TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @JasonLavigneAB
@JasonLavigneAB - Jason Lavigne
🚨BREAKING: Internal CFIA Email Shows Flock Eligible for Genetic Exemption, Undercuts Mandatory Cull Narrative🚨 There it is, in writing. The CFIA acknowledged that the Universal Ostrich Farm flock qualified for an exemption from depopulation because they possessed “rare and valuable genetics.” That’s straight from the CFIA’s own case officer, in an official email, outlining the criteria for sparing the birds. Yet after confirming the flock met the exemption criteria, the CFIA reversed course, told the public the birds “must” be destroyed, and told the Courts the same. This proves what many of us have been saying from the beginning: - The law allowed an exemption. - The science supported alternatives to culling. - CFIA chose the most extreme option anyway. To those claiming that “other farms were at risk," the CFIA’s own exemption pathway disproves that narrative. They had tools other than culling. They simply chose not to use them. And we must now ask the uncomfortable question: Who benefits when natural immunity, long-lived antibodies, and non-pharmaceutical research are eliminated from the conversation? Not farmers. Not public health. Certainly not the ostriches. There is only one industry whose business model depends on insisting that: - herd immunity doesn’t exist, - natural antibodies don’t count, and - only patented solutions matter. We all know who that is. Big Pharma.
@ShareawareCdn - Shareaware Canada
UNIVERSAL OSTRICH FARM ISSUED AN EXEMPTION: On January 2, the farmers received an email from a CFIA agent stating their animals qualified for a depopulation exemption due to their rare and valuable genetics. The email included a Distinct Unit Request Package with a depopulation exemption form, which they were asked to complete to prevent the ostriches from being culled.
@JasonLavigneAB - Jason Lavigne
🚨 Universal Ostrich Farm Update: The Evidence the Federal Court Wouldn’t Consider!🚨 Dr. Steven Pelech, a UBC professor with 40 years of experience in immunology, submitted expert testimony demonstrating that the ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farm are healthy, immune, and scientifically valuable. Yet this evidence was denied by the Federal Court. The Birds Are Healthy Dr. Pelech confirmed that the surviving flock is not sick, is not shedding the virus, and is showing strong signs of natural immunity. Confirmed Antibodies He personally tested the eggs from these ostriches and found H5- and N1-specific antibodies in the yolks, proving the birds had recovered and developed immune protection. Research Value Ostrich eggs yield massive amounts of antibodies that can be purified for diagnostics, therapeutics, and even antiviral masks and filters. Dr. Pelech’s report outlined how this flock could advance biomedical science for animals and humans. But the Judge Said No Instead of considering this expert evidence, the Court sided with blanket CFIA policy, ignoring the law’s own provisions that allow treatment, quarantine, or research reservation instead of destruction. The takeaway? These birds are not a threat. They are a once-in-a-generation scientific asset. Culling them is not just cruel, it is a catastrophic loss for science and public health. For complete transparency, the entire 39-page expert report by Dr. Steven Pelech is attached below. Read it yourself and see the evidence the Court refused to consider.
@JasonLavigneAB - Jason Lavigne
Canada, This set the record straight on the Leaders’ Debate Commission. The Green Party wasn’t dropped for “failing to nominate candidates in 90 % of ridings.” That excuse falls apart the moment you look at the Bloc Québécois, they don’t meet that threshold either, yet they’re still on the stage. So what really happened? The Greens publicly backed @MaximeBernier’s right to debate. That’s when the Commission showed them the door. Here’s the timeline the media skips: 1. 2018 – The PPC forms. 2. Six weeks later – Ottawa creates the Leaders’ Debate Commission. 3. 2019 Rule: Parties need 4% of the previous popular vote to qualify. PPC falls just short in 2019 and kept out. 4. 2021 election: PPC wins 5% of the popular vote, rule met. 5. January 2025: Commission quietly swaps the requirement to 4% in opinion polls. 6. Pollsters start omitting the PPC as a response option, magically lowering our poll numbers. 7. April 2025: Greens challenge the double standard and defend Maxime, suddenly they’re “disqualified.” Every rule change has had one purpose: keep Maxime Bernier off the debate stage because they know a single televised showdown would up‑end the establishment narrative. When gatekeepers move the goalposts to silence challengers, it isn’t democracy, it’s protectionism. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/green-party-booted-from-leaders-debate
@JasonLavigneAB - Jason Lavigne
