23 February 2022: GoFundMe Hysteria, the Freedom Convoy, and Administrative Incompetence
Friends,
We are aware of the on-going hysteria in the community regarding GoFundMe and our usage of the same. As a general policy we endeavor to not disparage other campaigns. If they ask us for suggestions, we are happy to provide it where we may be able to assist.
Nevertheless, due to the volume of inquiries we are receiving
it needs to be explained that the Freedom Convoy, however well intentioned it may have been, had administrative issues that led to the problems its leadership experienced with GoFundMe.
The leadership was disorganized. They did not appear to have any formal managerial or executive training, nor did they appear to have much practical experience in running an organization. There did not appear to be any level of formal corporate governance, mandate, by-laws, constitution, director resolutions, or many other basic administrative tasks completed. Donor funds did not appear to be insured. There did not appear to be a clear chain of custody for them. They did not appear to protect their IP, and by extension their ability to effectively communicate. There was no clear organizational hierarchy outlining who was responsible for what and this naturally begot disputes of such a nature by various persons claiming to be their voice.
Further, they did not appear to act on sound legal advice. On the contrary, they even fell into the trap of
OPCA arguments which have plagued the anti-lockdown movement for approximately two years. This was a hazard we have warned about on our
FAQ for nearly a year now.
A basic rule of warfare is never arm your opponent. This was disregarded. The results were a disaster at approximately $9M in donor funds that did not reach their intended destination, approximately another $20M in taxpayer funds incurred by law enforcement; some of the leadership taken into custody; an interim injunction obtained in response to noise complaints by a private citizen seeking millions through a proposed class proceeding; a provocation enacting for the first time in history the now
rescinded federal
Emergency Act via an extraordinary order in council; the stage set for a subsequent bank run; and, presumably, the remaining funds that
did reach their intended destination now being used for the leadership’s costly and unfortunate criminal and civil defense.
There were undoubtedly tactical gains made in winning some hearts and minds, but ultimately it was a net strategic failure.
We underwent a due diligence process with GoFundMe, same as the Freedom Convoy and everyone else who uses the platform, a long time ago. We provided the platform with all of our relevant corporate and other administrative records. Despite their apparent visceral distaste for our campaign, they had no reasonable grounds to terminate it and have conceded as much. They have reassured us they will not shut it down. For that reason, for more than a year now, our campaign continues unabated on their platform as you have all noticed.
This does not mean we trust the platform or that we will still have a presence on it tomorrow. On the contrary, we do not trust them. Anything can happen. For that reason we have had a contingency plan already in place to litigate, if necessary, with the platform - among other options. I suspect the platform is well aware of this.
We do not store funds with GoFundMe and never have. All of our money is stored in a community credit union with strict accounting controls in place. Communications with our bookkeeper are encrypted via the international
OpenPGP standard, as opposed to relying on ProtonMail which activists are encouraged to
never use.
Our financial institution is fully aware of our financial activities and we have been reassured we are in compliance with all of their regulatory requirements - including FINTRAC. Whenever a person chooses to donate through the platform, we receive a wire automatically within a few days.
The current relative ease we enjoy with the platform is because we cleared the due diligence hurdle early after we studied their
Terms of Service and anticipated their next move. If we had not, donor funds would have remained precariously in the platform’s trust for an extended period of time until the loudest voice with the greatest persuasive authority succeeded in convincing the platform to send the funds elsewhere.
We are aware there are alternatives to GoFundMe. But what people need to understand is that all the different platforms, including those leveraging cryptocurrencies, share the same choke points where they interface with the conventional financial plumbing system. The latter is the only place where funds become exigible into legal tender that can then be used to pay your bills by creditors who only accept legal tender. Those choke points are controlled by the same already compromised institutions no matter where you go.
Maybe one day we can deal with how to redesign the world’s financial system. But right now that is beyond the scope of our mandate and not a practical goal to assert today. If our stakeholders choose to not use the platform we have always had
alternatives like cheque, money order, bank draft, wire, or e-transfer. This is not a new development, but options that have been available since the onset of our campaign.
It may be tempting to blame the seagulls for running off with your lunch when you leave your picnic table. But only a fool blames them for doing what any reasonable person would have expected them to do to an unattended lunch. They are
seagulls. The platform did exactly what we predicted it would do based on the decisions undertaken by the Freedom Convoy’s administration and the evidentiary dossier the law enforcement and regulatory lobby was gifted by the same.
All boycotting or divesting from GoFundMe does is make it more difficult for us to pay your bills.
We do not think that because others did not rationally think things through, however well intentioned, and with devastating consequences to themselves, that we should bear their externalized costs.
This is not the first time that we have seen an incompetently run campaign become mired in scandal or lose a fortune to corrupt lawyers; administrative incompetence; self aggrandizement of event planners with aspirations for Woodstock or for a theocracy; and the prioritization of sensationalism, courting of alt-right tabloids, promotion of OPCA, and hyperbole over dispassionate rational analysis and hitting the books.
Imagine a public demonstration at the Vancouver law library where people sat down and studied what they had been deprived of in high school - civics, civil procedures, administrative, and constitutional law. Even basic knowledge of civics would have at least directed protesters to the correct city where the majority of the mandates that affected them originated.
Is this an endorsement of a functional and efficient judiciary? Of course not. But you do not have any other practical option - as this is slowly becoming apparent to everyone.
Another recent example involves a controversial British Columbia based partisan non-profit. It brought a several hundred page claim against various mostly state actors - effectively a replication of what their controversial lawyer already billed to draft and file in Ontario. The pleadings were filed contrary to multiple civil rules requiring brevity, among other things, and despite having been warned by the community for more than a year not to commit to many of the mistakes they were anticipated to make - and did make.
{I speculate this is referring to the Action4Canada's notice of claim in BC.}
Their lawyer was also warned by us as early as 29 January, 2021, that filing in British Columbia may cause procedural complications for our work. They did not listen.
The defendants named in the aforementioned non-profit’s proceeding were able to book a full day hearing to have the suit thrown out with
three applications to strike. These are not
pro forma applications. These applications unfortunately have substantial merit, have nothing to do with the plaintiffs’ expert reports (none needed to be filed that early), weak testimony, or anything else to do with the substance of their claim. The defendants’ jobs were made far too easy that they need not have concerned themselves with any of that. The applications to strike are based on fundamental defects in the suit any first year law student should have been able to identify within a few seconds of examining the several hundred page document.
Our prediction is the applications to strike are almost guaranteed to be granted in whole or in part when they are heard. This will create case law and we cannot anticipate how Crown counsel may leverage it at a later date in our own proceedings.
That is unfortunate for that non-profit. But the cost of their administrative incompetence was externalized to all of our stakeholders in having to continue to live with an unchecked injection passport without a hearing date available to us. The hearing date their defendants initially obtained was what we had also tried to obtain multiple times from the lottery based system at the Court’s scheduling desk so that we could have your
injection passport petition adjudicated.
But despite us having been locked, loaded, and mostly prepared for months now, the date went to the other non-profit’s proceeding. Effectively, there was a reckless misallocation of scarce judicial resources now reserved for
at least an entire day to dismiss what should never have been filed in the first place. I say “at least” because the hearing ended up being adjourned to a new to be determined date because the non-profit’s controversial lawyer claimed to be unavailable for the defendants’ applications due to medical reasons - despite stakeholders being reassured that another lawyer would allegedly continue with the work in their absence.
The executive can
carry on even in times of nuclear war. Our legislature can also continue to function through video conferencing during virtually any circumstance. But the entire judiciary effectively becomes dismantled, or perhaps pacified, when something as simple as a single phone line to the Scheduling desk has nothing available in the Court’s calendar for hearings. It is a poor design that will remain so until it becomes an election issue. But in the mean time, and for this reason, it is essential that scarce judicial resources are used responsibly and with foresight.
In our opinion the only winner was their lawyer who was paid regardless and who may have never had any serious intention of prosecuting their claim in the first place (the community warned them repeatedly about this too). It is unlikely their lawyer will be sanctioned, nor is their lawyer likely to personally assume any liability in an adverse costs award on that proceeding’s dismissal. The lawyer knew this, hence why they billed copiously by the hour for the time to draft it.
Further, the plaintiffs, which includes a young mother and a small business owner already facing financial hardship, will likely be jointly and severally liable for any adverse costs order on the defendants’ successful strike applications. It is well established jurisprudence the defendants will be entitled to recover their costs from any of the plaintiffs with assets on dismissal unless the Court orders otherwise.
That means someone might lose their home, have their vehicle seized and auctioned, or have their bank account or wages garnished.
The principals behind that non-profit were all conspicuously absent from the list of plaintiffs so as to not put themselves personally into the breach and face the risk of an adverse costs award. None of them acknowledged any mistakes related to having retained their chosen lawyer or the instructions they provided to them. None of them have tendered their resignations to date. The principals did not listen to those who pleaded with them while insisting their theology would somehow emancipate them. One of the principals even went so far as to reassure their stakeholders they were in direct contact with a deity who had apparently provided an endorsement.
We understand people are passionate. But you cannot expect to win a war with passion alone and in the process abandon reason. Leaders sometimes need to fall on their sword when they keep making fatal mistakes or demonstrate a lack of core competencies. They need to take full responsibility for their actions, resign, and allow their organization to carry on executing its mandate. A non-profit’s primary purpose is to serve its mandate and not its directors.
