>>14340480 >>14340499 pb re PATRICK KING court transcript

Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-p-37/latest/rsa-2000-c-p-37.html

Here is a definition of infection as per the Act that was key to the King case in ALBERTA.

“infection” means the entry and multiplication of an infectious agent in the body of a person or animal;

If King is to challenge the law and health order on the basis of lack of evidence of the infectious agent, SARS-Cov-2, then, he needs to base it on this partial definition in the Act.

And I think he did intend to do that. The basis for the Order under which he had been fined was the fear that this agent could be spread in gatherings of 11 or more people. One would have to ask why not use a limit of 30 or 50 or 100 people? The officers testified that the number of people at the park while King was present was about 100. They also testified that they identified him in images that included 22 to 32 individuals. So the distinction between a limit of 10 and these other numbers is important to the infectious agent, presumably.

But that clearly is not so when in the outdoors. Plus, the prosecutors did not establish that King was actually within a gathering of more than 10 individuals at any given time. They just clumped individuals together to raise the count. King could have tried to contest the arbitrariness of those counts as per his tentative challenge to their targetting only those who spoke in that place at that time.

>>14340662

Before going further into the transcript to raise points that others might consider if they were to also challenge a fine by defending themselves, it may be worth pointing out that the evidence, at the time of this incident, did not support the Order to limit gatherings in this manner. Certainly not outdoor gatherings. And certainly not public demonstrations. In fact, in that same city there continued to be other forms of gatherings that contravened the 10 person limit both indoors and outdoors and none of those were subjected to fines.

King could well have argued unequal treatment both on that day, where most people were not fined, and during the weeks leading up to and following this incident.

A stronger case could have been made before even entering the courtroom as per the many lawyer-repped cases that have been dropped by prosecutors. But here King had a different goal re the basis for the Order issued by the medical officer.

>>14341220

It is a struggle to even imagine the rational for make this shot mandatory. It is not supported by the scientific evidence but that is not the matter at law by which the mandates should be thrown out.

The shots are not done trial until at least FEB 2023. This runs right through the upcoming school year and leaves loads of time for the courts to hear the arguments rather than wave the mandates onward.

Being trials, how can it possibly be argued that a mandate is ok? Can someone please make a stab at the best devil's advocate argument?