PROOF: Alberta RCMP and Alberta Crown Prosecution Service Targeting Free Speech Alberta’s justice system is facing serious questions about potential infringements on free speech following revelations that the Alberta RCMP and the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service have been closely monitoring independent media. As the host of The Lavigne Show, I have seen firsthand how episodes of my program have ended up in courtrooms. While this is not intended as a personal attack on any individual, the mounting evidence raises concerns about the fairness and transparency of a system that should impartially serve all Albertans. Last month, I published a post highlighting the Alberta RCMP monitoring my show and the Shaun Newman Podcast after I received information that Coutts protester Marco Van Huigenbos' activities, particularly his appearances on shows, were being used in Alberta court. Shortly after, Mr. Van Huigenbos contacted me, expressing serious worries that this information might adversely affect his upcoming sentencing. Respecting his concerns, I immediately removed the post. Despite these efforts, on January 10, 2025, Mr. Van Huigenbos was handed a 120-day custodial sentence. Two days ago, I spoke with a former RCMP undercover officer who confirmed suspicions that multiple media platforms, including mine, were being monitored. Alleged Publication Ban Violation A pivotal moment occurred during the April 2024 pretrial of the “Coutts Trio” (George Janzen, Marco Van Huigenbos, and Alex Van Herk). On April 3, 2024, Crown Prosecutor Steven Johnston presented Justice Keith Yamauchi with an episode of The Lavigne Show that I had recorded a day earlier. Prosecutor Johnston accused me of violating Justice Yamauchi’s publication ban order—a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Criminal Code, which can carry a sentence of up to two years. Specifically, I disclosed: - There are two pretrial applications. - The broad nature of those applications concerns the jury’s ability to ask questions and the other touching on jury nullification. Justice Yamauchi concluded I had attempted to honour his publication ban order but “failed miserably” by revealing the actual number and type of applications. Although I was spared formal charges, I was given a strict warning and ordered to remove the episode from all platforms. I complied immediately. More Evidence of Monitoring Further confirmation of surveillance came in December 2024 when I received a tip in a group chat containing journalists. This tip included a link to a file that contained: - An RCMP report detailing conversations between Mr. Van Huigenbos and me on the Shaun Newman Podcast, labelling parts of our discussion “interesting” in the context of possible new mischief charges. - Clips from The Lavigne Show where Mr. Van Huigenbos appeared. - The entire Shaun Newman Podcast episode featuring Mr. Van Huigenbos. - Several social media posts made by Mr. Van Huigenbos. Crown Prosecutor Steven Johnston reportedly compiled and provided all of these materials to Justice Yamauchi as part of the sentencing of Mr. Van Huigenbos. It's clear to me that Mr. Van Huigenbos's severe sentence—120 days in custody—is a warning that the more a defendant speaks publicly, the harsher the consequences will be. Why This Matters The integrity of the legal system relies on openness and impartiality. When journalists and their guests are monitored so that their public commentary can be used against them, a chilling effect on free speech will arise. This undermines the constitutional promise of open courts and fair trials. I am releasing these details to underscore that justice must be seen to command public trust. My intention is not to single out any individual—be it an RCMP officer, a prosecutor, or a judge—but to highlight potential misuses of the system. The public should be aware when authorities are discouraging legitimate discourse about legal proceedings. A Call for Oversight and Inquiry Alberta’s Minister of Justice, Mickey Amery, should investigate the RCMP’s conduct and the role of Crown Prosecutor Johnston—particularly in light of the “Crime-Fraud Envelope.” If no meaningful action is taken, Premier Danielle Smith should consider requesting the minister’s resignation. Journalists must be free to report on public proceedings without fear of legal retaliation. The potential for Section 127 charges or other criminal implications can stifle essential debate and erode public confidence. The justice system must operate fairly and be visibly balanced. If media figures, activists, and ordinary citizens suspect that courts are using surveillance to secure convictions or lengthier sentences, confidence in the rule of law will continue to erode. These unfolding events paint a concerning picture. Individuals who speak openly about court cases in Alberta may face punitive consequences for exercising their right to free expression. While robust legal processes are vital, so is the public’s right to scrutinize and discuss those processes. By sharing this information, I hope to shine a light on potential judicial overreach and encourage a more transparent, accountable system where free speech is safeguarded and justice truly serves all.
@JasonLavigneAB - Jason Lavigne
Canada, Minutes ago, just before 9 AM on a Sunday, I received a phone call from someone clearly upset and deeply concerned about the information I shared in this post. It’s safe to say I’ve gotten their attention. I share their concern—but for entirely different reasons. Out of an abundance of caution, I have temporarily removed the post. Rest assured, I am now collaborating with other media outlets to ensure this story is properly investigated and the individuals involved are exposed in a lawful and responsible manner. Stay tuned. God bless.
@JasonLavigneAB - Jason Lavigne
BREAKING NEWS! US Government Finds Canada's Trudeau Government Used "Assault-Style Weapons" Against Canadians The findings of the U.S. Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released December 2nd, 2024, determined that Canadian government forces deployed automatic weapons on peaceful protesters in downtown Ottawa from February 14th to February 20th, 2022, demand immediate legal accountability. The actions of law enforcement in Ottawa during this period could be formally charged under the Criminal Code of Canada as follows: Alleged Offences Section 88(1): Possession of Weapons for a Dangerous Purpose to the Public Peace By deploying automatic weapons in a manner that endangered public peace, hundreds of unidentified officers, whose whereabouts and nationalities remain unknown, are alleged to have violated this statute. Section 430(1)(c): Mischief Over $5,000 The use of these weapons and the associated actions caused significant property damage to vehicles and economic disruption in downtown Ottawa. This deliberate mischief far exceeded the monetary threshold outlined in this section. Section 82(1): Possession of Explosives Reports suggest that the police may have utilized or had access to explosives or devices intended to intimidate and control the peaceful protestors, constituting a breach of this section. Jurisdiction and Accountability Given the egregious nature of these actions, I suggest that the accused individuals should be tried with appropriate sentencing—potentially aligning with the precedent of 6.5 years for comparable offences in Alberta—would ensure accountability and reinforce public confidence in the justice system. The deployment of automatic weapons against unarmed citizens and the involvement of unknown officers during these events have shaken the public’s trust. Investigating fully and ensuring justice is served, regardless of who holds power is essential. To support independent journalism, consider becoming a member of https://TheLavigneShow.com
@JasonLavigneMP - Jason Lavigne
DEVASTATING COUTTS UPDATE Justice David Labrenz delivered his "findings of fact" yesterday and it was devastating for Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick. Starting with the explosives charge for Tony, Justice Labrenz found that: - Tony had possession - The age of the explosives, undetermined - The creator of the explosives, undetermined - The purpose of the explosives, undetermined - The status of the explosives, meets Section 2 of the Criminal Code Mischief for both Chris and Tony, Justice Labrenz found: - They both participated in the blockade - Chris wanted the protest to stay in Coutts and not move to Edmonton - Chris accepted an invitation to be a leader - Chris assisted in the logistics of food and supplies - Chris did not initially plan to participate in a blockade, only a slowroll, however that evolved - Tony did initially plan to participate in a blockade, evidenced by bringing two trucks, including a dump truck that was parked on the highway - The non-impedance of emergency services was just luck, not by design - Justice Labrenz is taking Judicial Notice that the amount of damages "is high" Possession of Firearms for a Dangerous Purposes to the Public Peace for both Chris and Tony, Justice Labrenz found: - Chris owned the "bullet trailer" - The trailer was within 5 blocks of the protest - Chris had 2 firearms, a non-restricted .223 and a prohibited "AR Style" .223 - Tony had 2 firearms, a non-restricted .22 and a non-restricted shotgun - Tony possessed for the purpose of a "shootout with police" - The Undercover Opperatives (UCOs) were creditable - UCOs inconsistencies were "human error" - UCOs did not use romance - The heart emojii ❤ does not mean love - Tony's interview was mostly truthful, with minimal examples of "lies" - Tony was planning to be a "sheepdog" and use firearms to resist police - Tony was candid with UCOs - Tony had surveillance of police checkpoints - Tony had a ballistic vest in truck - Tony was "willing to die in a fight" - Tony would "meet force with greater force" - Chris knew about all the firearms in his trailer because 1) small space 2) preppers 3) no reason to hide them 4) men enjoyed firearms - UCOs were accurate with the February 10th "firearms transfer" - Chris was the background voice in the Kyle M. and Tony call - The call was coded language - All men in the trailer had "care and control" of all the firearms in the trailer - None of the men had "care and control" of the firearms in Joanne Person's mobile home - Chris did not have firearms for the purpose of hunting, scoping, "showing off," or "going to the mountains" - Chris had his body armour, magazines, and firearms for the purpose of resisting police - Chris took a risk bringing firearms to Coutts - Chris said "if we lose here, I will likely