Rocco Galati at the Post-Covid19 Stockholm Peace Summit, 19 Dec 2020

Beginning at 00:01

Dominic Desjarlais: The next speaker is going to be Mr. Rocco Galati. Mr. Rocco Galati is one of the best, if not the best constitutional lawyer in Canada. He has made a career of going to court against Canadian government and different government bodies. He filed on behalf of Vaccine Choice Canada in July of 2020. A very important lawsuit against the government of Canada, the city of Toronto, the government of Ontario. The lawsuit is comprised of 191 pages. It’s in my opinion, the most comprehensive and most complete lawsuit that was filed in any jurisdiction in the world up to this date. I had the chance to meet Mr. Rocco Galati for various work sessions and I’m in touch with him on a regular basis, so it’s a great honor for me to present to you, Mr. Rocco, Galati as the next speaker.

Rocco Galati: Thank you, Dominic, and thank you to the conference for inviting me.

On March 17th of 2020, when the emergency was declared in Ontario, which is a province in Canada—and health measures under the Canadian constitution are provincial, the federal government has very limited jurisdiction except for quarantine—I tweeted what was to transpire, which has transpired globally. And I tweeted it because I wanted it on the record. For those of us who were awake, I tweeted here comes the COVID 1984 frenzy, a totalitarian tiptoe to a new world order. Courts shut down, parliaments shut down, police and military on the street. The death rate from this pandemic will not be any higher than your average influenza. Most deaths will be the elderly and the immunocompromised. And I tweeted that on the day that the emergency was declared in Ontario.

In May I was hired by my clients to bring a constitutional challenge to the measures. July 6th we filed a comprehensive challenge to all the measures in the Ontario court, which included not just the irrational, unscientific, unmedical, extreme measures in that they were not based on any science or medicine and including the constitutional violations that they inflicted. And in that lawsuit, I also pled the international dimensions of where these measures were coming from and were being directed by the likes of Bill Gates [pages 47–56, 127–129, 134–139, 144, 146, 146, 148–155, 164, 168, 188], the GAVI [pages 46, 127–128, 139, 146, 148, 164] the World Economic Forum, [pages 46, 49, 127, 138–139, 142–146 153–154 164, 168] and the international conglomerate of criminals who are directing this. When I filed on July 6th, 2020, government lawyers were calling it a conspiracy theory and threatened to bring in an application to throw the case out. Well, since then, everything that I wrote for my clients in this Statement Of Claim on July 6th, is history. It’s understated past old news. Everything we put in there happened and we’re here now living it.

The primary challenge we put in was that there was no scientific evidence, the first challenge, to call an emergency. Two weeks after we filed the claim, the Ontario government—actually less than two weeks—actually revoked the Emergency Order and then played games by putting in a new Act to impose some of these same measures by way of health measures. Then the next step was we were about to bring in an injunction, an application to make masking voluntary, and that they didn’t have the right to impose mandatory masking. Within no time, the Ontario government changed the regulations and said that anyone who invokes an exemption on various grounds, any medical ground and any ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code, which includes creed, which is belief. So if you don’t believe in wearing masks, you can say you’re exempt. And they further put in a provision that we were saying is required, which said that when you claim an exemption, you don’t have to provide any information nor proof of that exemption.

Now, the only problem with changing the law is obviously a lot of people are not current with their rights. But the masking in Ontario, if you have an exemption is not mandatory, if you invoke an exemption and they can’t ask you what your exemption is based on or to provide evidence. So as the school year started in September things were—exemptions in the school system were being being honored. But now since then the schools have taken a zero tolerance—even if you have a letter that you have a medical exemption, they’re having the school principal decide whether that medical advice is proper or not. So we’re in the middle of launching an application against the schools in Ontario and the lawsuit against the principals and superintendents and school boards, which is going to be filed very soon.

That’s where the litigation is here in Ontario. They’re playing this game of shifting sand, which we’ve seen now since the so-called pandemic was declared. And our statistics, we have a department in Canada, Statistics Canada, that publishes all sorts of things. I just pulled out the latest figures going up to August. And it compares the death rates in Canada from 2015 to 2020 and they’re virtually unchanged every year. Virtually unchanged. So, as we know the PCR test is a fraudulent tool that’s being used.[pages 83, 100–101, 122–124] You would think that in a pandemic where with all this fear-mongering about how many deaths there are, your number of deaths in your country would increase. Well they haven’t. They haven’t increased at all. In fact, this year, they’re a bit lower than other years, probably because everybody’s locked down so less people are dying in car accidents and other accidents.

