We Need a Law spokesman Mike Schouten joins Ron Gray and Kari Simpson for a lively discussion on the murderous realities of abortion in Canada and the absurdity of the language that masks the facts. Are things starting to change? The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Levkovic gives some hope that Canada is moving in the right direction. Perhaps one day unborn babies might be worthy of protection.
"Drive For Justice" host Ron Gray wraps up – for now – this series exposing the lies, corruption and deceit of Canada's legal brethren as it pertains to Kari Simpson's ongoing case against The Liar Rafe Mair, correctly implicating the corrupt Judge Mary Marvyn Koenigsberg and exposing the Supreme Court of Canada's lies and failure to adhere to the Letter of the Law. Mr. Gray then introduces the next phase of "Drive For Justice", which promises to open a Pandora's Box of judicial shenanigans.
UNAFFORDABLE JUSTICE IS NO JUSTICE AT ALL:
When there’s no real justice for people in the courts or government . . . where do people who have been done-in by the system turn to next?
The terrible answer to this question is NOWHERE . . . where we really want to be, and that’s the rudiment of revolutions.
I have spent much of my life around animals, big and small. And amongst the many things I discovered in the animal world, is that we humans are not all that much different from them.
We have our joys and fears. We “scrounge” for food. And we seek shelter when and where we can, just like animals do. AND WE DEFEND OUR LIBERTY where and when we can.
The intelligence factor between the animal world and our world is secondary to our naturally born instincts. And here is where we share more in common with the animal world – than not.
Just like humans, most animals are satisfied to live their lives amongst their own kind in peace. But, also just like humans, there are animals within their own kind who fight to dominate.
And then there are the hunters who feed off the gatherers.
Are You a Cowering Animal?
The gatherers tend to flee and/or hide when chased by the hunters in both worlds, as we can see when the Lion chases down the Gazelle amongst a fleeing herd, whose only objective amongst the individual members of the herd is not to be the one to be caught and killed by the Lion.
THE BEST HUMAN EXAMPLE EVER:
When the Nazis and their European Allies hunted down the Jews, they too (the Jewish herd) ran and hid like gatherers in the animal world . . . rather than fight.
And even when their backs were up against the wall, and their loved-ones threatened, instead of fighting, they prayed, they begged, and they hoped for the best.
DO ALL ANIMALS COWER, RUN, AND HIDE?
Anne and I have a pony who’s about 600 pounds. But . . . pound for pound, he’s tougher than either of our two twelve hundred pound horses. And when challenged, not only will this pony stand his ground, it’s just as likely that he’ll go at his challenger.
I’ve seen videos of Wildebeest circling the proverbial wagons when confronted by Lions. So, not all gatherers will succumb quietly to the threats of the hunters.
THE MOST DANGEROUS ANIMAL . . . is the animal that is cornered, which sees no chance for flight, which by nature would never fight, but very well might when there is no other choice.
I’ve even seen mice bare their teeth to cats when their hope is zero.
AND THAT’S WHO MANY OF US ARE TOO.
Not every European Jew willingly stepped into the Cattle Car, or stood over the grave that he or she had dug for himself or herself. Not every European Jew listened with obedience to the commands of his or her tormentors, or his or her co-religionist Quislings.
When people are pushed into a corner, it is indeed a reality that some, just like otherwise gentle animals will fight back, and MORE likely than not, perhaps not a majority, but some nonetheless, will fight long before they are forced into that position.
Think about how few Patriots there were in the 1770’s who really took on the British, driving-out the greatest empire at that time.
OUR COURTS ARE DEFILING OUR FREEDOMS . . . YET – WE’RE NOT FIGHTING BACK:
NOT YET ANYWAYS . . .
In Canada . . . Racist French TRIBALISTS in four small Ontario (Canada) Townships passed a bylaw FORBIDDING the stand-alone use of the English language on private commercial signs, making the unrestricted use of the English language against the law in a province that is NINETY-SIX PERCENT NOT French.
Even the Courts agreed that this FORCED bilingual sign bylaw violated Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But – said in their judgments; that under the circumstance to help promote the French language, that negating Freedom of Expression for English speakers was the right thing to do.
My case was simple . . .
Do these FORCED bilingual laws violate my FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION? – YES OR NO?
