Constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati filed a 191-page Ontario lawsuit on July 6, targeting Trudeau, Dr. Tam, CBC, and others for Charter violations via pandemic mandates—masks, lockdowns, vaccines—lacking scientific justification while harming vulnerable groups, including 81% of COVID deaths among the elderly. He alleges governments bypassed Parliament, suppressed dissent (e.g., Amazon banning his book), and ignored evidence like a June 2021 Hospital for Sick Children report opposing school restrictions. Galati ties policies to billionaire agendas—Gates’ $3T vaccine push, WEF’s "Human 2.0" plans—and warns of irreversible societal damage, from censorship-driven conspiracy theories to masked childhoods stunting language development, framing it as a broader assault on democracy. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, we sit down with the man who's suing the government for their pandemic panic, a feature interview with lawyer Rocco Galati.
It's September 1st, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government is because it's my bloody right to do so.
It's hard to be a dissident these days.
It's hard to take a contrarian point of view.
The whole world is in a mania.
And if you dare speak out against the control, well, something's wrong with you.
You're a nut, a conspiracy theorist.
So who will stand up to the mania?
And I'm referring to the panic that has surrounded the pandemic.
We see even when doctors speak out with a second opinion, like Dr. Kelvinder Kaur, they're hit with ethics complaints to the colleges of physicians and surgeons.
No politician has stood up to it.
Is there a lawyer in this country who will be a gadfly, a challenger, someone who will take the pandemic craziness to court?
Suing for Civil Liberties00:07:10
And the answer is yes.
And his name is Rocco Galati, and he filed a 191-page lawsuit taking on the entire political reaction to the pandemic.
And he joins me now in studio to talk about it.
Rocco Galati, what a pleasure to have you in studio.
Thanks for having me, Ezra.
You are an interesting character.
I would say that, and I don't know if you would accept this, in some ways I would call you a lawyer for the damned, a lawyer for cases that others wouldn't take, a lawyer that would seek out unpopular missions.
Is that accurate?
Well, let's put it this way.
My career has been defined by, let's say, Nietzsche, who said that to the entirely stone-deaf audience who can't hear the music, the man dancing by himself must appear to be insane.
But if there's music, you can hear it.
I've often taken unpopular cases, and the problem with my cases is I win a lot of them.
So what does that say?
You know, society has a hard time facing truth sometimes, especially with the nasty issues.
I think that many of our professions, I mentioned how Dr. Kelvinder Kaur is being picked on.
I think it's the same in the legal profession.
People want to appear politically correct.
They're thinking about, well, will I get a QC?
Will I get appointed to be a judge?
I want to get an invitation to the fancy Christmas parties.
I think a lot of lawyers would not dare to challenge some of the pandemic bylaws or health orders because it's too politically, well, alienating of the powers that be.
That's exactly right.
You know, most lawyers are titans in their own mind.
They think that if they do anything that's going to besmirch their reputation, they won't get to be a Supreme Court of Canada judge.
And 99.9% of them think they're getting there.
I mean, it's just delusional, right?
And for instance, you know, in probably my most noted case where I took down Justice Nadon from the Supreme Court after he was sworn in and constitutionalized the court, when I filed that challenge in 2013 and won it in 2014, everybody was calling me crazy.
I'm glad you raised that case because that, I remember seeing that.
And I'm a sympathizer to Stephen Harper, and I probably have the opposite opinion of you, but I remember thinking, that's a long shot.
That's obscure.
Well, wouldn't you know it?
It worked.
Right, right.
And it was right.
It was right in the law, but our culture didn't like the idea that you could challenge the powers that be, because we don't really live in a republic or even, we fancy ourselves a constitutional democracy, but that's a lot of political correctness.
At the end of the day, we devolved from a monarchy.
And favor rather than merit and affiliation to a political tribe or any kind of tribe takes precedence over rationality in our society.
And you see it right now with this COVID measure nonsense.
I took the morning to read this very lengthy lawsuit.
You filed it in early July in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario.
July 6th, yes.
I want to read some of the defendants here because it's clear you're not looking to get a Senate appointment.
You sued Justin Trudeau, Dr. Teresa Tam, Mark Garneau, the transport minister, Doug Ford, Christine Elliott.
You sued the mayor of Toronto, John Torrey.
You sued various counties and medical officers.
You even sued the CBC.
You're suing every single power that is.
That's not normal for a lawyer to do.
It is for me.
My career, I've sued many prime ministers, and people always mistook me as somebody who had it in, for instance, for Prime Minister Harper.
I sued Kretchen.
I sued Paul Martin.
I've sued Trudeau.
You know, to me, it's not about what color you're wearing in the intramural football team in high school, red, blue, or orange.
It's about are you respecting our rights?
Are you respecting the constitutional framework that gives you the very authority to even govern?
