License to Kill: No Justice, No Legal Recourse in Canada’s Ostrich Cull

One comment

Guest Column by Human Rights Lawyer Bath-Shéba van den Berg

Lawyer Bath-Shéba van den Berg

British Columbia – Canadian federal government agencies culled hundreds of beautiful healthy ostriches, for ‘regulatory’ reasons.

The Supreme Court of Canada, our highest court, denied the farmers’ application to appeal. No justice, no legal course, no political recourse.

What happens to a people, to a country, when there is nowhere left to turn for help to defend our fundamental rights and freedoms – and all decisions to stamp out our fundamental rights and freedoms are justified under the auspices of regulatory frameworks? When the law is used as a tool to oppress the people instead of to protect the people, we have a problem with our social contract.

“What happens to a people, to a country, when there is nowhere left to turn for help to defend our fundamental rights and freedoms?”

I woke up to CTV News labelling protestors as ideologically motivated and potentially violent, which is mean-spirited name-calling, libellous, and wrong. Love is not ideological; it is human emotion fundamental to our survival. Angie Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO) at the University of Saskatchewan, is not a lawyer and she is not a politician. Yet, her words carry weight in the public as the CTV chose her to speak above everyone else: Virologist Rasmussen is said to believe that “the amount of politically driven ideologies connected to this conflict could lead to “rational arguments” being nullified.” And that “This is language that does incite violence” (CTV: Cull has Political Implications)

Rasmussen and CTV have tarred and feathered good people standing up for what is right, and what is right is to stand up for our human rights and animal rights. The two are at play here. This case is yet another grotesque example of Canadian federal government overreach and impunity.

What would be a sensationalist heading?

This case is an example of the government of Canada’s license to kill, quite literally this time. Under the invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, the federal government gave license to freeze people’s bank accounts,  and I called that “extra-judicial financial killing”.

Surprisingly, this CBC news release is an example of somewhat balanced journalism and provides footage of what was done on the farm. (CBC: Shots at BC Ostrich Farm)

Direct from the farmers: Save Our Ostriches

Bath-Shéba van den Berg is a Human Rights Lawyer and the founder of Egronomy Law. She is called to the Bar in both Alberta and Ontario. Her distinguished career began in international criminal law at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), where she contributed to landmark cases arising from the Balkan conflicts.

She has lectured in international law at The Hague University and served as a Rule of Law Advisor to the British Army – providing counsel on laws of war, human rights, and the counter-illegal wildlife trade.

Bath-Shéba has worked extensively across Canada, the United Kingdom, Kenya, Nigeria, Togo, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, and Afghanistan… always advancing the principles of justice, accountability, and the Rule of Law.

Since returning to Canada, she has appeared before the Federal Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, Alberta Court of Justice, and the Calgary Indigenous Court.

Grus Sentencing – Affidavits Needed

Update: Grus Defence Affidavits

Template Now Available

To assist in creating your draft affidavit, consider using these templates.

The Draft Affidavit in support of Detective Grus has two parts – a Draft Affidavit, and a Draft Letter to the Tribunal Officer that will be an attachment to the affidavit.

The instructions are at the top of each template – the Affidavit and the Letter.

Use your own words, make it heartfelt.

Affidavit Template V2

Letter Template V2

You can do this! Your affidavit is valuable no matter who you are.

Update: Saturday, August 15, 2025 – 9am ET

The response has been outstanding — many drafts are already reaching the defence team, showing we are united and determined.

SEND YOUR DRAFTS NOW – and remember this is the sentencing. Your drafts should stress the reasons why you believe the judge should not penalize Detective Grus. For instance…

  • A heavy sentence will cause police officers to be deterred from self-initiating any investigations because they see that their on duty, good faith diligence might destroy them, their careers, their families.
  • A heavy sentence will undermine the public’s faith in policing, in the independence and non-political nature of the police.
  • Any other reason you can think of.

This project is strong, growing, and will make a real difference.

Original Article here…

Urgent Call to Canadians, including Serving & Former Police Officers

Affidavit Testimony Needed for Sentencing of Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus

Sentencing Hearing: September 3 to 5, 2025, Kanata, Ontario

Affidavits Needed Now: Canadians Must Speak for Detective Helen Grus – and for All Canadian Police Officers

This is an urgent call to Canadians – including serving and retired police officers – to support Detective Helen Grus by preparing a simple sworn affidavit for her upcoming sentencing hearing.

The defence team will help ensure your affidavit is relevant, admissible, and properly formatted. It’s a straightforward process – and your voice is needed not only to support Detective Grus, but to stand against a dangerous precedent that threatens the independence and integrity of every police officer in Canada.

(Note: PDF Copy of this Article download here)

A heavy sentence – or firing – will send a chilling message to all serving officers: do not use your professional judgment, experience, or investigative initiative to pursue crimes that carry “political and societal ramifications’ or involve ‘public officials’ as suspects. 

If you do, you too may be charged, convicted, and professionally destroyed.

Background

While on duty in January 2022, Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus – a respected member of the unit responsible for investigating infant deaths occurring outside of hospitals – began looking into a troubling spike in unexplained infant deaths, reported to be three times higher than normal. She gathered information, reviewed police records related to the deaths, and began considering whether the mothers’ COVID-19 vaccination status might be a relevant factor.

Like thousands of Canadian police officers, Detective Grus had previously been commended for taking initiative and self-starting investigations. Every day, officers across the country independently initiate criminal and other investigations – without needing prior approval.

But in February 2022, Detective Grus was suspended, investigated, and later charged and convicted with ‘Discreditable Conduct’ under the Ontario Police Services Act.

The written Tribunal decision states that Detective Grus was convicted for self-initiating an investigation without permission “due to the political and societal ramifications” of her inquiries. The written decision also found her guilty of “unauthorized criminal negligence inquiries on public officials.”

In other words, the Tribunal found that even though Detective Grus made her inquiries while on duty, and believed she was fulfilling her lawful responsibilities under her Oath of Office – she (and all police officers) must now ask for permission before investigating crimes that have “political and societal ramifications”, and crimes potentially committed by “public officials.”

Why This Matters to All Canadians

The case of Detective Helen Grus is no longer just about one officer. It is about whether police in Canada remain free to follow the evidence wherever it leads – or whether politics now dictates which crimes can be investigated, and which cannot.

The Tribunal’s written decision has established a dangerous and far-reaching precedent: that police officers must seek permission before investigating potential crimes involving government officials or matters with “political and societal ramifications.” This strikes at the very heart of police independence and the rule of law.

If this precedent stands:

  • Investigations involving powerful individuals or politically sensitive topics may be shut down before they begin.
  • Frontline officers will hesitate to act on their training, experience, and judgment for fear of being disciplined or fired.
  • The public’s trust in law enforcement as an impartial institution will be further eroded.

Canadians must understand: this is not a local labour or internal discipline issue. It is a national concern involving constitutional principles, the impartial application of justice, and the core function of policing in a democratic society.

The sentencing of Detective Grus presents a final opportunity for the Tribunal to recognize the public interest and avoid compounding the injustice. That is why your sworn affidavit matters – not just for one officer’s fate, but for the future of accountable policing in Canada where police officers – not political influence or interference – direct investigations and outcomes.

Grounds for Sentencing Submissions

Detective Helen Grus has already been convicted by the internal tribunal. The upcoming hearing on September 3–5, 2025, will determine the penalty.

Under Ontario law, and in line with principles of natural justice and sentencing in police discipline cases, members of the public may submit sworn affidavits for consideration at the sentencing phase.

These affidavits can address a wide range of legally recognized and relevant factors, including:

  • The public interest in maintaining confidence in the police
  • The seriousness and nature of the misconduct (in this case, an officer investigating infant deaths while on duty and in good faith)
  • Detective Grus’s service record, commendations, and prior conduct
  • The impact of a penalty on the officer, her family, and future police conduct.
  • Detective Grus has already personally spent $400,000+ in legal fees – despite acting in the line of duty. This is a heavy penalty in itself.
  • Whether a harsh sentence would deter other police officers from doing their duty and obeying their oath in politically sensitive situations
  • Whether the penalty would be consistent with similar cases, or disproportionately harsh
  • The broader chilling effect on police independence and investigative integrity.
  • The Tribunal’s discretion to impose no penalty at all – including a reprimand or warning

You do not need to have personally known Detective Grus to make a relevant contribution. Your affidavit might express:

  • Your professional opinion as a serving or retired officer, lawyer, or health care worker
  • Your concern as a parent, citizen, or member of the public
  • Your support for the principle that police must be free to investigate all potential crimes – even when politics or public officials are involved

Affidavits must be truthful, respectful, and focused on sentencing issues – not on re-arguing the facts of the case. (An appeal will be filed, but this is not the time to argue it.)

The Grus legal team will assist with formatting and legal relevance. What matters is that your voice is heard – and that the Tribunal sees that Canadians are watching.

Who Can Submit an Affidavit?

Anyone can submit a sworn affidavit for consideration at Detective Helen Grus’s sentencing hearing.

You do not need to be a lawyer, police officer, or expert witness. The Tribunal should hear from Canadians of all backgrounds and from every part of the country – not just from Ontario or Ottawa. A single-page affidavit from an ordinary Canadian living far from the capital could tip the scales between Detective Grus being fired – or receiving no penalty at all.

What matters is that your testimony is truthful, relevant to sentencing, and offered in good faith.

The following categories of people might want to participate:

* Serving or retired police officers and concerned citizens

— who understand the importance of investigative discretion and the risks of political interference in policing

* Former prosecutors, judges, or legal professionals

— who can speak to legal norms, due process, proportionality, and precedent

* Medical professionals, scientists, or researchers

— who can address the importance of evidence-based investigation, institutional accountability, or systemic oversight by independently-operating public employees.

* Vaccine-injured individuals and bereaved families

— who can speak to the importance of open, independent, and politically untainted police investigations

* Parents and concerned citizens

— who are alarmed by the precedent being set and its broader implications for child protection, law enforcement, and democratic oversight

* Journalists, academics, ethicists, and historians

— who can contextualize the public interest, the erosion of police independence, or similar past abuses of institutional power

* Anyone who believes this matter is too important for them to remain silent

You do not need to comment on every legal point. A short, honest statement of your perspective – even a single page of a few paragraphs – may be all that’s needed to make an impact.

The Grus legal team will review all draft affidavits BEFORE THEY ARE SWORN to ensure they are admissible, properly formatted, and useful to the Tribunal.

What to Include in Your Affidavit – Template

Your affidavit doesn’t need to be long or complicated. Even one page can make an impact.

The goal is to provide truthful, relevant evidence that the Tribunal can consider when deciding what penalty—if any—should be imposed on Detective Helen Grus.

Here’s a simple outline you can follow:

  1. Who You Are
  • Full name, city or town, and province. Exact address not required in the affidavit as long as the legal team knows it.
  • Brief personal or professional background
  • If something in your background gives you a special perspective on the case, please include that too.

(e.g., “I am a retired police officer with 25 years of service in Alberta”; “I am a mother of three and a concerned citizen in Nova Scotia”; “I am injured by the vaccines that Detective Grus was investigating”; “I lost my son, brother to the vaccines that Detective Grus was investigating.”)

  1. Why the Grus sentencing matters to you
  • You do not need to know Detective Grus personally, or even have been aware of the case until recently. Perhaps you are just hearing of it now.
  • Simply explain why this case matters to you. Some examples, but there are many more and more personal to you…
    • As a citizen concerned about justice and police independence
    • As a professional who understands the risk of political interference
    • As someone affected by vaccine injury or loss, and concerned about whether police can do their jobs without fear
    • As a parent worried about child safety and the erosion of police discretion
  1. Your Main Message
  • Express, in your own words, why you believe the Tribunal should impose no penalty, or the minimum penalty available (e.g., a reprimand or written warning)
  • You may wish to refer to:
    • The danger of chilling police initiative
    • The fact that Detective Grus was on duty, acting in good faith
    • Her prior commendations and public service
    • The excessive financial and emotional cost she has already borne
    • The public interest in protecting investigative independence
    • The importance of not punishing officers for following evidence
    • The risk that a heavy sentence would undermine public confidence in policing – and signal that officers may be punished for pursuing evidence that challenges politically established narratives or involves powerful institutions
  1. Closing Statement
  • Reaffirm that your statement is made truthfully, voluntarily, and in good faith
  • State that you respectfully submit your affidavit for the Tribunal’s consideration

Keep in Mind:

  • This is not the time to argue that the Tribunal made a legal error or to re-litigate the case. That will be addressed on appeal.
  • Stick to sentencing-related topics: character, fairness, proportionality, and public interest
  • The Grus legal team will help ensure your draft meets legal requirements before you swear it

You can email your draft to the legal team using the instructions in the next section. They’ll assist with formatting and guide you through the process of having it sworn before a notary or commissioner.

How to Submit Your Affidavit (Step-by-Step)

Submitting your affidavit is a straightforward process. The Grus legal team will assist at each stage to make sure your testimony is properly formatted, legally admissible, and ready for submission to the Tribunal.

Follow these steps:

Step 1: Familiarize Yourself with the Case

Before writing your affidavit, read the background information provided in this article, and in various media – including articles listed at the ‘Detective Grus Case’ page of this website.

Detective Grus Case Page Here

You could also read the written decision of the Tribunal. The sections where the Tribunal officer states that officers should ask for permission before investigating crimes that have “political and societal ramifications” or involving “public officials” is on page 28.

Decision-with-Reasons-Det-Grus

Review the list of acceptable sentencing topics and decide what issue(s) you want to speak to – such as Detective Grus’s character, the chilling effect on police, the public interest in police independence, and any other sentencing factor you’ve seen discussed publicly or that you believe the Tribunal should consider.

Step 2: Draft Your Affidavit Using the Above Template

Use the above template to guide you through what to include – your name, background, main message, and closing statement. Don’t worry about any formatting or legal header as the Grus lawyers will format it all for you.

Keep it honest and to the point. One or two pages is usually enough. You can write it in plain language. No need to be formal or legalistic. It’s your affidavit, not anyone else’s.

Step 3: Email Your Draft to the Grus Legal Team

Send your unsigned draft affidavit by email to the Grus legal team using the subject line:

“Grus Affidavit Submission” to email: info@egronomylaw.com

Bath-Shéba van den Berg
Egronomy Law

1800-330 5th Avenue SW,
Calgary AB T2P 4L0

info@egronomylaw.com
Telephone: 1-587-952-8911

In the email, be sure to include:

  • Your full name
  • Your contact email
  • Telephone number.
  • The draft affidavit in Word or PDF format

Step 4: Legal Review and Formatting

The Grus legal team will review your draft and assist with formatting or minor edits to ensure your affidavit is legally relevant and admissible. They may contact you to clarify details or suggest edits for clarity and grammar.

Step 5: Swear or Affirm the Final Version

Once your affidavit is finalized, the legal team will send it back to you as a ready-to-swear document in Word and pdf file types.

You will print this out and take it to a local:

  • Lawyer
  • Notary Public
  • Commissioner of Oaths (many courthouses and city offices offer this service)

They will witness your signature and administer the oath or affirmation.

Step 6: Scan and Return the Signed Affidavit via Email

Scan or photograph the signed affidavit and email it back to the legal team at the same address.

Make sure your scan is legible and complete. The lawyer who witnessed your affidavit may scan it for you and email it directly to you and Grus legal team. Most law offices are set up to assist you with that in about two minutes.

Deadline Reminder – ASAP

Send your draft affidavit immediately. Every day counts and the sooner it is received, the stronger the impact.

Time is needed for legal review, formatting, and swearing. The Grus legal team will submit affidavits as soon as possible prior to the hearing.

Each of us can make this happen!

Note: I, Donald Best, am not an agent or representative of the Grus legal team. I am publicizing this urgent need for sentencing affidavit evidence from Canadians. I am not involved in reviewing submissions, vetting witnesses, or forwarding communications to legal counsel. All affidavits and questions must be sent directly to the Grus defence team as directed above.

Arrest Liberal MP Paul Chiang for Criminal Counselling of Kidnapping

Ex-Police Officer Chiang Knew The Law

In January 2025, Liberal Member of Parliament and former York Regional Police Sergeant Paul Chiang publicly counselled supporters of the Chinese Communist Party to abduct Conservative candidate Joe Tay and deliver him to the Chinese Embassy in exchange for a $1 million bounty.

