This reply to Request for a signature was followed by a response from Johnson Springs.

My Rebuttal to their response is included below.

July 28, 2024

 

Hello Doreen,

 

RE your email of June 27:  . . . this form is consent to receive support “…including all and any support and resources required to support my care, including but not limited to; receiving medication, assistance with daily living activities, day programming and/or any medical care required (Dr., calling ambulance, OT/PT, dentist, other medical care)…”

 

REPLY:   Christopher’s needs are not the same as some other of the residents. I do not know what you (Johnson Springs) are attempting to do with this form, in its application to Christopher.

 

Partly because he lived with me until age 35 and was not on assistance, he is one of the more independent-minded residents.

 

I don’t like to react hastily.  I’ve had time to think about the proposed form, and elicit input from Christopher.  I checked out my conclusions with a lawyer, to see if I misunderstand something.  I do not.

 

Out of respect, the following is a comprehensive explanation of why I cannot sign the Consent form;  it includes Christopher’s understanding of how the Consent Form impacts him.  I trust you will know that this has nothing to do with you.  It has everything to do with the rights of people in a democracy.

 

The Form reminds me of absurdities that arise in George Orwell’s work:

Christopher came to live at Johnson Springs Ten Years Ago.

The Terms of the Support for Christopher were established  Ten Years Ago, and on an on-going basis  since then.

Of course he consents to the support;  he would not be living at Johnson Springs if he did not.

 

WHY I CANNOT SIGN THE CONSENT FORM

1. The Consent Form, if signed, would serve no purpose other than to take away rights. The Consent Form is not legal.  The Consent form is the Rule of Law in a state of disintegration.
2. The Requirement to CONSENT IN ADVANCE to indeterminate occurrences would be thrown out by a court of law. Specifics are required.
3. You cannot coerce someone to sign a form by telling them all the bad things that might happen, if they do not sign.
4. RE your: “As an organization we need to ensure that Christopher has informed refusal.”  . . . “If he chooses not to sign, then Rebecca and I would talk with C about what that would mean for him.”

No, you would not, not without legal guardianship, or a lawyer of Christopher’s choosing, present at the meeting.

“Informed refusal?”.    Refusal is the opposite of Consent.  “I do not consent”  MEANS  “I refuse”.  The law frames the issue in terms of Consent.  There is no such thing in the law as “Informed refusal”.  It is a classic example of Orwellian new speak.

1. If you are recommending something for my medical care, I have the right to informed consent. Yes. But.  There’s  

• Full, Unbiased (e. no conflicts-of-interest) Disclosure and
• Free (i.e. no manipulations) Informed Consent  and then there’s
• What someone else thinks is right for me to do, be damned my Constitutional protections. Johnson Springs should not be asking me or influencing Christopher to sign away Constitutional Rights.  Fools sign away their rights. 

 

It would be highly irresponsible of me to do that to Christopher.

 

1. RE your: If there is any emergency and C needs medical attention, we have an obligation to call an ambulance.  When they arrive they would ask to see his consent form to receive support.  If he does not have a consent signed, they would decide on supports based on the severity of C’s condition.  I imagine they have their own set of regulations of how to determine when to provide support, etc.

 

No sense pussyfooting around:  the preceding is fiction.

 

Yes, in case of emergency, of course, Johnson Springs would call an ambulance.  Persons would be negligent not to do so.  The law would stand behind a complaint if Johnson Springs did not do that.   A signed consent form is not required.

 

Additionally, even if there was a signed consent form, emergency / ambulance workers, as you correctly suggested, have their own regulations that govern their response to the situation.  A signed consent form is irrelevant to them.

• – – – – – – – – – –

The addition of a WITNESS to the signatures on the Consent form is a SHAM to make the form appear to be a legal document.  It’s bogus.

As are the numerous citations from a document created by CARP.   CARP has NO JURISDICTION.

1.  Beyond the questions of legality, rights, farce and fraud; and beyond the multitudinous different expressions of medical care, is the ASSUMPTION that there are staff at Johnson Springs who are QUALIFIED to make informed and objective decisions about medical treatments for the individual who is 44-year-old Christopher Luckwell.  The assumption is invalid. There’s the example of the easily-identifiable bladder infection, overlooked.  Also, the rotation of new house parents and staff from vastly different backgrounds.