ALMOST THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS over a period of some 4 years, and losses at the Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada decided without explanation NOT TO HEAR OUR APPEAL, rendering the FORCED bilingual sign law the law of Canada.
All of the judicial decisions from court to court were in themselves reprehensible. But, what was as much a TRAVESTY of Justice and FREEDOM, and perhaps even more so to the actual decisions, were the costs PILED-UP by the lawyers and the Courts over a ridiculous period of time to decide upon a simple question.
CAN YOU AFFORD TO PAY OVER $350,000 TO DEFEND YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?
Was my RIGHT to FREEDOM of EXPRESSION Violated as is clearly SPELLED-OUT in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 2b?
THE ANSWER IS YES . . . So – what do I do when the judicial system is ESTABLISHED to make lawyers rich, while at the same time, gives judges the undisputed RIGHT to add or remove CONSTITUTIONAL guarantees as they so desire?
And if the courts can take away my FREEDOM of expression with impunity, what else can they take away from me AND YOU?
DIDN’T THE AMERICAN SUPREME COURT RULE AGAINST FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE?
There is no question or argument . . . none whatsoever, that the government, according to the US Constitution cannot ORDER a person to purchase a product or a service.
Yet, that is exactly what the US Supreme Court did in deciding upon the legitimacy of Obamacare, simply by defining the forced participation of the people as a tax, opposed to being a FORCED purchase.
So . . . What does an American, or an American company do when he or she does not want to purchase Obamacare for whatever reason?
I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE LOSS OF MY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN CANADA.
For me to go to court to MAINTAIN . . . not to win anything, but just to MAINTAIN my Freedom of Expression, my personal cost was MORE than $350,000.
I had to pay my lawyers more than $100,000, and a portion of the other side’s lawyers to the tune of $250,000 of their costs.
I AM ASKING THESE QUESTIONS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR ANSWER:
Would you personally be prepared or capable of paying $350,000 or more to defend your RIGHT to Freedom of Expression?
Would you be willing to risk as much as, and more than $350,000 of your own money and future to fight for the FREEDOMS of others?
If you are not capable of paying for what should be your day in court . . . WHERE IS YOUR RIGHT TO JUSTICE?
REMEMBER WHAT I WROTE ABOUT PASSIVE ANIMALS:
As more people in the USA and Canada are denied their very basic RIGHTS and FREEDOMS through political and judicial intimidation, coupled to CRIPPLING costs, people will find another way to seek redress and justice.
When cornered with nowhere to go, even some of the most passive animals will bare their teeth, knowing full well that there is no way they can survive, but they will fight nonetheless.
The governments that should be of the people, by the people and for the people as Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address should think long and hard about the potential of people who are fed-up, and have their backs up against the wall.
In my next editorial . . . I will explain how we are sticking it to the lawyers, the courts and the politicians.
Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov
Ron Gray presents big cash incentives to those of you who want to help Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin maintain her lies about Kari Simpson. Chief Bevy's fate is in your hands, folks, since failure to prove her lies will mean she will have to resign from the court! You see, contrary to the legal requirement of proving a case involving libel, defendant Rafe Mair failed to provide any foundation for his lies, admitting that he never even heard Kari Simpson speak on the issues central to the case. But Chief Bevy decided to believe Mair's unfounded lies and went a step further by publishing his lies as the "factual" basis of her decision.
Here's the deal: Produce verifiable evidence (not hearsay or more lies) that makes any of these lies true. This is your chance – 4 chances, actually – to make big money by merely proving what Rafe Mair, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, and the 2008 Supreme Court of Canada (the panel that presided over Simpson's case) say about Kari Simpson. Simply prove to us and to the world that Kari Simpson led the opposition to the infamous "3 Books" in Surrey, or that she's "opposed to any positive portrayal of a gay lifestyle," or that she's intolerant of homosexuals and/or is anti-gay, or – for the really big money – that the Supreme Court of Canada has any right to change a legal test and then use the new test to make a finding without letting the parties know the legal test they have to meet.
So far it's looking bad for Chief Justice Bevy. Since no one is stepping up with the evidence, she should start packing up her office. Canadians will not tolerate a liar and an arrogant, out-of-touch cheat for a Chief Justice of the high court!
Bill Whatcott spoke to Rob Breakenridge of NewsTalk770.com about the recent Supreme Court of Canada's upholding of suppression of free speech in Canada. Listen to this informative discussion about how the courts are systematically stripping away the rights of Canadians – especially Canadians with religious or moral beliefs.
TO: Each judge of the Supreme Court of Canada
March 4, 2013
Your recent decision regarding the Whatcott case is EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTING in that it further restricts freedom of speech in Canada.
Your decision indicates that a claimant is allowed to make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission or the courts if that person is “offended” by something I may have said to him/her. That is so broad it is Gestapo-like fearful to us.
On the Supreme Court website, beside a photo of Justice McLachlin, she makes a statement about Canada’s Supreme Court philosophy: “accommodation of differences”. These three words clash with what your decision amounts to. You make no “accommodation” for people of faith to freely express their beliefs with full religious conviction.
i.e. I talk to my neighbor and tell him about God’s Word as recorded in the Bible and he gets offended. I cannot and will not apologize for having quoted a direct quote from the Bible. He then can, with the endorsement of the recent decision, lodge a complaint about me having offended him.
Does this not justify the common perception that comes from the public that you judges are really “activists judges”?
All evangelical churches exist to proselytize, and due to the diminished interest in religion, many people who don’t want to hear what the Bible has to say are offended. And that will enable them to have the opportunity to lodge a complaint. Then the complainant has no legal expenses, but the defendant might have some hefty legal bills.
You have set Canada on a path that is vastly different from what freedoms we have had in the past. This is not merely disappointing, it is highly offensive to us. Would this now be grounds for us lodging a complaint against the judges of the Supreme Court because we are deeply offended?
You are playing alarmingly loose with our freedoms.
~ Leonard Remple
A livid Kari Simpson and Ron Gray speak with Bill Whatcott about the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision against him, a decision rife with contradictions, perverted logic, and outright lies, a decision that officially suppresses Free Speech in Canada! How could this have happened? Well, obviously, Canadians have been asleep at the switch! If they don't fight to regain their rights, they deserve to lose them.
Ron Gray presents your chance to make $10,000! Merely prove that Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the Supreme Court of Canada did not lie when they officially pronounced that Kari Simpson was involved in opposing the infamous "Surrey Three Books", a key element in their corrupt decision endorsing Rafe Mair's lies and defamation of Kari Simpson. The Supreme Court's LIE has been repeated ad nauseam throughout the Internet, TV, radio, books, newspapers, and law school curriculum ever since. Every source that repeats this LIE is guilty of LYING.
In a landmark unanimous/split decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supremes found for Mr. Whatcott on 2 counts, yet against him on another 2 counts of alleged hate speech. Their official decision is rife with lies and contradictions, so Mr. Whatcott is vowing to ignore their corrupt decision and carry on with his crusade to protect Canadians from rampant Christian-bashing, politically correct suppression of the truth, and the willful spread of decadence and disease in our society. If enough of us don’t join him soon, we’ll have no free speech left at all! Read the LifeSiteNews article.
Three stories popped up in this week’s headlines that all have to do with governments trying to legislate sex, more or less. Whether it’s forcing gay-straight alliances into religious schools, deciding if Canadians can express their religious beliefs about sodomy, or taking measures to keep so-called gay propaganda out of the reach of children, governments are certainly not shying away from imposing their opinions about sex on the public. Read on…
Some Manitoba religious schools say the government is infringing on their religious freedoms with its new anti-bullying law.
About 1,000 staff, students and parents met Sunday night in the gymnasium at Steinbach Christian High School for an information and prayer event regarding Bill 18.
A clause in the bill concerns some religious educators and school communities because it would force schools to accommodate students who want to start specific anti-bullying clubs, including gay-straight alliances. Read more here.
Canada’s controversial 20-year-old legal definition of hatred is set to be updated or even overturned on Wednesday, as the Supreme Court of Canada rules in the case of William Whatcott, a born-again anti-gay pamphleteer who ran afoul of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code.
Pitting freedom of religion and speech against a legal regime that bans the repeated public expression of hate, the Whatcott case could see the legal foundation of several anti-hate laws crumble, including Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Read more here.
Russia’s foreign minister on Tuesday rejected criticism from the Dutch government and the European Union about proposed legislation that would outlaw “homosexual propaganda.”