And so I, you know, I had nothing personal against Prime Minister Harper, but I thought it was the right thing to do, as I do here.
I'm a member and a donor to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
And I joined them so I could pester them.
Right.
You know, so I have some standing with them.
I've been trying to nudge them towards making civil liberties lawsuits in this time of crisis.
I feel like they're absent.
And I look around all the traditional civil liberties groups that I think would have gone to bats if it was like Donald Trump, who was the boss or Stephen Harper.
I feel like they're sitting this one out.
Where are the traditional civil libertarians?
They're absent.
As I said before, when you take such an unpopular cause, they tend to be absent.
They're all plagued with a certain measure of political correctness and a certain measure of trusting of governments.
And I always say to people, you know, yeah, if you're lucky enough to have a good government, that's fine.
And they say, why don't you trust governments?
I said, why would I trust governments?
I see governments as an institutional manifestation of the beast and Homo sapien.
Only governments have engaged in the following endeavors.
War, genocide, crimes against humanity, massive persecution based on a rational basis.
You know, other private groups don't do that.
It's only governments.
In the face of the history that's there for everybody to read and see how dangerous governments can be, they have to be kept in check.
But people have this irrational respect for whatever government does.
And I think, I have my own theories as to why.
I think we're basically an alpha mammal and we gravitate to this type of political structure.
And the rule of law, since the Romans invented it, attempts to flatten that structure to save ourselves from our own debased nature.
But eventually it goes back to a pyramid type structure.
And people do not want to risk personal or professional or reputational interest, even if they know deep down it's the right thing.
You know, I don't know if I would peg you as left-wing or right-wing.
I would call you a troublemaker.
I'm a proud anarchist, not a purveyor of chaos as anarchy, as political doctrine has been maligned in North America.
I believe, and if those of you who are not familiar with Italian culture or even Israeli culture, an anarchist is somebody basically who says, listen, I take care of myself.
Government has a role, but it should be limited.
Leave me alone.
And so in English terms, an anarchist is a libertarian.
And so I'm a free thinker.
I don't let others do my thinking, and nobody should let you do your thinking during this COVID crisis.
Talking About Anarchy00:13:14
Well, let's jump into the lawsuit.
I read it this morning.
It's very long, and so we obviously don't have time to go through all of it.
But I've taken it, and let me just hold this up.
I've gone through it, and I've put little sticky notes, and I've highlighted things.
Some very interesting things here.
It feels, when I read it, to be candid, I felt in some parts like I was reading my own book, China Virus.
For example, let me read from one of your early paragraphs here.
You're seeking a declaration from the court that the COVID measures, I'm quoting now, taken by both Trudeau and Ford and their respective governments at the blind and unquestioned dictates of the World Health Organization bureaucrats constitute a constitutional violation of the abdication of the duty to govern.
So you're saying that one of the things you're looking for is for the court to say you can't just directly parrot what the World Health Organization says.
Is that because they obviously have stated self-interested agenda and the people who run and fund and direct the W Health Organization were not elected by Canadians.
And so they're just, so for instance, if you want, I can in two minutes summarize the entire statement of claim.
We're seeking declaratory relief that Trudeau and Ford have dispensed with Parliament and are acting under the pretense of royal prerogative, something that was banned in 1688 under the English Bill of Rights.
They have abdicated their duty to govern because they're just delegates to the WHO.
And we seek a declaration that the COVID measures are neither scientific nor medically based, that the COVID measures are extreme, irrational, and unwarranted, and that the COVID measures, to a large extent, breach sections 2, 7, 8, 9, and 15 of the Charter.
And I can break down those sections.
That's very interesting.
That's the statement of claim.
But the rest of it has to plead the facts, which takes a long time because this is a complex issue.
It's international.
Yeah.
Well, that was the very next paragraph I was going to look at here.
You talk about violating the Charter of Rights, specifically the following measures.
So let me list them because you're right.
I think of these and I think, is there any scientific basis for them?
And even if there is, does that outweigh my personal freedoms that are being infringed?
So you outline self-isolation, social distancing, the compulsory wearing of face masks, arbitrary and unjustified closure of businesses, and you say in that the measures are not scientifically nor medically based nor proven to be effective whatsoever.
They pose physical and psychological harm, and they are extreme, unwarranted, and unjustified.
And here's the thing.
I think some politicians would actually admit that.
In fact, the Edmonton City Council, for example, when they brought in their mask bylaw, they didn't base it on science.
They based it on some public opinion survey.
Well, MPP Randy Hillier in the Ontario legislature produced evidence from a health officer by way of email to him that said, well, the polls show that people want masks.
Well, you don't make a decision that's going to affect society, burn the economy just on the mob.
Not just that, but to violate someone's right.
A mask, you use a phrase in here, the right to breathe.
Right.
Which I've never thought of it that way before, but it's the most essential thing.
Life.
The right to breathe.