Who is the doctor?  Not Johnson Springs and not CLBC.  (Ref:  #2)

Johnson Springs requires definition of the limits on its financial responsibilities.   The Consent form signed by Christopher in 2022 has that at its root.  (Ref:  8.  (2024-07-19)  From Doreen Copy of Consent form signed by Christopher 2022-12-15.)    This new consent form is a completely different, not benign, animal.

 

CHRISTOPHER SAYS:  I DON’T WANT TO SIGN THE CONSENT FORM

Note:  Christopher sometimes anticipates a migraine; he then carries his cell phone with him.  If a migraine develops, he can call his House and get back to his room quickly before his vision is completely gone.  (Ref:  #9)

 

Christopher says:   I am the one who makes the yes and no decisions about my health.   I can explain it this way.

 

1. THE CELL PHONE EXAMPLE

The rule of having no cell phones at workshop does not work for me due to when I have a migraine I need one.  I worked out with Johnson Springs (Ref:  2023-06-07 Christopher ISP, p. 9, para 1)  that I deal with my own migraines because I know what to do, and I have to stop the migraine as fast as I can.

It gets in my way if I have to wait for the Workshop Master’s attention, and then for them to call the house, and then to wait for the House Parents.  I can call the House myself, faster.  I autodial.  So,  I call – –  not the workshop master.  (also described as “I stand there waiting for 10 minutes while every minute the migraine is getting worse.)

 

The rule changed from before.  I found out the last time I had a migraine (July 2024).  I was stopped from calling my House.  I had my cell phone with me, because I knew in the morning that a migraine was likely coming.  It made me angry that I couldn’t call by myself, the way I had been doing for a long time.  There were never any problems or delays when I did it.

 

(Antonia (mother) speaking):  Christopher likes to please people.  He did not display his anger.  By establishing a rigid chain-of-command where none is needed, and where the chain-of-command increases the likelihood that he won’t be able to get to the remedies he needs BEFORE he is without vision, he was angry.  If you don’t deal with the anger, it will worsen, and it will worsen each time he is prevented from doing what he can do,  FOR NO GOOD REASON other than chain-of- command.  Johnson Springs is not a military institution.  There is NOTHING CURATIVE about THE NEW RULE.  

 

I did not understand why Christopher insists that the July 2024 migraine incident be included in the reply to the Consent Form.   The key phrase to understanding why he insists is the Workshop Master’s direction to Christopher, “It’s MY job to call your House Parents.  Not yours.”  i.e. I do it for you.  (Like it’s a good thing – – I am looking after you. . . .  reality – no you aren’t.)

 

Christopher (correctly, I think) understands that the new rule IS connected to the Consent Form:  if Christopher can only stand and wait for the Workshop master to act, while time ticks by, the migraine worsens.   Understandably, he does not want to sign the Consent Form:   Other people would be making decisions FOR him;  they are not necessarily the right decisions, in his interest and for his health.  There is no mal intent, only chain-of-command / control issues.

 

 

2.   SOMEONE ELSE IS SPENDING, I’M PAYING. IF MY BANK ACCOUNT IS OVERDRAWN THEN I’M TO BLAME, NOT THE OTHER PERSON (continuation of Christopher says . . .)

 

The Consent Form would be like when Helen was making arrangements for foot care.

 

IF other people were making decisions about money that comes out of my bank account:

 

(Background from my Mother, Antonia): Christopher has a small bank account that he has learned to manage responsibly by himself.  He started years before going to Johnson Springs.  Lesson #1 was what happens when you spend more money than you have.  During the ten years he has been at Johnson Springs he has not mismanaged his account – – he has maintained his established reliability.

 

Christopher makes financial decisions for his account based on whether he can afford an added expense.  He pays attention to costs, as do most people who have a limited income, which is the large majority of people.  Christopher is no different.)

– – – – –

Cont. Christopher says

 

Johnson Springs wants me to sign a “Consent to receive Support” form.  If I sign, then my bank account would get all mixed up.

 

(Christopher manages his bank account in his head and not like you would manage your account.  He knows that he could not figure it out if it got “all mixed up”.)

