The British Columbia government has made application to strike down a lawsuit by Rocco Galati on behalf of Action4Canada
…
2022-01-17 – Notice of Application (Health Authority Defendants Move to Strike)
No. S 217586Vancouver Registry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN
ACTION4CANADA, KIMBERLY WOOLMAN, THE ESTATE OF JAQUELINEWOOLMAN, LINDA MORKEN, GARY MORKEN, JANE DOE #1, BRIAN EDGAR, AMYMURANETZ, JANE DOE #2, ILONA ZINK, FEDERICO FUOCO, FIRE PRODUCTIONSLIMITED, F2 PRODUCTIONS INCORPORATED, VALERIE ANN FOLEY, PASTOR RANDY BEATTY, MICHAEL MARTINZ, MAKHAN S. PARHAR, NORTH DELTA REALHOT YOGA LIMITED, MELISSA ANNE NEUBAUER, JANE DOE #3
PLAINTIFFSAND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT BRITISH COLUMBIA, PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER THERESA TAM, DR. BONNIEHENRY, PREMIER JOHN HORGAN, ADRIAN DIX, MINISTER OF HEALTH, JENNIFER WHITESIDE, MINISTER OF EDUCATION, MABLE ELMORE, PARLIAMENTARYSECRETARY FOR SENIORS’ SERVICES AND LONG-TERM CARE, MIKE FARNWORTH,MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL, BRITISH COLUMBIAFERRY SERVICES INC. (OPERATING AS BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRIES), OMAR ALGHABRA, MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, VANCOUVER ISLAND HEALTHAUTHORITY, THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE (RCMP), AND THEATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, BRITTNEY SYLVESTER, PETER KWOK,PROVIDENCE HEALTH CARE, CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION,TRANSLINK (BRITISH COLUMBIA)
DEFENDANTS
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Names of applicants
: The Defendants, Vancouver Island Health Authority and ProvidenceHealth Care (the “Applicants”)To: PlaintiffsAnd to: Their Counsel
17-Jan-22
Vancouver
– 2 –
And to: Her Majesty the Queen in Right British Columbia,
Dr. Bonnie Henry, Premier JohnHorgan, Minister of Health, Jennifer Whiteside, Minister of Education, Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General
And to: Their counselTAKE NOTICE that an application will be made by the applicants to the presiding judge or master of the courthouse at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia,
by MicrosoftTeams
, on 3/Feb/2022 at 10:00 am for the orders set out in Part 1 below.
Part 1: ORDERS SOUGHT
1.An order striking the whole of the Plaintiffs’ notice of civil claim filed in this matter onAugust 17, 2021, without leave to amend; and,2. Costs
Part 2: FACTUAL BASIS
1.On August 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a 391-page notice of civil claim (the “Claim”) thatattempts to challenge the scientific and legal basis for the entirety of British Columbia and Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Part 1 of the Claim contains over 1,300 paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.2.The Plaintiffs have named numerous defendants: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of theProvince, the Attorney General of Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Chief PublicHealth Officer Theresa Tam, Dr. Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan, Adrian Dix,Minister of Health, Jennifer Whiteside, Minister of Education, Mable Elmore,Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors’ Services and Long Term Care, Mike Farnworth,Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.(operating as British Columbia Ferries), Omar Alghabra, Minister of Transport, Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the AttorneyGeneral of Canada, Brittney Sylvester, Peter Kwok, Providence Health Care, CanadianBroadcasting Corporation, and TransLink (British Columbia).3.The Claim is a prolix and convoluted document that is replete with groundless accusationsagainst public bodies and public officials, inflammatory language, and conspiracy theories.4.The Claim characterises the COVID-19 pandemic as a “false pandemic” that was “designed and implemented for improper and ulterior purposes, at the behest of the WHO, controlled and directed by Billionaire, Corporate, and Organizational Global Oligarchs” such as BillGates in order to “install a New World (Economic) Order” (Part 1, paras. 155, 283). BillGates is not a party to this proceeding.5.The Applicants filed their response to civil claim on October 14, 2021 in which they denythe entirety of the Claim and assert that it ought to be struck.
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS
6.The Plaintiffs’ Claim is deficient in form and substance. It is a scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious pleading that fails to meet the basic requirements for pleadings and is an abuse of
– 3 –
the Court’s process. The Claim should be struck in accordance with Rule 9-5(1) of theSupreme Court Civil Rules, without leave to amend.
Pleadings Generally
7.
Supreme Court Civil Rule
(the “
Rules
“) 3-1 provides, in part:
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;(b) set out the relief sought by the Plaintiff against each named defendant;(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;…(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7. [emphasis added]8.Rule 3-7 provides, in part:
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it areto be proved.…
Pleading conclusions of law
(9) Conclusions of law must not be pleaded unless the material facts supportingthem are pleaded.…
General damages must not be pleaded
(14) If general damages are claimed, the amount of the general damages claimed must not be stated in any pleading. …9.The function of pleadings is to clearly define the issues of fact and law to be determined bythe court. The plaintiff must state, for each cause of action, the material facts. Material factsare those facts necessary for the purpose of formulating the cause of action. The defendantthen sees the case to be met and may respond to the plaintiff’s allegations in such a waythat the court will understand from the pleadings what issues of fact and law it will becalled upon to decide.
Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia,
[1998] B.C.J. No. 2703 (S.C.), para. 510.As the Court of Appeal recently held in
Mercantile Office Systems Private Ltd. v.Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc
., 2021 BCCA 362, para 44: None of a notice of claim, a response to civil claim, and a counterclaim is a story.Each pleading contemplates and requires a reasonably disciplined exercise that isgoverned, in many instances in mandatory terms, by the Rules and the relevantauthorities. Each requires the drafting party to “concisely” set out the “materialfacts” that give rise to the claim or that relate to the matters raised by the claim. None of these pleadings are permitted to contain evidence or argument.
Application to Strike
11.Rule 9-5(1) provides:
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
– 4 –
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,…(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court …12.A pleading may be struck under Rule 9-5(1) if it is plain and obvious that the pleadingcontravenes any of Rule 9-5(l)(a) through (d).
Knight
V.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd,
2011 SCC 42 at para. 1713.Evidence is inadmissible on an application under Rule 9-5(l)(a) but may be considered onan application under the remaining paragraphs of Rule 9-5(1). The Applicants rely onsubparagraphs 9-5(l)(a)(b) and (d).
Rule – 9-5(l)(a)-The Notice of Civil Claim Discloses No Reasonable Claim
14.The Claim is premised upon non-justiciable questions and relies heavily upon internationaltreaties, Criminal Code provisions, and unknown causes of action that are incapable of disclosing a reasonable cause of action for the purposes of Rule 9-5(1)(a).15.For example, the Plaintiffs petition the Court for declarations pertaining to questions of science, public health, and conspiracy theories that are not justiciable, including:a.”A Declaration that the science, and preponderance of the scientific world community, is of the consensus that: a) masks are completely ineffective inavoiding or preventing transmission of an airborne, respiratory virus such asSARSCoV-2 which leads to COVID-19″ (Part 2, para. 312(1)); b.”A Declaration that the declared rationales and motives, and execution of COVIDMeasures, by the WHO, are not related to a bona fide, nor an actual “pandemic”,and declaration of a bona fide pandemic, but for other political and socio-economicreasons, motives, and measures at the behest of global Billionaire, Corporate and Organizational Oligarchs” (Part 2, para. 302);c.”A Declaration that administrating medical treatment without informed consentconstitutes experimental medical treatment” (Part 2, para. 321);d.”A Declaration 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 mostsmall businesses and activities out of business” (Part 2, para. 307); and e.”A Declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns of schools in British Columbia, by the Respondents, are: a) notscientifically, or medically, based; b) based on a false, and fraudulent, use of thePCR test, using a threshold cycle of 43-45 cycles in that once used above the 35threshold cycles, of all the positives it registers, 96.5%, are “false positives”,resulting in an accuracy rate, as a mere screening test, of 3.5% accuracy” (Part 2, para. 311).
