Sandra Finley

2024-08-04 Alberta chiropractor cleared from regulatory overreach. Tamara Ugolini, Rebel News, reporting.

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Aug 172024
 

 

After nearly four years of investigation and disciplinary proceedings for refusing to wear a mask due to anxiety and claustrophobia, Dr. Curtis Wall has retained his chiropractic license and can continue treating patients.

Please go to the link.  The video is straight forward:

https://www.rebelnews.com/alberta_chiropractor_cleared_regulatory_fine_curtis_wall_james_kitchen?utm_campaign=buzz_07_06_24&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel

TEXT:

After nearly four years, Alberta chiropractor Curtis Wall has had his misconduct allegations secretly settled by his regulator, the College of Chiropractors of Alberta (CCOA).

“I’m pleased about it,” said Wall’s lawyer James Kitchen from Liberty Coalition Canada, who has been representing the tyrannized chiropractor since December 2020.

He’s still practicing. He likes his practice, he likes his patients. His patients like him. A lot of his new patients come to him because of this. It’s nice because he gets to help like-minded people that are looking for freedom-oriented chiropractors. People deserve to have good chiropractors that are freedom-oriented and love the truth.

Wall’s trials and tribulations began in 2020, after the CCOA implemented a no-exceptions mask mandate through a pandemic practice directive. After attempting to mask for several weeks, but struggling with anxiety and claustrophobia, Wall stopped wearing a mask from June 2020 onward.

The CCOA sought a full suspension of Wall’s license and wanted to fine him tens of thousands of dollars for his noncompliance. Despite mask science getting its day in court, with virologist and vaccinologist Dr. Byram Bridle showing how even five masks with a seal around the mouth do not stop the spread of aerosols, the college found Wall guilty of professional misconduct based on lone expert testimony by public health physician Jia Hu.

Hu is the CEO and CO-FOUNDER of 19 to Zero, a conflict-of-interest-riddled vaccine uptake group that focuses on behaviour change to coerce vaccine confidence while receiving funding from pharmaceutical companies.

In April of this year, Kitchen filed a Section 93 application to vary the charges against Wall, based on the Ingram Decision in Alberta. The decision found that certain pandemic-related public health orders breached the Public Health Act when politicians, instead of the chief medical officer of health, signed off on them.

This application highlighted that Wall was being penalized based on invalidated regulations, and sought to have the penalties placed on Dr. Wall varied or removed altogether, including an order of him to pay $65,000 in fines or risk losing his license.

When inquiring with the CCOA about the decision and requesting a copy, they stated that “Pursuant to a settlement agreement the parties entered into, CCOA will not be providing a copy of the decision. The College of Chiropractors of Alberta and Dr. Curtis Wall have reached an agreement that settles all aspects of the unprofessional conduct matters involving Dr. Wall. Dr. Wall is no longer challenging the findings of unprofessional conduct.”

Although the decision may not be posted publicly due to the settlement agreement, there’s a clear distinction between public posting and providing a copy upon request, especially given that the CCOA is supposed to serve as a public interest body.

The College has since updated the verbiage on their website from what they sent via email, to read:

“The College of Chiropractors of Alberta and Dr. Curtis Wall have reached an agreement that settles all aspects of the unprofessional conduct matters involving Dr. Wall. Dr. Wall is no longer challenging the findings of unprofessional conduct.”

While the public remains in the dark about the decision, this outcome seems favourable for Dr. Wall. However, the lack of transparency from regulatory bodies raises serious concerns about potential abuse of power, regulatory overreach, and the undermining of effective legal precedent.

2024-08-06 Appeals Court Dismisses Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Merck Over MMR Vaccine. Brenda Baletti, CHD

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Aug 172024
 

Toxic Exposures

A federal appeals court upheld a 2023 lower court ruling in a lawsuit alleging Merck misled the CDC about the potency of its mumps vaccine. Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland, an attorney, called the decision “a very sad day for justice.”

by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
August 6, 2024
mmr vaccine on left and merck logo with syringe on right
14 Comments

A federal appeals court today dismissed a lawsuit against Merck alleging the company misled the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by “omitting, concealing and misrepresenting” information about the potency of its mumps vaccine.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld a July 2023 U.S. District Court decision in United States ex rel. Krahling v. Merck & Co., which found that even though Merck may have made false claims to the CDC, those claims didn’t play a role in the agency’s decision to purchase the vaccine for its Vaccines for Children Program.

“Even if we assume, as the District Court did, that Merck made misrepresentations (i.e., false claims), based on our de novo review of these considerations, no reasonable jury could conclude that the representations were material to the CDC’s purchasing decisions,” the ruling stated.

In other words, the judges said that even if the evidence shows the government knew about Merck’s misrepresentations and data falsification related to its mumps vaccine because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was aware of the behavior and the CDC continued to purchase the vaccine with that knowledge, the company was not in violation of the False Claims Act.

According to the ruling, the alleged fraud — misrepresenting and falsifying data about vaccine testing, potency and shelf life — was “minor or insubstantial.”

Coming to a​​theater near youSeptember 2024
Get Tickets

‘This is big money winning in court’

Attorney Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender she was “astonished” the court could reach such a conclusion. “It’s a very sad day for justice.”

Holland said:

“The Court remarkably found that Merck’s alleged violations were ‘minor and insubstantial,’ defying logic. A decision like this makes people lose faith in courts as arbiters of justice.

“The plaintiff whistleblowers filed this False Claims Act case against Merck in 2010, over 14 years ago. They detailed outrageous fraud upon fraud by Merck, with apparent collusion by the FDA, to falsify the potency of the mumps component in the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine for which Merck held a patent.”

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD’s chief scientific officer, said the decision makes it clear that Merck defrauded the government and the U.S. public and the company has been selling a defective product that has never has been appropriately tested for safety or efficacy and is known to lead to breakthrough mumps infections.

He added:

“However, in their conclusion, the court detailed how CDC can wave their magic wand and make this whole episode go away. The CDC simply colluded with Merck by buying and then foisting a defective product onto America’s children.

“Evidently, if the government knows it’s being defrauded, then fraud is OK — regardless of the collateral damage.”

Mark Blaxill, co-author of “The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-Made Epidemic,” who has covered the case since 2012 told The Defender he expects the CDC, FDA and Merck will argue that the decision vindicates them.

However, he said, all of the information that came out in the discovery process shows “the whistleblowers are the heroes here. They shone a light on the dirty dealmaking that goes on between the FDA and Big Pharma. It’s ugly, it’s unaccountable, and they cut corners and they do everything to keep information private.”

“This is big money winning in court,” he said, “because Merck had more money and more time and just took almost 15 years, spending enormous resources.”

Gavel and money vaccines

The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.

Please Donate Today

The FDA inspected Merck’s lab and confirmed evidence of data falsification.

Krahling and Wlochowski in August 2010 sued Merck as “relators” on behalf of the U.S. government alleging the company engaged in efforts over more than a decade to hide the fact that its mumps vaccine was less effective than the company claims.

When people file cases as relators on behalf of the U.S. government, the government can decide whether it wants to intervene in the case. In 2012, after the government declined to intervene, Krahling and Wlochowski filed an amended complaint alleging the mumps vaccine was “mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated and falsely certified as having an efficacy rate that is significantly higher than it actually is.”

They said the company did this to maintain its monopoly on the mumps vaccine market and continue selling the vaccine to the U.S. government. As a result, Merck made hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that doesn’t provide the immunization against disease that it claims.

“This vaccine has injured tens of thousands of children around the world, both directly in brain and other injuries, and indirectly, by failing to prevent disease and leaving them prey to mumps later in life,” Holland said.

“Again and again, the court repeats that ‘no reasonable jury’ could find for plaintiffs. The case should have been sent back to a jury — and then we would have learned how a ‘reasonable jury’ would decide.”

Dr. Andy Wakefield, director of the film “Protocol 7,” which chronicles the fraud, told The Defender, “First, the FDA and now the courts have decided to protect a demonstrably dishonest industry at the expense of U.S. children. The court’s decision is a disgrace. The award-winning movie ‘Protocol 7’ stands as an indelible record of Merck’s misconduct.”

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

2024-08-08 Robert Malone said I should know what Agenda 20 – 30 is. Plus Aldous Huxley interview 1962.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?  No Responses »
Aug 172024
 

You are spared!  I don’t have time for elaboration on these items.

In his address at the Mises Institute, Robert Malone said I should know what Agenda 20 – 30  is:

2024-08-01 lecture at Mises Institute by Dr. Robert Malone. Centered around 5th generational warfare and surveillance capitalism.

AGENDA 20  –  30   What is it? . . .  The Website:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf 

What about “5th generational warfare and surveillance capitalism”?

My experience of Lockheed Martin Corp; of Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden make me attentive to information about “5th generational warfare and surveillance capitalism”.

= = = = = = = = = =

1962 Aldous Huxley Interview  Also recommended by Malone

0:00 / 46:16     Aldous Huxley – Speaking Personally II (1962)

2024-08-14 WHO: The News – we lost this round of the battle. Changes to the IHR are a done deal, without a quorum or due process. / / Health Canada accuses the public of misinformation while scrambling to address internal missing information, by Tamara Ugolini, Rebel News

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Aug 172024
 

There are been a global citizen effort to stop the WHO’s global health dictatorship.  We have participated.   We lost this round of the battle.

Amendments to the IHR are particularly concerning since they are existing, legally binding international law and changes to them have been rushed through without a quorum or due process.

Some other countries have refused the loss of sovereignty to the WHO.  Canada is not one of them.  Without Tamara’s work, I would not know that Canada just went along with the handing over of sovereign rights.  

BACKGROUND:

– – – – – – – – – – – –

WHO: The News – we lost this round of the battle. Changes to the IHR are a done deal, without a quorum or due process. / /

The agencies overseeing Canada’s role with the World Health Organization accuse others of spreading ‘misinformation,’ yet exclusive documents obtained by Rebel News show the bureaucrats involved struggled to develop talking points due to a lack of information.

https://www.rebelnews.com/exclusive_health_canada_accuses_the_public_of_misinformation_while_scrambling_to_address_internal_missing_information 

In 2022, it became clear that information on Canada’s messaging and talking points regarding its role in global interest groups was severely lacking, including how high-level bureaucrats balance their democratic responsibilities versus their alignment with globalist organizations like the World Health Organization.

The WHO boils down to a globalist health dictatorship that has been working to strengthen its global health surveillance and control mandate since the COVID-19 pandemic.

They’re doing this through two apparatuses – the first, by amending international law through proposed changes to existing International Health Regulations and the second, by developing a new pandemic agreement (accord, treaty).

Amendments to the IHR are particularly concerning since they are existing, legally binding international law and changes to them have been rushed through without a quorum or due process.

The WHO describes the IHR as an “overarching legal framework that defines countries’ rights and obligations in handling public health events and emergencies that have the potential to cross borders.”

The “cornerstone of the IHR” are called “Public Health Emergencies of International Concern” and they’re declared at the whim of the WHO’s director general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, whose organization receives a majority of its funding from pharmaceutical backers like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their global vaccine enterprise known as GAVI.

Recently, Tedros went so far as to call for aggressive pushback on anti-vaxxers who didn’t take a rushed-to-market experimental genetic injection, who now question the marketing slogan “safe and effective.”

 

 

The IHR require countries to set up a “National IHR Focal Point for communications with the WHO” to “establish and maintain core surveillance and response capacities” including at points of entry (borders) and maintain international travel “health documents” (vaccine passports).

The WHO may state that all of this is being done while safeguarding travellers’ rights and personal data, but if the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic were any indication, all of that can be easily and readily swept aside under the guise of health and “the greater good.”

The strict requirements and centralized control laid out by the globalist health dictatorship at the sole direction of Tedros is concerning for nations said to operate democracies.

By June 2022, health agents were seeking to refine media lines around the IHR amendments in an email addressed to Laurie Hunter, director general at the Centre of emergency preparedness at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).

“We’re in the process of updating our media lines on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and OIA [Office of International Affairs] suggested that you and Cindy Evans [Vice President, PHAC] should also review and approve the content since EMB is the technical lead and authority for the IHR in Canada.”

EMB stands for the Emergency Management Branch, which has little publicly posted, except for a link, which directs to a Health Canada initiative offering International Health Regulation training to the “International Health Regulations Policy Team.”

That must be the brand new bureaucracy (that no one voted for), dedicated to ensuring Canada’s participation in this Global Health Architecture initiative being top-down instituted by the WHO.

