Will Dove 0:00 Due to the resounding silence from mainstream media, many people believe that the 1000s of COVID mandate related cases in our courts have been resolved. This is not the case, our courts continue to rule against the rights of Canadians. In one particularly egregious recent example, in Ontario, a judge ruled in favor of a mother to decide not to inject her kids. As part of this decision, Justice Pazaratz ruled that the science of safe and effective vaccines was definitely not settled, all government claims to the contrary. But then, the Ontario Court of Appeals not only overturned that very fair minded and just decision, but essentially sentenced two children to endless vaccine injections, by awarding decision making authority to the father, a man who had presented no scientific evidence whatsoever, and whose entire case appears to have been built on character assassination of the children's mother. Denis Rancourt is not a lawyer. He's a scientist. In my previous interview with Denis he showed from all cause mortality data from around the world that COVID did not result in any extra deaths, that in fact, any extra deaths were the result of disastrous government decisions. But Denis also has more than 15 years experience in our courts. And he's an exceptional researcher. He has written several papers doing what legal scholars should be doing but aren't: finding the legal inconsistencies and biased decisions in our courts. In this interview, Denis' research shows that our courts have been captured, that they are working not for the people as is their mandate and legal responsibility, but for our increasingly totalitarian governments. Will Dove 1:56 Denis, welcome back to the show, Denis Rancourt 1:59 Hey, it's my pleasure to be here. Will Dove 2:01 Now, I invited you to this interview because of an article or paper that you've rushed to sort of written about particular case where people's rights were once again violated by the court, not initially, which is really what caught my attention. Initial judgment was actually in favor of this person's rights. But then the Appeal Court overturned it. But now as you and I have been talking, you've let me know that you've actually been tracking a number of these cases. So I'm gonna invite you to talk about these cases that you've been following and what's been happening in our courts. Denis Rancourt 2:30 Okay. Well, first, I just want to mention that I'm not a lawyer. I'm a scientist. I'm an interdisciplinary scientist, and the reason I, but I also volunteer with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. And the reason I've been doing this kind of analysis of court rulings, is because nobody else is doing it. You know, the, the legal scholars are not doing it, where are they? They're not, they should be excoriating these judges. They're just horrible rulings that violate the law. And so I have felt that I had to do it. And so I've gone ahead and done it. And I've written three major reports for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, and you can find these at ocla.ca, if you go into the COVID section, everything we've been doing on COVID is there and including the Civil Rights articles, which are, include these three. So the, one of the first ones was back on 14th of October 2022. I wrote a report entitled "State coercion to receive medical injections confirms conflicting interpretations of the right to life, liberty, and security of the person" and in parentheses, "Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." So I wrote this, actually, Joseph Hickey is the first author and we're co authors on this. And that was to explain that the judges are using, there's a very unfortunate interpretation of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter that's been made, and that is being used and applied. And we felt that if you look at the jurisprudence, it's an incorrect interpretation. And it becomes obvious it's incorrect because it leads to absurdities in the context of forcing people to be injected. Okay. And so we spelled that out in detail. And, to my knowledge, legal scholars have not addressed this really correctly and forcefully. But there there is, because there's the written charter, and then there's how the courts interpret it. And then they get into bad habits of following each other's interpretations rather than trying to go to the root. What does it really mean? And what's the logical way of applying it in this case? And so Section 7, which is the right to life, liberty and security is being really mangled especially during, for these COVID decisions. Okay. So we did that one back then. And then we did a second one last year. And this one, I was the sole co author, or whose sole author, rather. And it's entitled "Canadian court decisions on the constitutionality of COVID measures are invalid due to jurisdictional errors of law." So in that paper, I showed and argued that you can't, that, that when a judge says, "I've heard experts on both sides of this issue relating to COVID mandates," let's say, "but I can't question the government experts. I'm not going to question what they say. They have reasons for saying whatever they say, and I'm not going to try to see which expert is right." As soon as they do that, they're saying, we're not going to do the judge's job of figuring out who's right and who's wrong. We're not going to do the judge's job of trying to figure out on these factual questions that relate to science where we need experts, which experts are right and which experts are wrong, we're not going to try to sort this out, where where the point is determinative of the issue. So you need to determine it. They're saying, and many courts in different provinces have done this at the provincial level, they've said, Look, when an expert from the government says something, we're not going to go into the details, we're going to just assume that they've got their reasons for saying that, and we're going to assume that they're right. So in other words, we're refusing to decide the issue. If that scientific question is a crux of what needs to be decided to decide the case, we're refusing to do that. We're just going to take the scientists from the government to say true things. Now, the other experts might also be saying true things in but we're not going to worry about the fact that they might be contradictory. We're just going to look at the fact we're going to assume that what the government said is right, and we're going to use that in our decision. I mean, this is crazy nonsense. This is the the the court, refusing to apply its authority, refusing what it's called, denying its own jurisdiction. And so I pointed out in this article that the provincial courts were systematically doing this, and they're doing it explicitly. They're actually saying in the rulings, we're just going to take this to be true. We're not going to try to get in there and decipher it. See which which expert is more believable, see if it makes sense. See if there are inconsistencies. No, no, no, no, no. The government experts have said things. And we're going to we're going to take them as is they they must have their reasons. Okay. So there's a number of provincial jurisdictions that have done that. And it is absolutely crazy and unacceptable. It's basically the courts explicitly saying, we're not going to follow the law, we're not going to apply our judicial oversight of this democracy in this democracy, we're not going to balance the government's power in any way. We're just going to accept what they say. That's what it means. So that was an article we wrote in 2022. And the last one, which is the one that you contacted me about, is just an absolutely appalling decision that was made at the Court of Appeal in Ontario. And the Court of Appeal is the highest court in the province of Ontario. And they overturned as you mentioned, in your introduction, a very good decision by an independent judge that was ruling in a family court matter. So this is the report I wrote about that court of appeal, criticizing the Court of Appeal ruling was entitled, it's dated the 29th of March 2023. Again, available on the ocla.ca website under the COVID category, and it is entitled "The Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision in J.N. vs C.G...." that's a mom versus the dad "...brings the province’s appellate judiciary into disrepute.” Now, in legal language, that's one of the most severe things you can say. Ha ha. I'm not a lawyer but I know that you when you say that the action of the judges themselves brings the whole system into disrepute, you cannot make a bigger criticism of that court. Okay? You're basically saying that this panel of three judges made such a bad ruling. They misbehaved so badly, that that it puts the entire court into disrepute the entire system. Okay. So that's what I'm arguing in this report. And this one is about a, as I said, a family a family case law, where the mother and the father who are separated were arguing about who should have the right To decide if the two youngest children are to be vaccinated, the two youngest children were 10 and 12 years old. And so the mother who has guardianship, main guardianship of those two young children are, you know, said that she had really good reasons not to want them to be vaccinated, that she does not try to influence the children and the children themselves have consistently said they do not want to be vaccinated. And it wouldn't be to their good. And to her best ability as a parent, she believes that they should not be vaccinated. And the father said, well, the government recommends it. And basically, the father said, the mother is out of whack here, and actually says some derogatory things about the mother even in court and said that he wanted guardianships for the question of vaccination only, even though he doesn't have principal guardianship. And the judge in the case made a really good decision based on fact, sound legal principles. And we, do you want me to start getting into it and describing that case, and Will Dove 11:06 I think it's really important to know, let's give people a picture of what this case was. Just. And I've heard a lot of this stuff myself, but I have to say this one. I don't really know what to say, but it really ticks me off... Denis Rancourt 11:17 Yes. Will Dove 11:18 ...what the Appeal Court did. Denis Rancourt 11:19 Yes. Yes. So in, at the lower court in the family law court, the judge in his written decision, which was lengthy and and considered, basically said, Listen, this is not a case, my mandate is not to decide if vaccines are safe and efficient. That is not my mandate. That's it's not my job, I would be stepping outside of my mandate, if I decided that. My only mandate that's given to me by statute is to decide what is in the best interest of the children. In terms of this fight between two parents, basically, which parent is basing their desire for the children on more reasonable and objective grounds that makes sense. And in my view, as a judge when I see them both give their evidence, and so on, which parent should I side with, basically, for the good of the children. So he really insisted that the statute framed his job in terms of making a decision that was entirely focused on the good of the children. And he explained that there is no way that his decision is about deciding who's right and who's wrong about the nature of the vaccine. And I believe he's correct on that point. Now, at the same time, he did admit in his in, in his ruling, that there is a live scientific debate on these questions. In other words, it's not settled science. He, he looked at the affidavits of the two parents, he looked at their evidence, he evaluated it. And he decided, well, there's definitely a debate here at this highest level. And some real experts on both sides are debating this. So it's not settled in any way, irrespective of what the government says on their website, this is not necessarily settled. And so therefore, that judge decided that explicitly said, I am not entitled, and I will not take judicial notice means, which means, you know, believe without seeing evidence that's cross examined and tested and everything, I will not believe that what the government says on their website about safe and efficient is true, unquestionably true. I cannot do that. And so therefore, that will not be something that will influence my decision. My perspective is they presented evidence that shows us a real debate. And my perspective is in any case, I don't have to settle that debate. That's not my job. I'm just going to look at what's good for the children. And in evaluating what's good for the children, he looked at the what the parents were doing. And so he noted that the mother was seriously and conscientiously researching the issue. She had uncovered a lot of high level peer reviewed scientific research that she put in her affidavit, she had uncovered the words of real experts that are verifiably valid experts, and she had also put into her affidavit Pfizer's own list of side effects, which is a very lengthy list of very dangerous side effects, including very dangerous side effects. She had put that in proof in her affidavit. And so she had done her own work basically, is what the judge said, and she her concerns were reasonable. And and, and she was right to have that, that approach and to try to figured out that way. And on the other hand, he said, well, the father, on the other hand, basically is just taking what the government says from the website, and wants us to accept it on face value. And he's also going out of his way to be insulting of the mother, and to denigrate the mother. And that, you know, that looks badly in terms of his objectivity and his behavior. And he's not considering that, to force the children who don't want to be vaccinated for the father to force them that that could cause them harm that could cause the children harm, the father is not considering that, the judge did consider that that that was the case. And so the judge on that basis, said, Therefore, in my family court, given my mandate, I'm going to give the mother the right to decide what is going to happen with the vaccinations moving forward. And he also pointed out that if I were just to give a blank cheque to the father, who knows how many boosters are going to be imposed? Who knows, you know, these questions are going to come up over and over again, and so on. No, the mother is doing her research. She's doing a good job. She's trying to figure this out. She's she's in daily contact with the children. She's following their development, she knows about their health. I'm gonna give that decision to her. So that was the family court's ruling, and I thought it was very