Will Dove 0:00 People are dying in Canada as a result of medical tyranny. Sheila Annette Lewis, in Alberta, was taken off the transplant list due to her vaccine status. Despite her lawyer, Umar Sheikh, after a 2 year fight, recently winning for Sheila the right to that life-saving transplant, the judgement came too late. Sheila Lewis died a few weeks ago. In Ontario, 17 year old Sean Hartman was found dead on his bedroom floor just 33 days after his first Pfizer injection. Until the shot, Sean was perfectly healthy. His father, Dan Hartman, had pleaded with him not to take the shot, but Sean wanted to play Hockey, and the league wouldn’t let him unless he was vaccinated. Sean’s death occurred two years ago, but Dan has yet to get his day in court to seek justice for the loss of his son. Lawyer Umar Sheikh, in cooperation with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms has represented both Sheila Lewis and Dan Hartman. In this interview, Umar reveals the shocking degree that government lawyers go to in order to delay court cases. Delaying tactics that are resulting in yet more delayed justice, and which will result in more deaths. But these delaying tactics on the part of government lawyers are standard practice. A practice so standard it leads to the inevitable conclusion that, in December of 2020 when Trudeau’s government launched vaccine mandates, and told Canadians that the vaccines were ‘safe and effective’, Trudeau knew that it would be at least ten years before a court in Canada would rule on that narrative. Ten years while our government can continue to coerce tens of millions of Canadians into taking booster after booster. And by the time a court rules that the vaccines were anything but ‘safe and effective’, the damage will be done, and Trudeau will no longer be in a position to be held responsible. Will Dove 2:18 Umar, welcome back to the show. Umar Sheikh 2:20 Thanks for having me, Will. Will Dove 2:21 So, we're here today to talk about two cases. And we want to start with Sheila Annette Lewis, the poor woman here in Alberta, where I am, you're in BC, who recently died after being denied a transplant due to her vaccination status. Now, you worked with Sheila for some three months. you talked almost daily. Please fill us in on the sequence of events. Umar Sheikh 2:46 Thank you for asking about Sheila. It is it's probably one of the most tragic things that that I've seen in a long time. And certainly something that's had a significant effect on the firm. And the work that we do is you know, Sheila had a a, two years ago, Sheila was taken off the transplant list out in Alberta for an organ transplant that she needed. Now, at that point, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, great organization, went and filed a charter claim for Sheila, arguing that her Charter rights have been violated. And as a result, she should be put back on the transplant list. Unfortunately, through the various levels of court, that challenge did not succeed. And ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal, which means they wouldn't hear the case. And so the decision stood that Sheila was off the list and there was no Charter violation to be had. We took over Sheila's case about three months, or now, four months ago. And we started with a claim of negligence and medical malpractice, negligence and med mal against both Alberta Health Services and the physicians involved. Our goal in that case was to try and get an injunction that would show that that the standard of care that Sheila should have received she wasn't receiving by not being on the transplant list and get an order from a judge that she be put back on the list. One of the the arguments that that we were putting together to advance was that the COVID vaccination was not an indispensable requirement to transplant. And so for example, we had COVID-19 rampant in 2019 2020, prior to the the so called vaccine coming into place, and transplant surgeries were occurring at the exact same rate as they were prior to COVID. And they were growing at the same rate they are now and so at that time, we were transplanting patients with COVID, patients who had encountered COVID and it wasn't they in that question of we're going to stop surgeries because COVID is so deadly that we just can't do them, well, we were doing. So just because now you've got this product that shows up does it make it now an indispensable transplant requirement. Sheila had also had COVID-19 twice in the past. And so we had a report done by Dr. Steven Palak and his clinic called Connexus that had tested for natural immunity and shown that Sheila had significantly higher antibodies than even someone who had been vaccinated for COVID 19. And so once again, it didn't make a heck of a lot of sense that that we wouldn't be transplanting the organ that Sheila needed. Now, we proceeded with that case. And what we were able to do was reach an agreement that was satisfactory to all parties. Now that agreement is under seal that continues to be under seal as is the name of her organ and the name of her doctors. And so we can't get into the discussion of it. What I can say is that Sheila was satisfied with the outcome of that agreement, it it was resulting in a continuation of her care, which meant that she was going to go back into hospital, she would if she met all the other requirements, she would get back on the transplant list, and hopefully get the life saving surgery that she needed. You know, what I can say about Stella was she was a very, very sweet person, very humble person, someone who really didn't want to die. You know, in all of our conversations she was fighting to live. Her condition was one that was progressive. And so over the two years that she had been off the list, and then the additional time, that condition was getting worse and worse. And it was becoming more taxing on Sheila. By the time Sheila got into the hospital, that condition further deteriorated. And then over the course of one month or so hospitalization, Sheila succumbed to her disease and tragically passed away, which is still something very difficult for me to even think about and talk about. You know, we had all kinds of plans and her and I but you know, hanging out in Alberta, we going to see her she was she was excited because there was a real chance now that surgery would have been done, had we been able to find an organ donor in time. Unfortunately, it just didn't happen. time ran out, and Sheila passed away. It's a very unfortunate case, Sheila is survived by her family, her son Darcy, who's a fantastic advocate. He's out there, doing everything he can right now she's got, like three other children, and an ex partner who's very invested. And so we know that there's there's going to be a small family service in Alberta and and we were planning to do an online memorial for Sheila where where more people can attend and share their experiences. Will Dove 7:40 Right. So just to summarize here, Sheila, Sheila passed, as we're sitting here doing this interview now, this interview may not be released for a couple of weeks. But as we're sitting here, now, Sheila passed away about a week and a half ago. I believe it was about a month ago that she won that concession for her to get the transplant. I just want to clarify, who took her off the list On whose authority was that done? Umar Sheikh 8:03 So let me, I'll clarify that. But let me go back. So so really, in the type of agreement that we entered, there were no winners, and there were no losers. The- there was a continuation of care that was going to take place based on a number of factors. She was going to hopefully be entitled and get that transplant surgery, did not happen in time, because we ran out of time. The original decision to take Sheila off the list was one of the transplant team. It's a multidisciplinary team for that particular organ that meets and discusses a patient's credentials and their ability to be a successful transplant recipient. They made the decision to take her off the list. Initially, there was a lot of finger pointing between Alberta Health Services Administration and the transplant team. Right. So the transplant team had said, well, it wasn't us. It was Alberta Health Services Policy. Well, Alberta Health Services Policy on investigation did not say that, that she must take the vaccination, it said may take the vaccination and it was recommended. But it wasn't a a barring policy. So there was finger pointing back and forth, which eventually got clarified that it, well, it was the transplant team. At this point, additional finger pointing came in where the transplant team said, well, it wasn't us. It was the Canadian national transplantation guideline standard, which is a federal standard made by a multidisciplinary group of people from around different provinces that says here's what your transplantation guidance should be for this type of surgery. Well, that's just a guidance document. At the end of the day, that is not the law, that is not a policy that would bar them from doing it. And in fact, one of the things that we uncovered while working on the Sheila Lewis bio was that post introduction of this vaccine there was two transplant recipients in Montreal, who had the exact same underlying condition that Sheila did, and he did the exact same organs, they refuse to get vaccinated and Montreal, went ahead and did the surgeries anyway. And the guidelines was was in place at that time, but they did the surgeries anyway. And were quoted as saying, well, it shouldn't be a death sentence. And so we did talk to that transplantation doctor, as part of this case, we this was part of what we were we were building up at the time. But but it just shows you further that, that it's just guidance, it wasn't an indispensable requirement, ultimately, you know, that decision, I think was made by the transplant team, ultimately, and, you know, relying on federal guidance, or AHS, perhaps they all had rules in it. But but really, it's the doctors who made the call. Will Dove 10:43 Now, let me turn that question around, Umar, because I'm, I'm trying to, I guess, I'm trying to go here is, you've said that there were no, you know, basically laws in place that were preventing her from getting this transplant that there were just guidelines. So who would have had the authority to simply say, No, put her back on the list? Umar Sheikh 11:06 The transplantation team Will Dove 11:08 The very team that took her off in the first place? Umar Sheikh 11:10 Yep. Will Dove 11:11 Okay. Was there any sense of disappointment that premier Daniel Smith didn't step in? And do something on that? Umar Sheikh 11:18 A great deal. Yeah. A great deal of disappointment. And there was inconsistent stories from the Premier, as well. Right. So the premier had said that she was seeking a second opinion, we were aware of that second opinion, we were aware what that second opinion said, what she said publicly was very different than what that second opinion said the second opinion said Miss Lewis should get the transplant. That should she should be put back on the list that the COVID vaccine was not an indispensable requirement. And the second opinion was provided by a doctor in Alberta, who was the founder the transplant program in Alberta and ran it for the last 30 years prior to retiring. This is the surgeon that was doing all of the surgeries that Sheila needed, for the last 30 years, he was connected and still connected with the premier. And so we know the opinion he provided. He was an expert witness for us on Sheila's case. His name is Dr. Dennis Modry. Public, but he was expert witness for us on Sheila's case as well. And so you know, I don't I don't know what happened there. I think that it became a political hot potato. And the premier backed away. But But I know Sheila was waiting and hoping I remember talking through the election, while while that was going on, Sheila was was very hopeful that that if the premier was reelected, there would be some level of intervention. There wasn't any level of intervention. I know a lot of media folks that we're asking the the Premier and the premier's office for updates on information. And they simply deferred and said, Well, it's the it's the physicians' decision. Now I can't judge, I don't know the premier I've never met or talked to the premier of Alberta. So I have no idea what is going on in their inner discussions. But I can say it was disappointing, for sure. Will Dove 13:02 I imagined so. Before we move on, one last point I'd like to make and you made the very good point that Sheila had natural immunity to COVID-19, much higher antibodies than people who were vaccinated. And there's something about this, that makes zero sense. If, let's say this transplant team, really truly believed that somebody who was not vaccinated was a danger to others, it might make sense to say that that person can't donate an organ. But it makes no sense whatsoever to say they can't receive one. And so looking at that logic, I have to come to the conclusion that this entire thing was nothing but punishment for her refusal to go along with the narrative. Umar Sheikh 13:46 Yeah, so [unintelligible] I don't necessarily disagree with you. Well, I think that, that it wasn't a question of her being a danger to others, you know, in their minds. And again, you know, I have to give credit where credit is due. These same doctors provided care for Sheila, over the last month. And so despite all of the lawsuits and everything else that was going on, they did reengage, and they they were they're doing, I believe, whatever they could. Now, we're still investigating a lot of what occurred in the hospital. So I don't want to say too much on that. Because there may be other things that that come out that we're unaware of, but but certainly on the surface, it looked like they were they were involved. The question wasn't necessarily that she was going to harm somebody else by not being vaccinated, although that's been the narrative publicly for everybody saying you're gonna save grandma's life by being vaccinated. The question was, would the organ transplant's chances of success be hindered or diminished as a result of not being vaccinated and so they think that was their right or wrong? I mean, I don't agree with it clearly, but that was their decision making when when it came to denying her a spot on the transplant list based on the COVID-19 vaccination, and so there's a couple of things there. One, that requirement is still in place today. Despite everything we know, despite the progression of vaccines COVID public knowledge around efficacy, that requirement is still in place. Now it has been dropped for the kidneys, it has been dropped for the liver. There are other organs now that you no longer require the vaccination for but in, for the organ that Sheila needed it's still in place to date. Will Dove 15:33 We were talking before the interview and you mentioned that you're aware of other cases of organ transplants being delayed. So please fill us in on those. Umar Sheikh 15:42 Yeah, well, there's a lady in Quebec, that we are consulting with currently, who has the exact same condition as Sheila in terms of requiring the same organs, it, she's been, she's otherwise healthy and a good candidate, but she has been taken off the list for the last two years. You know, again, her condition is progressively getting worse. So it's it's a very scary similarity between her and Sheila. She is a French native in Quebec. So we're our primary language is French. So she speaks with French media as much as she can. But, you know, we're we're trying to figure out a pathway for her now, especially in Quebec, I mean, Quebec has done the surgeries that this lady needs that Sheila would have needed, Quebec has done them without the vaccine, even after the introduction of the vaccine, Quebec has done it, despite the national guidelines Quebec has done and so to say that we're going to do them for these people, but we're not going to do them for you, that's now now we're getting into the definition of discriminatory treatment that's outside the standard. And so we're hoping that a Quebec court, you know, or even the doctors in that case, see the light and are able to do this, or it's too late. Quite often, that's just what we're dealing with. This is where we're fighting against a wave of time here. And it's not being successful, unfortunately, and so we're hopeful that the Quebec case will be successful. We're hopeful that others, we've heard of folks in Toronto, we've heard of folks in Alberta, that also need transplants. And so we're trying to reach as many people as we can to help them in any way we can. But there's a lot of good folks trying to do that right now and we're hop.. Will Dove 17:28 Yeah. Let's move on to the case of Sean Hartman, the young 17 year old boy who died 33 days after receiving the first COVID vaccine, and his father, Dan Hartman, who has been fighting for compensation for that. Not, not because he wants money for his son, but because he wants to be able to take some time off to deal with the grief. Now, this has been going on for some time, and you're also representing Dan Hartman. So please tell us some of the details of what's happened. Umar Sheikh 17:56 Yes, the dad Dan Hartman is an extraordinary man, he is fighting for justice. Right. So part of you know, yes, there's money involved in in seeking damages in any of these cases, even in Sheila's case. There was going to be money involved in seeking damages. But but he's not in the you know, I've talked to him many times. He's not in it for the money. His goal is to get a ruling that yes, this killed his son and it was wrong. Here you have a 17 year old young man who is a hockey player loves hockey. That means so many Canadians, this is this is the story, right? Kids, then you put your boys on hockey, you and your girls in hockey, they end up loving it. This young man wanted to play hockey. He had no previous medical history, no previous conditions, no issues whatsoever. The Hockey League said that we are going to introduce a mandatory vaccine requirement in order for you to continue playing hockey. Based on that this young man went out and got the Pfizer vaccine. Very quickly after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he developed swelling, shortness of breath, and edema, which is a skin condition that started showing up. He went to the emergency room with his family. The emergency room said here's some over the counter Advil, you're going to be just fine and released him. Now, very shortly after that, he was found deceased next to his bed in his bedroom. The the coroner or the pathologist that did the initial autopsy on Sean