So it’s an insanity that’s mind numbing. Now, in terms of the court challenges there is some good news. As Dominic said earlier when these things get to court, there’s some sobriety in the court if you get a fair and honest judge. That’s not always guaranteed with the court system. It’s been said that the law is a human institution. It’s not a laboratory. But I took a lot of solace also in the US Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court has issued two decisions saying you can’t lock down the churches. And the first one, they made a very scathing comment saying that the constitution will not tolerate a tri-colored—in North America, they have zones, red zones and grey zones. But in terms of the lockdowns the Supreme Court in the United States said that the Constitution will not tolerate a tri-colored system, whereby the liquor stores are fully open as an essential service, but churches, synagogues, and mosques are shut, are closed shut.

From our point here, I’m the executive director of the Constitutional Rights Centre in Toronto, the next challenges we’ll be taking, in addition to the large lawsuit that I filed and the injunction that’s coming up on the school masking, we’re also filing, suing the medical colleges. What’s happening in Canada is all the medical colleges have put in a provision that says that doctors cannot say anything that goes contrary to the official line of the World Health Organization or our local health officers. So I represent several doctors who are being disciplined for having spoken the truth on Twitter, about the science of COVID-19 and about the medicine. In addition to defending them before the college, we are also going to be suing the college and all those involved in the investigation personally. This is happening not only Ontario, we’re also doing this in British Columbia another province in Canada.

As far as my colleagues are concerned, we’re trying to organize lawyers. I work with Dominic and other lawyers who are doing cases in Canada. Very few of us are, have actually challenged these provisions. And we’re also also in contact with the US lawyers who are contemplating bringing action and who are bringing action on the COVID. As lawyers, I encourage my colleagues to go to court, challenge these provisions in whole, or in part. It’s the only way as our profession that we can contribute to putting an end to this madness.

Of course the problem is that the population obviously is traumatized. They don’t read, they don’t want to read, they don’t want to accept that their government could possibly be doing them harm. I’m always—when I’m criticized, they say, Why don’t you trust your government? Then I remind people that governments have a quaint history of engaging in the following activities: war, genocide, crimes against humanity, persecution, and suppression of every human right ever declared. So why would I necessarily trust the government that’s given me bogus science, bogus medicine, measures that make no sense? Where a small clothing store or shoe store has to close down in Canada, but Walmart and Costco is fully open, where we have crowded box stores where people shop shoulder to shoulder in the lineups and the little store has to close.

While people call the allegations of the global agenda behind these measures, conspiracy theories, it’s now gotten to the point where that kind of allegation is embarrassing. I remind people I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I’m a conspiracy analyst. And if you can’t see what’s really happening from the use of the PCR test—I mean, our criminal courts: if you run a PCR test for DNA analysis past a certain cycle—I think it’s 25—it’s not admissible in court because it’s recognized, it’s unreliable. We are running tests in Ontario at 43 to 45 cycles. Anything will test positive at that cycle. And I’m sure when the vaccine is administered, they’ll run them at five cycles and claim that they’ve cured the pandemic. That’s coming up the road as well.

Luckily, with respect to vaccines, we’re fortunate in Canada because our Supreme Court and our Provincial Appellate Courts have said that we have a Constitutional Right, and there are Charter of Rights, not to be forced to take any medical procedure or treatment without our informed consent. And they know that. That’s why they’re saying the vaccines are voluntary. Except that if you don’t take the vaccine, they say your freedoms will be restricted. You won’t be able to travel and you won’t be able to do certain things. The surprise that they have to deal with is that our constitutional jurisprudence also says that if something is voluntary, but you coerce a person or try to coerce a person into doing what you say is voluntary, then it’s mandatory.

So you can’t say to a person, for instance, You don’t have to confess to the crime, but if you don’t confess, we won’t let you out of the jail cell. Well, that’s not a voluntary confession. So when they say You don’t have to take the vaccine, but if you don’t, here’s the punishment, well, that’s not voluntary. That’s also an infringement of your constitutional rights. And of course, when we get there, as they’re dishing out the vaccines, and then they restrict your freedoms we’ll also go to court over that....

Apart from that, we’re also going to be bringing applications for Habeas Corpus, with respect to special needs children in Ontario, in Canada. Because if you suffer severe, special needs or severely autistic or physical disability, these children are literally prisoners in their own house. They’re under house arrest. So we’re going to be bringing a Habeas Corpus application to force the government to have special measures to accommodate people with special needs because our constitution guarantees equality rights, and life, liberty, and security of the person. These kids suffer dramatically because they don’t get it. At the severe end of the disability, the neurologically disabled children, they just don’t understand COVID measures. They don’t understand self isolation. They don’t understand why they can’t go to the same park, the same swimming pool and see their friends. They just don’t get any of this. Frankly, as an adult, I don’t get it either, but they can’t even understand it. So we’re going to continue to file court actions against the government and encourage my colleagues in the bar to do the same.
Ends at 16:01

Beginning at 29:14

The Nuremberg Code prohibition against any medical experiment or any medical treatment has already been recognized by our Supreme Court. We have a constitutional right in Canada to refuse any and all medical treatment even if it kills us. The only exception the Supreme Court has made is that a parent cannot refuse treatment of a child if that child is going to die imminently or seriously be injured because the child has his or her own independent Charter Rights as a person. This usually arises in blood transfusion with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The court has said, You cannot make the choice for your child to die. It has to go to court. Then the court decides whether treatment is refused or not. But it still maintains the right to no treatment without consent and in the case of a minor it’s the court that gives the consent.

Beginning at 35:03

Dominic: Now Rocco, maybe you can talk about the population mood in Ontario and collateral damages.

Rocco Galati: It depends where you are. In a big city everything is tense. You can feel the tension. As you get into the rural areas people are more relaxed because there’s more space. But clearly the measures in Canada are not even disputed. We have had four times more suicides. Five times more drug addiction deaths. The domestic violence is up. Forty-two percent more deaths from heart attacks because of cancelled surgery. On and on and on. Now if you look on a global basis the statistics that have been generated, the estimates vary between eight to twelve to one. For every person who they say has died of COVID eight to twelve people die from the COVID measures. So the cure is very much worse than the feared disease. You get 10,000 children a month, additional children starving to death from the distribution of the food supply. In England, in April of 2020 they had 10,000 Alzheimers deaths than in April of 2019 because of the isolation. It’s a body count that’s scandalous. Part of our constitutional law, in deciding whether these measures are justified, the last test the government has to pass is, Are the beneficial effects outweighed by the detrimental effects? Clearly the detrimental effects are that you’re killing more people than you say you’re saving.


1/11 Slides	© Associated Press

Beginning at 38:57

Often when I speak publicly I make reference to World War II and the fascist measures during the war. People criticize me saying, You can’t compare this to the fascism in Germany and Italy. I say, Listen, this is worse. This is global. That was restricted to the [interrupted]. My father spent five years in a Mussolini camp because he was [...] Mussolini. Some of us who have fathers who lived during that time understand that these things are not only possible. They’re here. And this is a global fascism that’s taken over. What I say to people is this: they have all the money; they have the politicians in their pocket; they have the police, they have the army. One thing that they do not have is that they do not control the consent and obedience of people of conscience or people who don’t like the measures. They cannot—they do not have our consent or our obedience at will. And so I say to people, If you’re against these measures do what feel comfortable to assert your Constitutional Rights and resist these fascist measures.

Beginning at 40:24

Moderator: I have a last question to each of you because this is a peace summit, post-COVID. It’s wishful thinking but maybe it’s already here. How can we, as lawyers, announce the end of the pandemic, of the COVID, it’s over. Can you give us an input from each of your opinion and expertise. Thank you.

Beginning at 42:15

Rocco Galati: We’re filing an application very soon citing the medical evidence, the scientific evidence, and also the mortality rates being no different. We’re asking the court to declare that under these circumstances, peaceful, civil disobedience for instance of the lockdowns is a constitutional right until the Supreme Court rules on it. We’re going to plead with the court, we’re going to file with the court to say that It’s our Constitutional Right to ignore the lockdown because there is no basis for it. When people assert their right to civil disobedience—which has a long history—peaceful civil disobedience—then it’ll be over.

In complete film, this portion ends at: 10:08:21