To have that over your face, and if there's no science for it, that's an incredible infringement on your body's integrity.
And where's your science?
Where's the science?
In fact, one of the plaintiffs, Denny Ronkoor, is an expert on masking.
He wrote an article reviewing all the medical scientific literature going back 25 years and published it in April of this year.
And he wrote the article, and it's called Masks Don't Work.
Now, even the health officials are agreeing that masks cannot keep back airborne viruses.
And you need very little of the virus to infect you.
They're now saying, oh, yeah, but it's not for you.
It's for the other person in case you sneeze or cough.
Well, when you sneeze or cough, the studies show MIT in the University of Western Ontario, it projects 16 to 20 feet.
We don't have 20 feet social distancing because that would be impossible.
Sorry.
I see some places it's one meter, some places it's one and a half meter, some places it's two meters.
And is that science or is that just a rule of thumb?
And how can they all be scientifically accurate?
They're not.
In fact, Bonnie Henry, the chief medical officer for British Columbia, when she was asked, BC has maximum 50 people who can gather, yet Ontario has 10.
You know what she said?
Quote, well, it's not scientific.
We figure we can contact Trace 50s.
Other jurisdictions, it's 10.
But she said it's not a scientific.
It's just the number we pick.
That's from the medical health office.
And then you say, well, why is it then?
40 people can congregate in a church or a political meeting, but they can congregate at Walmart.
Yeah.
Well, that's an interesting subtext in your statement of claim is the economic impacts.
I mean, as you probably know, Jeff Bezos has doubled his personal wealth.
Amazon is nearly a true trillion dollar company.
Walmart's, they never closed for a minute, but corner stores did.
You know what?
And one of your plaintiffs is a developmentally disabled man.
And in this statement of claim, you've blocked out some of the names of the people.
I didn't think about that, but let me quote one of your paragraphs here.
What's happened because of this mania, the discontinuance of access to education, medical, dental, chiropractic, naturopathic, hearing, dietary, therapeutic, and other support for the physically and mentally disabled, particularly special needs children with neurological disorders.
And when I read about that one client of yours, an autistic man, I never thought of that.
But all the things that he needs to do, needed to do, was used to do, and his whole world has changed.
So he must be tortured every day.
It's torture.
And we're talking about people in the hundreds of thousands.
We're not talking about a few people.
No provision was made by Ford's government.
The Section 15 charter breaches that we cite are for the physically and mentally and neurologically disabled and the aged in these long-term care facilities.
They can't even visit each other in the home.
And it's 81% of the so-called COVID deaths are these old people.
After giving their life to society, this is how they end.
And it's just horrific.
The other thing, you know what I say to people, Ezra, is, you know, people are not equipped to parse the science or the medicine or the law.
I'm always asking people, you have common sense.
Now, apply your common sense to the political and policy decisions that the government has made and ask yourself, does this wash?
So for instance, for the first four months, Teresa Tam and everybody was telling you masks don't work.
There was no social distancing or masks in the Toronto subway.
We were packed like sardines.
All of a sudden, oh no, everybody's got to be masked like a Chihuahua, even outside.
Now, France and Germany have mandated the masks even on the sidewalk.
Ask yourself, why does a Ma and Paw hardware store, clothing store, or shoe store have to close because of social distancing?
Yet Walmart, because they sell food and medicine, which were the exceptions, gets to sell everything under the sun.
Is it easier to socially distance in a crowded Walmart, in a crowded mall, or the Ma and Paw shop?
That makes no sense to me.
Those are political, economic, arbitrary choices that favor one group over another.
So the end effect of this has been that small business around the world has been decimated.
It's gone under, and the mega corporations are making a killing like never before.
The other effect of this has been that with the social distancing, we have virtualized the world economy.
So you've got vaccines.
They want mandatory vaccines.
So now we have Google Classroom, Zoom court hearings.
Everything's been virtualized.
So the people who own the vaccine companies are the people who own the IT companies or the people who sell, it's the same.
Bill Gates, he's in both.
Google now is in the pharmaceutical business.
Oh, I didn't know that.
Yes.
Yes.
And so who benefits here?
And I say, listen, even if it were a legitimate epidemic that meets the definition and the numbers and the threat, it does not justify imprisoning the world and burning the economy to the ground.
We will never recover from this.
And it's only those who have profited that will be in a position, along with the governments they control, to restructure the economy to their interests and needs.
Prime Minister Trudeau has already announced that post-COVID, we're going to have to rebuild infrastructure.
But of course, we're going to have to do it in conjunction with private actors because, of course, we don't have any money anymore.
I understand we may be applying for a $52 billion loan from the IMF.
You imagine Canada being an applicant to the International Monetary Fund?
My only surprise is that the amount would be so low.
We're talking with Rocco Galati, the lawyer for a group of plaintiffs challenging the pandemic response by various levels of the Canadian government.