said it was an unknown cause of death. Right so now we're 33 days post vaccination and otherwise perfectly healthy young man. And we're being told it's an unknown cause of death. At one point they floated the idea of sudden adult deaths and there is no such thing as sudden adult deaths. And that's that's one of the most ridiculous things that I've heard. But that was the ebb and flow. And so Dan started to try and get answers for his son's death. And find out what happened to him. This led to a pathologist in the states by the name of Dr. Cole, who's one of two in the world that was doing tissue samples as part of their pathology, to be able to determine if the spike protein had traveled to that part of the body and caused inflammation, which would have led to a decrease in blood pressure, which could have led to a stroke or a heart attack, would otherwise be indetectable by your regular coroner, pathology, autopsies that he would do here, you're not measuring for those things, those that testing is not even available at any of our coroner clinics in any province. It's available at some university hospitals, but you have to get it sent, it costs them money, they generally don't do it. So, tissue samples were sent to Dr. Cole in the States. He then did the analysis, and found indeed, that the tissue samples after some process called staining, did show that the spike protein had traveled, they were indicative that there was a cardiac event that caused this young man's death. And it was very clear that that was in relation to the vaccine. That was also stran- there was two doctors, as I mentioned, one was Dr. Cole and there was another doctor in Germany, who who also received the tissue samples from Sean and he was doing similar testing. The doctor in Germany died under suspicious circumstances last month. And so he's now out of the picture. But there's Dr. Cole that remains. And Dr. Peter McCullough signed on to help with this case. And we've been working with him. He has has done his own expert opinion that this was as a result of inflammation in the body. Now remember, the symptoms that he presented with at hospital, even giving him Advil, that's an acknowledgement it's inflammatory. The only way to make a determination if there was an enlarged heart, or enlarged organs, so inflammation is to weigh them post autopsy. Well, that weight was done. And we'd got those results. And it shows that it weighed more than it should have weighed. So clearly, there was inflammation in the vessels. Clearly it was inflammation, inflammation in the tissue. And so at this point, now working with Dr. Mercola, and working with Dr. Cole, and others that we're bringing on board we're trying to establish, you know, where the wrongful death liability lies. In this case, we'll be filing our civil claim within the next three weeks. It's coming up to two years. And so our preliminary investigations are coming to an end at this stage. That civil claim will be against the government of Canada, it will be against Health Canada, it may discuss bad faith, it may discuss fraud, we're working through a number of different angles, that take a look at how you approve under emergency approval, a product that can kill a 17 year old and then turn around and say no, it wasn't the vaccine, it was something else. It was an unknown cause of death. That that is absolutely abhorrent. This family has suffered tremendously, and continues to suffer every single day as a result of this death. This will be in our view, a landmark case in Canada for wrongful death. If we're able to succeed here, we will be setting some very significant precedent around this vaccine the efficacy of which is a question, we know it doesn't stop transmission. We want to understand how a product you can say is safe and effective can end up killing people. We know there's vaccine injuries, we know there's deaths, there's only one other case like Sean's in the world. And that is a young Japanese girl who passed away around the same age. In Japan they're working on a case now, we're in contact with them in their courts. And that is being investigated at a much larger scale than Sean's because that country is interested in trying to figure out what's going on there and what's happened to this young girl. And so we're we're honored to be working with Dan Hartman. We want justice to come to pass in this case. I encourage every one of your viewers to go to Mr. Hartman's Twitter page, it's called Answers4Sean and and maybe just your support your love your comments would be would be very, very welcome in this case. Will Dove 24:36 Yes. In process Answers4Sean four is a numeral and S E A N is the spelling of Sean's name. So that's Answers4Sean on the Twitter page. So obviously, Umar, this is much much bigger, as you said than just Dan Hartman's loss of his son. You're hoping to establish a precedent. However, you've got some fantastic witnesses. You've got Dr. McCullough, Doc Dr. Ryan Cole. I believe you had Dr. McCullough as a witness in Sheila's case as well. Umar Sheikh 25:05 We had Dr. Modry as our primany witness Will Dove 25:07 Dr. Modry? Umar Sheikh 25:08 Yeah. Dennis Modry. Will Dove 25:09 I must be thinking of a different case where where Dr. McCullough was testifying. But my question really is this, because the courts have had a history of refusing to rule on the science refusing to rule on whether or not these vaccines truly are safe and effective. Your how, how are you feeling about the possibility of this case turning out the way we need it to in order to establish that the courts, the government, health services, everybody should be saying, hey, wait a minute. They're not safe and effective. Umar Sheikh 25:42 You know, I hear that a lot on on courts not willing to rule. My perspective is a little bit different. The issues are not getting to court. They're not getting through a full trial. Evidence is not being presented to a decision maker. Now, there have been a handful of cases that have attempted to go through some of the travel mandate ones, the Peckford one, for example, those have been declared moot, and so everything gets shut down. There have been some employment cases, a handful of them where fulsome evidence hasn't been presented, but they've