(0:00 - 7:34) In the past few years, many of us have become distrustful of our courts, and often with good reason. Violations of our rights were upheld under the COVID narrative, and to this day many courts are taking the safe and effective mantra under judicial notice, which simply means that judges assume it to be true because the government says it is. It is this kind of complacency on the part of the courts that has enabled the persecution of good doctors, such as Dr. Mark Trozzi, whose license was originally suspended and then eventually revoked by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons for writing vaccine exemptions. And recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld that decision, despite the fact that Dr. Trozzi's lawyer was able to demonstrate that the CPSO did not follow correct procedure. In B.C. recently, the College of Physicians and Surgeons dropped all charges against Dr. Charles Hoffe, restoring his right to practice. Dr. Hoffe has been subjected to the same persecution as Dr. Trozzi, and for the same reasons. He told his patients the truth, and did his best to protect their health. We might hope that the College grew a conscience, but it is far more likely that their decision to drop all charges just days before an evidentiary hearing against Dr. Hoffe was scheduled was based on the fact that the court had already informed the College that they would not take safety and effectiveness of the vaccines under judicial notice. There's no question our courts are no longer, in many cases at least, working in the best interests of the people. But are the courts themselves the problem, or could it be something much more serious than that? So we're here to discuss the state of legal affairs in Ontario, and I have to say as an Albertan, certainly there's been some of that happening in my province as well, but I've been reporting on things that have been happening in Ontario for the last several years now, in terms of court cases, and it's so difficult to ever predict what's going to happen, because we get judgments that are all over the place. We've got the case of Dr. Trozzi, who was supposed to be in the interview with us today. Hopefully, maybe he'll show up. We can talk about that later. But right now, Bath-Shéba, I'd like to go to you, because you are representing Detective Helen Grus, and I did a long interview not long ago with Donald Best, a retired detective who knows your case well. But please give our viewers a summary of what's going on with Detective Grus. All right. Well, thank you. Well, every time I'm asked that question of please give a summary, it turns into a bit of a monologue, because the issue is that a summary would never do justice to what Detective Helen Grus has been going through. It is convoluted. But I mean, I'll start off with that in 2022, she was charged with one count of discreditable conduct, and it is a charge that has never been seen before. Discreditable conduct is normally, police officers normally charge as discreditable conduct if they've done something rather egregious, such as shown a knife to the public, sworn at a member of public, pointed a gun at a member of the public, and is often paired with a criminal charge. So, we have a situation here where Detective Grus was charged with discreditable conduct for doing her job. Her job, which is, as she has stated on the record over and over again, to protect the public, to preserve life, to serve the community. And what the discreditable conduct charge includes are several conducts, which, quite frankly, don't even, in my view, in what I submitted in the closing submission, amount to any type of prohibited conduct, because they're actually part of the mandate of a police officer per the Police Services Act. And such as she was accused of doing research in the Auto Police Service Records Management System, RMS, for personal reasons, when that was already found to not be true, because she was initially served with a chief's complaint for having looked into the database for personal reasons. That was investigated, and the conclusion was that she was looking into the database for professional reasons. So, there's an issue with that showing up again in the discreditable conduct charge. That it states that she failed to take any notes for these searches or a criminal investigation. She wasn't engaged in a criminal investigation. She was simply at the prohibitive stage. And then the most important part of this discreditable conduct charge, which I believe is what this is all about in terms of where the OPSPSU, the professional standards unit, felt that they could hang their hat on, was an admission she made in an interview for the first allegation, where she said, oh, by the way, I called the father of one of the deceased infants to ask if the mother had taken the COVID-19 vaccination. Now, that call was completely cordial. There was no issue. The father or the mother did not complain. So, there's been no complaint to the Auto Police Service with regards to the discreditable conduct charge. This was a confidential police investigation. This was confidential police information. And if we go back to why this is so controversial in terms of the fact, you know, the reasoning for this discreditable conduct charge is it had to do with the fact that Detective Grus was informed by her own unit, SACA, that there was a doubling or tripling of sudden infant deaths. And, you know, it was so disconcerting to her fellow police officers that they were talking about it like a water cooler conversation. Hey, have you noticed, right, that there's a double or triple increase? And they're talking about these unusual circumstances that the babies were dying. And so, a girl died with an enlarged heart. And that was the daughter of the father that Detective Grus had called, right? And then, you know, less than a month later, another baby dies in mother's arms. So, they both died in mother's arms, which is is very, very rare. Normally, you know, babies are born healthy and they live to grow into adults and produce families of their own and have, you know, enjoying the community. Why I'm mentioning these extra descriptors is because throughout the proceedings, what's really not sat well with me is that people are referring to the sudden infant deaths as if they're a statistic, not human. (7:35 - 9:37) It should matter to all Canadians that there was a doubling or tripling of sudden infant deaths after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination to pregnant and breastfeeding women. It should concern all Canadians that these babies' lives were lost, that these babies that had a whole future ahead of them, right, producing families. It actually, if we look at the statistical calculation of what that means across Canada, if we're looking at a doubling to tripling within nine months in Ottawa alone, so Ottawa Police Service, so not in the hospitals, we're just looking at at home, right, where there was a flag to involve the police service. We're looking at over 100,000 potentially, right? And that's quite a lot. That's quite disconcerting. And so, in January, when Detective Grus had heard about this doubling to tripling and the circumstances, she thought, well, maybe there's something we should look into. Maybe there's a trend here, right? Because she had come