Well, there's so many little phrases in here that are interesting to me.
I can't go through all of it.
There's just not enough time.
But you're looking for various declarations.
And a declaration is sort of when a court makes an official finding.
It's not really a, it's not a fine or a, it's just sort of a statement that has the power of law, am I right?
So when you say a declaration by the court that the concept of social distancing is neither scientifically nor medically based and is an ineffective and fictional concept, which has no scientific nor medical basis and hitherto unknown with respect to seasonal viral respiratory illness.
And that's the thing, this social distancing, I had never heard that word before this year.
Was that just an invention?
Had that ever been used?
No, before.
And just to clarify, as against all the government actors, Ezra, we're seeking a declaration so that the court declares certain things for a lot of reasons.
We're only seeking damages from the CBC.
Oh.
Okay?
Because they, as the national broadcaster, publicly funded by Canadian citizens, with a public statutory mandate, have failed us miserably and intentionally.
They never once have run a COVID measure critical article.
They never once interviewed an expert.
We cite about 42 or 43 experts in here, and there's many more who've, since day one, have said, this is crazy, including Canadian experts, and they blocked them.
They pulled them down.
Oh, that's no surprise to me.
They take that approach with a number of issues.
Let me ask you, it's been almost two months since you filed this.
Now, the courts are sort of really in reduced gear because of the pandemic.
Have you had any response from the various defendants?
Have you heard back from any of these governments or the CBC?
Yes, they've all issued a notice of appearance.
We've had communication, and in fairness to them, this is not something that they could normally respond to in the 20 days under the rules.
And also, I'm also preparing an injunction, an interim injunction against the masking bylaw in Toronto and the Education Minister's Ordinance that I'll be filing in the very near future, and then I'll be asking for the quickest date I can.
Obviously, the defendants will say, well, we need time to respond, as is their right.
But as far as I'm concerned, this is progressing.
And, you know, and the task is daunting, you know, Ezra, because you asked earlier, why aren't other groups doing this?
First of all, you have to, you know, fortunately, I have clients who've stood up and said, no, we can't have this.
And so they have mustered up the resources to be able to have us go to court.
And then just the work.
It took me eight weeks to just draft a statement of claim.
And that's just a start.
And I can tell you, I spend three hours of my day every morning in my office just clearing phone calls and emails.
I don't necessarily even respond to them all.
I got 300, 400 of these people crying on the phone, telling me, you know, this is what's happening to me.
What's going on?
This is insane.
Experts calling me, medical and scientific experts calling me and saying, this makes no scientific sense whatsoever, what's going on here.
Crying Plaintiffs' Stories00:09:20
And I tell them, go read my statement of claim and go do some research, because unless you understand the geopolitical economic forces behind these measures, the science will never make sense to you.
Because Teresa Tam and the other medical officers have been vacillating like palm trees in a Hawaii tornado.
Every week, it's something contradictory, as Fauci has.
Have you had a straight line from these people?
The goalpost keeps changing.
The lockstep keeps increasing.
Yeah, the biggest one was 15 days or 14 days to slow the spread.
Well, we're past 14 weeks.
Well, initially it was so that our health services don't get overwhelmed.
Over 90% of all the ICU units that were set up never saw one patient.
Meanwhile, they closed everything down.
There were 40% more deaths from heart attacks because of the COVID cancellation of surgeries and people not seeking medical attention because of the fear.
40%.
We're talking tens of thousands of Canadians unnecessarily died from heart attacks.
We're talking five-fold suicide rates, five-fold drug overdoses.
These are all documented in the statement of claim.
And, you know, the measures, it is no debate that the measures have caused far more deaths than they purport as a result of COVID.
Now, the CDC last week, I don't know if you saw it, they corrected themselves quietly and they stated that of the 153,000 deaths in the States that they said were COVID, they said only 6% of those were actually COVID.
So only 12,000.
I would have thought that would have said, okay, shut everything down, all these measures.
But no, they're proceeding with mandatory vaccines.
Well, that's the next point I was going to read.
You were looking for a declaration that any mandatory vaccine scheme against any purported COVID-19 by way of a mandatory vaccine without informed consent is unconstitutional.
I am completely certain that that is the next step.
We can see that in other jurisdictions.
Trudeau has ordered 37 million syringes, 88 million doses.
And we've seen Teresa Tam.
I don't know if you saw her national film board.
It's in the statement of claim.
I must have missed it.
I transcribed her comments from 2010 in the statement of claim.
About how she wants tracking bracelets and detention centers.
Yeah.
Terrific.
Yeah.
Oh, let me read that.
I mean, there's just so many interesting little phrases here that I hadn't thought of before.
This is the one about the right to breathe.
That the compelled you, this is another declaration you're seeking, that the compelled use of face masks breaches in restricting the right to breathe at the crux of life itself and the liberty to choose how to breathe.
