Featured Image

ST. ALBERT, Alberta (LifeSiteNews) —Hundreds more have joined the fight against the Crown for mandating Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel to accept the experimental COVID-19 jab.

Following a claim of the same nature filed in June, attorney Catherine Christensen of Valour Law has filed a second lawsuit seeking damages from the Crown for 128 new plaintiffs. 

Like its predecessor, this lawsuit is seeking over $1,000,000 per plaintiff and declarations of wrongdoing from the defendants. The plaintiffs are current and former members of the CAF who have been affected by Chief of Defense Staff General Wayne Eyre’s “vaccine” mandate.

Christensen told LifeSiteNews that, after hearing about the original claim, several other CAF members approached her looking to join the fight.

“I had over 500 people want to be in [this case], but the timeline was too tight,” she says. “We are coming up against the statute of limitations, so it was a really tight timeline, and only 128 managed to get me what I needed.”

Christensen warns this trial will not be settled quickly as the defense will likely wish to question each plaintiff. She also has similar plans.

“I’ve got quite a list of people I want under oath to answer some questions before trial,” says Christensen. “[General] Eyre is number one, and then right after him is General [Jonathan] Vance, and Admiral [Art] McDonald.”

The plaintiffs have cited numerous codes and documents in their Statement of Claim including but not limited to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Constitution Act, and the Nuremberg Code.

RELATED: Canadian military members undeterred after Crown attempts to dismiss lawsuit over COVID jab mandates

The Statement of Claim includes testimony from many of the plaintiffs who say they have suffered severe injuries from the COVID-19 vaccines. Many of those who refused the shots say they were threatened with a 5(f) release which accuses them of the following:

Because of factors within the officer or non-commissioned member’s control, (the member) develops personal weaknesses or has domestic or other personal problems that seriously impair their usefulness to, or impose an excessive administrative burden on, the Canadian Forces.”

Christensen says many plaintiffs were told that as members of the CAF they have fewer rights than those afforded to Canadian civilians. She says this myth is wrong. “Just because someone is in uniform does not mean they give up their rights as a Canadian citizen,” she explained. 

The plaintiffs now await a Statement of Defense from the Crown. They will then have the opportunity to reply to that statement before the questioning process can begin. They have requested that the trial be held in Edmonton, Alberta.