v. EJS made it clear that the fact that Health Canada has granted approval of a new drug is such a broad and categorical statement that it has little meaning or utility. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal confirms that the fact that regulatory approval has occurred means only that Health Canada has determined, based on a risk-benefit analysis, that a drug is sufficiently safe, effective and of sufficient quality to be approved, if it is used in accordance with the approval, including the product monograph, together with any medical advice and monitoring that may be required.


One of the key points stated by the Court of Appeal is that they noted the existence of easy-to-find case law or reports of instances where drug companies have been found to have brought on the market products that have passed a regulatory process and have been found to be associated with risks that are later determined to have been misdescribed or missed altogether in the product information that accompanies the distribution of the product.

For those reasons, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal said that they found it impossible to arrive at a conclusion that the Pfizer vaccine is safe because it is government approved and is so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons or so capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy. In other words, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is making it clear that despite Health Canada finding a variety of drugs safe and effective in the past, many of them have later been withdrawn from the market because this conclusion turned out to be false.


While I still find the decisions in a family law context troubling, the panel does point out that in Holden in the Alberta Court of Appeal and in OMS in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that when considering whether or not a child should be vaccinated, it is not necessary to make a separate inquiry into the safety, effectiveness and desirability of vaccination unless there is sufficient evidence to put these issues into question. The example they give is evidence of child-specific medical concerns. I would suggest that general safety concerns of the product should be enough but the reality is that in family law cases often the litigants do not have access to experts like those we have been privileged to work with on this case.


The panel summarizes these cases in paragraph 100 where it makes a very important statement . The panel concludes that while in the family law context in most cases the presumption that a drug or vaccine approved by Health Canada is safe and effective will be sufficient to dispose of the issue, unless a party adduces such evidence to displace that presumption, which in such case the issues of safety or risk from vaccination should be resolved on the evidence. 

The panel also accepted our argument that a disciplinary proceeding is starkly different from all of these family law cases. Based on the jurisprudence, it is a professional discipline matter that calls for a high degree of procedural fairness (although one would think that the safety of children would be at least as important) and that the citation squarely raises the question whether the statements made by Dr. Hoffe were true.


The panel makes this important conclusion in paragraph 102 "The fact of regulatory approval does not provide a presumptive answer to this question in the same way that it does for the question of whether a child should receive a vaccine." Again I disagree with the fact that children should be subject to some lower standard of procedural fairness but at the very least we have the panel saying here that just because Health Canada approved something does not necessarily mean that they are safe or effective. The panel has decided that the must review the evidence before making such a determination.


The panel made it clear that although they were prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that Health Canada had approved the covid vaccines, they declined to take judicial notice of the assertion that regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness as has been done in a number of other cases. (Paragraph 107). The panel made a distinction that I am not sure I agree with at paragraph 108 where they distinguished the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in JN v. CG where the court found that judicial notice should be taken of regulatory approval, and that regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness, on the basis that this pertained to pediatric covid 19 vaccines.

Again I am not sure why the children are subject to a lower threshold of protection than a medical professional in a disciplinary proceeding. For our purposes with Dr. Hoffe’s matter, the panel went out of its way to distinguish this Court of Appeal decision to justify its refusal to take judicial notice of these facts sought by the College in the circumstances.


So this is one of those victories that we need to take a moment to celebrate but there are still many battles to be fought in this case. On Monday we are going back before the panel for a case planning conference and at this hearing we will likely discuss whether or not the College still intends to attempt to tender 8 additional expert reports and 2 or more additional lay witnesses, and if so, when I will be permitted to make written arguments objecting to same.

I hope you will find this encouraging and potentially helpful to others you know of that are involved in these types of situations with the professional body or health authority, or possibly in other contexts as well.

Lee C. Turner

Partner, Professional Law Corporation

Additional READING:

CPSBC: Reasons for Decision - Judicial Notice Application

Affidavit of Dr Charles Hoffe March 20,2024

Application Response to Affidavit of Dr Charles Hoffe




Rumors – Rumors - Rumors – Rumors – Rumors


RUMOURS Circulating out there...:

You need to MAKE-UP Your own MIND!






It’s Our Right Under the Constitution:

  • ·        Justice Warren E. Burger, (1907-1995) Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1969-1986): “Ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day. … These incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession. … The harsh truth is that we may well be on our way to a society, overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated.” 