That's how I feel when I put that on my face.
All right.
You know what?
We've got to, I want to speed up.
I'm talking too much and I want to get through this thing.
There's so many things I've put a tab on.
You talked about the economics here.
You're looking, let me just read this, and then maybe you can expand on it.
You're seeking a declaration from the court that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open and which would close as being essential or not was designed and implemented to favor mega corporations and to de facto put most small businesses and activities out of business.
And that's happened.
That's happened.
I feel so bad for restaurants, for barber shops, for places which are the lifeblood of a local neighborhood.
And it seems to me that the decision makers, the Teresa Tams, Justin Trudeau's Doug Fords, they never lost a day's pay.
Maybe they got to work from home and get a paid vacation.
But there's such a divide, but I put it to you that if the deciders, including the judges, lost their pay the way waiters and waitresses did, this pandemic would have been over in two weeks.
I totally agree.
And that's what I've said as well.
If government employees were not paid during the pandemic, you would have had a different reaction, including, as you say, from the Attorney General's department and the judiciary.
And excuse me, why was my kids' clothing store?
My kids are growing, they're 10 years old, got shut down, but the liquor store was an essential service.
By the way, another government-controlled mega corporation.
Why was booze such an essential service?
But kids' shoes are not.
That's a great point.
You know, you have a number of plaintiffs, like individuals, who have interesting stories.
And one woman is talking about how she now hates to go out and be grilled just when you enter stores.
Let me read one line that really spoke to me.
She now has to disclose personal health information in order to enter stores with which she disagrees and is otherwise denied service.
One of the things that bothers me the most, and I note that all these mass bylaws, as you said, only came in in August, September.
Like the pandemic was essentially over.
It peaked in April.
It was over by May.
But all these politicians said, August, September, let's bring in mass bylaws.
And they really, they turn shopkeepers into cops.
They turn people into informants and snitches against each other, scolds.
And instead of having a natural neighborhood, hey, shopkeeper, how you doing?
Hey, nice to see you again.
Hey, what's up?
Why have we seen this before, Ezra?
Well, Soviet Union.
I lived in China off and off with my first wife for five years.
This is Soviet Chinese communist fascism is what it is.
And I think some people thrive on being tattletales, and other people say, well, I hate this, but if I have to wear the mask, you have to.
I think it's pitting us against each other.
And it's out of fear.
And, you know, they're playing on something that they know works.
Because fear of survival is the strongest, sorry, fear of dying is the strongest instinct.
Survival is the strongest instinct.
And I tell people, and people often bash me for it, saying, how do you think Mussolini and Hitler convinced their population that certain ethnic groups need to be exterminated?
Because they blame them for their economic woes and said, we're suffering because of them.
You know?
Here's the story about the 23-year-old male with autism.
Let me just read a paragraph here.
And I didn't think of this because I don't have people close to me in this situation, so it wasn't top of mind.
But you want to talk about health.
Listen to this.
He has been totally mentally devastated by the COVID measures in depriving him of his routine activities and social and emotional network without recourse.
He suffers severely from not being able to understand nor accommodate under the COVID measures why he cannot play where he has played or anywhere else, why he cannot do the other physical and social activities he did.
He will not countenance wearing a mask, does not understand and therefore cannot comply with social distancing or isolation given his severe neurological disability.
And it goes on.
And that's so true.
And I mean, I raged at the playgrounds being shut down with police tape.
But maybe you could convince a certain child, but that autistic gentleman you're referring to, he must think that the world is ending.
Never.
And you know what?
And they could have accommodated for that, even if they felt these measures were necessary.
They don't care.
This government, the Trudeau government, is abusing and torturing the most vulnerable members of our society, physically disabled, neurologically disabled, and the elderly, and they don't give a shellak.
And you know, that may be the silver bullet that gives you success.
I say again, when I remember when you filed the lawsuit to bump one of Harper's Supreme Court, I thought, there's no way.
Not that, I mean, what did I know?
What did so many people know you were correct in the end?
And I look at this, and I've got some quite, I mean, 191 pages.
I mean, there's a lot of, like, I think it's like it's very long.
And I'm thinking, well, is that a stretch?
But you know what?
That may be.
Like, how do you fight a health mania?
Well, with another health issue that's real improvable.
Here's a 23-year-old autistic man who is really suffering because of your BS, unscientific, arbitrary, made-up rules.
So maybe the way you beat a health scare is with the health fact.
Maybe that 23-year-old autistic male is going to be the guy that the judges say, you know, this guy really is suffering.
And because politician one and politician two read the polls, it's not an excuse to infringe this guy's rights.
Well, at the end of the day, all our charter rights attach to the human body physically and psychologically, right?
That's what the charter rights are for.
And let me say something else as well.