die in a war" - If RCMP were to attempt to arrest Chris, he would resist (Sidebar: Chris was arrested by RCMP without incident) - Chris was prepared to use force to resist RCMP like Tony was - Chris "lies when he needs to" - Several firearms were loaded (Sidebar: None of the firearms attributed to Chris or Tony were found loaded, one from Chris Lysak was loaded) Bonus: Chris filed his 3rd mistrial application based on the ground of "inconsistent verdict." Justice Labrenz does not have the jurisdiction to hear the application post-verdict, however, he did say if he did, he would dismiss it. Chris can appeal the verdict to obtain a new trial. Conclusion: It's my opinion that Justice Labrenz just did a workaround of the Not Guilty verdict for Conspiracy to Murder Police Officers and the Carter exception by rejecting Chris' defence entirely and finding Chris was going to resist police with force, simular to Tony. Prediction: Given that Justice Labrenz elevated Chris and Tony's dangerous purpose to a "shootout with police," I no longer think "time served" is achievable for either men and we should prepare to hear a sentence that exceeds the time spent. Here's the entire update 👇👇👇👇
@JasonLavigneMP - Jason Lavigne
Chris Carbert's official GiveSendGo https://www.givesendgo.com/GBC3A
@JasonLavigneMP - Jason Lavigne
Tony Olienick's official GiveSendGo https://www.givesendgo.com/GBDGK
@JasonLavigneMP - Jason Lavigne
BREAKING NEWS Via a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPOP) Act request, it has been shown that Nova Scotia's Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Robert Strang, and the chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, Dr. Shelley Deeks, was fully aware that the Covid-19 vaccine was harmful. Many former and active police officers, such as @DonaldBestCA, agree this failure to warn the public is criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death. Under section 219(1) of the Criminal Code, one is criminally negligent when he or she shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons in the act of doing anything, or in omitting to do anything that is his or her legal duty to do so. Minimum: 4 years incarceration Maximum: 10 years incarceration or Life #4YearsToLife The receipts, courtesy of FOIPOP Queen Shelly Hipson, reported on by @QueenOfDiagolon God save our Queens 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
@QueenOfDiagolon - MorganMay(hem) 🇨🇦
Thanks Shelly Hipson for proving both Dr. Shelley Deeks and NS CHMO #DrStrang knew the harms of the Covid-19 vaccine and failed to warn the public. Where is the #MassCasualtyCommission in regards to the excess deaths following the mRNA roll out? More in comments. https://t.co/B72ekbQTBs
@JasonLavigneMP - Jason Lavigne
BREAKING NEWS Cornell et al. v Trudeau et al. Was Filed Today in Ontario Superior Court Today. It Is Explosive. Folks, Alberta law firm Loberg Ector LLP filed one giant step in accountability today. https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act Cornell et al. v Trudeau et al. is a legal attempt to hold several named people in the current government and several organizations accountable for the damages alleged by the plaintiffs caused by the illegal invocation of the Emergencies Act in February 2022. Entire Claim (63 Page PDF) https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/9c3bcc5f-f396-4dc5-95cf-6d01da55f5f6/downloads/Statement%20of%20Claim%20(Filed)%20Cornell%20v%20Trudeau.PDF?ver=1710523480999 Justin Trudeau Among other things, is alleged to have acted unlawfully in issuing Orders in Council related to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, resulting in the unreasonable and ultra vires (beyond the powers) declaration of a public order emergency and the issuance of regulations that led to searches, seizures, and the freezing of many Canadians' bank accounts, including the plaintiffs'. Chrystia Freeland Among other things, is accused of the alleged unlawful invocation of the Emergencies Act and the issuance of related Orders in Council, which contributed to the legal and financial actions taken against the plaintiffs. Jody Thomas Among other things, is accused in the collective actions, including the alleged unlawful invocation of the Emergencies Act and the consequent financial and operational repercussions on the plaintiffs. Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) - Among other things, is accused of supplying false information and exaggerated claims to various defendants and media organizations purportedly designed to harm the plaintiffs. This information influenced the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and contributed to the portrayal of the Ottawa Protesters, including the plaintiffs, in a negative light. The Toronto-Dominion Bank (and other banks) Among other things, alleged to have acted in breach of legislation, contract, and common law by seizing, freezing, or otherwise interfering with the financial services, private property, products, and information of the plaintiffs as part of the enforcement of the Emergencies Act's provisions. These claims are part of the broader legal action that challenges the legality and constitutionality of the Canadian government's use of the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy protests and the subsequent impact on the plaintiffs, including financial freezes and alleged violations of constitutional rights.
@JasonLavigneMP - Jason Lavigne - Independent Journalist/Politician
MAJOR COUTTS UPDATE James Sowery's sentence is 10 months imprisonment.
@JasonLavigneMP - Jason Lavigne - Independent Journalist/Politician
Details. James Sowery: - incident date was February 14, 2022 (day of Emergencies Act invocation) - incident happened at checkout #14 outside of Coutts on the Northbound lane leaving the Coutts protest - was out on bail - convicted by jury - not one of the four Coutts accused (Coutts Four) - no criminal record - father of 2 children (girl 16, son 10), no history of family Court or contested parental involvement The Crown: - was seeking 12 months imprisonment - read a victim impact statement that included several incredible impacts suffered notably a new fear of pulling over and being in the proximity of large trucks and ongoing extreme mental and emotional harm and trauma - agreed that there was no intent to hit the officer, only to "buzz" and to scare the officer - used the hitting of the pylon as evidence of careless driving and threatening intent by a highly qualified operator with a Class 1 license - offered post conviction evidence that sharing of two photos (Canadian flag with a pylon on top) and one video (a foot crushing a pylon) from Facebook as evidence of lack of remorse The Defense: - was seeking Conditional Sentencing Order (CSO) including 12-18 months house arrest, restricted driving privileges, restitution, no firearm, submit to DNA, among others - presented an appology to the officer for the fear created and acknowledged the harm caused to the officer and his own family - demonstrated a model citizen, father, brother, son, friend, and community member - provided details from a report from the parole officer confirming no breaches of bail conditions, no additional incidents, and demonstrated an attitude consistent with someone maintaining their innocence - with privilege waived, acknowledged speaking with James who shared an understanding that his participation in Facebook social media shares would not continue, and confirmed that James did not create the posts, only shared them The Judge: - cited the involvement in the Coutts protest for five days as an aggravating factor (used against him) - cited the share on Facebook as an aggravating factor, did acknowledge the a share is less aggravating than creating the post - cited the manual transmission, vs an automatic, as an aggravating factor due to the manual intention of each gear shift - cited the amount of available room on the right side as an aggravating factor - cited the speed as 60-85 km/h - cited a lack of remorse - cited case law allowing 8 to 60 months as sentencing guidelines My notes: - there was no witness available for this because all other officers were on the southbound lane due to a police alert that someone with firearms was heading to Coutts - the Judge did confirm the involvement of the political protest was reasons to make an example of James (deterrent) for others - the inclusion of Facebook confirms that everything on social media can and will be used against you - James meets the definition of political prisoner Help fund his appeal. https://www.givesendgo.com/Jamessoweryappeal This is not over. Save the dates February 15th and March 11th.
@JasonLavigneMP - Jason Lavigne - Independent Journalist/Politician
📢 BREAKING NEWS On Dec 14, 2023, lawyers for Tamara Lich, Chris Barber & other Freedom Convoy participants will contest the $290M class-action lawsuit. They're seeking to dismiss it as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) case, arguing it's meant to silence their peaceful protest and free speech. "Anti-SLAPP legislation serves to protect defendants against “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” (SLAPP)–lawsuits designed to silence a defendant’s freedom of expression through threats of damages or costs." https://mailchi.mp/jccf/290-million-lawsuit-against-freedom-convoy-participants-designed-to-silence-expression #FreedomConvoy2022 #SLAPPLawsuit #JusticeDebate #FreeSpeech
@ikwilson - Keith Wilson, K.C.
NEWS RELEASE: $290 million lawsuit against Freedom Convoy participants designed to silence expression: https://mailchi.mp/jccf/290-million-lawsuit-against-freedom-convoy-participants-designed-to-silence-expression
@JasonLavigneMP - Jason Lavigne - Independent Journalist/Politician
Save the Date. Friday, December 15th, at 4 PM MT (6 PM ET), we will host Hon. Brian Peckford, Mr. Ken Drysdale, and Mr. Leighton Grey to discuss Peckford's Magna Carta for Canada. Don't miss it. It could be history in the making and something extraordinary for Canada.