good ruling. Well, the father appealed it to the Ontario Court of Appeal. And now we're talking about the Court of Appeals ruling, which was absolutely despicable. As I said, it puts the judiciary into disrepute. Okay. So, I mean, there's just so many things wrong with this ruling. But I guess the main thing if you went to the crux of it legally. The main thing is that the Court of Appeal, one of the main things, one of the very few, they're all kind of tied together. But one of the one of the main points is the Court of Appeals circumvented the question of, does the judge at the family court have to decide on the question of vaccines themselves, does he have to decide the scientific issue in order to make the decision in family law about what's best for the for the for the children. So the Court of Appeal, did not head on directly explicitly address, because the family court judge basically said, I don't have to decide that. It's not in my mandate, and I don't have to decide it. And I'm not gonna get into it. I'm just going to look at how the parents are behaving, I'm going to try and make the best decision for the children. While the Court of Appeal, the subpoena ruling decided that the government was right, and that that rightness of on the question of vaccines was determinative of the issue period. That's in essence, what they did. So they didn't even acknowledge that the judge in the lower court had a limit to what he was allowed to do. Okay. And instead, what they said is that the judge at the lower court should have accepted what the government says on their website, as fact, proven fact, and the only way to undo it, in other words, that it should be presumed to be correct. And the only way to undo it is to put the onus on the mother to prove that it's not true. So in other words, they're playing this game of onus. Okay. So they're they're not saying we decide that the government is right, no, they're saying, in a situation like this, when the government says this, and you know, they want everybody's best interest, and it's the government after all, then you have to put the heavy onus on the parent that's objecting to this. That is saying it's may not be true. They have the onus to prove that it's not true. I mean, that's a very high burden. Okay. So in other words, the appellate court said, basically, they said, without saying, we think that the scientific issue is determinative. And then they went on to say, and regarding that scientific issue, there is a built in bias. In other words, we're not going to treat the two sides that are making counter arguments equally. We're going to believe what the government says because it's the government and then the mother's gonna have to just prove that. And then they said, and the mother didn't disprove it. She didn't present evidence to disprove it. And therefore, you know, the father wins. And not only that, they didn't only invalidate the decision of the lower court, they substituted with their own decision. That's going very far. And their own decision was To give complete right to decide on the question of vaccines to the father. So they flipped it on its head. They didn't say, the lower court needs to examine this, again, in light of what we just explained about the law, nothing like that. No, no, here's the decision. Okay. So this is what the appellate court did. They basically said that judges in the lower courts are obliged to take judicial notice of what the government says on its website. Basically, they have to kind of agree that that's that that's evidence before them that's accepted and proven already. And then the other side has to disprove it, if you want to counter it, when it's when it's one of these health things. That's the crux of what they did. And well, that's just so wrong. But what's amusing about my report, and I have to say that, as good as we are talking about this, and pulling out questions and answers, and so on, there is no substitute for actually reading my report, because it's very well structured and very detailed. And in there, I also point out several things that the Court of Appeal says that is incorrect. They make incorrect statements to support their crazy decision. And that is quite stunning. So for example, the appellate court says that there was nothing that the mother presented that had anything that looked like it might be reliable, or that it might be authentic, or that it might be have some basis in hard science, there was nothing that she presented that looked anything like that. They actually say that without giving any specifics. Well, I'm sorry. But as I mentioned earlier, she put in the factsheet, from Pfizer about side effects. She had an article in her affidavit from 2021, that was published in the in one of the probably the third leading science journal in the world, which is called Science, and which was entitled, having SARS cov to once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine, and so on. So she had this article from science in there that is verifiable that's published that, you know, they said, oh, there's nothing verifiable Well, it's in science. You can, I'm sure you guys can find it, you know. So she had that in there. And she also had an article in a very reputable science journal called PLOS ONE, which was entitled "Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on..." on when you went once your challenge on "...Challenge with the SARS Virus." That's a very serious thing. So basically, it says if you get vaccinated, and then your challenge, you're exposed to the virus, you can develop this very serious condition. Okay, that's published in a peer reviewed leading scientific journal, and it was in her affidavit. And it's been cited, since then, more than 650 times in the scientific literature. This is a highly regarded scientific article. And you can figure all this out just by looking at, for example, the judges, if they say it's verifiable well, they can check if it's verifiable they can use Google Scholar, Google Scholar is a legitimate science research tool that finds all the peer reviewed journals and how many times the articles were cited and everything. It's accessible to everyone. It's kind of like the CanLII of science, CanLII is the equivalent tool for legal decisions. The judges could have done that. So they basically said something that was not just incorrect, misleading. It's a lie. They had to know that this was in her affidavit. And they said that there was nothing like that in her affidavit in the in her evidence. So in my view, the appellate court lied, they knowingly said something that was not true in that regard. So they they did this repeatedly in their decision to justify their decision. Now you have to ask yourself, how can they do this? You know, one of the things I've noticed in my own lengthy litigation experience of more than 15 years, in many cases before many courts and all kinds of cases, some lost someone, some settled and so on. One of the things I noticed was our court's political and a lot of people seem to think that the higher you go into into the different court levels, it gets less and less political. So they think that at the lowest level, it can be very political, you know, local politicians and local business and can influence a decision and so on. You're trying to please people and but then when you get to the Court of Appeal, well, it's less