 

TWO EXAMPLES:  (Antonia writing)

1. FOOTCARE   Helen knows this one from firsthand experience:  A new undertaking, a woman from Dixston provides footcare to a group of residents at Johnson Springs.  Christopher was told it would include him.  He had to pay by e-transfer.  He said “No.  I don’t do e-transfers.”

 

Behind it all:  the cost was more than Christopher was willing to pay.  I tried to find more information for him.  He knew nothing about the service being offered;  the amount he would pay seemed to fluctuate.  From the internet:  medical care workers could go to the lady offering the service, pay $2,999, be trained and receive certification to be a footcare worker. Christopher was intransigent;  Nope, that footcare was not for him.

 

2. SUPPLEMENTS:  It’s black-and-white.  If you try to force him, he digs in and does not forget the injustice.  His position on Supplements is simple and clear:  “If it costs more at the Pharmacy (the one engaged by CLBC), I’m not buying it.”  And he won’t, just like he wouldn’t sign up for the footcare.

 

If his bank account was overdrawn, it would be “his fault”, no one else’s.  – – But it would NOT REALLY be his fault.  He would have been pressured into it, except that he is resistant to being pressured into actions he doesn’t agree with.

 

And no, he doesn’t need help managing his bank account.  He has managed it successfully for about 15 YEARS.  He needs fairness.  He has a POA.

 

Look at the Consent form this way:  Christopher, You, and I all have autonomy over our own bodies.  We have a Constitutional Right to decide which medical treatments we will take.

(A recent Canadian lawsuit, decision appealed, ruling of the higher court judge:  covid mandates wrongly forced citizens to put a PCR test up into their nasal cavity.  Constitutional Law gives us bodily autonomy.  We cannot be forced, tricked, or coerced, to put stuff into our bodies.

From my perspective, the decision is sound:  there is a long history, not only from the World Wars, of medical experimentation on orphans, disadvantaged/disabled persons, institutionalized people,  poor people who need some money.  Not only our ogre enemies do it; we do it.  The USA has a repugnant history of such experimentation.  Then there’s Pfizer’s out-of-court (i.e. no public disclosure) settlement with the Govt of Nigeria after 100 kids were killed by an experimental  injection of Pfizer’s  (round about the year 2000).

 

CONCLUSION:  The thin lie underneath the Consent Form, as it applies to Christopher, is “You cannot do things on your own.  Ipso facto, we have to have oversight of you.  Sign over your Rights to us.  We will make decisions FOR YOU.  We have to.”

HOWEVER,  Christopher is certified to be competent.  He has demonstrated competence over 15 years.  He has his own POA and Will, drawn up in 2015, a set of legal documents that control what happens in the event of adversity.  Johnson Springs was advised, they know this.

There is no reason for him to sign away his rights.

 

REFERENCES

From previous communications to Johnson Springs, all of which Christopher concurred with, and still does.

 

1. (Jan 20, 2024) Christopher has a good grasp of rights and laws behind them.  As I have told Johnson Springs before:  through the International Conference in Berlin he went to a Nazi Work Camp.  It was a huge, graphic lesson on what happens when the Rule of Law disintegrates.  Also, a travelling exhibit, “The Diaries of Anne Frank”, came to town.  Christopher was fascinated.  Ever since, when he comes across literature about Anne Frank, he checks it out.  The Consent form is the Rule of Law in a state of disintegration.

 

2. (2023-03-13)  Email from Antonia.   Arises from earlier problems with infringements of rights:

. . . Christopher asked me to explain this.  He knows it, but it’s a bit complicated.

(2015)  Christopher is certified by a lawyer to be competent to make decisions.  (PWD – person-with-disability – – status does not make a person incompetent.   Nor does it remove the protection of Law.)

There are legal documents required if you wish to take away privacy and other rights accorded to persons in a democracy.

. . .  A  lawyer had to determine whether Christopher understands what various, selected legal concepts mean.  I was not allowed to be present in the room during this process.

The Outcome:  as stated, Christopher is certified as competent.  He understands the consequence of legal documents he signed.

NOTE:  Christopher has a set of personal legal documents that reinforce his constitutional rights.  (POA, Representation Agreement (health care decisions), Will,  Executor (Trustee)).  Johnson Springs has known since about 2015 that Christopher has a POA and Will drawn up by a lawyer.