been shut down. There's been arbitrations that have been shut down. But there has not been that I have seen any case yet where there's been a fulsome presentation of all of the efficacy, all of the scientific evidence regarding the vaccines, challenging the emergency use authorization, introducing things like you know, reasonable alternatives such as ivermectin, which would have essentially negated the emergency use authorization in the first place had that not been demonized. There's a lot there, but the playbook we deal with, Will and I've been fighting governments for the better part of 15 years, in courts and in other arenas. I mean, it's, it's kind of been my schtick. You're dealing with an opponent here, who has unlimited money, unlimited time, and unlimited lawyers. To them justice delayed is justice denied. And it's just as good as [unintelligible], right? If your case isn't actually getting through any action to the argument, it's just as good as winning to them, they don't care. So a lot of what we deal with and have been dealing with for the past year and a half - and it's not just us, it's many fantastic firms and lawyers that are working on these cases - is delay tactics. It's obfuscation. Right. So we I'll give you a couple of examples. We filed a claim for the BC paramedics, ambulance drivers and paramedics who were terminated here in British Columbia. Those folks could potentially operate 24 full time, ambulances tomorrow. They have experience up to 35 years. They have been fired. BC is arguing we have a paramedic shortage, right? That's absolutely ridiculous. You have these people waiting on the sidelines willing to work. Now, as you know, and your viewers should know paramedics are paid through a contract, right? They have a contract with the government, and that's how they get paid. It's a publicly funded service. Paramedics are not private in this time. [unintelligible] after we filed our claim. And the Attorney General wrote to us in their official response and said, we were not aware the paramedics had a contract. Right now think about the ridiculousness of that statement. And ambulances doesn't stop at the side of the road, and they pick up some money and say, we've gotten paid today. Of course, they have a contract. And of course, you're aware of that contract. However, by making that argument, you will now cause a motion to be filed, you will cause probably 20 to 40 hours of work on that motion, you'll have a court date, which will take months to get when in fact, we're in court next week for the paramedics but on a different angle. But you'll have a court date that will take months to get a decision that may take another couple of months after that to get. So now we're on a stupid little motion, where five months delay, six months delay in for an additional 15 to 20,000 and costs. These are individuals who don't have jobs, who are bankrupt who have lost everything. How can you expect these people to have those kinds of funds to fight government? I'll give you another example. I was the CEO of the British Columbia Nurses' Union for a number of years. One of the contracts that we had negotiated was a pretty simple contract. It said when a nurse is absent you will replace that nurse. That was it, said you will replace the nurse. Nothing more to it. The government came back and said we don't know what the word 'will' means. 'Will' it can't mean that we have to replace the nurse, 'will' can't mean that we must replace the nurse so it's absurd if that's what it means. That was a year and a half of litigation probably a million and a half dollars before the word 'will' meant will. And again, this is not, this is a very common exercise when you are fighting government, I've got a class action for the aviation group going right now. We have filed our class proceeding, we're going into certification. I received notice the other day from the federal attorney general, making basic arguments saying, Oh, this doesn't make sense to us for all of these reasons. And so we're going to do something called a motion to strike. We're going to have to overcome that, we will overcome that, um, but it's ridiculous to even do it at this stage in the class action. And I will bore you guys with the technical details, but a class action has steps one of which is certification. And after that, you can argue the business substance of the matter. They want to flip it on its head. Why? Because it'll cost us time, it'll cost us money, and it will delay. The biggest issue with Sean's case or the health care workers we represent, or the public servants, is getting their cases into court, getting past the discovery stage, which is where we get to interview witnesses and get evidence and then actually proceed. That's a big deal. And we're not there yet. Now we're fighting silly motions all the way through. You know, I filed a case against Porter Airlines last May. They did a motion that on, you know that they weren't subject to the Charter, which they are, they were acting as agents for the governments. And so I would say they're subject to the Charter. But regardless, we did that last May, they put in a motion that stopped our proceedings. We didn't get a court date until next May, in Toronto. So we're delayed a full year and a bit before we can even get in there. So a lot of people don't understand that this is a large majority of what we have to deal with. Once we get into court, once we actually get to a trial, then we can present the evidence still, in our to this day, Bonnie Henry, the public health officer in British Columbia, has never been forced to testify. She's never been on the stand. She's never been in discovery, we have Theresa Tam, same situation, never been forced to testify. There's never been a Health Canada official that has actually been forced to give evidence on the use of the vaccine or the authorization procedure. No one's ever testified as to the immunity agreements granted, extraordinary immunity agreements granted to the manufacturers, which netted them billions of dollars without any liability. All of these issues need to come out. But it will, it just continues to take time and people that, you know, unfortunately, a lot of people think this is a law and order episode, right? So you hear the boom, boom, and all of a sudden they're in court. And now they've got a decision. You know, this is years in the making. When I did the flu vaccine case, in British Columbia, the mandatory flu vaccine policy, that was probably seven or eight years before that case was resolved. And we had that policy gone. These things just take an extraordinary amount of time, they take an extraordinary amount of expense, and an extraordinary amount of effort. And so that's when you see people like Dan Hartman and even in, you know, Sheila's case and others trying to, to get the crowd behind them, the Canadians behind them, and we start hearing why nobody's gotten anywhere yet, or the courts aren't accepting it. The courts haven't really, in my view, had a chance to even get through the evidence yet. Right. Once you get there, then we can have those discussions. Will Dove 33:29 You've given us these excellent examples of just extreme delaying tactics on the part of the government. Right now, the COVID narrative is heating up again, as we sit here in September of 2023 talking about this, to the point where online, it's being called COVID 2.0. Biden's government is already pushing for people to take another booster. Trudeaus government has ordered three new booster vaccines. Do you think that these delaying tactics are being done on purpose so that they can continue to run this vaccine narrative as long as possible before a court inevitably rules 'no, they are not safe and effective.' Umar Sheikh 34:08 Wow, I mean, so so I think we're, we're ascribing way more intelligence and organization than these people have. You know, when we look at a Machiavellian approach, where they're coordinated enough to delay the courts so that they can get another agenda through, I don't think they're that intelligent. I really don't, I think that lawyers are generally trained to do what they're doing now. Especially if you work for government. Cost is not an issue. So everything is subject to challenge, every, you know, there's not a contract this word doesn't mean what we think it means. Everything is subject to challenge because there's no limit to the amount of money the government can spend on these cases and the time it takes. Their primary goal is to protect their witnesses, and Bonnie Henry and others; there's no limit to what they would do. At the same time, you've got, you're right, these coordinated campaigns for COVID 2.0. And you know, more boosters. But I think what you're seeing from the Canadian public at large, and what we saw from the third shot, let's say onward, is their uptake is falling off dramatically. 30% of Canadians did not get the initial booster to COVID-19's so-called vaccinations, that is a massive number in context of this country. If you started firing those people, and taking them out of your jobs, you would shut down your economy completely. And maybe that's a goal, right? They maybe they want to cause further chaos and further harm. Certainly, the Bank of Canada is doing a great job of that now. But again, you have to ascribe a degree of intelligence. Here you've got people that are introducing a guaranteed purchase contract, which is what they've done with these vaccine manufacturers, so now you've got all of this supply coming in, and you want to push it on to people, so you're not wasting it and being shown as a wasteful government in spending. And so perhaps that's part of the narrative. I think that the Canadian people themselves are smart enough to understand and by now, you know, those who have gotten vaccinated three times four times 10 times, they're still getting COVID. They're still transmitting COVID. And so I think, you know, even even an individual who was, was perhaps the most pro government supporter of this is probably getting to the stage where they say, Oh, this doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Why am I injecting this into my body. One of the reasons that the flu case was successful around the flu vaccine mandates, is because we had reached a point by 2015, where there was a complete mismatch. You would get the vaccine, and it would have nothing to do with the active strain of flu, then you'd still get the flu, he'd still give the flu. And so now, what's the point in taking people's jobs away and harming them if there's no efficacy and the courts have ruled on? Right, that there's been, you know, decisions to talk about, it has to be actually effective. To meet your goal, there has to be a relationship between what you're trying to achieve by policy, and what you're mandating people to do. Right? If you want no accidents on the road, and you come in and say everyone drives a blue car, that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. There is no substantial relationship. The same thing was happening with the flu vaccine, a similar thing is happening with the COVID vaccines, they don't make a heck of a lot of sense. So I think, you know, Will, I don't believe that these folks are that intelligent. I really don't, I don't think that they are, that I want to give them that much credit, that they're able to coordinate between the courts, the cases that everyone has around the country, and the rollout of a new product. I think that all things are happening, but I don't know if they're necessarily connected in any way. Will Dove 37:52 We have a person such as myself, who believes that the government knew from day one, that the shots were toxic. And it would be fair to say that no, they're not, the lawyers are not working, you know, hand in hand with the government in some backroom deal to buy more time. But it would be fair to say that the government knew from day one, that they would use these delaying tactics, because as you said, that's what they're trained to do. Umar Sheikh 38:19 Why didn't the government certainly knew they weren't effective, you know, the product filings for Maderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, etc. All have product monographs that were filed at the time the emergency authorizations were sought. These are the the core documents that say what your drug can do and can't do. And they're necessary for any and every drug in this country or anywhere in the world. None of them said they would prevent transmission right off the bat. They knew it wasn't saving grandma's life, when Trudeau came out and said, this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated and these people can't expect to be on trains and planes and eating with the rest of us, that was all stupid. That was nonsensical. These, you know, either he is actively illiterate or choice by choice illiterate, or is he briefed or is perhaps in on the conspiracy, but at the end of the day, the documentation was in black and white, they absolutely knew it wasn't effective. They knew there wasn't any safety studies done on these things. They knew there could be side effects. And yet they chose to mandate it. Not only did they choose to mandate just to demonize everyone that decided they didn't want it, this makes even less sense. It's one thing to introduce a product at an emergency use authorization and say, look, get it if you want, it's at your own risk, just like going to a theme park or going bungee jumping. You want to do this go and do this, here are the risks, we're letting you know and it's up to you. That's one thing. It's a whole other thing to say if you don't get it, you're in this category of deplorable and you're the one causing the pandemic. That is absolutely not what was happening. That's not what's happening today. And they certainly knew that. Absolute are Will Dove 39:57 What I'm trying to establish there, Umar, is this: going back to those extreme examples you gave earlier, the delaying tactics, that the government, as you've just pointed out, knew that these shots were not effective. They knew they hadn't been safety tested. And so they could roll these out, mandatory, knowing that it was going to probably take years, due to these delaying tactics, before a court in Canada was going to rule on whether or not they actually were safe and effective. What I'm getting at is that the government put these vaccines out there, knowing it would be years before their safe and effective narrative would be legally questioned. Umar Sheikh 40:38 Yeah, yeah. I think that you're spot on there. Anytime you're at court procedure, it's yours, especially when you're fighting with the government. It's years and years. And you better have an arsenal behind, you better have a lot of money and a lot of time and committed people doing it. So yeah, no, I absolutely agree with you on that, they, any calculus that they would be challenged on these actions, even challenging the emergency use authorization, would have necessarily included a legal opinion that said it will be years before that happens. Trudeau will be long gone from office with with his, you know, X millions and millions of dollars, accountability to those who did it will be minimal. And you know, they'll eventually come around to perhaps Oh, we were wrong. And perhaps there's an apology, but the harm is done at that. Will Dove 41:27 I have to ask. And I'm going to ask you a question to which I realize you cannot give more than an educated guess. But based upon your 15 years of experience in fighting governments, how many years are we looking at before we get that ruling? Umar Sheikh 41:43 Three to five, at the very minimum. Will Dove 41:46 So the best case scenario would be next year? Umar Sheikh 41:50 Probably not next year, there is no case that I'm aware of... Will Dove 41:53 We're talking about three to five years from now, not from the start of the narrative. From now. Umar Sheikh 41:57 From now. Yeah. Will Dove 41:58 So we're looking at 2028 to 2030 before we can expect, possibly, a Canadian court is going to rule that no, they were not safe and effective. Umar Sheikh 42:08 Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you remember the pregnancy cases back in the late 70s, that, I forgot the name of the drug now. But there was a drug that pregnant women were being prescribed and, and having horrible, you know, births and issues with deformities. It took years, even there, there really was no emergency use authorization, the opioid cases that we're just seeing, get dealt with now under Purdue Pharma and oxycodone, years and years of time before those were resolved. We, they're still prescribing oxycodone in the amounts that they were doing it before, they just ended up paying a $200 million fine in each province or, or whatever amount they ended up paying. There is no case that I know of, now they're made. Obviously, I'm just basing it on what I currently know, in my orbit. But there's no case I know of that, that is on the heels in court of being able to set that precedent. You know, like, practically speaking, if we discussed the Hartman case, you know, filing the Hartmann case, this month, you know, you're probably looking at a whole bunch of motions and delays and times that will take us into this time next year, by the time we're maybe into discovery. And then we have to start setting witness interviews and court dates, maybe a year after that that's going to happen. So we it is a significant amount of time before a court may hear that matter. And that's if we make it all the way through. You know, there have been now No, I don't want to ignore the success stories that and this wasn't me or my firm. But there have been some successes, right? You saw the Ingram decision in Alberta and credit to Leighton Grey and the work those folks have done on that. That was a good decision. It wasn't a charter decision, but it was certainly a decision that talked about what public health officer could do and how they could do it. So some of that has come out. It hasn't set precedent we wanted but but it's gone in the right direction. There was a military panel decision that found that what happened to military officers with COVID vaccine mandatory nature was unconstitutional. So there's been there's been some arbitration and tribunal decisions that are starting to touch on it. But we don't know of anything that is going to be in court, like our our aviation class action may get to court before Sean Hartman's and so that's why I say three to five but but you know, certainly take a lot of time and then if you happen to win, you're going to be subject to appeal. There's no way in an unlimited money environment the government does not appeal if they lose in court and so now we're in for another year or two the for that stuff, and then potentially the Supreme Court of Canada to issue a final decision on the matter. To date the Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear cases; they refuse to hear Sheila's case, for example, on the constitutionality of the matter. So they haven't really weighed in yet. So yeah, it'll be a significant amount of time. But part of this is the psychology, right? So you need staying power, you need to have an invested client at the right case at the right time, that's going to continue to move through. Dan Hartman is that type of client, so he's not going anywhere. But a lot of folks have very, very short memories. And you know, we kind of look over there see something new and something else is going on this instance very intentional to distract us from from focusing on a particular issue or being able to take it all the way through, we see the government playing this type of psy op. We see social media playing these types of psy ops, these are happening all the time. I think we need to keep coming back to these cases, bring more focus to them, and then have people invested in actually taking them all the way through, which is not an easy thing to happen. But if we can get there, we will get there. I mean, there's no doubt in my mind, that there will be precedents in this country, there is no evidence that I have seen that says these vaccines did what they were advertised to do. Not one iota of evidence, there is nothing that says they prevent a transmission from the drug manufacturer down to the individual who's gotten 10 doses of the [unintelligible]. Nothing says we're gonna prevent transmission, there is nothing that says you're not going to get COVID if you get the vaccine, right, there's nothing out there that there's no state. And so at the end of the day, it's hard to hang on to an illusory narrative. Just because you say it's safe and effective, just because you say we're all deplorable for not believing you. But that can only go so far. And so eventually, I think there's going to have to be the evidence, and there's, they'll have to be a decision, but it just, it's going to take time. Will Dove 46:48 And I understand that completely. I've been saying since the beginning of this, that as much as I respect the work of lawyers, such as yourself, and I'm very grateful what you're doing. It's not going to be a court case, that's going to shut down this narrative, it's going to be public resistance. But I think that it's very important, just to reiterate, something we were discussing a few minutes ago, because it's something that most people who do not have your experience wouldn't know something that I didn't know, until you revealed it in this interview, despite having interviewed now, some 300 experts on all of this. The government knew in December of 2020, when they started pushing these shots on people, that it would probably be a decade before a court might rule that they are not safe and effective. They knew that. Umar Sheikh 47:36 Yeah, I mean, I don't have any any documents that are a smoking gun to that. What I can say is that there is no chance that that it would have been less than 10 years or less than, you know, a significant amount of years before these issues would have gotten to court being it wasn't going to be a situation where, you know, they introduced the vaccines and then tomorrow there would have been a trial. This is just not how our justice system works. Common sense would tell me they absolutely knew, and that their AG lawyers would have told them that it's going to take quite a long time before these cases go to court. Their experience would have shown that too. Right. I mean, there have been, you know, we're still dealing with Indigenous issues around residential schools. How many years ago was that? You know, we're still dealing with, you know, Japanese internment camp apologies. How many years ago was that? Right? So we know that the system to apologize to change that have a social movement that makes an impact takes a long time. We know the courts take a heck of a long time. And so there's no way they would have thought that oh, we're going to introduce this and we might get challenged in a month or a year that there's no way. Will Dove 48:51 Umar, before we close out this interview, I want to return briefly to the case of Sean Hartman. I was reading Dan Hartman's Twitter page, and unless I misunderstood what he was saying, he said, and so just folks, just to remind you the timeline here. Sean gets the shot from Pfizer, first one, four days later, he's in the hospital, they give him Advil, they send him home. 33 days after the shot, his father finds him dead in his bedroom floor. But what Dan said was that until that day, the date of his daugh- his son's death, he didn't know he had taken the shot. He had begged him not to take it. Is that correct? That he didn't know that Sean had taken it? Umar Sheikh 49:36 Well, like most families, they're they're separated, Dan and his wife, and so there was a kind of a split custody situation. So I believe it was Sean's mother who found Sean in his room. I believe I know that she had primary custody of Sean. And so to the extent Sean and his dad were talking I'm not 100% clear on those timelines. I do know that, that he wasn't aware of it. I know he wasn't advocating for it. But at the same time, I'm not blaming Sean's mom, either. I think I think at the end of the day, Hockey Canada, or the hockey club he was with pushed this requirement, the young man wanted to play hockey. I have teenagers, it's really hard to tell your teenager not to do something, they're going to do it, especially if you tell him not to. And so he went out and did it. You know, I don't think Dan was aware of it. You know, but it is it is tragic at the end of it. Will Dove 50:36 It is indeed. Umar, thank you very much for the work that you're doing, for the work you have done. All we can do is hope that things will eventually, as you say, that justice will out and the truth will come out. So thank you again. Umar Sheikh 50:51 Thank you for everything, Will, and we really appreciate your show and the opportunity to come on. Appreciate that. Thank you