READ AND WEEP! IF YOU THOUGHT THE SYSTEM IN CANADA DID NOT NEED CHANGING THIS WILL SURELY CHANGE YOUR MIND !
HERE IS AN UP DATE ON A CLASS ACTION SUIT BEGUN ON JANUARY , 2021 AND THE ORGANIZATION ( SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY) IS STILL TRYING IN COURT TO GET THE SUIT CERTIFIED SO THAT IT CAN GO AHEAD .
ALMOST TWO YEARS TO JUST GET THE COURT TO OK THE ACTION TO GO AHEAD . AND THIS WEEK MORE COURT ACTION AND THE GOVERNMENT OF BC , LIKE THE TRUDEAU AND NDP IN OTTAWA WITH MY CASE , USE EVERY MEANS TO DELAY, OBSTRUCT JUSTICE THROUGH LEGAL TECHNICALITIES .
HERE IS AN UPDATE ON HOW THE GOVERNMENT OF BC IS TRYING TO PREVENT THE ELECTRONIC COVERAGE OF EVEN THIS CERTIFICATION HEARING .
SO IT IS NOT A PARTY CHANGE OR A LEADER CHANGE , IT IS A SYSTEM CHANGE IF EVER DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE IS TO BE RESTORED IN THIS COUNTRY .
HERE IS THE LATEST UPDATE FROM THE SOCIETY ON THE LEGAL SHENANIGANS IN THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT . OF COURSE , DR. HENRY REFERENCED IS BC’S PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICE WHO HAS BEEN THE COVER FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND THE LEGISLATURE OVERSEEING THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES AND LOCKDOWNS THAT HAVE RAVAGED THE PROVINCE THESE MANY MONTHS.
READ AND WEEP!!!
‘13 December, 2022: Certification Webcasting URL, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, and Certification Hearing Current Progress
Friends,
It is totally beyond our control. Despite having already been granted an order to film the certification hearing, Dr. Henry’s counsel continue to drag their heels on specifically which platform we can publish the footage to. We have tried and exhausted diplomacy, but the fact is that they either do not understand the technical requirements they are insisting on, or are intentionally acting in bad faith to prevent you from seeing what has been going on.
Let me walk you through a chronology since judgment was granted on 7 November, 2022, permitting the filming.
The following day of 8 November, 2022, we provided a draft order to Dr. Henry’s counsel for their review to be entered by the Court Registry. On 10 November, 2022, they reverted with various demands they insisted be added to the order, after it had already been granted. These were watermarking, DRM, resolution limitation, and adding an audio tone to the video.
We sought clarification on the watermarking and the addition of a tone, while deliberating on the second and third proposed requirements. We had a telephone call with Dr. Henry’s lawyers where all parties agreed not to include a tone and to continue discussions regarding watermarking, DRM, and resolution.
We sent correspondence 10 November, 2022, to Dr. Henry’s counsel agreeing to watermark and proposing 1080p resolution at 30 frames per second. We opposed DRM for the reasons I already provided to all of you on 2 December, 2022. I was also opposed to resolution limitation because that is, in effect, an intentional act of vandalism of a public record.
On 15 November, 2022, Dr. Henry’s counsel conceded that although DRM would not stop illegal screen capture, they still insisted on it for “security reasons”. We responded that to address the risk of downloading in contempt of Court, we could require that there would not be an explicit “download” button, which provides effectively the same amount of security as DRM without privacy invasions, and the potentially high costs in the tens-of-thousands of dollars. We also sought further clarification on what specifically they wanted DRM to achieve for them.
Our government had no problem hosting the Cullen Commission footage. Despite that, on 22 November, 2022, Dr. Henry’s counsel advised us that they elected not to provide us with their own hosting platform. They also suggested four different DRM vendors as options to consider. We gave consent to their draft form of the order proposed – although it was silent on DRM. We arranged for a call to discuss this further.
On 23 November, 2022, there was a short conference among counsel. Dr. Henry’s counsel wanted to hear how we proposed to host the streaming services.
We raised issues about how their proposed DRM platforms would not have had adequate bandwidth (the digital plumbing was too narrow) and offered little practical security features that could not be trivially defeated, even by an unsophisticated user.
On 24 November, 2022, we sent another letter to Dr. Henry’s counsel with our proposal and setting out our opposition to their proposed DRM vendors due to bandwidth issues, cost, and software compatibility problems. The letter focused on one particular platform they suggested that might have been the most appropriate and had publicly accessible documentation about features and capabilities. But using that platform was incompatible with the fruit devices that most of our followers already use to access our website and videos.
On 25 November, 2022, Dr. Henry’s letter reverted rejecting our concerns, but did not elaborate in providing any reasons. They did, however, consent to our usage of Vimeo.
Unfortunately on 28 November, 2022, we identified potentially serious bandwidth problems with Vimeo. The platform also comes with no additional DRM that they had previously insisted on.
They asked for us to elaborate on the bandwidth issue. We reverted with the math that predicted that we would quickly exhaust the two terabyte bandwidth limit.
We also proposed setting the YouTube setting to “unlisted” for each hearing video to prevent the videos from being associated with other content they might have taken objection with.
On 29 November, 2022, Dr. Henry’s counsel consented to publishing to YouTube using the “unlisted” feature. This is reasonable, given that our government has already had a YouTube channel for over a decade.
We drafted a letter to the Court advising that the parties had reached an agreement. That should have been the end of it.
On Saturday 10 December, 2022, the weekend before the certification hearing was to begin, Dr. Henry’s counsel resiled from our previous agreement. They cited alleged problems in YouTube’s terms of service, notwithstanding our usage of the “unlisted” and “demonetized” settings which would have prevented YouTube from using the videos in ways they feared.
On 12 December, 2022, the hearing began. Our inboxes are still inundated with people wanting to know where to find the footage. We do not have an answer, despite the camera rolling since Monday with nowhere to upload.
We have gone back and forth trying to be reasonable. Not wanting to waste the Court’s time in seeking a decision on which platform to use or an amendment to the previous order, the issue nevertheless spilled into Court at the onset of the hearing in the morning. That dispute resumed again this morning.
In the interest of getting this footage available as soon as possible, and not having the time or the financial resources to setup our own platform right now, like PeerTube, we are fine with publishing to Vimeo. However, we anticipate the bandwidth likely will run out as already discussed.
We’ve also just upgraded our plan at significant expense because it already did not have adequate storage (different from bandwidth). But beyond that we can do nothing. If we run out of bandwidth, Dr. Henry’s counsel can explain to Justice Crerar why our previous warning to them fell on deaf ears.
In the mean time, please subscribe to our Vimeo channel. Unless Dr. Henry’s counsel decides to change their mind again at the eleventh’ hour, or the Court does not approve of Vimeo, expect that this is where the footage will be published as soon as possible.
In the mean time please avoid contacting us for the link. The delay is beyond our control and you know we will keep you apprised as soon as a solution is implemented. We have very limited resources and the more time we have to respond to correspondence, the less time we have to focus on certification.
Remember, unlike the other side, we do not have $60B budget. We are not staying in hotels and receiving salaries out of the public treasury. We are all volunteers. Always be mindful of that.
Regarding the hearing itself, notwithstanding the quarrel regarding the publication platform, our application thus far is going well. We anticipate this hearing completing at the end of the week after Dr. Henry’s application to strike is heard. We anticipate Justice Crerar will reserve judgment after that.
As usual, the opening day of yesterday had the gallery packed. There were also protesters outside the building and apparently driving by honking.
To accommodate the overflow I was advised in the morning by the sheriff that the space that had previously been occupied by the barrister’s restaurant had been adapted to have the real-time audio patched in.
In other news Dr. Reiner Fuellmich recently interviewed me. The interview is published on our Vimeo channel, with a backup here.
Please continue to contribute financially to our work. I think it is fair to say now that you are all aware we are a good investment and, perhaps, the only one left.’
Scico 
Leave a Reply