What we point out in this statement of claim, over two months ago, the world, the UN World Food Bank said that 130 million people by this December would be put on the brink of starvation.
They revised that two days ago to say that as much as 10% of the world's planet will be on the brink of starvation by the end of the year.
Censored Books and Starving Millions00:09:26
That's 700 million people.
That to me is a crime against humanity, Ezra.
Well, and the crazy thing, and you have a section in your lawsuit that goes through historically, and there was something that caught my eye.
I'm just reading from page 47 of your claim.
In 2011, a review of the literature by the British Columbia Center for Disease Control to evaluate the effectiveness of social distancing measures, such as school closures, travel conditions, and restrictions on mass gatherings to address an influenza pandemic, concluded that, quote, such drastic restrictions are not economically feasible and are predicted to delay viral spread but not impact overall morbidity.
So you have all these studies that say, look, this doesn't work.
It's just for show.
And yet, all of a sudden, what's crazy to me, maybe I have an idea here.
I think that politicians were looking around and said, well, he did that, so I better match him, or I'm going to get in trouble.
At least if we all stick together, if all us politicians do the same rules, the same laws, the same mass bylaws, same social distancing laws, then there's sort of safety in numbers, because they all did it at the same time.
No, I think whether knowingly or unknowingly, they're doing it at the same time, but it's very well orchestrated.
Listen, Bill Gates and his foundation pumps money into all major cities.
Bill Gates oversaw a meeting of 400 mayors, and according to Bonnie Crombie from Mississauga, she proudly tweeted that had a Zoom meeting with Bill Gates and 400 mayors.
He's seeing us through the COVID.
Time out.
Who the hell is Bill Gates to see us through anything medical?
But he dumps $100 million to Toronto and they throw money at research institutes, right?
You have to understand that this is being orchestrated.
So you have one or two decision makers of the WHO directed by their funders.
Then you have world leaders, and then you've got provincial and their health office.
We're talking about a handful of a Vatican committee that's running this like the Roman Catholic Inquisition.
You dare say anything against it.
You dare say that the world is not flat.
We ostracize you, we persecute you, we'll take your tweets down, we'll ban your books.
My book was banned.
Your book was banned.
My book was banned.
Take it as a compliment.
You know, you talk about Bill Gates in here, and you were just talking about him.
I've seen reports on this, and it's hard to ignore.
October 18th, 2019, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum in Davos, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security convene an invitation-only tabletop exercise called Event 2010 to map out the response to a hypothetical global coronavirus pandemic.
And just stop there.
Ten years ago, May of 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation wrote a report that was leaked that theorized a virus escaping Wuhan, China.
And the thrust of the report is how to obtain global governance in a pandemic.
It's just, 10 years ago, they scripted as a hypothetical what we're living through today.
Well, that's the thing.
It's so eerie.
It's a strange combination because you have global billionaires mucking around, blurring the lines between business, philanthropy, politics, economic.
Who is Bill Gates?
I mean, we know he's got a lot of money.
I think he's the second richest man in the world, if I'm not mistaken.
But by what authority is he meeting with politicians making policies?
By the weight of money and his club.
Listen, this has been a slow march.
This has taken decades to develop through globalization and all that.
You know, in that short eight weeks that we filed the statement of claim, a lot of our assertions and statement of facts have actually been omitted and proven.
So for instance, the whole thing about microchipping, which people were saying, oh, that's insane.
It's right here.
It's now.
It's on the table.
England, they already have the bracelets.
One state in the states is already voluntarily microchip embedded under your skin.
The World Economic Forum that you just mentioned that had been a driving force along with others in this whole thing just issued a report co-written with McGill University in Canada with reference to the Human 2.0.
And it says, what are the best options to use the human body as an information platform?
They're talking about a merger of AI and electronics and robotics and the human body.
So, you know, eight weeks ago, it was a conspiracy theory.
Now it's out in the open.
And what, did they just develop this in eight weeks?
No, this has been in the planning for decades.
And the thing is, when you censor critics, like my book was censored by Amazon, so many contrary or skeptical points of view on this virus are blocked, deleted on Twitter, on social media.
So you censor skeptics, and you have these massive oligarchs and transnational billionaires, corporations, shadowy philanthropy groups like the Rockefeller Brothers.
You're going to stimulate conspiracy theories because the characters are just so absurd.
The ideas are so shocking.
They're done in shadowy places like the World Economic Forum.
So adding a layer of censorship, like it's bad, the facts are bad enough as they are, but they're causing people to use their imaginations.
What are they hiding?
Why don't they want us to?
But it's not even the imaginations.
It's out there and visible to see.
Let me explain something to your viewers.
So this lockstep as they go up, and that's the term they use in the Rockefeller Foundation report of 10 years ago.
So initially, you had social distancing.
I used to observe four or five people six feet apart talking.
Once they got the masking on, I don't see people talking through their masks, socially distancing.
People are not congregating, they're not communicating.
With others, they'll say, oh, yeah, but Mr. Galati, you know, we have the social media and people are communicating on YouTube.
No, they're not, because they're censoring that.
So they have put a stop, a complete censorship, on even debate.
We cite these experts.
You know, YouTube has pulled down three Nobel Prize winners in their field giving an opinion on issues with the COVID for disinformation.
Can you imagine?
I remember those doctors in the States, they had a control anything on hydroxychloroquine.
And I think partly it's because Trump said, hey, that's a good idea, so there's a partisanship there.
But partly it's because that's a cheap, effective drug response that's, you know, been in the field for decades.
A vaccine is the high profit.
You know, the big money response is mandatory vaccines.
If something as common as hydroxychloroquine that's been used for decades against malaria were the solution here, that would make a lot of would-be-rich people not rich.
Can I put some numbers to the profit of vaccines for your viewers?
Bill Gates wants to vaccinate 7 billion people at $105 per shot.
One COVID shot is $750 billion.
He wants to do four in the first year.
That's $3 trillion.
The U.S. budget is between $4.5 and $5 trillion.
That's the kind of money you're talking about.
That's one vaccine for the COVID.
If they make every vaccine mandatory, they're positing a $90 trillion industry.
Now, just the COVID at $3 trillion, let your viewers understand what $3 trillion is.
It's $4.2 million a day for every day of the year since the day they put Jesus Christ on the cross.
It's $4.2 million a day for 2,000 years without counting the interest in between.
That's just one vaccine, okay?
And can I just briefly say something about conspiracy theories?
I don't think of myself as a conspiracy theorist.
I'm a conspiracy analyst.
I used to work for the Department of Justice and we did a lot of drug prosecutions.
We used to prosecute conspiracy and drug dealing all the time.
And what the term conspiracy theory comes from, it was invented by the CIA to deflect and given to the media to deflect questions about the JFK assassination and to undermine Martin Luther King's civil rights movement.
Okay, what a conspiracy theory is, it's a propaganda tool to actually dismiss, deflect, and hide conspiracies.
That's what it is.
And conspiracies are both a criminal code offense in Canada and actionable tort.
All a conspiracy is, Ezra, is two or more people agreeing to a certain end.
If that end is criminal, it's a criminal conspiracy.
If that end is not criminal, but it harms somebody else in their rights, civil rights, they can sue you in conspiracy.
The last case on conspiracy from the Supreme Court of Canada was Hunt versus Kerry.
It's a tort like anything else.
My point of view is that the world is so insane as it is, we don't need to invent things because just look at the facts out there.
Conspiracy and Civil Rights00:03:18
And let me skip it.
I want to be cognizant of the time.
We're not even halfway through your claim.
There's so many interesting things.
But here's a paragraph that I thought was excellent.
And I think that this could be one of the silver bullets in this claim.
Let me just read paragraph 162.
The plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that these defendants, all the people you're suing, while purportedly relying on advice from their medical officers, are not transparent as to what the advice was, nor the scientific medical basis was, and in fact, suppressing it.
In fact, to date, they refuse to disclose where they are ultimately getting this advice and from whom based on what medical evidence.
The fact is that they are simply parroting the advice and dictates of the WHO without any scrutiny whatsoever and without ever addressing or recognizing Canadian and international experts who took and continue to take a contrary view and criticism of these directives from the WHO.
I think that's right.
I think that part of our system of government is that we see how the sausage is made.
We have bills and they're debated and we have committees and we have experts in access to information.
And even if we make the wrong decisions, everyone can see how we made the wrong decisions.
Here, things just appear out of the blue.
Teresa Tam, who still works for the World Health Organization, and suddenly every city in the country has a mass bio.
Where did that all come from?
Well, and the other thing is, too, not only don't they tell you, they refuse to tell you.
And so just think about this on our primary declaration that they've dispensed with Parliament.
Some people say, oh, no, Parliament sits.
They select 25 MPs.
There's 338 MPs.
Your MP may not be there.
That's not Parliament.
That's a reduced version of royal pretense and executive action, right?
I've been on Zoom calls with 700 people, participants.
Why has Parliament not met fully on Zoom?
Yeah.
Yeah, that's a good point.
You know, one of the things I've found, I mean, your statement of claim, it really did remind me of a book.
You can make a book out of this.
It reminded me of my own book in some ways.
But one of the useful parts is you list what you call consequences of measures to the plaintiffs and other citizens and violation of constitutional rights.
So you just list the side effects of this pandemic panic.
I'm just going to list some of them.
A dramatic increase in reports of domestic violence.
Over 6 million Canadians have applied for unemployment.
The deepest and most rapid loss of jobs, unemployment, bankruptcy, deficit, illness and conditions have gone untreated, not related to the virus have gone untreated.
Dying in home due to lack of medical care, denial.