The email continues, “As you probably know, there has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation in the media and on social media regarding the outcomes of the 75th World Health Assembly in regard to the amendments to the IHR. We have received a few media requests on this and have seen quite a bit of discussion on social media as well. We’re hoping these lines can help clarify the situation and correct some of that mis and disinformation.”

As further explained in the emails, these “Media Lines” were first requested for a PHAC spokesperson to attend the CPHA conference – the Canadian Public Health Association’s yearly conference, sponsored almost entirely by pharmaceutical companies.

A broader email request went out again asking for media lines on Canada’s Global health strategy.

Within the hour, senior communications advisor at Health Canada and PHAC, Lisa Edwards, writes, “Unfortunately, I don’t have anything on Canada’s Global Health Strategy, but I am the lead on the IHR piece” and that “The lines were approved today and are being translated.”

This was after other communications gurus had nothing tangible to add to the conversation, stating that they “don’t have any content on this” and “This is a tricky one. Still looking for lines on Canada’s Global Health Strategy and the IHR resolution at the World Health Assembly.”

Despite missing information and internal disarray, the bureaucrats go on to accuse those fact-checking and sourced directly from the WHO of spreading misinformation.

When targeting the approval date for these media lines, the agency said “There is flexibility, but given the mis and disinformation and inquiries coming in, we may want to move through the approvals as quickly as possible.”

Indeed, the inquiries were coming from Rebel News. All of this communication began three weeks after media requests were sent to Health Canada inquiring if they would be putting forth proposed amendments to the IHR. If so, requesting where Canadians could go to find out more about proposals and changes.

The lack of cohesion in knowing how to respond to this straightforward inquiry is confirmed in another email when the health bureaucrats were trying to finalize the response. “Also, would recommend we do not at this time use the words ‘limited in scope’; we don’t yet what the overall ambition will be and therefore should not prejudge.”

Yet the bureaucracy prejudges anyone critical or skeptical of this initiative as spreading “mis and disinformation.”

Part of the media lines confirms Canada’s commitment to the WHO and the “view that possible amendments should address specific issues, challenges or gaps that cannot effectively be addressed otherwise, but that are critical to supporting IHR implementation and compliance.”

Internal communications confirm that at the 75th World Health Assembly in 2022 (which is the governing body of the WHO that meets each year in May) certain amendments were adopted.

“After a series of informal discussions, Member States came to consensus on the following decisions regarding IHR amendments” by reducing the “time of entry into force of any future amendments from 24 to 12 months” and agreed on a “forward negotiation process to consider future amendments to the IHR,” which began in the fall of 2022.

At the World Health Assembly in May 2024, appointed chief public health officer of Canada, Theresa Tam, committed all 38 million Canadians to strengthen WHO authority by endorsing amendments to the IHR amendments and formalizing the language of the new pandemic treaty, agreement, or accord.

On June 1, it was confirmed that through a resolution, the WHA (and thus the WHO), “adopted the package of amendments to the IHR.”

The 62-page document outlining all of the changes includes an example of an international certificate of vaccination, specifying a vaccine or prophylaxis that “has been approved by the World Health Organization.”

It also mandates states develop various initiatives to prevent, prepare and respond to public health emergencies, including developing, strengthening and maintaining core capacities such as “surveillance” and “risk communication,” including “addressing mis and disinformation.”

2024-08-16 COUTTS: Crown is appealing the ACQUITTAL by Jury decision, of conspiracy to murder a police officer; men remain in remand. Western Standard.

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Aug 162024
 
In follow-up to:  2024-08-02    Coutts. Jury: Carbert & Olienick NOT guilty of conspiracy to murder RCMP officers.  PANEL DISCUSSION MONDAY, AUG 5TH.  EXCELLENT. Courtesy of Jason Lavigne.
Crown is appealing the ACQUITTAL by Jury decision, of conspiracy to murder a police officer.
Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick
Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick Courtesy Bridge City News/YouTube

Alberta Justice Crown prosecutors are appealing the court’s decision to acquit conspiracy to murder a police officer charges against Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick.

The pair was found not guilty two weeks ago.

Carbert and Olienick are two of the four “Coutts 4.” The other two, Christopher Lysak and Jerry Morin, were released earlier this year after pleading guilty to lesser charges. All of them were held in remand since the Coutts border blockade in February 2022, the same time as the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.

Carbert and Olienick, despite the most serious charge against them being dropped, continue to be held in remand without bail. They have been held well over 900 days so far. They still face lesser mischief-related charges. The two men have not yet been sentenced for those charges, but a hearing is scheduled for August 26.

Marco Van Huigenbos, who along with Alex Van Herk and George Janzen are known as the “Coutts 3,” another group charged with mischief in connection with the border protest, said “the rate this appeal has been filed is unheard of.”

“The courts have been weaponized,” he wrote on social media Thursday evening, targeting Crown Prosecutor Steven Johnson.

“Murderers, rapists and dangerous repeat offenders get bail daily while political dissidents are jailed and dragged through the courts.”

“Even a jury of our peers is no longer credible enough to stop the warfare being executed by Stephen Johnson and his cronies.”

Independent journalist Jason Lavigne, who has been covering the court proceedings in Lethbridge, AB, said the appeal “is insane.”

“With over a million spent on the defence and counting, the process is certainly the punishment,” he wrote on social media.

“Also, the Crown saying that 12 members of the Lethbridge public that made up the Jury were wrong, is another big attack on innocent Albertans and our legal system.”

2024-08-16 Ontario’s Amish community faces unprecedented fines ($400,000) and legal hurdles, because of the ArriveCan App. They don’t use phones, let alone smartphones; “Apps” are unknown. By Rebel News.

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Aug 162024
 

WITH THANKS TO REBEL NEWS, EZRA LEVANT

 

https://www.rebelnews.com/amish_community_under_attack_over_digital_mandates_they_didnt_know_existed?utm_

. . .  Ezra reveals how Ontario’s Amish community is under siege, facing unprecedented fines and legal hurdles.

In the serene countryside of Chatsworth, a community of Amish farmers lives as if in the 18th century, adhering strictly to their faith and traditions.

Their simple way of life — without electricity (INSERT, Sandra:  from the Ontario grid – they do use electricity from their own diesel-powered generator); without telephones, or the internet — sets them apart from the rest of the modern world. Yet, this peaceful community is now grappling with a problem no one would have expected: a heavy-handed government bent on enforcing digital compliance.

The Amish, originally from Europe, found refuge in North America, escaping persecution in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland.

They settled in regions like Pennsylvania in the United States; and in Canada, where they could live according to their beliefs. Hollywood has romanticized the Amish way of life, as seen in the Harrison Ford movie Witness, which highlighted their detachment from modern society.

Renewed persecution began with the Canadian government’s enforcement of the ArriveCan app during the COVID-19 pandemic. This app was mandatory for anyone entering Canada, requiring travelers to submit their health information digitally.

The Amish, however, do not use smartphones, let alone apps. They also have religious exemptions from vaccinations, making the use of such technology unnecessary and intrusive for them. Yet, despite these clear exemptions, the government insisted on compliance, leading to severe penalties.

The result? The Amish community in Chatsworth has been slapped with nearly $400,000 in fines for not using the ArriveCan app. This is a community that doesn’t use electricity, let alone digital applications.

The fines were not just a bureaucratic oversight — they were a targeted action. The government went so far as to place liens on their properties, effectively freezing their ability to obtain loans and transfer land titles within families. These punitive measures have left the Amish community in a state of shock and despair.

Imagine being a farmer in need of a loan to buy cattle, only to be told that your property has a lien on it because of fines related to an app you cannot even use.

This situation is not just an attack on the Amish economy; it’s a direct assault on their religious freedoms. The government’s actions have created an uneven playing field, where a community that lives without modern conveniences is being punished for not participating in a digital system. It’s a blatant case of bureaucratic bullying, and it’s happening right under our noses.

Fortunately, The Democracy Fund has stepped in. They’ve begun taking up the cases of these Amish families, working to overturn the unjust fines and remove the liens placed on their properties. However, the road ahead is long and fraught with challenges, especially given the unique nature of the Amish community’s way of life.

The Amish may not fight back themselves — they are pacifists by nature — but they have welcomed the help of others who see the injustice in what’s happening.

This is not just a fight for the Amish; it’s a fight for religious freedom and the right to live according to one’s beliefs without government interference.

It’s time to stand with the Amish and ensure that their way of life, so different yet so enriching to the fabric of our society, is protected from unwarranted government intrusion.

campaign=buzz_08_16_24&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel

2024-08-16 Day 41 of the Lich/Barber trial, with thanks to The Democracy Fund

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Aug 162024
 
Day 41 of the Lich/Barber trial

Tamara Lich Trial Highlights: August 15, 2024
OTTAWA: Day 41 began with closing submissions of Diane Magas – counsel for Chris Barber.

Ms. Magas focused her arguments on the mens rea – or subjective intent – of her client. She noted that a conviction can only follow if a court finds that the accused had the required state of mind and actually committed the offence. She referred to text and video of her client at specific times during the protest.

She noted that the Crown cannot simply refer to the group mischief that occurred during the freedom convoy protest: the Crown must prove each element of the offence against each of the accused.

Ms. Magas noted that her client’s original plan was to slow-roll his truck from Alberta and Saskatchewan. However this plan changed as trucks approached Ottawa. At this time, there was no concern or discussion about “gridlock.” She says Barber, in actions and words, was morally innocent – his intent was to protest peacefully using a slow-roll of his truck.

She said that, as the protest progressed and trucks entered Ottawa, a lack of planning by police caused gridlock: the OPS underestimated the amount of protesters and had no appropriate plan to contain or move them. She referred to the testimony of one officer who acknowledged that “the event exceeded our capacity.” She showed a video of Barber; he claimed police told him to park on Wellington – thus, presumably, he cannot be said to intend to block Wellington. Other truckers arrived, parked in the downtown core and began to gridlock the city. She said that as people left the protest, the police did not handle the removal properly – which contributed to the continuing gridlock. For example, vehicles driving out of the city encountered barriers that police had erected to prevent entry.

Ms. Magas also referred to a text to Barber where a protester says, “we need to gridlock.” Barber later answers that “it’s already locked: we trainwrecked it.” Ms. Magas argued that there was no intent to gridlock the city since it had already occurred. Regarding the meeting about causing city-wide traffic congestion, about which Lich said, “I don’t want to make that decision on my own,” Ms. Magas contended that Lich may have contacted Barber because he’s a reasonable, level-headed person – this, she said, this is a plausible interpretation of the exchange. Ms. Magas referred to numerous texts from her client where he told truckers not to venture into residential areas, not to gridlock roads and to leave emergency lanes open.

Ms. Magas argued that her client was communicating with, and listening to, the police: he moved his truck, encouraged others to do so, and agreed to lawfully slow roll.  Ms. Magas noted that her client surrounded himself with lawyers to ensure he acted legally. He had the support of former premiers. He sought advice regarding peaceful protesting: this, she said, all goes to mens rea.

She said, however, that Barber could not control the different groups and factions: these protesters would often engage in conduct of which he disapproved.

Ms. Magas then turned to the phrase, “Hold the line.” She says the Crown claims it means “form a line together and hold it” when confronting police. However, she suggested that it can have multiple meanings. It could mean “be patient.” She refers to evidence where Barber said, “hold the line: we are all so proud of you.” The Court said it may also mean “stay true to your beliefs.”

On February 14th, in response to a question from a protester asking if he is ok, Barber said, “yes, holding the line.” But Ms. Magas noted that there was no physical protest line at this point.

Ms. Magas noted that other references also allowed for multiple meanings. Similar phrases are also used: “be strong,” “be patient,” “be peaceful,” “be safe.” She said Barber ended many of his videos differently, using different phrases.

The Court agreed that the context of each conversation will determine the meaning of a phrase.

The Court noted that at one point, the police and protesters used the same phrase, “hold the line,” when facing each other.

Mr. Magas showed a video where the phrase “hold the line” was used in reference to Charter rights. She said that Barber was there to exercise these rights. Thus, the Crown cannot contend that there is a single reasonable inference of the phrase. She said that it is not the case that each time Barber used the phrase, he encouraged intimidation: there are other reasonable interpretations.

Ms. Magas noted that the Crown said the charge of obstruction arises because Barber and Lich  “metaphorically stood shoulder to shoulder” with protesters. Ms. Magas. However, she noted that there is no actus reus of “metaphorically” standing together. The Court suggested that it may be counselling if an accused tells protesters to obstruct.

Finally, Ms. Magas noted that Barber was compliant during his arrest. This, she said, showed that he was leading by example: he was demonstrating the importance of not resisting police and remaining compliant.

The Court then adjourned until August 19.

 

2024-08-15 Scotiabank de-banked a customer of 20 years. A woman of my age. Read C.L.E.A.R. on the use of CASH.

 Uncategorized  No Responses »
Aug 152024
 

This posting is an amalgam.  Thanks to C.L.E.A.R. for the info about the tug-of-war between banksters and citizens over digital currency versus cash.

Thanks to Rebel News for the variety of reports, such as the Scotiabank ARBITRARY de-banking of a 20-year client.  It’s shocking when examples are collected in a single report.

The de-banked customer could as easily (more easily, given my blog) be me.

A recent story of a Scotiabank branch “de-banking” a customer of 20 years is almost unbelievable.  But so was the blocked access to bank accounts and credit cards during the covid years.

The de-banked story follows – – below this

From the C.L.E.A.R. Newsletter:

REMINDER

New Credit Card Fees & Lack of Privacy

It is starting – Use cash as much as possible – use credit cards or digital only if there is no other alternative.

The Bank of Canada is admittedly planning for digital currency. It claims that it will not replace cash – BUT – and here is the caveat, it will continue to use cash “notes for as long as Canadians want them.”

In other words, if you don’t use cash, you will lose it. Reading between the lines, it is clear that the Gov’t will simply issue press releases and polls showing most Canadians don’t use and/or don’t want cash, and then the Bank of Canada will claim it has to eliminate cash because few people are using it or want it, and it is, ironically, too costly to maintain printing the notes and coins.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/digitaldollar/#what-digital-canadian

Bill Still, the US Patriot and author of the incredible documentary, The Money Masters, outlines the results of recent polls showing that 86% of Canadians fear the digital dollar!!! Wow.

87% of Canadians have heard or are aware of the Bank of Canada’s CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency), and 82% are strongly opposed to it!!

https://www.thestillreport.com/post/bank-of-canada-survey-86-fear-digital-dollar-the-still-report-episode-4280

More on this issue in the next newsletter!

Companies will not use digital currency if we are not using digital currency!

It will cost them too much in lost business.

Here is two awesome posters that you can distribute to all businesses to put on their entrance doors, advocating for the use of cash. Print on 8 1/2 x 11 glossy hard stock for best results.

For Business owners:

 

The dangers of digital gov’t ID and currencies are here… you need to use cash as much as possible. As recognized by Freedom Rising, there are many inherent dangers of using digital currency. What do you do, not if, but when:

The internet is down

There is a power outage

The card reader malfunctions

Your phone battery dies or doesn’t work for other reasons

WE SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS WELL:

Your phone is stolen

Your passwords are co-opted

Your credit/debit card strip is damaged – needs replacing

There are errors in relation to the quantum of $$ on your card

Gov’t limits your purchases/CRA liens the balance on your card

AND MANY OTHER DANGERS

CLEAR has promoted the non-use of digital currencies and credit/debit cards as much as possible, for years.

 

Suggested Solution:

Withdraw money on Saturday/Sunday from the bank or bank machine, and then leave your money at home if you are scared to carry it with you, and just carry the amounts of cash for each day’s purchases for the week.

NO MORE CARDS!!!! NO EXCUSES!

USE CASH $$$$$$$$$

Do you want to be the next person to be “unbanked” because of your political beliefs????

Get these cards below at the CLEAR booth to give out everytime you use cash – or print your own to hand out!

Make Business sized cards to hand out at all your cash purchases!

 

Senior citizen has accounts terminated by Scotiabank apparently for criticizing DEI policy

Toronto resident ‘Jane’ tells David Menzies that Scotiabank terminated her 20-year relationship with the company because she criticized its diversity, equity and inclusion policy.

Do you remember the good old days when Canada’s big banks were all about… financial services? Savings and chequeing accounts, RRSPs, mortgages, and so on?

Increasingly, these days, thanks to the virus that is “wokeness”, Canada’s big banks are actually “de-banking” certain customers. These are not deadbeat clients nor con artists. Rather, thanks to the unholy trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion, if a bank deems a client guilty of “wrong-thought”, that customer might very well be “fired.”

This disturbing Orwellian approach to financial services surely hit a crescendo in 2022 when thousands of Canadians had their bank accounts frozen simply for making an online donation to the Freedom Convoy. It was equal parts shocking and disgraceful.

And consider our story last year, in which we drew attention to the case of Gary Duke of Grand Prairie, Alta. He was fired as a customer by his local Scotiabank branch when Gary politely asked if it was possible to remove the rainbow icon from his Scotiabank phone app given “Pride Month” had come to an end.

Those comments were not appreciated nor tolerated, and in the name of “inclusivity”, Gary had his bank accounts terminated.

Our latest example of wokeness driving bank policy is the inexplicable case regarding Toronto senior citizen “Jane” (she doesn’t want her real name used as she doesn’t want to incur further penalization from any other banks).

Earlier this year, a Scotiabank branch in west end Toronto terminated her accounts. But why? Was Jane running a financial scam? Does she have links to a terrorist organization? Hardly.

Jane suspects she was given the axe because she dared make a suggestion regarding the bank’s diversity, equity and inclusion policy. Which is to say, she suggested that the bank should include seniors in its inclusion policy, not just members of the LGBT-etc.-etc. community.

Alas, for having the temerity to make such a suggestion, Jane was sent a letter from bank manager Guy Morin telling her that the bank was terminating its relationship with her.

And get this: we can only speculate what the real reason is for this termination, given that the bank manager would not state anything tangible for Jane getting the axe.

Indeed, this is what Guy Morin stated to Jane in an email:

After careful consideration, The Bank of Nova Scotia… has decided to end our relationship with you. We understand it will take time for you to make arrangements with another financial institution, therefore we are providing you this advance notice of the date on which each of your accounts and other products/services will be closed. Our decision complies with the conditions in the agreements you have with us.

But again, the question arises: what “conditions in the agreement” did Jane breach? We reached out to the manager and Scotiabank’s media relations department and even paid a visit to the branch, but no comment was offered. Of note, even though we are firmly entrenched in the month of August, this branch still had its Pride propaganda on full display.

The censorious behaviour of Canada’s big banks is shocking albeit hardly surprising. After all, back in December 2021, the Toronto head office for the Royal Bank of Canada cancelled a mortgage for a Calgary property that Rebel News was hoping to acquire.

Please note that our company had been pre-approved for the mortgage by a Royal Bank branch in Calgary. But when it came to rubber-stamping the approval at Royal Bank HQ in Toronto, the mortgage application was denied.

The reasons for the refusal had absolutely nothing to do with the financial wellbeing of Rebel News. Rather, the woke Royal Bank head honchos apparently didn’t care for our editorial viewpoint. Unbelievable…

Lesson learned: Canada’s big banks no longer solely judge clients on their financial merits. These days, the banks want to make certain their clients are not guilty of “wrong thought.” And if you are deemed guilty of harbouring a non-woke opinion, then these big banks will think nothing of declaring you persona non grata

 

2024-08-07 Implications. Biden/Harris Team REVEALS How They Manipulated Voters to Think Biden’s Mental Decline was “Disinformation”. Link to The Orf Report. Plus Flashback to Tim Walz’ snitch-line (Kamala Harris’ running mate).

 Democracy requirements, deficits, solutions  No Responses »
Aug 092024
 

(Re  Implications.  The “revealing” was not intentional.   But it is very revealing to me.  Distressing because these are youngish people doing this.  It is as though they are oblivious to WHAT they are doing.  They are using their talents to help drive the USA further into fascism.  Dragging everyone else along with them.)

RECLAIM THE NET (from the UK).  Newsletter,  2024-08-09,
MASSAGING ONLINE NARRATIVES

How the Biden Campaign Redefined Misinformation to Control the Online Narrative
Evidence keeps piling up that the use of the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” has become the ultimate tactic to manipulate and censor people and content, invalidate legitimate arguments, and control the narratives.

Matt Orfalea writes about the case of Joe Biden, and the effort his team put into trying to convince voters that any (as it turned out, completely legitimate) talk about the president’s mental decline was “disinformation.”

Related: Biden’s New Frontier: Targeting “Misinformation” Around The World 
A Zoom call between three members of that team has now surfaced, dating to the 2020 campaign, when questions were already being asked about the state of health of then-candidate Biden.

And according to them – the manipulative methods that they discuss, designed to dispel those concerns – supposedly resulted in Biden receiving 200,000 more votes than he would have.

Biden-Harris digital director Rob Flaherty, Biden’s Rapid Response Director Becca Rinkevich (after the election, the White House Deputy Director of Digital Strategy), and DNC Counter-Disinformation Program creator and lead analyst Tim Durigan were on the call when they spoke about how to counter “misinformation” regarding Biden’s health and other issues.

Flaherty, who is now Deputy Campaign Manager for Kamala Harris, is considered a key figure in the censorship efforts of the Biden administration during the past four years and is known for trying to influence social media like Facebook to silence Covid vaccine skeptics, including journalist Tucker Carlson.

At one point, Orfalea writes, he even refused to define “misinformation” while under oath.

However, Flaherty was more than comfortable talking about it during the video call, and pinpointing what “misinformation narratives” would be – for example, people discussing Biden’s corruption record, or the state of his mental fitness, among other similarly damaging topics to the then-candidate.

It proceeds from this that the definition of “misinformation” would be – “anything that the Biden team found inconvenient,” Orfalea notes.

Rinkevich agreed that discussing Biden’s mental decline was to be treated as “disinformation.”

And, ironically, even though legacy media – searching for any explanation for the outcome of the 2016 ballot, other than the will of the voters – mercilessly criticized Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, the Biden campaign team embraced Cambridge Analytica’s “psychographic targeting.”

“We targeted folks based on online behavioral cues, building out personas, based on the type of content they were consuming, what they were searching, the kinds of websites they were visiting so that we could target folks in real-time as they were exposed to that disinformation,” said Rinkevich.

Then there’s “true misinformation” (what would be the opposite of that, one wonders).

Tim Durigan didn’t, instead concurring that “true misinformation” was “a huge problem.”

Writes Orfalea: “(Durigan) wants social media to suppress ‘true misinformation’ to promote ‘authoritative’ news sources like NYT. Big Tech’s done that since ’18, but apparently not enough for Durigan.”

Get the full post here.
 

FLASHBACK

Walz’s 2020 Covid Snitch Hotline Sparks Debate Amid VP Bid
In 2020, as the reaction to the Covid pandemic tightened its global grip, the administration of Minnesota’s Democratic Governor, Tim Walz, controversially initiated a hotline encouraging citizens to report non-compliant neighbors, opening a Pandora’s box of surveillance reminiscent of dystopian literature.

This move has once again sparked discussion about Walz, following his newly-minted status as the running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris in the imminent 2024 presidential election.

Serving a dual purpose, the hotline — referred to by critics as the Covid snitch line — enabled thousands of Minnesotans to both voice their concerns about perceived health risks and expose those allegedly flouting the restrictive coronavirus-sensitive rules revolving around gatherings and social activities.

Watch the clip here.

Referred to by some as “the Office of Public Safety Stay At Home Hotline,” the service became a platform for callers to report everything from religious congregation activities to outdoor sports events.

The line even reportedly recorded concerns about a local church’s activities potentially violating the mandated rules.

Complaints received via the hotline were varied in nature. Anything from unmasked shopping for nonessential items to unsanctioned social gatherings was fair game, echoing mistrust amongst friends and neighbors in the wake of the controversial crackdown.

 

Biden/Harris Team Reveals How They Manipulated Voters to Think Biden’s Mental Decline was “Disinformation”

Matt Orfalea – Orf Report
Aug 07, 2024

2024-08-08 Lawfare, what is it?

 Rule of Law  No Responses »
Aug 072024
 

Lawfare – – meaning?

Using the law as a weapon of war.   (short and simple – – I like that!)

I am seeing the word used more and more.

Take a look under “Numerous charges dropped during August” in this 2023 posting.  The war to take away Free Speech, Bodily Autonomy, etc. Charter Rights – –  the Government uses lawfare to coerce, intimidate, and force citizens who oppose into bankruptcy.  We resist.

2023-09-10 For your Selection, Updates on Covid Court Challenges. Numerous charges dropped during August. Big in US – an appeals Court finds that Biden Admin did censor free speech.

Every month, for almost a year, I report on more court cases;  charges being dropped,  And still they don’t stop.  They don’t learn.  They persist in using the Courts to thrash people.  Recent is the example of the Amish.

They don’t learn because their agenda is not Justice.  They are the Kings and Courtiers.  They want to control, to dictate.

War – a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.  The definition evolves along with technology and globalization.

See also:

2024-08-21    Unwarranted criminal prosecution, definition

WIKIPEDIA SAYS:

Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual’s usage of their legal rights. The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g., strategic lawsuits against public participation), or winning a public relations victory. Alternatively, it may describe a tactic used by repressive regimes to label and discourage civil society or individuals from claiming their legal rights via national or international legal systems. This is especially common in situations when individuals and civil society use nonviolent methods to highlight or oppose discrimination, persecution, corruption, lack of democracy, limiting freedom of speech, violations of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.

Definition

The term is a portmanteau of the words “law” and “warfare”.[citation needed] Perhaps the first use of the term[original research?] “lawfare” was in the 1975 manuscript Whither Goeth the Law, which argues that the Western legal system has become overly rational and treats persons like objects as compared to so-called “Community Law”, which is based more on humanity and intuition. As an example of the use of such an approach, the Confucian Code of Propriety (Li) is mentioned, which was used in China and Korea in the past.[1][2]

A more frequently cited use of the term is found in a 2001 essay authored by Charles J. Dunlap Jr., in which Dunlap defines lawfare as “the use of law as a weapon of war”; that is, “a method of warfare where law is used as a means of realizing a military objective”.[3][4] He later expanded on the definition, describing lawfare as “the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting” a superior military power.[5] In this sense, lawfare may be a more humane substitute for military conflict, although Dunlap considers lawfare a “cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian values it represents”.[4]

Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney, and Jack Goldsmith employ the word in the name of the Lawfare website, which focuses on national security law and has explored the debate over the definition of lawfare and whether it should be considered exclusively a pejorative.[6]

Adversarial uses of legal systems by non-state actors has also been identified under the similar classification of paper terrorism, based on an analogous comparison to conventional armed terrorism.[citation needed]

Universal jurisdiction

Lawfare may involve the law of a nation turned against its own officials, but more recently it has been associated with the spread of universal jurisdiction, that is, one nation or an international organization hosted by that nation reaching out to seize and prosecute officials of another.[7]

Examples

Hundred Years’ War

French officials deployed a form of lawfare in the lead-up to the Hundred Years’ War, according to historians Iskander Rehman and David Green.[8][9] Rehman states:[8]

In the fraught decades leading up the Hundred Years War, French officials deployed their expertise in the arcane intricacies of feudal law to continuously undermine Plantagenet (English) authority over their continental territories, ‘clogging up administrative processes’, ‘interfering with fiscal activities’ and burying English officials under a deluge of legal cases.

— Iskander Rehman, Planning for Protraction

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Both pro-Israeli groups and pro-Palestinian groups have been accused of using lawfare against one another.

Christian Aid, a British charity that does humanitarian work for Palestinians, was taken to court in 2017 by a pro-Israeli organization called “Zionist Advocacy Center”.[10] While the case was ultimately dismissed in US courts, the organization had to spend £700,000 in defending itself, and said it was an act of “lawfare” against organizations that help Palestinians.[10]

A pro-Israeli group, Shurat HaDin, acting on information from the Israeli government, is believed to have used lawfare to prevent a Gaza-bound flotilla from leaving Greece.[11]: 311–328  Many cases have been brought forward against Israeli officials and those associated with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), accusing them of war crimes. These cases have been heard in both Israel[12] and in other countries.[13] Attempts to suppress the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement have also been called lawfare.[14] In Israel and many US states, supporting the BDS movement is criminalized.[14]

The NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence has cited the alleged use of human shields by groups like Hamas as an example of lawfare, hinging on exploiting Israeli claims that they minimize civilian casualties, as well as the sensitivity of Western public opinion. This tactic allows Hamas to either accuse Israel of war crimes if civilian casualties occur or to protect its assets and continue operations if the IDF limits its military response.[15][16] According to Canadian lawmaker and former minister Irwin Cotler, the use of law to delegitimize Israel is present in five areas: United Nations, international law, humanitarian law, the struggle against racism and the struggle against genocide.[17]

People’s Republic of China

Further information: Three warfares and Unrestricted Warfare

The government of the People’s Republic of China has explicitly recognized lawfare (“falu zhan” or “legal warfare”) as an essential component of its strategic doctrine.[11]: 161–164  Lawfare is one of three components of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)’s three warfares doctrine, which was approved by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the Central Military Commission in December 2003 to guide PLA political warfare and information influence operations.[18][19]

The activities of the People’s Republic of China in relation to the territorial disputes in the South China Sea is frequently cited example of lawfare by the Chinese government.[20][21][22] In particular, China has asserted sovereign control over several areas in the South China Sea, and has restricted access to areas within its alleged sovereign territory or exclusive economic zone.[11]: 165–168  In support of its claims, China has issued official state declarations (e.g., notes verbal) and enacted domestic laws that assert its sovereignty or effective control of portions of the sea.[20][23] China’s attempts at framing cross-strait relations with Taiwan as an internal dispute is also cited as an example of lawfare.[24] China’s 2013 creation of its Air Defense Identification Zone that cover the disputed Senkaku Islands has also been cited as lawfare.[25]

The government of China has also used lawsuits in foreign courts to repress Chinese dissidents abroad, which has also been labeled as lawfare by academic Diego A. Zambrano of Stanford Law School.[26][27][28]

Commentary

Harvard School of Law professor Jack Goldsmith, an opponent to the expansion of international human rights and universal jurisdiction, states in his book The Terror Presidency that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was concerned with the possibility of lawfare waged against Bush administration officials, and that Rumsfeld “could expect to be on top of the list”.[29][30] Rumsfeld addresses the effects of lawfare in his memoir Known and Unknown.[31]