across Dr. Byram Bridle's affidavit in November of 2021, which stated that there was associated risks between the COVID-19 vaccinations and pregnant and breastfeeding women. She had come across this Toronto SickKids protocol that was especially established for myocarditis in children as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination. So, this was a Toronto SickKids hospital policy for treating children with myocarditis because there was an increase in myocarditis linked to COVID-19. So, Detective Grus is looking at this information and thinking that there might be a problem. And then, when she's discovering that there's a tripling, there's a detective, Detective Stewart, that mentions that another baby had just died, right? The second one in my mother's arm. And that mother had taken the COVID-19 vaccination. (9:38 - 14:39) And then, we fast forward just a few days later, on January 17th, she's attending this, you can attend as a public, where it came to her attention that Sean Hartman had passed away because of the COVID-19 vaccination with an enlarged heart. So, automatically, as a police officer, being curious and being concerned for public safety, she thinks about the fact that this baby girl died in December of 2021 with an enlarged heart. So, maybe there's an issue here. If a boy died with a heart condition after COVID-19 vaccinations, could the same be true for this baby? And could that be the reason why we're seeing doubling to tripling? Well, there could be safety concerns. Well, who knows? She said, well, I'm not a medical expert. So, her first port was to go to her colleague, Detective Butcher, on January 18th and ask him if he had asked if the mother had taken the COVID-19 vaccination. And he said, well, I didn't even ask that question. And what came out from the evidence of this case is that all the prosecutors' witnesses who were colleagues in Detective Grus' unit, bar one, had not completed the SUTI questionnaire, which is a Sudden Unexplained Death for Infants questionnaire that's mandatory to be completed. And it's completed together between the police officer and the coroner or the pathologist. And that Detective Stewart had closed a sudden infant death case in less than 24 hours without having seen the coroner report. And when Detective Grus discovered that, she took it upon herself to help her colleague to make sure that that report was attached as part of the file. But somehow, her asking Detective Butcher about whether the parents had taken the COVID-19 vaccination and trying to help Detective Stewart with this missing coroner report, somehow a rumor came into existence that she had printed off a coroner report. She never did. And then that rumor morphed into allegations that Detective Grus was looking into the database for personal reasons. And these are egregious accusations that led to her being served with a chief's complaint. February 3rd, this is through her chain of command, they decided, okay, yeah, must be true. So she was served with a chief's complaint to suspend it. When I came on to the case, I noticed that there was absolutely zero evidence as to this coroner report being printed off. And I mentioned this and raised this concern to the prosecutor, and they removed it because it hadn't happened. She had not printed off the coroner report. That was an outright misunderstanding or fabrication. It didn't happen. But what worries me is that that was one of the most, I'd say, one of the pillars of how she was actually first suspected. And then, as we're aware, that's sort of the nutshell of the history of the first allegation, and then it morphed into a discreditable conduct charge. And that's because of the newspapers and because of the leak. So these rumors that were circulating in the office against Detective Grus were leaked. So that information then, it's sort of like playing telephone line in a way to how these rumors morphed and became quite far from the truth. There were allegations that Detective Grus had called the parents and called the coroners to ask about COVID-19 vaccination status. And at that point, no one knew that she had called the father. So it's important to know that because that information about calling the coroners, calling the parents was published in the newspapers. Private details of Detective Grus' life, private police information was leaked by someone in the police to CBC. And then CBC published two articles that are very cruel and have since filed a lawsuit against CBC for harassment, for interference, for economic interference. Because it was in May, on May 12th, that the investigator for Detective Grus, the initial allegation, stated to her, well, we've got a second allegation now. (14:40 - 15:52) Because of those two newspaper articles, you are now facing a discreditable conduct charge. Now, I'd like to clarify one thing, Bath-Shéba, before we move on to Jennifer. This is very important for the viewers. Detective Grus was the target of disciplinary action because she was asking questions about the vaccination status of the mothers of these deceased infants. But you mentioned this report that they were supposed to file, that that's a mandatory report or questionnaire or whatever. Is it not on that questionnaire that the detective, and I believe this is true, correct me if I'm wrong, anytime there's a sudden infant death, an unexpected infant death, it is investigated, that it is mandatory to ask, as part of that questionnaire, about vaccines? Is that correct? So to answer your question, there's at least five opportunities in this SUTI questionnaire to ask about the medical history of the caregiver, the parents, and the baby. (15:52 - 16:15) So there are ample opportunities to put in the information of what medical treatments have the caregiver, the parents, or the babies received. That's very important into understanding the cause of death. And any caring police officer will say, to not leave any stone unturned. (16:15 - 18:04) It's devastating to lose a child. And now when we look back at all the information that we have at hand, we certainly should have our police forces be looking into links between COVID-19 vaccinations and those sudden infant deaths. Because when I look at the data, I can't unsee or unread what I have read. And I am not a medical expert, but I do not have to be a medical expert to draw a conclusion, an inference. Me as a lawyer, I do legal analysis. I'm analyzing the documents, and I can see that, based on the evidence of the record, that at least five of the babies, that's part of a double, the triple, died in circumstances identical to the adverse effects listed on the Pfizer clinical documentations themselves. Furthermore, as we know, is that those Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines were not tested on pregnant and breastfeeding women. That means they were not part of the clinical trials. However, some of those women fell pregnant or were pregnant at the time that they were part of the trials. And the information that we have is that only 32 of the pregnancies were followed up, and one baby survived. That means all the others died. And that should be enough information to tell the world at large that the COVID-19 vaccinations, the Pfizer ones in particular, because we have the data for them, are not safe for pregnant or breastfeeding women.