Responding to Dutch assertions that the legislation may be contrary to Russia’s international obligations, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said there were no such obligations.
“We don’t have a single international or common European commitment to allow propaganda of homosexuality,” he said. Read more here.
by Faye Sonier (LifeSiteNews.com) – In Saturday’s Bushwhackers embarrass PM piece, Sun Media’s National Editorial Writer Mark Bonokoski proves that you don’t need facts to write an opinion article.
He labels three Members of Parliament, Maurice Vellacott, Leon Benoit and Wladyslaw Lizon “obviously stupid bushwhackers” for having asked the RCMP to investigate late-term abortions as homicides. Had they done so, I would have been the first to tell them that their efforts were a waste of time given the state of the law in Canada. Abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy in our fair country.
But that’s not what they did. The MPs asked the RCMP to investigate 491 cases of possible homicide. Between 2000 and 2009, 491 newborns survived attempted abortions and subsequently died after birth. We don’t know how they died, but they did. According to the Criminal Code, the same one Bonokoski alludes to reading, when human beings are born they are considered human beings in law. And when human beings are killed or neglected to death, we expect the police to investigate.
The MPs didn’t hide their motives or the language of their request. They clearly set out both in the letter they sent the RCMP, which was posted on Mr. Vellacott’s website and recirculated widely. All Bonokoski had to do was read it.
Bonokoski then attempts to summarize the decision by which Supreme Court of Canada decriminalized abortion. Unfortunately, it appears as though he didn’t read that either. The Court said the existing abortion legislation was unconstitutional, and Parliament was free to pass abortion legislation that would be. They even offered suggestions as to language for constitutionally acceptable legislation. Parliament just hasn’t done so. There is, in fact, no constitutional right to abort your child in Canada. Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada even admits to that.
Lastly, he argued that since he doesn’t have a uterus, he cannot form an opinion on abortion and that this position isn’t a cop-out, but a fact. He’s wrong. It’s a total cop-out.
I’m not a woman who has suffered abuse, but I have an opinion on domestic abuse. I’m not a man, but I have an opinion on funding for prostate cancer research. I’m not a slave, but I have an opinion on human trafficking. I’m not a soldier or live in a war zone, but I have an opinion on Canadian military engagement. I’m not an Aboriginal person, but I have an opinion on the Idle No More movement.
Perhaps he believes that he must have first-hand knowledge of every human experience before he can form an opinion, but this seems like an odd, if not impossible, position for a national media editor to take. And I can assure him that the rest of the society doesn’t function that way. We form opinions and vote accordingly, even though we haven’t walked a mile in every Canadian’s shoes.
Bonokoski, a senior media personality, formed and shared outrageous opinions on the actions of three MPs and Canadian abortion law seemingly without having read the MPs’ request to the RCMP, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code or the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on abortion. Who says you need to do research and rely on facts to write an opinion piece?
Faye Sonier is Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. She blogs at ActivateCFPL.
RoadKill Radio's "Drive For Justice" host Ron Gray reveals the genesis of the name "RoadKill Radio", and shows that sometimes Good Things can come from Canada's corrupted court system.
If you’re an American reading this . . . try to imagine being punished to the tune of A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS – ONLY for refusing to use a language other than English on your own PRIVATE commercial sign . . . by standing up to say NO.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION . . . WITH THE COURT’S PERMISSION THAT IS:
Over the past few years, with some financial help from a number of people who visit Galganov.com, with just a very few individuals with somewhat deeper pockets, and about fifty or so working-class and retired grass-roots folk who are part of a RIGHTS organization, we did our best to cover the cost of a very basic fight to preserve our MOST fundamental Freedom, which is FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
When I say that we did our best . . . I really mean that we did our best.
By the time the dust settled, between how much money I put-in, and what others contributed, we spent well MORE than $100,000 in a case against an insignificant Township to preserve our FREEDOM of EXPRESSION.
IN A NUTSHELL . . . a miniscule number of French Language Activists located just East of the City of Ottawa (Canada), in a Township called Russell, in collusion with an English speaking politically motivated LEFTIST Mayor, and two French speakers on his Council, passed a bylaw FORCING merchants to use FRENCH on their signs alongside English, whether the Merchants wanted to or not.