3. Jan 15, 2024: WHY WOULD CHRISTOPHER BE RATTLED BY THE NEWS:  “YOU DON’T HAVE TO HAVE GOALS”?  (under Attitude)
4. To: Johnson Springs  From Antonia:

People with disabilities are routinely disempowered by statements that infer they can’t think for themselves.  Someone else has to do their thinking and make their decisions FOR them. 

This is not a true statement.  It is expedient, but not true.

5. (Jan 20, 2024, 2^nd Quarter Interim, page 2-3) Henry offered a reasonable response to allergies.  I responded with factors he would not know about.   (re Qualifications to make medical decisions for Christopher.)

 

6. (2023-06-14) TO Helen.  From Antonia.  Subject:  F/U to ISP, re medications.

. . . Through the years numerous doctors have been consulted about the migraines, including neurologists.  Christopher has not only 30 years of personal experience with migraine, but also that of friends.

Information is exchanged – – what worked for you?  What didn’t?  For how long?  Side effects?  Even stories of serious conflicts-of-interest between the developer of a migraine drug and its doctor promoters.   The decisions made about his healthcare have been carefully considered and continue to be.   . . . Few people have time to read or remember the documents.  . . . If more paperwork from Christopher’s health practitioners is being required by Johnson Springs, you are over-stepping jurisdictional boundaries:

• Who is the doctor? Not Johnson Springs and not CLBC
• Privacy: The relationship between a doctor and patient is private;  the state (the government) has no right of access to medical records without making a court application.  (The relationship between a lawyer and client is similarly protected under the Law.)
• . . . the word Medication has been re-defined to include Supplements. Which is to say that Doctors prescribe both.  Which is NOT the case.)   . . .

Christopher is well-acquainted with allergies, and the search for “removal of cause”.  He is 44 years old.  He has absorbed a lot of information.  You cannot dismiss what he knows.

 

7. The “We Unify” Conference in Victoria, June 23 to June 25, 2024. Umar Sheikh was one of the presenters.  Court cases won.

 

8. (2024-07-19) Copy of Consent form signed by Christopher, 2022-12-15.

 

9. From: Antonia Sent: August 10, 2022 7:42 PM
   Subject: Request for info from Henry, re Christopher & migraines

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

REBUTTAL

Dear – -,

I appreciate the work that has gone into your reply to me (August 7, 2024).  It is helpful to know the Act that governs Johnson Springs

 essentially says that every adult in a care facility who is capable of giving consent has the right to consent or refuse medical care, the right to select their preferred type of health care, the right to revoke consent, the right to expect their decision will be respected, and the right to be involved in planning and decision making. As a general rule, a health care provider must not provide any health care to an adult living in a care facility without the adult’s consent.

The preceding summary is fine.

 

The most helpful I can be is to explain the reason that the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act is not a panacea for the Consent to Receive Support Form.

You may not know:  I was in and out of various levels of Courts for 5 years, in defence of Charter Rights.  I am not a lawyer;  I was the defendant.  When defending yourself in Court against the Federal Government, even with the assistance of a lawyer, you have to be well-prepared.  You learn a lot.  I also helped other people defend themselves on the same issue of Charter Rights – – the Right to Privacy of Personal Information.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out those rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society. The Charter is one part of the Canadian Constitution. The Constitution is a set of laws containing the basic rules about how our country operates. 

“Charter” (also called “Constitutional”) Rights sit at the apex of our laws and regulations.  They are the King of the Castle.

If actions arising from clauses in Provincial legislation, regulations, etc.  run afoul of a Charter Right, the Charter Right prevails.  I am talking about actions arising from this part of your reply, for example:

As per the act, a health care provider may provide health care without consent in these exceptions: 

• If a personal guardian or representative consents to health care
• If a health care professional deems it urgent or emergency health care.
• As per the act, health care professional can conduct a preliminary exam without consent. If the adult indicates they would like treatment, or if in the absence of any indication by the adult, the adult’s spouse, near relative or close friend indicates that the adult’s spouse, near relative or close friend wants the adult to be provided with health care, then that is considered acceptable.
• Support can be provided without consent if a health care professional deems it major medical care. First, they will consult with a representative, spouse, near relative, or close friend. If they deem major medical care to be needed and there is no representative, spouse, near relative, or close friend that can be reached, this is allowed.
• Minor health care can be provided if the health care professional is of the opinion that the adult is not capable of making decisions, if the adult does not have a personal guardian or representative, or if the personal guardian or representative is incapable of giving or refusing consent.