political. And then when you get to the Supreme Court of Canada, there there, you've removed all politics. That's what a lot of people think. Actually, it's not true at all. In fact, what the way, the proper way to to conclude it or to analyze it is this. At the lower level, it's the small politics that influences at the higher level at the provincial level, that small politics goes away. They don't care about that. But the higher level politics, if there are such issues of higher level politics, they play a role at that higher level. And they didn't necessarily at the lower level. And then at the Supreme Court, it's the highest political issues that are in play. So in relation to, you know, geopolitics, the place of the nation in the world, all these things directly come into play at the Supreme Court of Canada. So as you in a sense, as you go to higher and higher level, that process becomes more political in that sense, you know, Will Dove 25:54 It does indeed, Denis, because, and here's a statistic that I can give you that I reported on recently, since Trudeau was elected in 2015, of the judges that he has appointed, 78% of them were donors to the Liberal Party, only 22% were donors to the Conservative Party. So he's stacking, he's stacking the deck with his cronies who are going to judge in favor of liberal policies. And I want to get back to the, what you talked about with the appeal court lying because there's a paragraph in here that you quoted in your document, that just this almost luckily, speechless, and I'd like to read it, folks. To me here says at paragraph 50. And this is the direct quote from the appeal court decision. The motion judges description of Dr. Malone, that would be Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Lawrie, that would be Dr. Tess Lawrie, and the other authors cited by the respondent, as leaders in their field seems to be based on nothing more than their ability to either create a website or be quoted in one, there is no apparent or verifiable expertise. Now, folks, for those of you who don't know, Dr. Tess Lawrie is an extremely qualified scientist. She's one of the founders of the World Council for Health. And Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA technology, which he abandoned years ago, when he discovered it couldn't be done safely. I doubt you could find two better experts to question the safety [unintelligible] of these shots. And they're just throwing it out. Denis Rancourt 27:26 I pointed that out. I cited that article, that paragraph that you read from the decision. And I went on to explain in the with the example of Dr. Robert Malone, that, you know, his record is public. You go to Google Scholar, you find his five most cited scientific articles and patents, and they're all about this technology. And they're highly cited. And these are publicly available documents. I mean, a patent is something that even a judge can find, especially a judge confined, and and a scientific article, they should be able to recognize that this is a real scientific article, and they can look up the impact factor of that scientific journal. And they can sort this out for themselves. If they're deciding whether or not to take things for granted. And to evaluate like that from their high positions, the value of the evidence, then they can look at these things. And what you will find is that Dr. Malone is indeed a co inventor of that platform that enabled mRNA technology to be developed. Now, a lot of people contributed to inventing these types of viruses, and he's one of them. There is no doubt about that. So so this is just factually completely wrong for the How can a panel of three judges of the appellate court say something so absurdly wrong, that these are just guys that can put things on a website? I mean, come on, you know, this is verifiable. And it was in the affidavit of the mother in the lower level court, which was before the Court of Appeal, and yet they say garbage like this, which is again, they should have known it was not true. To that degree, it's another lie. Okay. I think if you seriously examine the affidavit of the mother, there's enough there that you can tell that Robert Malone is not just someone that some people mentioned on a website. Okay. So yeah, that's just another lie. Will Dove 29:39 What bothers me, especially about this case... Denis Rancourt 29:43 Yeah. Will Dove 29:44 ...is who are the judges working for? When we look at this decision of Justice Pazaratz, who gave the original decision in favor the mother and made some very good statements. He said, I'm not going to rule on the science but I am going to admit, based upon the evidence given to me, that the science is not settled. And I am then therefore, on the basis that I'm going to say, I'm going to go with whatever parents seems to be doing their homework, and appears to be having the best interest of the children at heart, and therefore he awarded those rights to the mother, then we get the appeal court that comes along, and basically says, oh, no, we're just going to assume that the government is right. And we're going to give authority to the parent who agrees with the government. So Justice Pazaratz is working in the interests of the children. Seems to me the appeal court's working for the government. Denis Rancourt 30:35 I, you know, I don't want to go there. There's obviously some interests involved. There's obviously some intrinsic bias of these individuals and of that court, there's no doubt about that. I think that the the original ruling at the lower court in the Family Court was very critical of the government, and very critical of the system, and rightly so. And I think judges are entitled to make those kinds of comments in their rulings, you know, comparisons as part of their analysis and so on. And they didn't like that. They felt that the I think my interpretation is they felt that the judge was a little too critical of the system a little too. Yeah, a little too, not respecting authority, public political authority, okay. So so they wanted to punish the judge, they wanted to punish the judge, and, and tell all the judges not to behave this way, and tell all the judges that they have to accept what the government says is true. That I think was the purpose that they gave themselves. And I think they allowed themselves to misbehave to this degree to to lying in the ruling and to misrepresenting the the laws. Well, the law of judicial notice was completely misrepresented by these guys. And they allowed themselves to misbehave that way, I think, because the partly because they felt they could get away with it easily because the mother was not represented. She might have been represented at the court of appeal, but she was not represented at a lower court. There were three lawyers on the father's side, the father was completely aligned with the government position, you can't go wrong there. Right, you, whereas the mother was opposing it, and we were allowing children not to be vaccinated. How horrible is that? So I think they were they were completely psychologically, they were saying to themselves, we just do whatever we want here. We don't even have to be careful. Let's just get rid of this. You know, that's the kind of approach that's the kind of I would say that they were negligent that there was there was a legal negligence in the sense that there was negligence