The threat was not theoretical or a joke. The Chinese regime has issued a warrant for Tay’s arrest due to his pro-freedom videos, filmed and published from Canada. Chiang’s incitement to have a Canadian citizen kidnapped on Canadian soil for foreign powers is a direct violation of Canadian criminal law—and a dangerous escalation of foreign interference in our democracy.

Paul Chiang served as a police officer for 28 years. He retired as a York Regional Police Sergeant in 2020 and knows full well that counselling an abduction is a serious Criminal Code offence.

Counselling a Crime in Canada

In Canadian law, you don’t need to address a specific person to be guilty of counselling a crime. Broadcasting the encouragement to a general audience is enough, provided two conditions are met:

1.The message is deliberate and intended to encourage the offence.

2.The offence being counselled is serious and clearly defined in the Criminal Code.

This principle is upheld in precedent, most notably:

R. v. Hamilton, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 432 (opens in new tab)

Hamilton sold email packages with instructions for credit card fraud and bomb-making. He was convicted of counselling fraud and mischief—even though he never communicated with specific individuals, and no crimes were proven to have occurred.

Key takeaway from the Supreme Court:

“Counselling” can occur even where the person being counselled is unknown or never acts—as long as the accused intended their words to encourage the offence and it is reasonably foreseeable someone could act on it.

Criminal Code Provisions

Section 464 – Counselling an Uncommitted Offence

Even if no one follows through, it’s still a crime to counsel an indictable offence:

464(a):

“Everyone who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment…”

This applies to public speeches, videos, blogs, or social media posts encouraging serious offences like abduction or forcible confinement.

Section 22 – Counselling Committed Offences

If someone acts on the counselling—even in a different manner than originally suggested—the counsellor is legally a party to the crime and fully criminally liable.

Section 279 – Kidnapping

279(1):

“Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent:

(a) to confine or imprison them;

(b) to transport them out of Canada;

(c) to hold them for ransom…”

Penalty: Indictable offence, punishable by life imprisonment.

The Rule of Law Demands Criminal Charges

Time to Act

Paul Chiang’s public incitement to kidnap a Canadian citizen for a hostile foreign power is a textbook case of counselling a serious crime. The law is clear. His status as a sitting MP and former police sergeant only aggravates the offence.

It’s time for law enforcement to do their job—no special treatment, no political protection.

Paul Chiang must be arrested and criminally charged.

Donald Best

March 31, 2025

 

The Secret JFK Files: How Australia and the CIA Hid Assassination Warnings About Soviet Ties

Declassified Documents Reveal a 60-Year Cover-Up of Australia’s Role in Suppressing Key JFK Assassination Leads

For decades, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) played a largely unknown role in suppressing critical evidence related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Newly analyzed declassified documents confirm that ASIO’s chief, Sir Charles Spry, personally lobbied the CIA to keep Warren Commission Document CD-971 hidden from public view. This document detailed anonymous phone calls to the U.S. Embassy in Canberra warning of Soviet financial involvement in JFK’s murder.

These revelations, combined with the fact that portions of ASIO’s correspondence remained classified until 2023, suggest that Australian intelligence agencies were more deeply entangled in the cover-up than previously known. Even though CD-971 was partially declassified in 1976, intelligence agencies on both sides of the Pacific continued redacting and withholding critical details about the Canberra calls for six decades.

CD-971: The Assassination Warnings Intelligence Agencies Buried

CD-971 is a CIA memorandum from November 29, 1963, documenting two key anonymous phone calls made to the U.S. Embassy in Canberra, Australia:

  • October 15, 1962: A caller warned of a plot to assassinate President Kennedy.
  • November 23, 1963: Hours after JFK’s murder, a second call suggested that the Soviet Union had financed the assassination.

The caller, claiming to be a Polish chauffeur working for the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, provided specific intelligence that was forwarded to U.S. Naval Intelligence and later to the CIA. However, the CIA only became fully aware of these warnings on November 24, 1963—one day after Kennedy’s death.

While mainstream news reports have framed these calls as “crank calls,” intelligence memos from the time suggest otherwise. If the CIA and ASIO truly believed these were hoaxes, why did they fight for six decades to keep CD-971 suppressed?

ASIO and the CIA’s Coordinated Cover-Up

President Kennedy

Newly released records confirm that Sir Charles Spry, head of ASIO, personally wrote to CIA Director Richard Helms in October 1968, urging him not to declassify CD-971 despite increasing pressure for transparency. A memo from the CIA’s Far East Division Chief, William Nelson, also supported Spry’s position, marking this as a coordinated international effort.

According to a recently unsealed letter from Helms to Spry, dated November 1968:

“There is not, at the present time, any intention to release [CD-971].”

Helms further assured Spry that if the issue arose again, ASIO’s objections provided enough justification to keep the document secret indefinitely.

This wasn’t just a routine classification issue—it was a deliberate, high-level suppression of intelligence that could have altered the official narrative of JFK’s murder.

Even After 1976, the Cover-Up Continued

While CD-971 was partially declassified in 1976, it has now been revealed that significant portions of ASIO’s correspondence with the CIA remained classified until 2023. A News.com.au investigation found that ASIO and the CIA fought for nearly 60 years to prevent public access to the full unredacted records.

This raises disturbing questions:

  • What exactly was redacted or withheld in the 1976 release?
  • Why did intelligence agencies continue suppressing these records decades later?
  • Did ASIO have deeper knowledge of Soviet connections to the assassination than publicly acknowledged?

ASIO’s Role Was Likely Stronger Than the CIA’s

A 1968 Naval Investigative Service memo, previously overlooked in news reports, states that U.S. Naval Intelligence had no objections to declassifying CD-971—but still required clearance from ASIO.

This means that ASIO wasn’t just consulted as a courtesy—it had an active veto over whether U.S. intelligence could disclose the document. This revelation places Australia’s intelligence agencies at the center of the decades-long suppression effort.

What Was the Real Purpose of the Canberra Calls?

The most explosive claim in CD-971 is the assertion that the Soviet Union may have put up $100,000 to finance Kennedy’s assassination.

This raises two possibilities:

  1. Genuine Intelligence: The calls contained real information about Soviet involvement, which intelligence agencies later suppressed to avoid Cold War escalation.
  2. Disinformation Operation: The calls were part of an effort to shift blame to the Soviets, muddying the waters in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

Regardless of which scenario is true, the fact remains that ASIO and the CIA actively buried this intelligence for decades.

A 60-Year Suppression Finally Exposed

For over 60 years, ASIO and the CIA worked together to keep critical JFK assassination warnings from public view. The newly uncovered files confirm that Australian intelligence played a far greater role in hiding key leads about Soviet connections than previously known.

Even after CD-971 was declassified in 1976, Australian and U.S. intelligence agencies continued redacting and withholding key documents—only fully releasing them in 2023.

Key Unanswered Questions:

  1. Why did ASIO fight so aggressively to keep CD-971 classified?
  2. What exactly was removed or altered before its 1976 release?
  3. Did ASIO have direct knowledge of Soviet financing for JFK’s assassination?
  4. What other intelligence records remain hidden?

With today’s JFK files shedding light on one of the biggest cover-ups in Cold War history, it is time for researchers and historians to demand the full, unredacted truth.

Sources:

NOTE: Artificial Intelligence (a.i.) Used to Develop this Article

This article by Donald Best was developed with extensive assistance from ChatGPT-4o (paid version) over the course of several hours and multiple revisions. While AI played a significant role in structuring and refining the content, the final article is the result of independent research, fact-checking, and verification by Donald Best.

Early AI-generated drafts contained serious inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. For example, ChatGPT initially claimed that Warren Commission Document CD-971 had never been released, when in fact, a quick online search confirmed it was declassified in 1976 and widely available for download.

This serves as yet another reminder that AI is a powerful tool but must never be relied upon without human verification.

Readers are encouraged to fact-check, provide feedback, and share insights in the comments or via email at donaldbestonline@proton.me.

Disgrace on the Bench: How Canadian Judges Betray Public Safety

Thug-Pampering Judges: Robert F. “Get Out of Jail Free” Goldstein, Lise “Bleeding Heart” Favreau, Jonathan “Hug a Thug” Dawe

With No Way to Remove Them, Our Only Option Is to Name and Shame

Canada’s justice system isn’t just out of touch – it’s actively hostile to public safety, with each reckless ruling exposing judges driven by a dangerous agenda.

Judges in Canada are appointed, not elected. They have a job for life.

With no viable removal mechanism, our only course of action is to publicly name and shame judges who betray Canada and Canadians.

So here we go…

A Gangland Shooter Walks Free

No Prison for Gang Shooter

The latest outrage? Toronto gang member Terrell Burke-Whittaker fired a loaded handgun toward a busy highway during a bar shootout that left two wounded – yet he won’t serve a single day in jail.

That’s right. While law-abiding Canadian gun owners are harassed and disarmed, criminals can fire indiscriminately in public – and walk away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

The Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged that Burke-Whittaker’s conditional sentence was demonstrably unfit but still refused to impose real prison time – allowing this armed thug to continue serving his sentence in the comfort of his home.

Justice William Hourigan dissented, warning that this decision “undermines our credibility.” No kidding!

Hourigan didn’t mince words:

“If an offender can bring a handgun to a funeral, fire it towards the busiest highway in the country, ultimately avoiding incarceration, then it is evident that this court’s warnings about handgun violence have been rendered futile.” Justice William Hourigan dissenting opinion R. v Terrell Burke-Whittaker

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert F. “Get Out of Jail Free” Goldstein led the charge in letting this gunman off easy. His excuse? The thug had started a vending machine business and signed up for firefighter training. Apparently, that was enough to erase the fact that he brought a loaded gun to a gang gathering and fired toward a highway.

You can’t make this up.

Then Ontario Court of Appeal Judges Lise “Bleeding Heart” Favreau and Jonathan “Hug a Thug” Dawe upheld the disgraceful sentence.

Favreau even admitted that deterrence should have mattered more but still refused to overturn the sentencing decision. Dawe, going even further, actively defended the leniency. If this isn’t judicial corruption in action, what is?

“If these judges and their families had to live in the crime-ridden neighborhoods they neglect, they wouldn’t be so eager to let gang shooters walk free.”

This Isn’t Just One Case – It’s a Pattern of Betrayal

Burke-Whittaker isn’t an isolated case. Canada’s courts have been on a downward spiral for years, routinely siding with criminals over victims, gutting deterrence, and turning sentencing into a complete farce. Consider just these few examples:

  • R. v. Gladue (1999) – Established a two-tier justice system with special sentencing considerations for Indigenous offenders.
  • R. v. Nur (2015) – The Supreme Court struck down mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, enabling lenient rulings.
  • R. v. Lavallee (2017) – Citing the offender’s Indigenous background and difficult upbringing, a Manitoba judge imposed no jail time for a severe assault that left a victim permanently injured.
  • R. v. Vader (2017) – Travis Vader was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder in the deaths of elderly couple Lyle and Marie McCann. He received a life sentence but with parole eligibility after just 7 years.
  • R. v. McClintic (2018) – Terri-Lynne McClintic, convicted in the murder of 8-year-old Tori Stafford, was transferred from prison to an Indigenous healing lodge. Public outrage eventually forced her return to maximum security.
  • R. v. Husbands (2019) – Christopher Husbands, who opened fire in Toronto’s Eaton Centre food court killing two and injuring several others, had his murder conviction reduced to manslaughter. He is allowed to apply for parole after 16 years.
  • R. v. Bissonnette (2022) – The Supreme Court ruled that even mass murderers deserve a chance at parole after 25 years.
  • R. v. Khill (2021) – A homeowner who shot an armed intruder was put through legal hell while real criminals walk free.
  • R. v. Sharma (2022) – The Supreme Court further weakened sentencing for serious crimes under the guise of “systemic discrimination.”

Canada’s judges have betrayed their duty to the public. They treat criminals as victims and law-abiding citizens as the real offenders. Their moral compass is so broken they can’t tell justice from absurdity – or right from wrong.

Tuesday afternoon gang shootout in Toronto’s Blue Jays Way district. A child runs for cover as rapper Dimarjio Jenkins is slaughtered on the street.

A Gang Funeral, a Highway Shootout, and Judges Who Looked the Other Way

The May 26, 2020, the gangland assassination of Dimarjio Jenkins (rapper name Houdini) went down on a Tuesday afternoon in broad daylight in Toronto’s Blue Jays Way entertainment district. Jenkins was stalked and executed as his gang-affiliated “friends” exchanged fire with the assassins – sending children and bystanders running for their lives.

Toronto Police confirmed it was a gang shootout. A 15-year-old boy and a 27-year-old woman were also shot and injured. Jenkins was DOA at the hospital.

That gangland murder led directly to the “memorial” gathering where Burke-Whittaker armed himself and fired toward Highway 401 – one of Canada’s busiest highways.

Burke-Whittaker and other gang members return fire to a car on Highway 401

The media calls it a “memorial.” Let’s be real – it was a gang summit.

Armed thugs gathered at a bar at 55 Beverly Hills Drive to honour one of their own, knowing full well that another shootout could erupt.

And what did Terrell Burke-Whittaker do? He packed a loaded gun and got ready to kill. The Court of Appeal even admitted he wasn’t acting in self-defense. He was there, locked and loaded, waiting for a fight.

The bar is adjacent to Highway 401, and at 11:22pm a dark vehicle stopped on the highway shoulder and rival gang members unleashed a barrage of shots at persons in the bar parking lot.

When bullets started flying, Burke-Whittaker fired towards rival gang members and Highway 401, one of Canada’s busiest highways, where innocent drivers and bystanders could have been killed. Two people were wounded in the shootout.

Despite all this, Burke-Whittaker avoided a prison sentence because he started a vending machine business and applied to be a firefighter.

Read that again… Despite all this, Burke-Whittaker avoided a prison sentence because he started a vending machine business and applied to be a firefighter.

Are we supposed to believe that having a job magically erases the gravity of his crime?

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who dare to protect themselves are relentlessly prosecuted. If you store your legally owned firearm incorrectly, expect jail time. If you defend your home against an armed intruder, expect to be charged. If you refuse to bow down to activist judges and their twisted ideology, expect to be vilified and labeled a menace to society.

Enough is Enough

Canadians deserve judges who prioritize public safety over criminal sob stories. We deserve laws and sentences that actually deter crime instead of encouraging it. And we deserve judges who treat criminals like criminals – not misunderstood souls in need of a hug.

Until we purge our courts of these activist judges, Canada will continue its descent into lawlessness. Gun crime will rise. Criminals will grow bolder. And ordinary Canadians will be left to fend for themselves while our so-called justice system ties their hands.

These judges aren’t just failing us – they’re betraying us. The courts have become sanctuaries for criminals, while law-abiding Canadians are left defenseless.

It’s time for relentless public pressure, naming and shaming these disgraceful judges until there’s no place left for them to hide.

Donald Best – March 13, 2025

Here is the disgusting decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario…

R. v. Burke-Whittaker, 2025 ONCA 142: 2025onca142

 

Bombshell FOI Emails: Will Theresa Tam Finally Face a Reckoning?

Emails Expose Secret No-Consent RSV Palivizumab Vaccine* Experiments on Inuit Children.

What Else Are They Hiding?

by Donald Best   February 25, 2025

For three years, Canadian officials used Inuit children as guinea pigs for an experimental RSV Palivizumab vaccine* injections program – without parental consent and without the knowledge or involvement of the Inuit population. This shocking revelation, buried in newly uncovered Freedom of Information (FOI) emails, is completely unrelated to COVID-19 – yet it raises damning questions about the government’s approach to public health experiments on Indigenous communities and all Canadians.

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, knew about the ethical concerns. So did other top public health officials. In a December 16, 2019, email to Tam and others, Dr. Tom Wong, Director General of the Office of Population & Public Health at Indigenous Services Canada, explicitly warned them that health care workers had raised serious red flags.

“Some ethical concerns were raised by health care workers regarding the guarantee of a free and informed consent from parents or caregivers, as well as the absence of involvement of Inuit population in the decision and implementation process.” — Dr. Tom Wong to Dr. Theresa Tam and others, December 16, 2019

Yet rather than halt the program, the government pressed forward. Parents were kept in the dark, as were Inuit leaders and the broader community. Worse, the experiment had already failed – the RSV Palivizumab vaccine* injections didn’t work as intended. But officials concealed this and continued using an Indigenous population as unknowing test subjects.