 

You will understand that it DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE INTENTION of the Consent Form is, or of the intention of the time and work expended. Nor does what you want matter, if it infringes Charter Rights.

RE:  This form is not meant to diminish C’s ability to self-advocate or express preferences. That is the opposite of the intention – this form is meant for him to be able to clearly express these preferences when it comes to medical care.

Christopher can already, legally, self-advocate and express preferences. He does not need this Consent form for authorization to do so.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) recently launched a legal challenge to Nova Scotia’s Bill  419:

Under this new law, the Nova Scotia government could decide to issue citizens new health ID cards . . . would contain the personal health information of each citizen.

With its new electronic database, the government could then (for the sake of “safety”) create new regulations to restrict freedom of movement and activity.   . . . 

During the pandemic, personal medical data was used to prevent some individuals from playing team sports, watching their own children play team sports, travelling by plane to visit a dying parent, working out at the gym, eating in restaurants, and watching a movie in a theatre. . . . Special restrictions could be placed on people who drink alcohol, consume cannabis, eat too much junk food, . . . . People who have not taken an annual flu shot could be banned from airports, train stations, or even public transit.

Canadians have already seen and experienced firsthand the dangers of government using private individual medical information to control people.

In the same vein as Nova Scotia’s Bill 419, B.C.’s HPOA (Health Professions and Occupations Act) is under court challenge.  2023-11-15 Doctors warn British Columbians about the province’s tyrannical health care act.    As more British Columbians learn about health outcomes from covid shots, the HPOA Act, and a couple of other egregious pieces of legislation, the Government is falling in the polls.

 

GULLIBILITY

RE:   we want C’s preferences and requests to be accurately reflected in C’s consent for medical care.

We can create that together, so if you have any suggestions on how we can make the form more suitable for C, then we can talk about that and create a version that you and C are both happy with and that meets the legislation requirements. In the version I created for C, it indicated a list of things that C does not consent to. I understand your concern about giving consent and not knowing what you are giving consent to. Therefore, we could consider going about it in the opposite way and instead list only the medical care/supports that C is consenting to receive.

. . . We are committed to finding a solution that both meets the regulations and makes you and C feel comfortable.

I “feel”, and I AM highly threatened by the removal of Charter Rights.  It is not up to Johnson Springs to make me feel comfortable with a removal.

Surprise.  My memory goes back 4 years.  Mandates.  Safe and effective vaccines.

I keep a partial record of vaccine injuries and deaths, starting with Government-reported data.  Then adding some personal stories.

According to the Government of Canada’s own COVID-19 vaccine special interest safety reporting, as of January 5, 2024, there have been a total of 488 reports with an outcome of death following vaccination. 

The stories behind the deaths are tragic.

Gullibility isn’t one of my outstanding attributes.  You will understand that,

given what is known today about what happened during the covid years, and

given the slickness of the propaganda generators,

Christopher needs the protection of Charter Rights for his personal safety.

I do not think you can argue with the 14 References below (out of thousands of possibilities).  Look at JUST ONE; try Item 6.  All in all, I have a well-informed basis for my view:

I am completely comfortable with protections provided by Charter Rights.  I cannot envision circumstances under which I would sign them away.

From my perspective, there is no problem.  Surely, given the sampling below under References,  you will understand that, especially as a Mother,  I will never sign away Charter Rights.

With that, we can wrap up and all get on with our work.  There is no need for signatures on a Consent to Receive Support Form.

Best wishes,   . . .

REFERENCES  

1. (Copied from REFERENCES 2024-07-28 Consent to receive Support.  No.  Page 6):

Privacy:  The relationship between a doctor and patient is private;  the state (the government) has no right of access to medical records without making a court application.  (The relationship between a lawyer and client is similarly protected under the Law.)