regarding making proper legal arguments and so on, that they they just, they were just negligent in that regard. And judges allow themselves to do that. Sometimes when you have imbalanced power. So one side's completely on the government. The other side is, has a position that's considered by many in the establishment to be radical. And so there's this imbalance, they just go with it. They know, they can get away with it. And they're and they're sloppy, they're sloppy. Now, they are so sloppy in this case, that legal scholars should have been screaming. Okay, where are the legal scholars? That's my question. Where are they? Where, where are the law professors with backbones? They should be excoriating these judges' unbelievable behavior. You know that the silence of the legal scholars in Canada is deafening, deafening, okay, none of even the ones that are critical of what's going on, refuse to bravely excoriate the judges when they do this kind of complete misbehavior. Now, there's a few exceptions that prove the rule among among lawyers, but they're the legal scholars, man, they are really silent. So they have tenure. They're in universities, yet they do nothing. Right. Oh, okay. So that, that...Yeah. Will Dove 34:15 I want to ask a question. You made a rough guess, early in the interview, you were talking about the second paper that you wrote, and made reference to the fact that when it comes to the judicial notice is sort of accepting that the government knows what they're doing, that the courts are just, you know, closing their ears and refusing to hear any arguments to the contrary. Denis Rancourt 34:31 But yes, no, it's no, no, that's not right. They're not refusing to hear the arguments. They're saying, we're going to hear all the arguments, but it's not going to matter. Because we're going to take what the science what the what the government scientists say to be true. Will Dove 34:50 But as a private, to me, I would say that's the same thing. If you've already determined your decision, what... Denis Rancourt 34:56 Yeah, but I'm just saying [unintelligible] No, no, no, but I'm just giving example of the sophistry that they use. Will Dove 35:03 Right Denis Rancourt 35:03 Okay, they will say, and they'll even describe everything that they heard and who the witnesses were and everything. And then they'll just say, but none of it matters. And I'm not even going to decide, I'm just going to take what the government says to be true. Will Dove 35:16 But here's my problem with that. So they want to say that we're not qualified to decide upon the science. But by refusing to take into account opposing views, that says, Denis Rancourt 35:30 No, no, no, no, I don't... Will Dove 35:30 That's exactly what they're doing. They're saying... Denis Rancourt 35:33 Well, no, no, I need to interrupt you here. I need to interrupt you here. It's not about, in this context, it's not about the judges saying I don't have the scientific expertise to decide. That is not the point. In fact, within the legal structure, the whole idea is that experts are there to help you with that. Experts are there because it is recognized that judges are not scientists. That's why you have experts in a courtroom. And that's the only thing that justifies the presence of experts in a courtroom. Okay, yeah. And so they cannot use the pretext that, well, we're not scientists, they can't do that. They have an obligation, when there are opposing experts on a scientific question that is determinative of the issue, they have an obligation to hear both sides. And as decision makers decide, you know, how the decision is going to go based on that, based on a real conflict of ideas and positions, and have evidence, which is expert evidence, they have an obligation to do that, when they don't do that when they explicitly refused to do it, they are denying their own jurisdiction to do their job. And that's a huge error of law. And all those decisions should be thrown out. Will Dove 36:48 Yes, I'm agreeing... Denis Rancourt 36:49 That's what they're doing. That's [unintelligible] Will Dove 36:51 Perhaps I'm explaining a little differently. But what I'm saying is, when they say, when they, Okay, when they take judicial notice the term that you brought up earlier, when you just simply accept something at face value as being true, haven't been established. And in this case, they're doing it on the basis of the government says it's safe and effective. The government says their experts are right. And okay, maybe they let certain experts speak. But if they don't listen to them, then they essentially, they're not, as you just said, they're not doing their job. Denis Rancourt 37:20 They do listen to them. And they even No, but they do listen to them. And they even prove that they've listened to them by reporting what they said in their rulings. Will Dove 37:32 But they ignored... Denis Rancourt 37:32 Then they go on to say, and I'm not going to decide that there are contradictions. I'm not going to decide anything like that about the science, I'm gonna I'm not going to allow myself to be critical of what the government scientists said, even if I've got an expert that's helping me to do that, a counter expert, I'm not going to do that. So one judge, I think it was Newfoundland, said that at the provincial level, and then all the others follow. Okay, we're not going to do that. Okay, we're not going to do that. And so you've got a bunch of provincial courts that are that are going that are following that path and saying, Yeah, but we it's not our job to get in there and figure it out. It's exactly your job. That's why you're there, that's exactly it's it's Will Dove 38:21 That's my point Denis Rancourt 38:22 If the issue is determinative of the case, then that's exactly your job. And the experts are there to help you do that job. What the hell, you know, if you say if you say that's not my job, you're saying, I'm not a judge, you're saying, I'm not sitting here. I'm not. And as you would say, they're set up, they're not listening. They're plugging their ears, right. And they're just, they're going da da da da da da da until I can write my decision, I'm just going to go da da da da da then at the end, I'm going to write whatever I want. Will Dove 38:54 That that's that's really what you're saying. And, Denis Rancourt 38:56 Yeah, that's what... Will Dove 38:57 If they'd done their job, if the courts had done their job, all of these other decisions would have come after a Supreme Court decision, that would have determined that the science is not settled. And they would have listened to the experts of both sides and that Justice Pazaratz did that. That's exactly what he did... Denis Rancourt 39:17 Yeah Will Dove 39:17 ...basically listened to the opposing arguments and said, I can see here that the science is not settled. [unintelligible] Denis Rancourt 39:23 You don't have to wait to for the Supreme Court to do these things. Each decision maker in every Administrative Tribunal and every court should follow the law and think in in sound legal terms and make good decisions period. They shouldn't be violating the rules of evidence, or the rules of the legal system, or the legal principles that are involved. They shouldn't be violating anything but they're just they're just doing whatever they want to get the right answer. That's that's the state we're in right now. Will Dove 40:00 I'm