Tuesday, April 12, 2022


  1. Convoy organizer Tamara Lich insists she didn't abscond with all that "Freedom Convoy" cash.
  2. Convoy organizer Tamara Lich has enough money to hire Lawrence Greenspon:

I'm sure it's all just a coincidence.

P.S. It is decidedly odd that none of the high-profile culprits related to the "Freedom Convoy" are getting free legal representation based on the (tax-deductible) millions of dollars hoovered up by Rebel News and The Democracy Fund, who assured one and all that all that money would be used for ... defending truckers.

Pat King appears to be having real trouble even getting a lawyer who wants anything to do with him, Randy Hillier is indeed being represented by TDF in-house mouthpiece David Anber but Anber has made it clear Hillier will be paying fair market value for those services and now we have Lich, who certainly seems like she's paying for her own defense.

For all of the self-promotion that came out of Rebel News and TDF about standing tall and strong for truckers, it's fascinating that they are only now admitting that they're doing little more than defending the small fry:


Anonymous said...

Interesting that neither The Rebel nor its key writers’ twitter feeds have mentioned this. I wonder if they’re sulking because she declined the services of the Rebel/Democracy Fund ambulance chasers and opted to cash in some of that concealed crypto for a REAL lawyer?
Too bad - I used to respect Greenspan.

Anonymous said...

Why would you judge a criminal defence lawyer by their customers? By definition, they're dealing with crooks, or at least accused crooks. The only clients I turn down are the ones that can't pay. And when I say pay, I mean cash before I do any work. Unless they're taking legal aid, most of my colleagues operate the same way.

MgS said...

I’m not going to slag Greenspon - he’s a criminal defence lawyer, and allegedly one of the best in the business. He’s also got a long track record of not only doing his job very well, but of doing so ethically - in other words he doesn’t descend into the muck that many of his clients have been paddling around in.

I do wonder exactly where she came up with the funds for his retainer though …

Anonymous said...

Opinion piece from Greenspon:
Using the federal Emergencies Act — Unfortunately, Canadians are always willing to trade away their freedoms
While the prime minister had the audacity to assure Canadians that the Emergencies Act was in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I believe that it will be found by the courts not to be."


Anonymous said...

Greenspan is right, the Emergencies Act was unnecessary. Dealing with a few hundred protestors doesn't "exceed the capacity of a province." It clearly exceeded the willingness of the Con premiers, but that's a different thing.

MgS said...

@Anonymous @ 11:22AM:

I'm going to get a tiny bit ranty here:

It was painfully obvious that the Con Premiers had decided to get behind this turd of an occupation because they felt they could hang it on Trudeau. Kenney in Alberta sat on his hands while Coutts was blocked, Ford did similar until blocking the Ambassador Bridge threatened the provincial economy to a significant degree (yes, shutting down the auto sector in ON would make a hellish mess to clean up), and it would have torpedoed his re-election chances entirely.

If it exceeded the "willingness of the Con Premiers to act", then not only did those Premiers place their politics ahead of the people they were elected to govern, but they in fact relinquished the "capacity to act", leaving it to the Federal Government.

Anonymous said...

MgS, you're right that the Cons figured to hang the Con-voy around Trudeau's neck. And I'm not surprised that JT used the Emergencies Act to give them a black eye. Politically, it was the right decision. If and when the courts rule on the legality of it all, the outcome won't matter. In any case, courts hate to weigh in on political decisions and I suspect they'll say the issue is moot now and refuse to consider it.