– 5 –
16.The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations (and non-violations) of the Criminal Code thatare not properly raised in a civil action (
Simon v. Canada
, 2015 BCSC 924, para. 45);including:a.”Crime[s] against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada” (Part 1, para. 299;Part 3, para. 333); b.”Medical experimentation” that constitute “Criminal act[ s] … pursuant to the War Crime and Crimes against Humanity Act” (Part 2, para. 292(a));c.”Criminal extortion” (Part 1, para. 261);d.”The ‘extra’ suicides and drug over-doses undisputedly tied to Covid-measuresconstitutes criminal negligence causing death” (Part 1, para. 264);e.”Criminal vaccine experiments causing horrific damage to innocent children inIndia, Pakistan, Africa and other developing countries” (Part 1, para. 21 l(a));f.A Declaration that failure and/ or refusal to comply with Provincial Covid Measuresdoes not constitute a “common nuisance” contrary to s.180 of the Criminal Code or constitute “obstruct peace officer” contrary to s. 129 of the Criminal Code (Part 2, para. 323(f)).17.The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations of international legal instruments, unwrittenconstitutional principles, and causes of action unknown to law that are not actionable inCanadian courts (
Li v. British Columbia
, 2021 BCCA 256, paras. 107-109;
Toronto v.Ontario
, 2021 SCC 34, para. 5), including the following:a.”Vaccine mandates violate ‘The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and HumanRights’, the Nuremberg Code, professional codes of ethics, and all provincial healthActs.” (Part 1, para. 260); b.”Administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutesexperimental medical treatment contrary to the Nuremberg Code and HelsinkiDeclaration of 1960″ (Part 1, para. 299; Part 3, para. 333);c.”Vesting an indefinite emergency power in [various defendants] constitutesconstitutional violation of ‘dispensing with Parliament, under the pretense of RoyalPrerogative’, contrary to the English Bill of Rights (1689) as read into our unwrittenconstitutional rights through the Pre-Amble of the Constitution Act, 1867″ (Part 2, para. 295; Part 3, para. 336);d.”The declared state of emergency, and measures implemented thereunder contravene” … “the same parallel unwritten constitutional rights, enshrined throughthe Pre-Amble of the Constitution Act, 1867″ (Part 1, para. 283( c )(iv);e.”[T]hat (solitary confinement) isolation/quarantine of asymptomatic children”violates the “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment (the “Torture Convention”) and the Convention on theRights of the Child” (Part 2, para. 311 ( e ); and f.”The COVID Measures taken by both Trudeau, Horgan, Farnworth, Dix, Whiteside,and Henry, and their respective governments, … constitute a constitutional
– 6 –
violation of the abdication of the duty to govern” (Part 2, para. 296; Part 3, para.326).18.To the extent that the Claim attempts to plead causes of action that are known to law, suchas breaches of Charter rights or the separation of powers, the Claim fails to set out materialfacts which, if true, support these claims.19.The general rule that facts pleaded should be accepted as true for the purposes of a strikeapplication does not apply in a “case like this where the notice of civil claim is replete withassumptions, speculation, and in some instances, outrageous allegations. The law is clear that allegations based on assumption and speculation need not be taken as true.”
Willow v. Chong,
2013 BCSC 1083, para. 19
See, also, Simon v. Canada,
2015 BCSC 924 [“
Simon
”], para. 5420.The Plaintiffs have failed to plead the concise statement of material facts that is necessaryto support any complete cause of action. The Charter claims are inextricably bound up in a prolix, argumentative, and wildly speculative narrative of grand conspiracy that isincapable of supporting a viable cause of action. It is impossible to separate the materialfrom the immaterial, the fabric of one potential cause of action or claim from another, or conjecture and conspiracy from asserted facts.
Fowler v. Canada (Attorney General),
2012 BCSC 367, para. 54
Simon, supra,
paras 54-5921.It is plain and obvious that the Claim, as pleaded, fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
9-5(l)(b) The Notice of Civil Claim is Scandalous, Frivolous and Vexatious
Scandalous and Embarrassing
22.A pleading is scandalous if it does not state the real issue in an intelligible form and would require the parties to undertake useless expense to litigate matters irrelevant to the claim.
Gill v. Canada,
2013 BCSC 1703 [“
Gill
”], para. 923.A claim is also scandalous or embarrassing if it is prolix, includes irrelevant facts,argument or evidence, such that it is nearly impossible for the defendant to reply to the pleading and know the case to meet. Pleadings that are so prolix and confusing that it isdifficult, if not impossible, to understand the case to be met, should be struck.
Gill, supra
para. 9
Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc.,
2009 BCSC 473, at para. 36
Kuhn v. American Credit Indemnity Co.,
[1992] B.C.J. No. 953 (S.C.)24.The Claim is a scandalous pleading because it is prolix, confusing, and nearly impossible torespond to:a.The 391 page Claim attempts to plead dozens of causes of action and Charter breaches and seeks over 200 declarations. It is, as a result, nearly impossible toknow the case to be met. b.The Claim contains extensive passages of completely irrelevant information,including:
– 7 –
i.A COVID-19 timeline beginning in 2000 with Bill Gates stepping down asMicrosoft CEO (Part 1, para 44) and including such other events as BillGates pledging $10 billion in funding in 2010 for the World HealthOrganization and announcing the “Decade of Vaccines” (Part 1, para. 50);ii.A lengthy narrative describing an alleged “global political agenda behind [the] unwarranted measures” (Part 1, paras. 207-300);iii.A detailed 81 page narrative about the individual Plaintiffs dealings withgovernment employees, health care professionals, and police officers (Part1, pages 1-81).c.The Claim relies extensively on the Criminal Code of Canada (Part 1, paras. 1l(b)(h), 115, 141(h), 207(1), 299; Part 2 para. 291, Part 3 paras. 322(k)(iv), 323(f),333, 361 (f)(k)(iv));d.The Claim contains lengthy and convoluted legal arguments (i.e., Part 1 page 108 para. 141; Part 2, paras. 286, 324, 358);e.The Claim raises allegations against individuals and entities who are not named as parties such as Bill Gates (Part 1, paras. 216-222), Facebook, Amazon, Google,Yahoo (Part 1, paras. 174,216), Doug Ford (Part 1, para. 152(c)), and others.25.The Claim is also a scandalous pleading because it fails to meet the basic requirements for pleadings under the
Rules
.a.The Claim contains over 1600 paragraphs and subparagraphs. It fails to set out aconcise statement of the material facts, relief sought, and legal basis in violation of Rules 3-1(1)-(3); b.The Claim pleads evidence in contravention of Rule 3-7(1), including dozens of lengthy quotations from various COVID-19 commentators and activists and hundreds of footnotes to miscellaneous websites, articles, policy documents, and articles;c.The Claim pleads conclusions of law, unsupported by facts, in contravention of Rule 3-7(9);d.The Claim appears to plead amounts of damages in contravention of Rule 3-7(14).
Frivolous
26.A pleading is frivolous if it is without substance, is groundless, fanciful, ‘trifles with thecourt’ or wastes time”.
Borsato v. Basra
, [2000] B.C.J. No. 84, 43 C.P.C. (4th) 96, at para 2427.The Claim is a frivolous pleading because it promotes fanciful conspiracy theories aboutthe origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, the efficacy of COVID-19 measures, and themotivations of the Provincial and Health Authority Defendants. These allegations include, by way of example only:a.”The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the illegal actions, and decrees issued byThe Defendants and other public officials were done, in abuse and excess of their offices, knowingly to propagate a groundless and falsely-declared ‘pandemic” …
– 8 –
designed and implemented for improper and ulterior purposes, at the behest of theWHO, controlled and directed by Billionaire, Corporate, and Organizational GlobalOligarchs.” (Part 1, para. 155); b.”The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the non-medical aims and objectives todeclare the “pandemic”, for something it is not beyond one of many annual seasonalviral respiratory illnesses, was to, inter alia, effect the following non-medicalagendas, by using the COVID- 19 [sic] as a cover and a pretext: (a) To effect amassive bank and stock market bail-out needed because the banking system was poised to again collapse since the last collapse of 2008 in that the World debt had gone from $147 Trillion dollars in 2008 to $321 Trillion dollars in January, 2020″(Part 1, para 208(a));c.”The fact is that the pandemic pretense is there to establish a “new normal”, of a New (Economic) World Order, with a concurrent neutering of the Democratic and Judicial institutions and an increase and dominance of the police state; (c) Amassive and concentrated push for mandatory vaccines of every human on the planet earth with concurrent electronic surveillance by means of proposed: (i)Vaccine “chips”, bracelets”, and “immunity passports”; (ii) Contract- tracing viacell-phones; (iii) Surveillance with the increased 50 capacity; (d) The elimination of cash- currency and the installation of strictly digital currency to better-effectsurveillance.” (Part 1, para. 208(b)-(d)); and d.”The Plaintiffs state that, and fact is, this global vaccination scheme which is being propelled and pushed by the Defendants, is with the concurrent aim of total and absolute surveillance of the Plaintiffs and all citizens.” (Part 1, para. 308)
Rule 9-5(l)(a) and (d) – The Claim is Vexatious and an Abuse of Process
28.Little distinction exists between a vexatious action and one that is an abuse of process asthe two concepts have strikingly similar features.
Dixon v. Stork Craft Mamifacturing Inc.,
2013 BCSC 111729.Abuse of process is not limited to cases where a claim or an issue has already been decided in other litigation, but is a flexible doctrine applied by the court to values fundamental tothe court system. In
Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79(CUPE)
, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, the court stated at para. 37:Canadian courts have applied the doctrine of abuse of process to precluderelitigation in circumstances where the strict requirements of issue estoppel(typically the privity/mutuality requirements) are not met, but where allowing thelitigation to proceed would nonetheless violate such principles as judicialeconomy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice.30.Vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassmentand oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other thanthe assertion of legitimate rights. Where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expectto obtain relief, the action is vexatious.
Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian,
[1987] O.J. No. 355 [“
Lang Michener
”], at para. 19
– 9 –
31.There are a multitude of bases upon which to conclude that the Claim is an abuse of process. These include the Plaintiffs’ attempt to use the judicial process to adjudicateconspiracy theories and seek declarations on non-justiciable questions of medical scienceand public health policy.32.More concerning, the Claim bears the hallmarks of a vexatious and abusive claim that isintended to harass and oppress the parties (and non-parties):a.The Claim advances against the Defendant Provincial Health Officer, withoutfactual foundation, spurious allegations of “crimes against humanity” in relation tothe implementation of COVID-19 measures and international public health work inthe early 2000s (Part 1, para. 293); b.The Claim advances irrelevant allegations about alleged conflicts of interests or hypocritical conduct relating to the private lives of both parties and non-parties(Part 1 para 8(k), 44, 154(c)-(f), 155, 207(b), 298);c.The Plaintiffs make broad, sweeping criminal allegations against a large number of named and unnamed government employees and officials (Part 1, para 11, 141 (h),15l(d), 261 (pg. 234) 264 (pg. 235) 300(d));d.The Claim uses inflammatory and inappropriate language to describe alleged actions of Defendants and public officials such as “egregious crimes againsthumanity”, (Part 1 para. 290) “fraudulent” (Part 1 para. 251 ), or “Stalinistcensorship” (Part 1 para. 280 (pg. 308), or to suggest that politicians or officialshave “no clue” (Part 1 para. 154), are “wholly unqualified” (Part 1 para. 154) or are“outright lying” (Part 1 para. 279 (pg. 240))33.The Applicants submit the Claim has been brought for an improper purpose. The Plaintiffsand their counsel must know, or ought to know, that a 391 page Claim seeking over 200declarations concerning alleged criminal conduct and the efficacy of public healthmeasures “cannot succeed … [and] would lead to no possible good”:
Lang Michener, supra
.34.The Claim is intended, at least in part, to intimidate and harass health authorities, publicofficials and politicians, including the Provincial Health Officer, by advancing spurious, public allegations of criminal conduct, conflicts of interest, and ulterior motives. Thisintention is further corroborated by the Plaintiff Action4Canada’s simultaneous campaignto encourage individuals to serve government officials and politicians with “Notices of Liability” for their actions in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic (Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. G, I).35.The Claim is also intended, at least in part, to consolidate, publicize, and amplify COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation. The Claim is a book-length tirade against theentirety of British Columbia’s response to the pandemic, with dozens of quotes from, and hundreds of footnotes to, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, and anti-vaccine resources. BothAction4Canada and its counsel have promoted the Claim online and on social media(Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. D, K).36.These are improper purposes to file and prosecute a civil action. There can be no questionthat the Claim is an abuse of process. Permitting this litigation to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and the integrity of the administration of justice.
– 10 –
37.Providing the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to redraft their pleadings would only further this abuse of the Court’s process.
Part 4: MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON
1.The pleadings filed in this action;2. Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill made 10 January 2022The applicants estimates that the application will take 1 day collectively with the application of the Province of British Columbia. This matter is within the jurisdiction of a master. This matter is not within the jurisdiction of a master.TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION: If you wish to respond to this notice of application, you must, within 5 business days after service of this notice of application or, if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, within 8 business days after serviceof this notice of application,(a) file an application response in Form 33,(b) file the original of every affidavit, and of every other document, that(i) you intend to refer to at the hearing of this application, and (ii) has not already been filed in the proceeding, and (c) serve on the applicant 2 copies of the following, and on every other party of record one copy of the following:(i) a copy of the filed application response;(ii) a copy of each of the filed affidavits and other documents that you intend torefer to at the hearing of this application and that has not already been served onthat person;(iii) if this application is brought under Rule 9-7, any notice that you are required to give under Rule 9-7 (9).Date:17/Jan/2022_________________________________________ Signature of Timothy J. Wedge
applicant
lawyer for applicants, Vancouver Island Health Authority and Providence HealthCareAttn: Timothy J. WedgeCarfra Lawton LLP6
th
British Columbia Government, Guilty as Charged. Now, who is running scared?
They have been working at keep the people of this province scared with all of the tactics and mandates. Now, they cannot handle the pressure themselves.
Let the charges stand, and everyone named, and many not yet named be charged with Crimes Against Humanity, under tyhe Nuremberg Code.
Government Administrated Terrorism (GAT)