going to stop you right there, because you just said something very important: they're doing whatever they want to get the right answer. And as you're studying this, what's the right answer? Denis Rancourt 40:09 The right answer is vaccines. It is it is right for the government to impose and coerce people to take vaccines. All children should be vaccinated. Everyone should be vaccinated. Anyone who is refusing or is resistant, is just a nutcase who needs to be taught a lesson. And so be it. If they lose their job, their employment, their reputations, everything, and they can be defiled and they can be tarred and feathered in the public square. And their job. The decision they want is that that's what they want. Will Dove 40:45 Yes. That's, that's perfect, because that leads me into the other question I've been waiting for the last half hour to ask because you talked about very early in the interview, you talked about that first paper that you co authored, that has to do with Section 7 of the Charter, security of the person. Now I have asked Mr. Brian Peckford, who, as I'm sure you know, is the sole surviving author of that document. And I asked him this very specific question, does security of the person include a person's right to decide what gets put into their body absent any kind of coercion, threats? Whatever? His answer was absolutely, yes. That is what it means. Denis Rancourt 41:22 Yeah. And there is there is one Supreme Court judge in a in a ruling that was against her colleagues, I think, in one decision, who spelled that out, and who explained why in her opinion, this was the case. And, and but for some reason, most supreme court judges have not followed that dissenting view, and have have taken this route, this obscene route, where, see, your your your right to life, liberty of the person and so on, is not violated by things that government does to you, if the government follows legal procedures when they violate your rights. Okay, they've interpreted Section 7 to mean that, that basically, I'm summarizing, and simplifying, but basically, what the what the Supreme Court is saying in most of its rulings, is that right is it only becomes valid is only violated if the government did not apply principles of natural justice when they decided to take that right away from you. Okay, so if they if they made the decision to take the right away from you, in a way that's illegal, then okay, they violated your right. But otherwise, it's okay. They can put you on the electric chair, they can force you to be injected, everything's okay as long as they followed, you know, they gave you the right to be heard, and so on, right into you that, that that's how they're interpreting section seven now, which is contrary to the actual text of the charter, I would say. I argued that in our paper, which we go off with Joseph Hickey. And you're saying that one of the authors of, the signatories of the charter is unambiguous on that point as well, right? Will Dove 43:09 Absolutely unambiguous. And to give weight to what you've just said. The case recently here in Alberta, of Ingram versus the court of the Province of Alberta, where Justice Romaine ruled that the COVID mandates were illegal, not that they were unconstitutional, that they were illegal. What she ruled, essentially was this, she said, Because there had been a very important thing that happened in the quarter, but a year earlier, where the lawyers got testimony, sworn testimony from the public health officer of Alberta, to at the time was Deena Hinshaw, who said, No, I just provided advice. It was the government who implemented the mandates. And on the basis of that Justice Romaine said, well, the government elected officials are not medical professionals, and therefore they don't have the right to make that decision for everybody in the province. I smell set up. Because what justice and I'll tell you folks, Justice Romaine is not on our side. Okay. She was maneuvered into this judgment by some very clever lawyers. But Denis Rancourt 44:10 Yeah, it's not a case that I that I studied. It's not a case that I studied [unintelligible] Will Dove 44:14 I'm just filling people in on this because it confirms what you said that as long as they follow these procedures, and sort of legalized what they're doing, it's okay if they violate the Charter. So what Justice Romaine did with this decision was create a setup where if this happens, again, as long as the mandates came from the public health officer, as far as the Supreme Court of Alberta is concerned, it's legal. Denis Rancourt 44:37 Right, right. That's that. Yeah. These are the kinds of situations that were being put into. Absolutely, absolutely. And they structure them into the decisions and then they rely on each other and they repeat the same kind of logic or false logic. But, you know, coming back to the Court of Appeal ruling that we were talking about that is just so horrendous. They actually It's unbelievable that the lies and the how they contrive things in this ruling. Another thing that I pointed out in my in my analysis is this, they said that the Canadian Pediatric Society, which recommends the vaccine should be trusted, and that the father is relying on that. And they should be trusted, because there's every reason to trust them, because they're arm's length from the government. And they're independent, and they have public health in mind and everything. They should just be trusted. You have to take them as what their recommendation is as valid. Okay. Well, they said, and you can verify this, they said, Well, maybe but it looks like they didn't verify it, because when I looked into it, the Canadian Pediatric Society gets funding from the government, serious funding from the government and from the private sector. I found six members of their boards and committees and so on, that have serious conflicts of interest with the industry. So you have the person that is involved in the group action for children and teens gets funding is on an advisory board for Pfizer, the person that is involved in infectious diseases and immunization is someone who recommends vaccines on government panels. And then there's many of them that so you see, Pfizer, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, these people are being funded by all these, all these people, a lot of them, a lot of them. So there's complete capture of these organizations, they're not independent, good will organizations, like the judges would have us assume the judges, the judges want other judges in the lower courts to just assume that these kinds of organizations because they have nice names like Canadian Pediatric Society, to be to be independent and reliable on their face, not look into it. And they say, if you know, it's easy to look into it, and they are reliable, well, if it's easy to look into it, then look into it. And this is what you'll find. Okay, and so one of the things I say in my analysis is, it's just unbelievable that the courts are behaving as though there weren't billion dollar contracts in play here between the government and pharma. It's unbelievable that the courts are behaving as though the, you know, Canada Health is not captured by the industry. It's unbelievable, that the courts cannot imagine that, in fact, the problems are, are to be reported voluntarily by the industry. There are no inspectors, there's no funding to go and see, they never go on site. They never open the books, they never do any of that. Like, Why is this hard for the courts to understand that there's potentially big problems here, and that their job is to protect Canadians? And and, and from the government if need be. And that, therefore, they should be doing the opposite of assuming that all the government wants is the good of people? Right now? Why? Like why why are they not living in the real world? Why? Why are the judges when they write this kind of ruling, refusing to acknowledge the real world or even consider it? Will Dove 48:27 And I want to ask... Denis Rancourt 48:28 That's obscene, that's obscene. Will Dove 48:29 Yeah, a few minutes. But the first thing I think we need to do, as you openly stated, you're a scientist, not a lawyer, but you have extensive experience with litigation. And I think it's important at this point in time that we establish that for our viewers, please explain how you've come to know so much about how our courts work? Denis Rancourt 48:46 Well, I I've been, I've been involved in administrative tribunals and courts and appellate courts for more than 15 years, I can't remember when the first the first things I did was to go to the Labor Relations Board to complain about my employer, and how my employer was interfering with my union and the relationship with my union. And also, my union was allowing them to interfere in this way and so on. So I got I made, you know, I started there. And but I had been sued because I expressed my ideas and was critical of people that were tied to powerful people. And so I was sued, and that was very horrendous and lasted a long time. And I have also fought many cases. I recently won a very important case in Quebec, which was a case a disciplinary, professional disciplinary case against a psychiatrist who I managed after four years of hard work, and going back and forth between courts and administrative tribunals. I won the case. It's now being appealed. It's under appeal, but I unambiguously won the case, it was a great victory against a psychiatrist who had violated his professional ethics. So I have all that experience. I'm also settled many cases, I've even settled cases after I lost them. You know, I've seen the ins and outs, I've been in front of more than 30 judges at at every court level, all the way up to making requests for appeal at the Supreme Court, but appearing before the Court of Appeal of Ontario three times as well. And in all of this, I was a self represented litigant. I'm not a lawyer, and I was a self represented litigant. So you learn a lot when your own personal welfare depends on what happens in the court, you really take it seriously, and you do everything you can. And you'll learn a lot, either the learning curve is very steep. And I have to say that this is complicated stuff. Most people when they read these rulings, think they understand it, because they're reading English. And they have brilliant minds, and they're analyzing the language and everything. But in fact, the words the vocabulary, and the way in the context in which it says has very particular meanings. And it takes a long time to figure that out. And so when I was reading rulings, when I started, and I would want to use them in my own defense, I was misunderstanding the rulings, I was misinterpreting and misunderstanding the rulings. That should mean what what is written, but that don't mean that given the context, so it's a heavy learning curve. But once you get a grasp for the big principles, and the language and the culture, then you can read these rulings and say, Oh, my God, they've gone completely off the tracks here, you know, like, what is going on? This is some serious political bias. You can see that right away, you can you now I'm at a stage now where I can pick up any ruling in almost any area, not not, not contract law, not things like that. But these civil rights cases, because of my volunteer work with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, I can interpret them now I can understand them, now I can critique them. So I've also written many critiques about freedom of speech law in Canada, I wrote a big paper that was highly critical of defamation law, and how its structured, fundamentally structured in Canada and in common law countries around the world. So yeah, I have a lot of litigation experience. But I'm not a lawyer. Will Dove 52:32 Right. So in over four... 15 years of being very involved in our courts, do you think that the just- judiciary in our country has been going downhill of late? Is it any worse now than it was 15 years ago is what I'm asking. Denis Rancourt 52:46 Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, there is, look, let me answer this way, there is no doubt that professional independence is in freefall, in all the major professions, medicine, law, the judiciary, civil servants, high level civil servants, there is a chronic loss of professional independence and responsibility, in favor of complete alignment and obedience. And that is typical of a society that is marching towards a totalitarian state. And so I consider that we're very, very quickly losing the protections that a structured democracy would normally have. And one of the signs of that a clear sign of that is there are no independent professionals, everyone's afraid to say or to even analyze, even do the work to figure out what's going on, they are just toeing the line, and looking after keeping their jobs and their their reputations, and, and so on. So that is a general feature of our society in this period. And that's why something like COVID can occur, which is just how probably unscientific and crazy and it can just capture all of society, and people are terrified in their homes and so on. It's because people have lost the ability to think and it's, it's this gradual march towards totalitarianism. So you erode away the educational system, real real capacity, to to have real skills is completely removed. It's not important and only obedience is important. So if you don't have the capacity to think about and to evaluate yourself, science and math and social science and everything, and it's not even considered good to develop those skills at school or at university, and you degrade all of society towards towards just following the ideology that is being spoon fed into all the institutions. And I think we know what those ideologies are these days, you are causing the downfall of what was a structured democracy. You know, after the Second World War in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, we had a working structural democracy. And we had a real notion that professionals were there to protect it. And it was their job to complain things to their boss. I mean, there was a time not long ago, when civil servants had to swear allegiance to the public, to the public, that they would protect the public. Okay, you didn't need laws to protect whistleblowers, it was in the culture that you were doing this. And that was what was valued. And that is completely gone, completely gone. So yeah, there's been problems. Always, it wasn't ideal after the Second World War. But there has definitely been a very serious freefall towards a nasty place, where elections are completely manipulated. And you don't, they don't have to manipulate voting machines to do this. They do it through propaganda, through selecting who the allowed candidates are, through the rules and laws about how political parties can organize and what their internal rules have to be and funding laws for politics. All of this is more and more organized towards enabling a totalitarian system, I would call it I would go as far as calling it fascism, corporate fascism. So that is happening everywhere in every field of endeavor. And the only people who are not subject to that are the more independent minded people. And they tend to be working class people, they tend to be people who actually have to work for a living, and who know what it is to accomplish a real physical task. And they know what it is to protect their children. And they know what it is to have real skills, and they know what it is to think independently and to make decisions in the real world. Those people are more protected. Even though the propaganda is really strong. It's the potential class that's really lost it, they've lost their weight completely. They're bought out and without morals. But there's still hope. I mean, I think the truckers, for example, are an example are an expression of that impetus to protect yourself and to keep your independence. So that's how I would answer that question. Will Dove 57:31 And here's my final question, I would like to ask you for some practical advice for our viewers, with over 15 years of experience in litigation with all these cases that you have studied. And as you've explained, our courts, along with everything else in our society is sliding towards totalitarianism. So given that reality, I'm certain there's people watching this interview, who are either already in litigation, who are going to be if they're going into the courts right now, what practical advice do you have for them? Denis Rancourt 57:59 Oh, listen, the thing I have to say about that is that the best person to make these kinds of important life changing decisions about how many resources you're going to put in how much you're going to fight back or try to fight back, is the person actually suffering the consequences. That's the person that is most well informed about their chances, and about how much they're giving up in trying to resist. And they're the ones that the responsibility or the best decision making is in the hands of those people. And sure, they'll make mistakes, and hopefully, they'll learn from their mistakes. And I think that what I would say to people is stay strong, you're going to make mistakes, they're going to try and crush you. Sometimes you'll have victories try to find a way to fight back if you can, out of principle. But I have great respect for anyone who goes any distance fighting back, you know, some people have lost everything. I mean, we have political COVID political prisoners in Canada, and they're not allowed out of their cells. And this is very serious are treated more harshly than murderers in many cases. So this is a very real situation. It's a real battle. It's a real fight. The people who are opposing this advancing fascism, are the resistance. And the resistance has to do everything it can to survive, to be vibrant, to be creative, and to support each other. That's really important. But in terms of that, that's all I can say is everyone has to try to figure it out for themselves given their circumstances. So I'm not going to be critical of anyone or, or make suggestions to anyone, even some people, like like myself, I'll give my own example. Okay. I have a significant talent when it comes to analyzing empirical data and interpreting it as a scientist. So I apply that to the best of my ability to make the best clearest and strongest observations and conclusions about what's really going on regarding the scientific and medical aspects of COVID. Okay, that's what I do, I put a lot of effort and energy into that, because I know that I can have an impact. I know that any thinking scientist who reads one of my papers, will know that I'm saying valid stuff here, whether they're brave enough to say it to their bosses, or to say it within their institutions is another question. But at least they'll know, if they take the time, most of them don't want to read it for that very reason. They don't want to, they don't want to hear about it, they just want to, you know, be the cowards that they are. So the best thing that I can do is to use the talents that I have to the best of my ability to try to have the most impact as possible. That's the thing, you know, influences is considered a bad word by many, it's not modest. But in fact, the individual needs to seek to have influence in the democracy, the individual needs to seek to have their say, and to play their role politically, and politically doesn't mean representation politics, it means influence. And you're doing it with your podcasts and all your work. And you're doing it to the best of your ability with what you have. And I'm doing the same on the science side. And then I because I have the ability to do it on the legal side. And when I just can't help myself and I see these horrendous decisions, then I take the time and write an article about it. But I have to say the legal scholars are just are just completely disconnected from this. So I have, I have more of a chance reaching scientists and I can see the impact of eating away and reaching scientists in my interactions. So I tend to be more encouraged by that. Whereas when I'm doing the legal analysis, out of principle, someone has to put it on record and say it and analyze things clearly. And I'm doing it because nobody else is doing it. Maybe someday, maybe some scholar who is not yet born, or maybe some scholar who is going to discover their backbone is going to read some of these reports at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association and say, you know, this, these guys are fundamentally right, we really need to start saying this more and more, I'm going to do what I can, that might happen. And every time I discover something like that, I'm thrilled. When I see a scientist, discover my work and start saying, Oh, my God, you know, we've got to gotta start thinking about this, I'm thrilled. So those are the rewards. And it's a lot of hard work. And I would say to everyone, enjoy it, please find a way to enjoy it, and give them a blackeye whenever you can, and do the best you can. Will Dove 1:03:05 Well said, Denis, thank you so much for your hard work and for all this research that you've done. And as you're right, because the legal scholars certainly aren't doing it. The lawyers are too busy fighting actual cases. And so who's going to bring this information to the public, if it's not someone like you, who goes through and analyzes all this and writes these excellent reports on it. And as always, folks, you'll find links to these directly beneath the video. Denis Rancourt 1:03:27 I didn't want to give any names. But there are a few lawyers out there that are really being quite critical. And they're very good. And we really appreciate them. They're providing cases, and they're critical. And they're wonderful. And they're the they're the exceptions that prove the rule. So we have to acknowledge them as well. Will Dove 1:03:43 Yes, my only point was that they don't have the time to do the kind of analysis that you have done. Denis Rancourt 1:03:47 Right. Right. Will Dove 1:03:49 Alright. Thank you so much.