2.   2024-06-26  Covid VISP REPORT #4. Feds compensate $14M to victims of the vaccine campaign.

The Liberal government has paid out multi-millions to the victims of the COVID-19 safe and effective vaccine marketing ploy, representing a small fraction of total claimants who have suffered debilitating injury or death.

3. Reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Canada    The URL for this one is https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/#specialInterest.     If you have time, take a look around the Govt website. It took me quite a long time to figure out that there are at least 3 Govt sites related to vaccine-caused “side effects”, including death.

REPORTED SIDE EFFECTS     Cherry-picking by me (this is GOVERNMENT DATA):

• • • Overall, most adverse event reports were from females
    • Within the youngest age groups (<18 years of age) the reporting rate is similar in males and females
    • The higher proportion and rate of adverse event reports for females has been observed in the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and other countries.
    • By age group,  the largest number of adverse events are in the 40 to 49 year-olds.  The second largest group – 50 to 59 year-olds; third largest age group is 30 to 39 year-olds.
    • Deaths from the vaccines – –  scroll way, way down.  Under heading  Safety signals identified and other safety updates,  just above Acknowledgements,  click on DEATHS:

                Up to and including January 5, 2024, a total of 488 reports with an outcome of death were reported following vaccination. Although these deaths occurred after being vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine, they are not necessarily related to the vaccine.

4.   2024-07-05 Ontario man (Hartman) sues Pfizer & Health Canada for wrongful death of son following COVID vaccination. Hartman sent tissue samples to American pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole. Lawyer Umar Sheikh representing.

5.   2024-07-09 covid: Yes, Pfizer and Moderna can be sued for vaccine injuries — here’s how. B.C. lawyer Umar Sheikh.

6. 2023-03-21 Manitoba family files lawsuit against AstraZeneca . Jordan Reimer, 21 yr old son working at Whistler.  Got the shot, Brain hemorrhage.  Blind. And Worse.  Local newspaper reporter, with photos.

7.   2024-07-06 US courts across the board rule against COVID mandates. By Jen Hodgson, Western Standard.

8.   2024-06-25 Bonnie Henry pushed COVID jabs on Canadians after BC CDC withheld vaccine injury data Unannounced to Canadians, newly released FOI documents reveal COVID-19 vaccines caused 16-times more adverse events and 14-times more hospitalizations compared to flu shots in British Columbia.

9.   2024-06-19 Update: Helen Grus trial, w/ Bath-Shéba van den Berg & Dr. James Thorp (Lavigne Show). PLUS July 3rd interview of Lawyer van den Berg by Tamara Ugolini.

10.   2021-05-27 Emergency doctor, Patrick Phillips: They’re rejecting my COVID vax adverse reaction reports. By Tamara Ugolini. PLUS (2)  2023-06-07   ‘Incompetent’ northern Ont. doctor loses his license to practise medicine and fined $6,000. By Darren MacDonald, CTV Northern News.   (just 2 of the doctors who tried to tell BC Health that there are very serious problems with covid shots.  Their reward for speaking up?  The Healthcare system got rid of them.

11.  2022-01-26 Covid: Toronto Board of Health scrubs vaccine reaction story (death) from public archive. Tamara Ugolini

12.   2024-06- 17 Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach accuses Pfizer of misleading vaccine marketing, filed a civil lawsuit against Pfizer. By Grace Hills, the Kansas Reflector.

13.   2024-06-10 Employees Can Sue L.A. Schools Over COVID Vaccine Mandate Because Shots Don’t Prevent Transmission, Appeals Court Rules. From CHD.

14.   2024-05-27 Police Detective Penalized for Investigating Vaccine Status of 9 Sudden Infant Deaths (Helen Grus story continued)

Now the system (Premier Eby and the Govt, down to Island Health, down to CLBC, down to Johnson Springs) wants me to sign a Consent to Receive Support form that gives THEM authority in matters of my son’s health. 

Even without the TESTAMENT of the Government’s own data, I have to say,  “Ya gotta be kidding.”

It is unconscionable that the Government continues to push the vaccines, given what is known.

HEALTH is a PERSONAL MATTER, FOR GOOD REASON.

We have Charter Rights, for good reason.