NO GUARANTEE TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN CANADA:
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to Section 2b, which GUARANTEES Freedom of Expression . . . DOESN’T REALLY GUARANTEE ANYTHING. It’s a sham.
What happened in the Russell FORCED Bilingual Sign Law Case is equivalent to saying that the FIRST AMENDMENT in the American Constitution is open to Judicial interpretation on when and where the English language can be used.
THINK SPANISH AND WHAT YOUR POLITICIANS WILL BE WILLING TO SELL FOR VOTES:
I’m not writing about screaming fire in a crowded movie theater. Nor am I writing about using words to defame someone.
What I’m writing about . . . is being FORCED by the government, in this case a lowly Township, to use a language not of your own choosing, in spite of your own objections, on your own PRIVATE commercial sign (property).
There’s no debate or argument over the message of the sign . . . IT’S ONLY ABOUT THE LANGUAGE.
THIS IS NOTHING LESS THAN LINGUISTIC AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON STEROIDS:
According to this sign-law, I am breaking the law in this community (as well as three others with similar laws) if I put up a sign that does not carry the English message in French . . . same size same message.
Therefore . . . the government is ORDERING private citizens to express themselves in ways that are AGAINST THEIR OWN FREE WILL.
BUT THERE’S MORE TO IT THAN THAT . . .
Because of French Language Activism in Canada, there is a loophole in our Constitution that allows special accommodation to the French language . . . that includes ABROGATING the Constitutional RIGHTS of English speakers.
YOU READ THAT RIGHT . . . If it favors French Speakers, English Speaker’s RIGHTS do not count; meaning that for Anglos, there is no Constitutional Guarantee to Freedom of Expression when French becomes a factor.
THE DEMOGRAPHICS ILLUSTRATE TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY:
In all of Canada, excluding the French Separatist and linguistic racist ethnocentric Province of Quebec, there are ONLY 3% of the population who consider themselves to be French Speakers.
But, unless you can pass a French proficiency exam, which just about all Anglos CANNOT, it is nearly impossible to get a job working anywhere in the country for the federal government.
How’s that for linguistic discrimination at the hands of a 3% minority?
Ontario is about 4% French. And of those 4%, most of them live in small French communities scattered throughout the province, with a preponderance living within an hour of the National Capital (Ottawa), and the border to the Ethnocentric English-Hating French Province of Quebec, where the unrestricted use of the English language is AGAINST the law.
And of that 4% – just about 100% speak English . . . so why the problem?
Because a small town Mayor (Ken Hill) with political dreams of grandeur decided to pass a bylaw usurping the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for no purpose other than to make a few French TRIBALISTS feel good about themselves, and possibly give himself the French vote in a larger political context, the Court Costs awarded AGAINST me are $250,000 because we lost.
BUT HOW CAN ANYONE LOSE FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?
These costs include our first loss at Superior Court, where the self-declared French Activist Judge Monique Metivier said in Court; that even though the Russell Bylaw violated Freedom of Expression, it was the RIGHT THING TO DO.
The cost also included the THREE Judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal who said the same thing. IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
And then there’s the cost for the Activist Supreme Court of Canada, which refused to hear our APPEAL, even though this bylaw and various other challenges we made to the Supreme Court in our request for LEAVE, actually violated their own jurisprudence.
Even though all the Judges agreed that it was the RIGHT THING TO DO, not one of them said why and how it’s supported by the Constitution . . . And here is where it gets really serious:
CANADA HAS A NEW LANGUAGE LAW . . . AND NO ONE KNOWS IT:
Because the Supreme Court refused to hear our appeal . . . this linguistically racist bylaw against the English majority in just one community, introduced by a pissant mayor and council, all of whom were defeated in the follow-up election . . . IS NOW THE LAW OF CANADA.
WHERE WAS THE MEDIA?
Canada’s media can teach LEFTIST journalism to most American News Providers. How scary is that?
If any issue casts a shadow of doubt on the BIG CANADIAN LIE, that Canada is a bilingual country, which is as far removed from the truth as you can possibly get, the Canadian media stays as far away from it as they can . . . as if it was the plague.
I used the headline – 250,000 REASONS NOT TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, because it’s true.
Ask yourself this . . . Why would anyone want to fight a battle for the FREEDOM of some thirty-three million people who are lost in a fog, and wouldn’t so much as lift a finger to defend themselves or contribute to their own defense?
FOR ME – THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE . . . Even though there were 250,000 reasons for me NOT to have done this, there is only one reason that I did.
IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR FREEDOM.
Young men and women . . . and not so young men and women have fought, and are still fighting all over this planet for the FREEDOMS of others, while in our own countries (the USA and Canada), people take our FREEDOMS for granted.
We allow our politicians, nameless and faceless bureaucrats, and ACTIVIST JUDGES to nibble away at our FREEDOMS everyday, as if our FREEDOMS are mere suggestions opposed to ironclad guarantees.
I TOOK A $250,000 BEATING – BUT I DIDN’T DIE. AND I WASN’T WOUNDED.
My father, as a young Canadian landed on the shores of Sicily, before the D-DAY Invasion. He was wounded at the Battle of Casino, but fought-on nonetheless. He was decorated and mentioned in dispatches many times. And was awarded the Bronze Lion by her Majesty Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands FOR BRAVERY ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY.
My dad fought in Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany. And like MILLIONS of brave soldiers who fought all over the world so the world could be FREE, he did it not because he was forced to, and not because there was some kind of reward at the end of the war . . . BUT BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
How do you compare living under the daily threat of mutilation or death in war, to being whacked for a Quarter of Million Dollars by lawyers who profit in the DEATH of Constitutional FREEDOMS?
THERE IS NO COMPARISON . . . And like my dad who fought-on with a bandaged shrapnel wound to his head at Monte Casino . . . I DON’T QUIT EITHER.
It is obvious that we cannot win in the Courts, where Freedom is what the Judges have decided Freedom should be. But, WE CAN WIN IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, where Freedom MUST be more than just a suggestion.
Whether you’re a Canadian or an American . . . you have a duty to yourself and to your country to get into the fight. Because, if you accept that your Freedoms should be open to the interpretation of the government and Courts, then you don’t deserve to enjoy the FREEDOMS other people bled and died for you to have.
I DON’T HAVE $250,000 . . . And this loss is not without real personal consequences for me. But I would do it all over again. ACTUALLY, I have no intention whatsoever of slowing down, let alone stopping, and not just about language.
If ONE FREEDOM is under attack . . . all of our FREEDOMS are under attack, and I will not stand silent or passive. To the LEFT, the RIGHTS of Government over the RIGHTS of the INDIVIDUAL have long been an International Conspiracy.
OUR GLOBAL DEFENSE FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTIES MUST BE NO LESS.
So, when I ask visitors to Galganov.com from time to time to help out financially, you can now see why.
And if I care enough about all of our FREEDOMS to have laid my fiscal life on the line, the least people can do who enjoy reading my editorials is care a bit too.
The mark of success is not in winning, since winning can be defined in a million ways.
REAL SUCCESS . . . is fighting against a much greater foe knowing that you probably won’t win, but getting into the fight nonetheless, because it is the right thing to do. And no matter how much of a pounding you take . . .
YOU NEVER GIVE UP – AND YOU NEVER STOP . . . NO MATTER HOW TOUGH IT GETS.
Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov
Ron Gray explains the rare circumstances that allow an appeal to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Among the circumstances are if significant evidence was missed in the trial, and if justice was thwarted by or in the High Court. Both these circumstances exist in this case, and to ignore the proof would be to compound the injustice even further. Does Canada's highest court have the integrity to correct its own errors, or will they have to be forced by Parliamentary intervention to obey the law?
Ron Gray delves into the possible (probable?) motives of why the Supreme Court of Canada went out of its way to defame Kari Simpson and deny her right to a re-trial after changing the law in their decision in order to rule against her. Presented in this episode is more archival proof of why the judicial system has felt threatened by Simpson's long and public opposition of judicial corruption.
Ron Gray reviews the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of WIC vs. Simpson. Included is the actual recording of Kari Simpson's rally speech that Rafe Mair likened to Hitler and the KKK. Also, to illustrate how Justice Ian Binnie and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin compounded Rafe Mair's defamation by repeating his lies as so-called facts, this episode has several historical video clips of how Kari Simpson actually stood up for the civil rights of gays, lesbians, and all Canadians.