The following two paragraphs come from an email I received from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, a Canadian legal action organization
The Justice Centre is also defending Tamara Lich, Chris Barber and other Canadians against a civil action launched by Ottawa bureaucrat Zexi Li, who, along with other Ottawa residents, is suing for $290,000,000 (yes, 290 million dollars!) over losing a few nights’ sleep due to horn-honking. Night-time horn-honking in Ottawa ended early on, with the truckers’ lawyers (provided by the Justice Centre) signing a consent order.
Even more troubling: Zexi Li and the other plaintiffs seek to create a new legal precedent that would see Canadians who donated to the Freedom Convoy held liable for damages. Currently, if a non-profit group engages in some kind of wrongdoing, that non-profit group can be sued and potentially found liable, but those who donated to the group are (appropriately!) shielded from liability. Our lawyers will ask the court to reject Zexi Li’s proposed new precedent.
As a side note. Isn’t this the concept of common guilt. “you voted for Hamas therefore you must be a terrorist”paraphase. You supported the truckers, an occupying terrorist force therefore you must be a terrorist.
Back to the main point.
Is rejecting this the proper course?
To donate to a cause is to promote a cause, agreed? Ok. The canadian governement promoted and mandated a cause the canadian media promoted and supported a cause. Of course the cause to which I refer is an unsafe drug. Couldn’t it also go another step and say Zexi Li and co complainants by her lawsuit are promoting that same cause, an unsafe drug. So then if that is true all that remains is to prove the drug is unsafe?
Could work to our advantage by unshielding the governemntal actors? This could be a test of common guilt which may work to our advantage, Any legal opinions.
IVERMECTIN/Hydroxy work, Who knew, When did they know, Who suppressed it.
Accountability Now, Now, Now
Shawn663