December 16, 2019 email confirms ‘No-Consent’ Medical Experiments on Inuit Babies

This isn’t the first time Canada’s medical establishment has used Indigenous children as test subjects without consent.

From the 1940s-50s nutritional experiments in residential schools, where researchers deliberately starved Indigenous children to study malnutrition, to the 1933 tuberculosis vaccine trials on 600 Indigenous children in Saskatchewan, where nearly 20% died, history has already proven that officials were willing to sacrifice Indigenous lives for so-called “science.” (ref **)

“The difference between medical research’s clinical trials and human experimentation is patient consent. Given the very unequal power relationships between medical staff and patients, coupled with often perplexing language barriers, and the widespread perception that many Aboriginal people would not willingly accept treatment, patient consent for treatment was often simply taken for granted.” (Lux, M. Separate Beds, University of Toronto Press, 2016, p.112)

Canada’s medical establishment deliberately starved Indigenous children in secret experiments.

The RSV Palivizumab vaccine* injection experiments on Inuit children are not an isolated incident – Canada has a documented history of using Indigenous children as non-consenting test subjects in government-run medical experiments. One of the most shocking examples took place in the 1940s and 1950s, when Canadian scientists deliberately starved Indigenous children in residential schools to study malnutrition.

Newly uncovered historical research confirms that the Canadian government and top nutrition scientists saw Indigenous children not as victims, but as research opportunities.

“Two separate long-term studies that went so far as to include controlled experiments conducted, apparently without the subjects’ informed consent or knowledge, on malnourished Aboriginal populations in Northern Manitoba and, later, in six Indian residential schools.” (Mosby, 2013, p. 145-146) (ref**)

The experiments were brutal in their design:

•Some children were fed vitamin-enriched food, while others were deliberately left malnourished as a “control group” to see how they deteriorated.
•Researchers withheld dental care, believing that “improving dental health might skew the results.”
•Some Indigenous children were subjected to these experiments for up to five years, without their knowledge or consent.

“From the perspective of Tisdall, Kruse, and the other nutrition experts involved in the study, it was clear that the levels of malnutrition witnessed… were a tragedy, but also an unprecedented research opportunity.” (Mosby, 2013, p. 152)

This wasn’t a one-time crime—it was a blueprint. Before the government starved Indigenous children in the 1940s-50s, it had already run tuberculosis vaccine trials on Indigenous children in Saskatchewan in 1933—without their parents’ knowledge.

Page References from Mosby (2013) (Available below for download)**

•Lack of Consent & Secret Experiments: p. 145-146
•Children as Test Subjects: p. 151
•Researchers Saw a ‘Scientific Opportunity’ in Malnutrition: p. 152
•Children Were Denied Treatment for Study Integrity: p. 163

These horrific practices set a clear historical precedent – one that makes the secretive RSV Palivizumab vaccine* injection experiments on Inuit children even more alarming.

If the Canadian government has done it before, what else have they done – and what are they still hiding? One thing is certain: During the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, Informed Consent wasn’t just ignored – it was obliterated.

The Sears FOI Releases: A Crack in the Wall

Bret Sears

This chilling discovery is only the beginning. Credit goes to Bret Sears, a relentless New Brunswicker who pried 1,818 pages of internal government emails loose through FOI requests – 447 pages of which are now public. Many of these emails shift focus to COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines, hinting at what officials knew as the crisis unfolded.

Over the next year, hundreds of thousands more pages are set to be released – a potential goldmine that could expose hidden deals, suppressed risks, or even darker truths.

A New Age of Citizen Investigators

Thanks to Bret Sears (X = @Bret_Sears), everyday Canadians are now tearing into these documents at unprecedented speed. Over the past three days, I joined citizen groups using AI tools like ChatGPT and Grok to analyze hundreds of pages of the emails, associated news stories, regulations, and government policies. This isn’t like past whistleblower leaks: this is crowdsourced investigative journalism on steroids with A.I. instantly making connections that usually take weeks or months to discover.

Someone spots a red flag – “Look what I found!” – and instantly, others connect the dots, “That ties to this!”

“The truth is coming together faster than ever before. This level of synergy is something I’ve never before witnessed. Tam and her colleagues should be terrified.” Donald Best

Indigenous children in Canada’s residential schools—many of whom were subjected to secret government medical experiments without consent.

The Big Question: Could This Lead to Criminal Charges?

As a former Toronto Police Sergeant (Detective), I have one question…

If these emails or the flood still to come prove that Theresa Tam and other officials knew the mRNA injections caused significant harm and fatalities, yet continued pushing them on the public and Indigenous communities while concealing the truth – could this support criminal charges?

The answer could be yes. Potential charges could include Criminal Negligence Causing Injury or Death – and that’s just the start.

The Truth Is Breaking Free – Join the Hunt

The Tam FOI emails are now searchable.

NOTE: See Tam FOI for all released files RIGHT HERE

Below, you’ll find the first two .pdf files as released by Bret Sears. (Bret Sears can be found on X: @Bret_Sears)

Original Documents:

ReleasePackage – A-2021-000114 – 2025-02-21_Part1

ReleasePackage – A-2021-000114 – 2025-02-21_Part2

Since the government released these files as non-searchable PDFs, I have used Adobe Acrobat OCR to make them fully searchable. Now, you can use the ‘find’ function of your computer to quickly scan for key terms and find critical information.

Searchable OCR Versions:

🔍 ReleasePackage – A-2021-000114 – 2025-02-21_Part1 OCR

🔍 ReleasePackage – A-2021-000114 – 2025-02-21_Part2 OCR

The December 16, 2019 email from Dr. Wong to Dr. Tam is on page 410 / 1818 and is located in the second file (Part 2).

New Find – Report downloaded from a link shown on page 410 – OCRd and searchable:

‘Evaluation of new palivizumab immunoprophylaxis
recommendations in Nunavik infants : results for 2014
to 2017’

‘report_palivizumab_immunoprophylaxis_nunavik_infants_cor OCR’

Now It’s Your Turn

These emails are just the beginning. With each new release, the full scale of government deception may finally come to light.

Were Theresa Tam and other officials knowingly complicit in secret medical experiments on Indigenous children—without consent, without oversight, and without accountability? Did they push dangerous COVID-19 vaccines while concealing the risks?

The truth may be buried in these documents—but not for long.

Dig in. Expose what they never wanted you to see. Your work, your analysis, could be the discovery that shatters the official narrative and triggers criminal investigations into Theresa Tam and other government officials.

Good hunting.

Donald Best – February 25, 2025

NOTE: See Tam FOI for all released files RIGHT HERE

* References – RSV Palivizumab Vaccine* Injections

I had used the colloquial term ‘vaccine’ for the RSV Palivizumab Injections to communicate that these were ‘no-consent / no-knowledge’ injections, but as with the mRNA COVID-19 injections – the Palivizumab Injections are not true ‘vaccines’.

A reader and medical professional asked me to clarify that the injections were of ‘monoclonal antibodies’ and not a true vaccine. As he said…

“The real issues as you’ve identified are the ethics when parents have no knowledge of, and did not consent to, having their children injected with anything in a secret medical experiment.”

I am informed by ChatGPT… Palivizumab (brand name: Synagis) is a monoclonal antibody used to prevent severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections in high-risk infants and children. It is not a vaccine but works by providing passive immunity against RSV.

** References

Canada has a documented history of conducting unethical medical experiments on Indigenous children without consent. Two of the most notorious cases include:

1. Nutritional Experiments in Residential Schools (1940s-1950s):

Between 1942 and 1952, Canadian government researchers deliberately starved Indigenous children in residential schools to study the effects of malnutrition. Essential nutrients, vitamins, and even dental care were withheld from at least 1,300 Indigenous individuals—about 1,000 of them children—without informing the children or their families.

• Source: Mosby, I. (2013). Administering Colonial Science: Nutrition Research and Human Biomedical Experimentation in Aboriginal Communities and Residential Schools, 1942–1952. Histoire Sociale/Social History. PDF download

2. Tuberculosis Vaccine Trials (1933):

In 1933, Canadian researchers conducted tuberculosis vaccine trials on 600 Indigenous children in Saskatchewanwithout parental consent. Nearly 20% of the children died from preventable illnesses like gastroenteritis and pneumonia, exacerbated by the poor conditions of Indigenous reserves.

• Source: Lux, M. (2016). Separate Beds: A History of Indian Hospitals in Canada, 1920s-1980s. University of Toronto Press.

Trump Defends Christians – Trudeau Fuels Anti-Christian Hate

Trump’s Executive Order: A War on Anti-Christian Bias

Across the Western world, Christians are under attack. In a bold move to combat hostility toward Christians by United States government institutions, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on February 6, 2025, titled “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.”

The order establishes a Task Force within the Department of Justice led by Attorney General Pam Bondi – to investigate and eliminate discrimination against Christians in federal institutions, address targeted legal actions against Christians, and put an end to what Trump calls a “war on Christianity” in the United States.

While Trump’s new administration is taking active steps to protect Christians, their faith and institutions, Canada has moved in the opposite direction. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, anti-Christian sentiment has been encouraged and promoted by Trudeau, his Liberal Party colleagues, government-paid legacy media, and by governments and institutions at all levels.

Biden’s Legacy of Christian Persecution

Trump’s executive order explicitly condemns the persecution of Christians – citing Biden government-driven legal harassment, unjust prosecutions, and targeted actions against Christians and Christian organizations.

The order also directly addresses the FBI’s 2023 memo labeling Catholic groups as potential domestic terrorists, making it clear that federal agencies must not single out Christians for their declared faith, beliefs, and peaceful expressions of their faith.

President Trump declared:

“The previous Administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses. The Biden Department of Justice sought to squelch faith in the public square by bringing Federal criminal charges and obtaining in numerous cases multi-year prison sentences against nearly two dozen peaceful pro-life Christians for praying and demonstrating outside abortion facilities…

At the same time, Catholic churches, charities, and pro-life centers sought justice for violence, theft, and arson perpetrated against them, which the Biden Department of Justice largely ignored. After more than 100 attacks, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning this violence and calling on the Biden Administration to enforce the law.”

Trudeau’s Canada: Where Church Burnings Are Justified 

Trudeau: Burnings “understandable”

Contrast President Trump’s order with Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government have presided over a climate of escalating hostility toward Christianity—most notably during the church burnings and vandalism that followed the 2021 Residential Schools “mass graves” hoax.

In 2021, over 100 Christian churches across Canada were burned or vandalized, largely in response to false claims that “mass graves” of Indigenous children had been discovered at former residential school sites. Despite the lack of a single exhumed body (even to now 2025), Trudeau and the media pushed the narrative as true and proven without any evidence. When asked about the destruction of churches, Trudeau justified and inflamed the violence by stating that while attacks on churches were “unacceptable,” he also understood the anger behind them.

“Trudeau condemned the actions of all Christians and churches during the founding of Canada – justifying violence and destruction in conjunction with his ‘understandable’ rhetoric. He knew what he was doing.”

Harsha Walia “Burn (Christian Churches) all down”

Other Canadian public figures went even further. Harsha Walia, then the head of the BC Civil Liberties Association, infamously tweeted, “Burn it all down,” in response to the church attacks. Instead of facing legal consequences for publicly inciting violence, she kept her position for weeks before quietly stepping down. The anti-Christian establishment protected Walia whereas public personalities and officials criticizing non-Christian religions or foreign cultures are regularly and immediately torn to pieces in the public square.

(As an aside, I can’t help but think of Don Cherry who the woke left totally destroyed for one comment criticizing immigrants who don’t wear a poppy on Remembrance Day.)

Meanwhile, the Canadian government has actively suppressed Christian speech and expression under the guise of progressivism and ‘hate speech”. Canadian Christian adoption agencies, schools, and organizations have been pressured to comply with Trudeau’s radical social policies or lose funding.

Calgary Police Knelt with BLM Protesters Violating COVID Restrictions—But Arrested Pastor Artur Pawlowski for Leading a Church Service

The COVID Double Standard: BLM Protests vs. Christian Worship

Leadership is top-down with government institutions inclined to reflect, adopt, and repeat the values and examples of their political and organizational leadership.

During the COVID-19 lockdowns, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and police officers across Canada (including several Chiefs of Police) knelt in solidarity with Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters – despite these mass gatherings egregiously violating the public health laws restricting the number of persons allowed to meet.

While thousands of BLM demonstrators flooded the streets in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Peterborough, Sudbury, and Thunder Bay—with police not only allowing but joining them – police services raided, locked, and fenced off Christian churches. Pastors were dragged from their pulpits and jailed for simply practicing their faith.

Among those persecuted was Pastor Artur Pawlowski, who was arrested multiple times, including being dragged from his car at gunpoint for holding prayer services. Pastor Henry Hildebrandt was charged despite holding a drive-in service where worshippers stayed in their cars – proving that compliance with public health measures made no difference if the state targeted your beliefs.

Pastor James Coates of GraceLife Church in Alberta was jailed for 35 days for holding church services – while malls, liquor stores, and big-box retailers remained open. Police guarded the fenced off church, treating peaceful worshippers like criminals while BLM marchers roamed free.

Pastors Steve Richardson and Aaron Rock were also arrested and charged for praying in a group. RCMP handcuffed and arrested People’s Party leader Maxime Bernier for simply meeting supporters in an open field.

The glaring double standard could not have been clearer: BLM protests were encouraged. Police and even Chiefs of Police took a knee. Not one marcher was arrested—but Christian pastors and worshippers were dragged away, fined, and jailed.

Defending Christian Faith vs. Attacking Christians

Trump’s order signals a shift back toward recognizing Christianity as a vital and foundational part of America’s cultural and moral fabric. By contrast, Trudeau’s Canada has long promoted and justified the marginalization of Christians and the destruction of their institutions.

As I said earlier, leadership is a top-down function – and Trudeau’s leadership has inspired and empowered anti-Christian elements in government and law enforcement.

Anti-Christian OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique

One small example is that the head of Canada’s second largest policing organization implemented an anti-Christian policy in social media and public communications. Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Thomas Carrique erased Christmas, Christianity, and Jesus from the public sphere in 2024. While celebrating and naming nearly every other religious and cultural tradition with zeal, Carrique and his OPP refused to even utter the word “Christmas”, “Christ” or “Jesus” in any official capacity or communication.

Such is the influence and empowerment of Trudeau’s anti-Christian leadership throughout Canada.

President Donald Trump is taking decisive action to protect Christians and their institutions. He is restoring their place in American society after years of government hostility.

The Choice for Canada: Resist or Watch Christianity Be Erased

Under Trudeau, Canada has become a country where Christianity is ridiculed, its leaders arrested, and its places of worship burned—with the tacit approval of those in power.

This isn’t just bias; it’s a systemic effort to erase Christianity from public life, replacing it with an ideology that punishes faith while celebrating lawlessness.

Will Canadians shrug and accept this, or will they push back before it’s too late? Because history shows that when governments target religious groups, things only get worse. The choice is clear: resist or watch as Christianity in Canada is driven underground.

Donald Best

Published: February 9, 2025

Vincent Gircys – Case Update Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus

Detective Grus believes Police Officers should challenge unlawful orders

by Vincent Gircys – OPP (retired)

I had the opportunity to chat with Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus following her police disciplinary hearing final submissions. This historic case involves one of Ottawa Police Service’s finest members noticing a spike in infant deaths.

Helen took action where others failed. While following a hypothesis based on the best available evidence, her preliminary inquiry was shut down, as the consequences of exposing the truth became unacceptable to the national narrative. She was subsequently silenced and charged with bringing discredit to the organization.

First and foremost, Helen is so grateful for the prayers and support she’s received throughout the process.

She is in this challenge because she believes in the principles of policing: preservation of peace, prevention of crime, and the protection of life and property. She knows there are countless amazing officers risking their lives daily to do just that.

Her heart and soul believe that when unlawful orders are given by police supervisors, officers must challenge them respectfully using the authority all officers are granted by law. It is clear that this challenging time in Helen’s life, dealing with the allegations against her, will not break her.

Although the financial costs of a legal defense are tremendous, she understands the implications this case will have on the entire Canadian police community if the truth and investigative process associated with this remain buried.

One underestimation in the attempt to silence and set an example of her was that whoever concocted the ridiculous, unprecedented Discreditable Conduct charge against Helen simply doesn’t know her. Perhaps they thought she’d take a plea and hunker down quietly. They didn’t realize that Helen doesn’t worship money; she worships God. She doesn’t love money; she loves life!

Regardless of the outcome of this disciplinary hearing, Helen seems convinced that Truth, Love, and Compassion will prevail.

This is far from over, and I have no doubt that the full version of her story will eventually become mandatory reading in every police academy across Canada, as Helen knows that Courage, Integrity, and Truth in law enforcement must and will prevail.

Ottawa Police Detective Grus Warned Chief Sloly in 2021 About Pfizer, Vaccine-Linked Myocarditis, Unexplained Infant Deaths, Evidence of Criminal Activity

Neglect of Duty: Deputy Chief Patricia Ferguson, Chief Peter Sloly, Chief Steve Bell

Neglect of Duty at the Highest Ottawa Police Ranks

During December 2021 and January 2022 meetings, Detective Helen Grus warned Chief Peter Sloly, Deputy Trish Ferguson, and other senior officers that the Pfizer vaccine had never been tested on pregnant women. As a police detective, she expressed concern for the welfare of pregnant women receiving these experimental COVID vaccines.

In the context of widespread vaccine mandates and public health policies, Detective Grus highlighted that adverse effects were going unreported, and that persons were not being informed of potential adverse effects – which she described as potentially criminal. As an example she told the senior officers of an Ottawa motorist who had a medical event and collision when driving home from being vaccinated. The motorist died 2 days later.

This from evidence presented during the internal trial of Detective Grus – who in July 2022 was charged with one count of ‘discreditable conduct’ for allegedly initiating an ‘unauthorized’ investigation into nine unexplained infant deaths. She was exploring the possibility that the vaccination status of the mothers might be a factor in the fatalities.

The internal trial resumes January 6, 2025, almost 3 years after Detective Helen Grus was suspended.

Toronto Hospital for Sick Children Advisory

In the December 2021 meeting, Detective Helen Grus also informed the Command Officers of an August 6, 2021 Toronto Hospital for Sick Children advisory* that documented a troubling pattern of child myocarditis cases associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including the following findings:

“Since April 2021, there are increasing reports of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine and Moderna mRNA-1233 vaccine).”

“International and national reports of myocarditis/pericarditis following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have emerged.

These reports indicate that:

• Cases have been seen after the first dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, but are more commonly reported after the second dose

• Symptom onset was typically within several days after vaccination, with most cases being reported within 7 days after vaccination

    • Cases were mainly adolescents and young adults
    • Cases were more often males compared to females”

A Cluster of Unexplained Infant Deaths

Detective Helen Grus

During the second meeting with Chief Sloly, Detective Grus informed him of how the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse unit had noticed an increase in unexplained infant deaths. Grus urged that COVID vaccines be examined as a potential contributing factor, citing them as a significant and recent variable.

So the Chief of Police and other Command officers were directly briefed by Detective Grus in December 2021 and January 2022 that medical authorities and others were already reporting serious injuries and deaths associated with the new vaccines.

The Command officers knew that there was a recent increase in unexplained infant deaths noticed by the Ottawa Police unit responsible for investigating such occurrences.

Yet – these Command officers neglected their duty and public safety. No investigation was launched.

Then when Detective Grus continued to follow the evidence to determine if there could be a connection between the experimental injections and the unexplained infant deaths – the Ottawa Police Command shut down her investigation, suspended her from duty and eventually charged her with ‘Discreditable Conduct’.

Ottawa Police Given Pfizer Documents in May 2022

During a May 12, 2022, compelled interview with Sgt. Jason Arbuthnot of Professional Standards Unit (‘PSU’), Detective Grus submitted her entire file of evidence, including Pfizer documents that revealed the manufacturer and health authorities had documented vaccine-related harms and deaths over a year earlier.

During her statement Grus further informed PSU that the clinical trials were incomplete and would not conclude until 2024. These trials explicitly excluded pregnant women and breastfeeding infants – rendering the injections experimental and untested for this vulnerable population.

Detective Grus explained that Pfizer sought to suppress its clinical trial results for 75 years, but a U.S. court ordered the reports released. The documents revealed ten pages of known side effects, including myocarditis, hepatitis, and multi-inflammatory syndrome.

She stated that knowing these serious side effects exist and suppressing or using misleading information to encourage people to get vaccinated is criminal negligence.

Neglect of Duty: Sergeant Jason Arbuthnot

Sergeant Arbuthnot didn’t follow up on the evidence. Instead he placed it in a drawer never to be looked at again. His failure to act on this evidence represents not just neglect, but a willful disregard for public welfare and justice.

Now, three years later, a growing body of reports and peer-reviewed studies validate the link between mandated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and serious injuries and deaths.

Yet, the Ottawa Police persists in prosecuting and persecuting Detective Helen Grus, a committed officer who acted in defense of vulnerable mothers and their infants. Despite fulfilling her sworn duty, uncovering the truth, and working to safeguard public welfare, her actions have been met with systemic retaliation—an alarming reflection of an institution prioritizing self-preservation and coverups over accountability.

Ottawa Police Promote Neglectful Officer Who Failed to Prevent Domestic Murder – Sgt McMullan is Prosecution Witness in Grus Case

Hanadi Mohammed – Murdered after Detective McMullan’s neglect of duty

Detective Erin McMullan, prosecution witness in the Detective Helen Grus case, promoted despite her record of neglect in a domestic violence case that ended in murder.

Ottawa Police Detective Erin McMullan’s promotion to Sergeant is raising questions, given that her neglect and inaction in a domestic violence case contributed to a tragic outcome. An October 17, 2024, CBC article details how McMullan’s failures may have played a role in the murder of an abused wife – a case that continues to raise concerns about Ottawa Police’s accountability in handling domestic violence situations.

Adding to the complexity, McMullan also appeared as a prosecution witness in the high-profile case of Detective Helen Grus. The Ottawa Police Professional Standards Unit charged Grus in July 2022 with conducting an ‘unauthorized investigation’ into a cluster of nine unexplained infant deaths. Detective Grus had suspicions that the vaccine status of the mothers could possibly be a factor in the deaths of breastfeeding babies.

On October 30, 2023, Sergeant McMullan testified that Detective Grus should not have self-initiated an investigation into a potential link between the Covid Vaccines and the deaths of breastfeeding infants.

Considering McMullan’s record of neglect of duty, her opinion that Detective Grus should not have initiated an investigation is noteworthy…

After all, unlike Detective Grus who is being persecuted for doing her duty, Sergeant McMullan neglected her sworn duty but was promoted nonetheless.

Detective McMullan assures Hanadi “If I don’t do anything and I have this information and something happens to you, then I’m in big trouble for not protecting you.”

Fear. Hope. Neglect. Murder.

On October 1, 2013, terrified mother of two Hanadi Mohammed came to the Ottawa Police begging for help. Her brutal husband Hamid Ayoub had threatened her with a knife in front of the children because she had reported his abuse to the police. A few weeks earlier she had run from her husband at Ottawa airport, called 911 and taken the children to a friend’s home.

Detective Erin McMullan (then Erin Lehman) of the Intimate Partner Violence Unit interviewed Hanadi and assured her “From what it sounds like right now, I definitely have enough grounds that I have to charge him. In Ontario, if we get information like this, we have to lay a charge. We don’t have any choice,”

“… if I don’t do anything and I have this information and something happens to you, then I’m in big trouble for not protecting you.” Ottawa Police Detective Erin McMullan to abused wife Hanadi Mohammed

McMullan promised the desperate Hanadi that the very next day she would arrange assistance for her, schedule another officer to interview the two children, and would personally call to update her.

But the next day Detective Erin McMullan did nothing.

McMullan didn’t arrange assistance for Hanadi, didn’t call her, and failed to arrange the interview of the children.

Hanadi trusted McMullan. What else could the poor woman do? But Detective Erin McMullan’s promise to help her and charge her husband was a sham.

Like many abused women with limited English and no support, Hanadi ended up returning to her violent husband for years of further terror and violence. This according to sworn testimony.

In August 2020 Hanadi again took the children and fled from her husband Hamid Ayoub – but by November 2020 he had planted a secret tracking device and began to plot her murder.

In May 2021 Ayoub found Hanadi at a shopping plaza and threatened her – as she told police at the time.

But again, Ottawa Police officers failed to protect her.

On June 15, 2021, Hamid Ayoub used the tracking device to find his estranged wife and daughter at their home – attacking and stabbing Hanadi 39 times and his daughter 12 times. Hanadi died in front of her home. Her daughter survived by playing dead.

Hamid Ayoub – Murderer

Sergeant Erin McMullan testified during Ayoub’s 2024 murder trial that she couldn’t recall why she didn’t follow through with her promises and duty to Hanadi in 2013. McMullan said that Hanadi left her a message after about 10 days and that the officer returned the call only to be told that Hanadi was now back home with her loving husband, and everything was fine.

That purported call sounds very convenient for Erin McMullan. There’s no indication in the news articles if McMullan had such an entry in her memo book or in the Ottawa Police reporting system. Sources told this journalist that McMullan made no record of the purported call anywhere.

 

There is also the question of language. If Hanadi needed a translator for the interview, did McMullen call in a translator for the purported phone call? The call where, according to McMullen, the abused wife purportedly said everything was now fine?

McMullan also acknowledged during the murder trial questioning that it was her duty in 2013 to lay criminal charges against Ayoub – but she did not.

The Ottawa Police promoted Erin McMullan to Sergeant despite her record of neglect, poor judgment and failure in the Hanadi Mohammed case.

Ontario’s Domestic Violence Mandatory Charging Policy

First introduced in 1994 in the Ontario Policing Standards Manual, the Mandatory Charging Policy requires that charges must be laid in domestic violence situations if there is reasonable and probable evidence that a criminal offense has occurred, irrespective of the victim’s wishes – exactly as then Detective Erin McMullan told Hanadi Mohammed.

Although the policy has been revised and adjusted over the years, the core principles that Detective McMullan violated are still in place.

My currently-employed sources at Ottawa Police confirm that when Detective McMullan failed to investigate, followup, and lay charges in a situation where the husband threatened his wife with a knife – the officer not only failed to perform her duty, she violated several regulations.

McMullan could have (and I say SHOULD HAVE) been charged with:

  • Insubordination (Failure to obey a lawful order)
  • Neglect of Duty
  • Disreputable Conduct

It is fair to say that a wife and mother was murdered, and a daughter severely injured because Detective Erin McMullan neglected her duty.

It is also fair to say the Detective McMullan’s negligence undermined public confidence in the Ottawa Police – and most critically, undermined women trapped in abusive / violent situations. Abused women learned from the Hanadi Mohammed murder that the Ottawa Police have fine words and policies about domestic violence – but the reality is that abused women and children are on their own.

Nonetheless, the Ottawa Police promoted Erin McMullan to Sergeant – and ignored the body of Hanadi Mohammed.

Sergeant Erin McMullan Testifies Against Detective Helen Grus

Detective Helen Grus

On Monday, October 30, 2023 Sergeant McMullan took the stand as a prosecution witness against her former squad member Detective Helen Grus. McMullan was overtly hostile to Grus and argumentative with defense counsel as she actively sought to counter the defense position that police officers have both free will and a duty to investigate potential crimes.

Some observers at the hearing speculated that this hostility was because Detective Grus had looked into one of McMullan’s infant death investigations and found her work to be incomplete or even neglectful.

Lead defense counsel Bath-Shéba van den Berg cross-examined Sergeant McMullan and started with questions about Section 5.3 of the Ottawa Police Criminal Investigation Management Plan which states:

“There is no intent to limit, inhibit, the discretion of any uniformed member in response to criminal occurrence.”

In answer, McMullan outrageously took the position that police officers DO NOT have “free will to look into any criminal investigation.”

Astonishingly, McMullan also disputed that officers have the free will and duty to investigate crime – stating at one point that if she suspected a crime, she would file a police report and then have the investigation detailed to “the proper unit”.

As the cross-examination progressed, McMullan’s answers became ever more absurd as she so obviously attempted to provide whatever twisted logic and reasoning would better support a conviction of Detective Grus. In her usual style Prosecutor Vanessa Stewart assisted by objecting to just about every question asked by Defense Counsel.

Prosecutor Stewart reacted strongly when lawyer van den Berg asked McMullan…

“If there was a medical treatment that was not tested on human beings, prior to releasing it to the human population, and yet it was being distributed to – to human beings, and you suspected that – no, you came across deaths, say, which you know, could be linked to the Criminal Code offence of criminal negligence, what would you put in a report?” Lawyer van den Berg cross-examining Detective Erin McMullan

Stewart had the witness excused and then argued (as she did throughout the hearing) to exclude any defense evidence addressing the known adverse effects of the mRNA genetic injections – including serious injuries and deaths.

Vanessa Stewart – Prosecutor

Despite Prosecutor Stewart’s efforts to exclude all evidence of vaccine injuries and deaths from the record, Trials Officer Chris Renwick did hear that the causes of death of six of the seven infants investigated by Detective Grus are known adverse effects listed in the Pfizer’s internal documents – made public as the ‘Pfizer Papers’. *

Concerns of prosecution bias were compounded by reports of interference in the Grus case from officials at the Public Health Agency of Canada, a matter that appeared on the House of Parliament Order Paper Questions in March 2024.

Since Grus’s suspension almost three years ago, there has been a tsunami of credible evidence that the officer was correct all along in her suspicions.

Authorities in many jurisdictions have admitted that manufacturers and authorities concealed from the public that the shots were DNA contaminated, that the formulas presented for approval were not the vaccines that were fraudulently delivered, that the vaccines were known to be ineffective, and that it was known the vaccines caused serious harms and even deaths – including to babies in the womb and breastfeeding infants.

Yet the Ottawa Police continue to prosecute Detective Helen Grus and have blocked her promotion to Sergeant. The prosecution also served ‘Notice of Increased Penalty’ indicating that Grus will be fired if convicted.

Grus Hearing Continues January 6, 2025

Trials Officer Supt Chris Renwick

The Ottawa Police prosecution of Detective Helen Grus is scheduled to resume on January 6, 2025 – although there is some doubt about the prosecution team because Vanessa Stewart has left the Ottawa Police and is now working as a Crown Attorney.

Sources at the Ottawa Police Association confirm that neither the OPA nor Detective Grus and her legal team have been informed if Stewart is still on the prosecution team – as of Friday, December 6, 2024.

As the case approaches its third year, observers question whether the Ottawa Police Service will continue to pursue the charges against Detective Grus. The author’s previous article lists three key factors fueling this speculation.

See Turmoil in Detective Grus Trial as Prosecutor Leaves Ottawa Police

Notes

Comprehensive coverage of the Detective Grus case with links to articles and sources since March of 2022 can be found at Donald Best’s website:

https://donaldbest.ca/detective-grus-case/

From the best selling book ‘The Pfizer Papers’ edited by Naomi Wolf…

“The Pfizer Papers features new reports based on the primary source Pfizer clinical trial documents released under court order and on related medical literature. The book shows in high relief that Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial was deeply flawed and that the pharmaceutical company knew by November 2020 that its vaccine was neither safe nor effective. The reports detail vaccine-induced harms throughout the human body, including to the reproductive system; show that women suffer vaccine-related adverse events at a 3:1 ratio; expose that vaccine-induced myocarditis is not rare, mild, or transient; and, shockingly, demonstrate that the mRNA vaccines have created a new category of multi-system, multi-organ disease, which is being called “CoVax Disease.”

Despite the fact that Pfizer committed in its own clinical trial protocol to follow the placebo arm of its trial for twenty-four months, Pfizer vaccinated approximately 95 percent of placebo recipients by March 2021, thus eliminating the trial’s control group and making it impossible for comparative safety determinations to be made.

Just as importantly, The Pfizer Papers makes it clear that the US Food and Drug Administration knew about the shortfalls of Pfizer’s clinical trial as well as the harms caused by the company’s mRNA COVID vaccine product, thus highlighting the FDA’s abject failure to fulfill its mission to “[protect] the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices.”

Published by Donald Best

V1.3 December 29, 2024 11:53am ET  Confirmed correct spelling as McMullan and made changes throughout.

V1.2 December 9, 2024 4:13pm ET Spelling incorrectly posted as ‘McMullen’ after relying upon misspelled court transcripts.

V1.1 December 9, 2024 11:47am ET (Spelling correction ‘McMullen’ to ‘McMullan’ in photo caption.)

1 2 3 … 22