None of these things have been properly weighed.
Dramatic increase in mental health.
I saw a story in the Edmonton Journal that said their ICUs, their intensive care wards, are full of mental illness cases.
Intensive care?
That's a code word for someone trying to kill themselves.
That's what that means.
Suicides are up fivefold.
Denied Access to Intensive Care00:06:24
Fivefold.
And, you know, it's just horrific, Ezra.
It's just, and they do it without shame and without thinking that they need to answer to Canadians.
Fathers denied access to be present for the birth of their child.
Elderly parents in supportive care denied access to their family and friends.
The closure of the course, the closure of parliaments.
This is a very long statement of claim.
Well, I got to tell you, I did a master's of law and tax litigation at Osgoode Hall, and it took me three and a half weeks to write my thesis, and I had about 100 and something footnotes.
This took me eight weeks at 279.
regret I didn't enroll for another master's program well listen I but what's it what's what your viewers should know I encourage them to go read this even if it's five or ten pages per visit to the bathroom because it's it's not you know it's not theoretical
90% of this is simply reciting the facts of what's happened, what's happening, why the measures are not scientific, why the measures are constitutionally flagrant, why none of this makes sense rationally or legally.
And people should know their rights, and people should not readily accept panic.
When will this be heard?
Well, I'm hoping the injunction will get heard before the Christmas holidays.
That's my, you know, but courts, even in the best of times, are not known as being speedy Gonzales.
But I'm going to do my best to get the initial injunction for masks heard, you know, because the masks and the report that was written by the Hospital for Six Children June 17th recommending no masks, no social distancing in the schools, which was later, they browbeat them.
And Stephen Lecce ordered masking for grade 4.
People are not understanding the indelible, the long-term, irreversible psychological and sociological damage that these measures are going to cause your children.
Okay?
That age group in elementary school, people, I was a clinical linguist before I was a lawyer.
72% of all language is facial and body language.
They are mask.
They are developing their skills to identify people at this stage.
You're going to interfere with that.
They're identifying their ability to understand people.
You're going to interfere with that.
You're going to have a fragmented, psychologically scarred generation of children who do not understand how to socialize, get close to each other, understand each other, and that will lead to nothing but more depression and more suicides.
And that damage is irreversible.
Yeah.
I agree completely.
In a lawsuit like this, especially when you touch on so many things, there's typically disclosure, documents, tree disclosure, cross-examination of the different institutions or people here.
That might be interesting because if you say, well, there was no scientific basis for Toronto's mask bylaw, for example, I would imagine that they would be compelled to disclose things other than subject to litigation privilege.
Maybe the disclosure that would come from this lawsuit in itself would help this battle.
I'm hoping so.
The first thing they're going to try to do is convince a judge, and not all judges are forthright, that this whole thing should be struck and swept under the carpet on a motion to strike.
However, you are right.
So under charter breaches, once you show a prima facie charter breach, under section one, if they try to justify that breach as demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, the onus is on the state to show that, one, there's a valid legislative objective, two, that the measures taken to affect that valid objective are proportional, not connected,
rationally connected and proportional and not overreaching.
They'll never meet that test because they're engaging in mass hysterical censorship insanity here.
When you have, for instance, our former chief medical officer for the province, Richard Chabus, who said, quote, don't wear a mask unless you're planning to rob a bank.
And people like him who are very adept, who are very qualified.
You have 640 doctors in Madrid, Spain with the conference, in turn representing tens of thousands of doctors around the world saying this is a scam.
And you don't want to investigate that?
You don't want to address that?
All you do is suppress it.
You had millions of people on the streets in Europe over the weekend and hardly a mention in the mainstream North American media.
Well, it's very interesting.
I'm very grateful to you for coming down to our studio and spending an hour with me.
And we only scratched the surface.
I made probably 50 notes and we only got through about 20 of them.
But I think people have a good feeling for the scope of this lawsuit.
I'll put a link on our website if people want to go through it.
It's a long piece of work, but there's a lot of interest.
It felt like a book.
Right.
And I'd encourage people to, I'm the founder and executive director of the Constitutional Rights Center, and we've been working quietly for 16 years.
We just went public yesterday, in large part because of COVID.
And so if you want to visit our website, it's constitutionalrightscenter.ca, and we spell center the Canadian way.
All right.
R-E.
And that'll send you to my Twitter page, the Twitter page, which is Rocco Galati Law.
And there's a link right there to the statement of claim, and I would encourage people to read it.
All right.
Well, you know, we call ourselves Rebel News, and I think you're a bit of a rebel, and you're making some news.
Thank you.
And to me, a rebel is a conservative.
Well, there you have it.
Rocco Galati, the lawyer who has filed this massive lawsuit against all the official people who have been the panickers in the pandemic.
If you want to read the lawsuit, we'll have a link to it on the website below.