Posted by Curt on 10 February, 2022 at 8:06 pm. 6 comments already!


Thread by Ezra Levant:

Let me show you the law used to freeze the truckers’ money. (I don’t think they’re actually seizing it; I think it’s safely in a U.S. bank.)
Here’s the government’s press release. If I can find the full order I’ll post it. They’re using s. 490.8 of the Criminal Code.

Here’s the link to s. 490.8 of the Criminal Code: It’s a “a restraint order… in respect of any offence-related property”. The kind of thing you’d use to seize a drug-dealer’s speedboat, or cash.
The court hearing is done in secret — for the element of surprise. In legalese, “ex parte” — without the other party there. So it was a sneak attack. The application “may be made ex parte and shall be made in writing to a judge and be accompanied by an affidavit.”
Ex parte hearings run contrary to the legal maxim “Audi alteram partem” — listen to the other side. Our entire legal system is based on having both sides (or all sides) heard. That can’t happen if the other party can’t be found; or if police need the element of surprise.
Ex parte applications have a higher standard, because the judge is counting on the one lawyer in the room to honestly describe the whole story; to not hide exculpatory facts; to not misrepresent things.
Because no-one is in the courtroom to object, to cross-examine, to rebut.
But look at this: s. 490.8(2) says three things must be shown:
a) the indictable offence to which the offence-related property relates;
b) the person who is believed to be in possession of the offence-related property; and
c) a description of the offence-related property.
The second two parts are easy enough — GiveSendGo; and CAD$10.5M in cash. But what about that first part? “The indictable offence to which the offence-related property relates”? Those are two pretty big things to assert.
* an indictable offence
* related to the money
In Canada, we use slightly different terminology than Americans. Indictable offences are the most serious offences in the Criminal Code. Summary conviction offences are the more minor ones. Some crimes can be prosecuted either way — it’s up to the prosecutor.
So an indictable offence is a big thing. Murder, aggravated assault, theft over $5,000, etc. It’s not horn-honking. It’s not blocking a street. It’s not jaywalking.
Have the truckers committee an indictable offence? Well, none have been arrested or charged with one.
But even if someone did, look at that second condition. That the indictable offence was related to the money.
How could that possibly be made out? The money is being raised by Tamara Lich. Here’s how she describes its purpose on GiveSendGo
I’ve never met Tamara Lich, but I’ve seen some of her videos. She speaks about peace and love and healing and unity. She’s a normal person who started something that got bigger than she’d ever imagine. I don’t know if I’d call her the convoy “leader”. More like its founder.
So how do you connect (“relate”) a big bank account created by Tamara Lich with some indictable offence — that, as far as I know, has not happened? Is there some conspiracy? No. But there are conspiracy theories, most of them coming from Justin Trudeau and Gerald Butts.
Wild accusations of Nazis and white nationalists (neither, by the way, are a crime in Canada). Fevered reports of mean people — that melt away upon the closest inspection.

But an indictable offence? Related to the money? I don’t believe it.
The judge doesn’t have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not a criminal trial; it’s not a trial at all. It’s a kind of screening mechanism, that relies on the honesty of the police and the attorney general.

So, based only on the government’s say-so “if [a judge is] satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property is offence-related property”, he can order it to be frozen.
The judge can even order property frozen outside of Canada. (Good luck with that part, if the money is in a non-banana republic jurisdiction, like the U.S. with its First Amendment.) But still.
So that’s where we are. A surprise hearing, in secret, with only the government in the room with the judge. Allegations (which have not yet been made public, to my knowledge). And a judge who concludes it’s reasonable — nothing more.
But then the truckers get their say.
The order has to be served on the parties who own the money. I’m guessing they’re serving it on both GiveSendGo and Tamara Lich. GiveSendGo sounds pretty revved up:

And then they can come back to court and say what they would have said, had they been given notice in the first place. They would have the right to see all of the evidence put to the judge, and to cross-examine any witnesses (typically a police officer).
Just what was the evidence shown to the judge, that persuaded him to freeze CAD$10.5 million of a political opposition’s funds, at the behest of the government? That’s a real Hugo Chavez move. The judge must not have done it lightly. What was the evidence. Was it true?
Perhaps there was some secret recordings of some plot to use the money for some criminal purpose. I mean, I guess it’s possible. Tamara Lich seems pretty chill to me. And it’s obvious that the money was needed for legitimate purposes — gas, food, medicine, lawyers.
It would be pretty incredible — and entirely without any public evidence to date — to demonstrate that the Tamara Lich’s fundraiser was “related” to a serious crime. Because there has been no serious crime, and it’s hard to imagine Lich being associated with such a thing.
Was it just politics? Was it just press clippings of screeching politicians and journalists claiming they were “threatened” by the horn-honking? Was it just conspiracy theories, like Trudeau’s CBC, saying that Putin was behind the whole thing?

If so, that’s a scandal — on the judge who would go along with such hearsay and conspiracy theories; and on the government and its lawyers for trumping up evidence in an ex parte hearing. That’s the stuff of law society and judicial council sanctions.
Who knows? Not a single judge in Canada has yet ruled against any substantial aspect of any lockdown law or order. Not one. So maybe the judge is a true Branch Covidian, and believes any paranoid threat. Could be.
It could be true — that someone, probably an agent provocateur or LARPer or a fed like Pat King, was beaking off about some juvenile fantasy to do something illegal — and that was dressed up as a serious threat, and somehow hung around Tamara Lich’s neck. That’s my guess.

But you can’t rule out the simplest answer — that the government was under such political pressure to shut down the truckers, by any means or method necessary, that they simply decided to deceive the court — anything to make these truckers go away, to hell with the law.
We’ll find out soon. I hope the truckers get a good lawyer. It will be fascinating to see what the government alleged as the crime and the connection.
That’s probably a few days away.
But the blowback is already here. Because the world has taken Canada’s measure.
The world has been watching us more closely than ever before. They see the peaceful protesters and the bizarre accusations made by Trudeau. People have taken the measure of his credibility. Globally, he’s seen as a lightweight, an incompetent, a liar a tyrant.
This court ruling only confirms all of those things. It makes Canada look like a banana republic backwater, where the ruling elites crush peaceful opposition through brute force. Trudeau always said he admires China and Cuba. This plays to his stereotype.
But it confirms in the minds of millions of Canadians that the truckers are right — Trudeau is a problem. Our democracy has become brittle. Our politicians have become authoritarian. And maybe our courts too.
If you think this will cause the truckers to leave, you’re wrong.
Follow to see what’s really going on out there. More bridges to America have been blocked. More border crossings. In more provinces, by more truckers and farmers.
You can’t take them all to court. You can’t seize all of their bank accounts.
We’ll keep you posted on all of this. And we’ll continue to tell the other side of the story — that’s our motto.
And I’ll have more news for you soon about what can be done to help truckers in need of legal assistance. Here’s a sneak preview:
P.S. Here’s the full court order — it’s not much more than the bare bones of the law I’ve reviewed above:


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x