  • ·        Importance of Supreme Court Ruling in SEC vs. Jarkesy, June 27, 2024: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 22–859 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PETITIONER v. GEORGE R. JARKESY, JR., ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT This case affirms the 5th Amendment “Due Process” and the 7th Amendment “Trial by Jury” are guaranteed the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, in regards to any case of Property and Liberty. Make Believe Agency Courts of justice are without authority unless all parties agree to the terms of the tribunal. To simplify, “We the People” of a “Trial by Jury” make the law as we determine what is just and fair. In practice, anyone who lost a property without a trial by jury, which is how most foreclosure cases are handled, can appeal the decision and can get their property back as there is no Statute of Limitation on equity in property. No need for an attorney as anyone can file and pursue litigation as a Sui Juris plaintiff as stipulated in the US Constitution.


Global Currency Reset:

  • ·        Mon. 8 July 2024 Wolverine: “I am pleased to share this already viral video (showing a Thailand Attorney signing a notarized document marked Confidential). It is the signature for the Redemption Centers, where the gold standard is ready. Therefore, we too...We are ready to go. God bless you all.” …Wolverine

  • What we think we know as of Tues. 9 July 2024:

  • ·        There will be an Internet Blackout.

  • ·        The White Hat Military is in control of the redemption process, which has released funds across the World for the Global Currency Reset.

  • ·        All banks have signed Non Disclosure Agreements.

  • ·        The GCR funds come directly from the US Treasury Department of Defense Operations – that go out to Treasury Departments in other countries.

  • ·        Japan has revalued their currency.

  • ·        Bond Holders have begun to be paid in Brazil.

  • ·        Notifications have gone out to Tier 4a, a small group of Tier4b and some Bond Holders.

  • ·        Soon NESARA would be announced and that announcement would be coordinated with a Supreme Court announcement on 2020 Election Fraud – which would likely dissolve the Biden Administration and all of Congress, plus set the stage for a new Election in 120 days, or by November.

  • ·        Sat. 6 July 2024 Wolverine. “It has started. It is a process hopefully completed by the 20th. I’m hoping to get the Green Light in a few days.”

  • ·        Sat. 6 July 2024 MarkZ: “More and more sources are telling me that serious money movement and us moving towards the banks somewhere around the weekend of Fri. - Mon.  12th-15th. No one knows the exact timing but they are certainly preparing lots of bank contacts for that time period, so I think it may speak well to where we may be on that.”

  • ·        Fri. 5 July 2024 Texas Snake: “Well folks it's not like we haven't heard this before but, I just got off a call from Hong Kong, London, NYC, Reno, and me. They are indicating that certain bond holder groups are having funds disbursed to paymasters over this weekend and that we as currency holders should remain vigilante for notifications this coming week.  An FYI only as banker has not suggested same.

  • ·        Sun. 7 July 2024: NESARA & QFS Plan: The Process of RV Redemption Started, Actual Signature Forms like NDA and Post-Redemption Plan Documents – Trust the Plan! - American Media Group (

  • Restored Republic:

  • How About? …The 17 Letter Q on Telegram Mon. 8 July 2024

  • ·        How about No Income Tax; No Tax on Wages; No Property Tax; No Inheritance Tax; No Sales Tax on Used Homes & Items; No Vehicle Registration Fees; No Licensing Fees; No Tax on Food and Pharmaceuticals?

  • ·        How about Dissolution of Federal Reserve Banks and IRS?

  • ·        How about returning the money stolen to Retiree's from SSN?

  • ·        How about a 14-17% National Sales Tax on New Items Only?

  • ·        How about an increase in 61+ Retiree SSN Pmts up to $5,000.00 A MONTH?

  • ·        How about Restitution of Chattel Bonds to people abused by them?

  • ·        How about the Restoration of Common Law?

  • ·        How about the Restoration of the Titles of Nobility Amendment?

  • ·        How about an end to Admiralty-Civil-Equity Laws?

  • ·        How about making an open declaration through mass media about the implementation of NESARA?

  • ·        How about a return to pre-1871 Common Law?

  • ·        How about removal of the entire BAR society from these United States? After all, it was the Esquires who destroyed this country in the first place.

  • ·        How about all cops return to "citizens on patrol" with their job to protect our "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?"

  • ·        How about Admiralty and BAR GONE?


18 views0 comments


bottom of page