See also

Library resources about
Lawfare

References

  1. M. Smith; D. Crossley, eds. (1975). Whither Goeth the Law – Humanity or Barbarity, The Way Out – Radical Alternatives in Australia. Melbourne: Lansdowne Press. Archived from the original on 21 May 2019. Retrieved 15 December 2006.
  2. Smith, Margaret; Crossley, David John (1975). The Way Out: Radical Alternatives in Australia. Lansdowne. ISBN 978-0-7018-0429-9. OCLC 2538964.
  3. Scharf, Michael; Andersen, Elizabeth (1 January 2010). “Is Lawfare Worth Defining – Report of the Cleveland Experts Meeting – September 11, 2010”. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 43 (1): 11. ISSN 0008-7254. Archived from the original on 1 March 2024. Retrieved 25 May 2024.
  4. Dunlap Jr., Charles J. (29 November 2001). “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts” (PDF). Humanitarian Challenges in Military Interventions Conference: 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 October 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  5. Dunlap Jr., Charles J. (3 August 2007). “Lawfare amid warfare”. The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 29 April 2023. Retrieved 25 May 2024.
  6. “About Lawfare: A Brief History of the Term and the Site”. Lawfare. 14 May 2015. Archived from the original on 25 May 2024. Retrieved 10 January 2024.
  7. Goldsmith, Jack (2007). The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgement Inside the Bush Administration. New York City, New York: W. W. Norton. pp. 53–64. ISBN 978-0-393-06550-3.(discussing lawfare and the spread of universal jurisdiction).
  8. Rehman, Iskander (8 November 2023). Planning for Protraction: A Historically Informed Approach to Great-power War and Sino-US Competition (1 ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 65–66. doi:10.4324/9781003464419. ISBN 978-1-003-46441-9.
  9. Green, David (1 January 2014). The Hundred Years War: A People’s History. Yale University Press. p. 53. doi:10.12987/9780300209945. ISBN 978-0-300-13451-3.
  10. Davies, Lizzy (2 March 2023). “Christian Aid claims it was subject to act of ‘lawfare’ by pro-Israel group”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 25 May 2024. Retrieved 30 May 2024.
  11. Kittrie, Orde (2016). Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190263577.001.0001. ISBN 9780190263577.
  12. “Overview of lawfare cases involving Israel”. NGO Monitor. Archived from the original on 31 January 2016. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
  13. “Netanyahu aide skips UK trip fearing arrest”. Agence France-Presse. 4 May 2011. Archived from the original on 25 August 2011. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
  14. Asaf Siniver, ed. (27 October 2022). Routledge Companion to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-64861-8. Archived from the original on 25 May 2024. Retrieved 28 February 2024.
  15. “Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza” (PDF). NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 October 2023. Retrieved 14 November 2023.
  16. James Pamment, Vladimir Sazonov, Francesca Granelli, Sean Aday, Māris Andžāns, Una Bērziņa-Čerenkova, John-Paul Gravelines, Mils Hills, Irene Martinez-Sanchez, Mariita Mattiisen, Holger Molder, Yeganeh Morakabati, Aurel Sari, Gregory Simons, Jonathan Terra, Hybrid Threats: Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza Archived 8 January 2024 at the Wayback Machine Nato Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, 5 June 2019 pp.147-169, 152
  17. Twersky, Mordechai I. (19 May 2011). “Cotler warns of new strain in delegitimization of Israel”. The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 15 March 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
  18. Clarke, Michael (2019). “China’s Application of the ‘Three Warfares’ in the South China Sea and Xinjiang” (PDF). Orbis. 63 (2): 187–208. doi:10.1016/j.orbis.2019.02.007. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 September 2020. Retrieved 25 May 2024.
  19. Goldenziel, Jill I. (2020–2021). “Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare”. Cornell Law Review. 106: 1085. Archived from the original on 4 March 2024. Retrieved 25 May 2024. The Chinese military prioritizes lawfare as one of the “Three Warfares” that shape its military’s influence operations
  20. Lorteau, Steve (October 2018). “China’s South China Sea Claims as “Unprecedented”: Sceptical Remarks”. Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire Canadien de Droit International. 55: 72–112. doi:10.1017/cyl.2018.6. ISSN 0069-0058.
  21. Hsiao, Anne Hsiu-An (16 December 2016). “China and the South China Sea “Lawfare””. Issues & Studies. 52 (2): 1650008. doi:10.1142/S1013251116500089.
  22. Guilfoyle, Douglas (1 September 2019). “The rule of law and maritime security: understanding lawfare in the South China Sea”. International Affairs. 95 (5): 999–1017. doi:10.1093/ia/iiz141. ISSN 0020-5850.
  23. Dupuy, Florian; Dupuy, Pierre-Marie (2013). “A Legal Analysis of China’s Historic Rights Claim in the South China Sea”. American Journal of International Law. 107 (1): 124–141. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0124. S2CID 55162381.
  24. West, Michael J.; Insisa, Aurelio (March 2024). “Reunifying Taiwan with China through Cross-Strait Lawfare”. The China Quarterly. 257: 186–201. doi:10.1017/S0305741023000735. ISSN 0305-7410.
  25. Vanhullebusch, Matthias; Shen, Wei (2016). “China’s Air Defence Identification Zone: Building Security through Lawfare”. China Review. 16 (1): 121–150. ISSN 1015-6607.
  26. Rotella, Sebastian; Berg, Kirsten (22 July 2021). “Operation Fox Hunt: How China Exports Repression Using a Network of Spies Hidden in Plain Sight”. ProPublica. Archived from the original on 25 July 2021. Retrieved 25 July 2021.
  27. O’Keeffe, Kate; Viswanatha, Aruna (29 July 2020). “China’s New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts”. The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on 17 August 2022. Retrieved 17 August 2022.
  28. Zambrano, Diego A. (2022). “Foreign Dictators in U.S. Court”. The University of Chicago Law Review. 89 (1): 157–252. ISSN 0041-9494. JSTOR 27093694. Archived from the original on 11 June 2023. Retrieved 25 May 2024.
  29. Goldsmith, Jack (2007). The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgement Inside the Bush Administration. New York City, New York: W. W. Norton. pp. 53–64. ISBN 978-0-393-06550-3.(discussing Kissinger and Rumsfeld)
  30. Thayer, Andy (8 March 2010). “Court Allows Torture Suit Against Rumsfeld”. The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 12 March 2010. Retrieved 9 March 2009.
  31. Rumsfeld, Donald (18 February 2011). “40”. Known and Unknown. A Memoir. Sentinel. ISBN 9781595230676.

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries