Calling Out, Countering and Crushing the Great Lie in Court
"When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there, but it is... still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid."
– Valery Legasov, Chernobyl (2019): 'Open Wide, O Earth'
When someone wants to have their day in court, it's as much about principle as it is about telling their story and calling out the other side. This is a longstanding constitutional challenge that has always aimed to simply call out the government and mainstream narrative regarding COVID-19.
Almost exactly three years ago today, on November 26th of 2020, 253 police officers with cavalry descended upon one of the three Adamson Barbecue smoked meat restaurants in Toronto. The owner, Adam Skelly, refused to bend the knee to government dictate. He defied the COVID lockdown order. And paid the price for it.
Adam was the very first business owner in North America who was arrested for daring to defy a public health order. He stood alone when hundreds of businesses- at the very least- should have stood with him. If you own a small business, or are employed by one, he stood for you. And if you wish you could do it all over again and stand right there with him, you can do it through this challenge.
Adam faces countless ticketing charges for refusing to close his business. He faces imprisonment for obstructing a peace officer, mischief for breaking into his own restaurant, and trespassing on his own property. He faces a $187,000 lawsuit from the City of Toronto for their calling the police, horses and reinforcements to shut him down. And they've gone after his father, too.
These are tactics of terror and tyranny. Even after specifically saying they would obstruct the operation of his establishment by constructing concrete blocks around it, they called in an entire legion of police anyway. Why? To strike fear and terror into the hearts of other business owners who agreed with Adam. That's you. And me.
Adam originally raised over $300,000 to withstand the crushing weight of government force, power, money and resources. This enormous power imbalance, combined with the unpreparedness, unexpected and unprecedented nature of said abuse of power, was enough to drain these funds and prevent this challenge from being heard.
But the fight goes on. Adam was not only run out of town, he was run out of the province. His business was bankrupted. He can save himself, but chooses to fight on for everyone else who cannot. He is down, but not out. This challenge will be heard and the government will not be able to snuff out the light of truth that it brings with it.
Just this past Monday, Adam was ordered to pay $32,000 in advance costs within 60 days. This was devastating, and completely unfair and unjust, but an appeal is in the works. The court may stay or dismiss this challenge if the order is not satisfied. This cannot- will not- be permitted to happen.
Why is this any different than any other legal challenge? And why should you support it?
- All other challenges are "moot". You've heard it before. The public health orders that effected the lockdowns and mandates are long-expired. They can't be challenged unless there is a "live controversy" and/or there are provable damages to the litigant. Both conditions exist in this case. The prosecution continues against Adam three whole years later, with no end in sight. And his business and livelihood were completely destroyed by government action. Just like so many others, who are on the brink when their government loans come due.
- No one suing today would have "standing" in court. To have private interest standing, one must be directly affected by the law and/or government action. To have public interest standing, one must stand in the place of many others who have been affected by the same. Today, no one may have standing because, to repeat, the public health orders are long-expired. There is very little left to challenge. It's too late. Adam is literally the last man standing who has standing to challenge COVID tyranny.
- If someone with virtually unlimited resources sued the government- any government- today, politicians and the experts would simply cry, "We didn't know!!", demand amnesty and forgiveness, and say they acted in good faith. The evidence must be contemporary to the time with the knowledge that everyone had at the time. The evidence is over two and a half years old. It cannot be touched. And more is coming.
- The courts have all taken "judicial notice" that COVID-19 was, and continues to be, a deadly pandemic that spreads through completely healthy people with no symptoms, whatsoever. This is the Great Lie, as it stands. Everything stems from it, including the vaccine mandates and all the destruction that came with them. To supplant it, the Great Lie must be called out with thorough, expert evidence. He has- with six experts. This evidence must be heard.
Who are these experts?
- Dr. Joel Ketter, MD. Former Chief Medical Officer of Health of Manitoba. Associate professor of medicine, University of Manitoba. Medical Director for the International Centre for Infectious Diseases. He's opined at length upon the pubic health measures taken- and obliterated them. Long-established measures and pandemic procedures were never undertaken, including the WHO's own as stipulated in 2019 regarding pandemic flu.
- Dr. Douglas Allen, PhD. Professor of economics, Simon Fraser University. He examined 88 papers from the National Bureau of Economic Research at Harvard regarding cost-benefit analyses of lockdowns. No such analysis has ever been conducted by any government, anywhere. Least of all, here in Ontario. The government has been called out and held to account directly regarding the abuse of power of the unprecedented lockdowns.
- Dr. William Matt Briggs, PhD. Former professor of statistics and biostatistics, Cornell. Co-author of the very first book ever written on the lockdowns, The Price of Panic. He performed a statistical analysis demonstrating that there is either no correlation, or a negative correlation, between lockdowns, and infection and mortality rates. He also submitted evidence that hospitals experienced no greater load than usual throughout 2020.
- Dr. Gilbert Berdine, MD. Harvard and MIT educated. Associate professor of medicine, Texas Tech University. Specialist in pulmonology for over two decades. He's treated COVID patients directly. He submitted medical evidence challenging the premises of the pandemic as it affected individual patients. He also weighed in on the consequences of not specifically permitting children to be exposed to a virus which has negligible effects on those under 20 years of age. We all suffered and his evidence proves it.
- Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD. Professor (now emeritus) of epidemiology, Yale. Author of several hundred papers and one of the most oft-cited in epidemiology on the planet. He submitted evidence on reasonable alternatives to emergency measures, focusing on hydroxychloroquine. More than two and a half years later, his report is unassailable and no one has even attempted to refute it.
- Dr. Byram Bridle, PhD. Associate Professor of viral immunology, University of Guelph. Author of dozens of papers and former, regular peer reviewer of scientific papers. He submitted evidence on asymptomatic transmission, or lack thereof. The same for re-transmission after infection. Similarly, he opined at length upon variants-of-concern, aerosolized transmission, immune response, and also reasonable alternatives, just as Dr. Risch did. Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and vitamin D were analyzed and backed with impeccable, irrefutable evidence. There are 77 papers, alone, that were cited backing the use of vitamin D3 supplementation to combat infection, and lessen transmission, morbidity and mortality. The government was grossly negligent to disregard them all.
If this challenge were to be abandoned, all of the evidence and previous cross-examination testimony would disappear into the night and not be permitted to be heard. Ever. The most comprehensive and valuable collection of expert evidence anywhere in Canada, North America, the continent, or anywhere else on earth, would cease to exist for the purposes of a COVID-related court challenge.
Don't let it happen.
This case already has hearing dates scheduled and set in stone for October 1st, 2nd and 7th of 2024. The government cannot touch the evidence and is doing whatever it can to prevent it from ever being heard.
Adam Skelly, in a sense, was the First Trucker™. He preceded the persecutions of Pastors Pawlowski and Coates. He preceded the persecution of Christopher Scott and the Whistle Stop Cafe. He preceded the persecution of the January 6 protestors. He preceded the horrible persecution of the Coutts Four. And, of course, he preceded the persecution of the Freedom Convoy protestors.
They all embarrassed and humiliated the government, and were made to pay for it. It was not the law. It was revenge. The treatment of Adam became a template of oppression, which would be used again and again, against an Enemies List of the government.
No more. The line must be drawn here. Back this challenge. It'll make you proud. It'll make change. And it'll make history.
Our goal is to have 5,000 people out of 15 million people in Ontario contribute $20 each to this challenge. That's less than 0.04% of the population and excludes any other donors. It's doable. It's possible. Let's make it happen!
Most sincerely and with many thanks,
Co-founder and director,
Concerned Constituents of Canada
A federally incorporated, non-for-profit corporation under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act.
For more information: