Team Hipwell Scores a WIN. - Ed Burlew

tiriaq said:
Whatever documents the government provides will be under seal for the eyes of the judge only.
The contents may or may not be revealed.
But the documents could reveal to the judge that the Government's justification for the OiC is superficial. If the justification for the OiC is discredited in the eyes of the judge, the case will be substantially strengthened.
Click to expand...

Sooo???? A government can pass a law with secret/not to be made public reasons. Only a judge can potentially see them and we call this democracy? How is this even possible? For the most part unless for reasons of security, or children are involved I was under the impression that courts were a matter of public record? This wiuld undermine that as well I feel.

On the upside I am applauding Mr. Hippwell! Thank you Sir for putt8ng your neck out!
 
Wolverine .303 said:
Posted in other forum, sharing here!

Team Hipwell Scores a WIN. Landmark Decision by Federal Court.

In a landmark ruling released today Associate Chief Justice Gagne agreed with Team Hipwell that the Evidentiary Record before Cabinet that was used in deciding to enact the OIC 2020-298 ( regulation SOR/2020-96) be submitted to the Court for review. The Court closely followed the argument of Ed Burlew LL.B. and that of the other Applicants in deciding to review the Evidentiary Record before Cabinet.

A link to the decision and to the argument of Team Hipwell will be posted soon.

Your donations are being put to good work. Please renew your contributions so we may win this case.


DONATE RIGHT HERE TO TEAM HIPWELL

3SfgAiB.png
Click to expand...

Was this information not already requested via a request using the freedom of information act and the government responded saying it would take 8 years to produce........

If the government now produces the information in 30 days that was supposed to take 8 years to find, what is the penalty since the 8 year delay was then clearly fabricated?
 
m_falafel said:
Wow, that’s a pretty significant win!!! If their is proof that there is no proof, the conservatives are gonna have a field day with that during the next election!!’
Click to expand...

Field day on what ? Strong gun ownership is certainly not popular, and people really don't care if the candidate they *vote* for is a crook, as long as CBC do not brand them nazi / racist / misogynist / wrong-think'ist.

I don't think respect of the law even matter if the candidate pushes a progressive agenda. To paraphrase Trump, the turd could kill a baby in a CBC Live, he would STILL be re-elected and get a majority.
 
Last edited:
Thank-you Team Hipwell! Your efforts and energy are very much appreciated! Please keep hammering away until this whole rotten structure collapses!

Kind Regards!
 
Bratwurst said:
Then if there is data it opens up many doors to contradict it, highlight how poor the data is and more.
Click to expand...
Whatever the data is there is nothing in the law about the actual data being relevant, IIRC the wording is all based on an "opinion" of the Governor in Council. It just happen that in Canada, the GiC *can* prohibit whatever pleases them to prohibit without recourse.
 
essorx said:
Whatever the data is there is nothing in the law about the actual data being relevant, IIRC the wording is all based on an "opinion" of the Governor in Council. It just happen that in Canada, the GiC *can* prohibit whatever pleases them to prohibit without recourse.
Click to expand...

Yep, this really is a nothing burger. Unfortunately, facts don't matter much in cases like this. I try to stay positive, but I don't see a positive end to this one.
 
Just Donated! Thank you again Jim and everyone else who have done the Lion's share of the effort to get us all to this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom