u/SaltZone3105

Posting an update regarding my charter challenge against the government of Alberta.

I am currently prepared with all the paperwork in anticipation for the urgent injunction I will be seeking to freeze this entire unconscionable unconstitutional abomination masquerading around as a referendum.

The only thing holding me back are court costs associated with.

I've built this injunction request using a new and fresh angle that will bind the government.

Donations, shares, and talking to your neighbors all help immensely. Thank you

I'm at the point with the current Alberta administration that any win they have makes me mad, even if it is for Alberta's benefit.

Like this pipeline announcement.

As an Albertan I should be happy but I'm not because I understand that any support Danielle may have lost, will now be regained all because a 1/3 of this province has the reading comprehension level of a watermelon.

Because say whatever we want, Danielle knows how to manipulate support back from her base.

This of course is compounded on top of the fact that the NDP cannot for the life of them get their messaging through to rural voters. This isn't an opinion. It's a well established fact.

So the message for the NDP that I have is this:

Hire me as your rural interpreter.

I spent the last 10+ deep behind enemy lines. Like the type of deep where you couldn't even start to breathe the word "Tru-" before getting thrown out of Sunday dinner (physically).

Because here's the thing, it's not that rural people don't care about healthcare or affordability. In fact they care about them greatly. But when the NDP come out and blast pay-for-healthcare, you're blasting the only available perceivable means for these senior residents getting surgery before Christmas and being able to celebrate the holidays not in pain. A lot of these rural residents are either retired, semi-retired, or nearing retirement and aren't necessarily struggling financially like a young couple or single mom in the city is. Would you want to have to be made to wait up to an hour for an ambulance just to drive another hour to a city hospital because your local community treatment center is closed?

I know exactly how this voter group thinks and how they interpret messaging. Political TV smear ads aren't how votes are won in rural Alberta and the NDP is underutilizing your biggest tactical advantage in the party's history.

Alberta can't afford another 2015 "default/vote split" win. We can't afford to have the UCP running the show. I can help.

If you've been transfered from AISH to ADAP and plan on reapplying for AISH you need to call this number

780-644-4336

and let them know so they can put a note on your file to exempt you from the mandatory work program.

Hope this helps ease some concerns

There are two major lawsuits currently pending in BC and Quebec. These lawsuits allege that Scopely (and other major video game publishers) violate Canadian consumer protection and criminal laws by utilizing randomized "loot boxes". The suits argue that these microtransactions function as unlicensed, illegal gambling operations.

In order to be compliant with Canadian law, on any item that comes with a randomized chance (aka sticker packs), the odds must be stated easily at the time of purchase.

Also, algorithmic price manipulation based on player spending is also considered to be a deceptive practice.

Additionally, this also violates app store policies on both the Apple App Store and Google Play.

Under Canadian Consumer Protection Laws (all provinces have similarly worded laws in this respect), demand your money back from either Google or Apple through the stores refund prompts and selecting not as described with the following:

>I am requesting an immediate, full refund for this transaction due to a severe breach of consumer transparency laws and platform developer guidelines by the publisher.

>The developer is utilizing predatory algorithmic surveillance pricing to manipulate item costs based on personal profile tracking. I have documented evidence showing that this exact package deal was offered to my account for $69.00, while a separate account on a separate device was simultaneously offered the exact same promotional package name for only $24.99.

>Furthermore, this package bundles randomized virtual items (sticker packs) that legally constitute a loot box mechanic. The developer has completely failed to publish the mandatory mathematical drop-rate probabilities, which directly violates the App Store Review Guidelines regarding randomized virtual purchases.

>Because this application engages in deceptive pricing and intentional informational asymmetry, the transaction is unconscionable. I request that the marketplace reverses these charges immediately.I am requesting an immediate, full refund for this transaction due to a severe breach of consumer transparency laws and platform developer guidelines by the publisher.

If this is rejected, it was likely a bit rejection. To force a human to intervene:

For Apple iOS: Open the Apple Support App on your device or go to the Apple Support Site. Request a Live Chat or a Phone Call regarding "Billing & Purchases." Tell the human agent: "My refund request was auto-rejected by a bot. I need to escalate this to a Senior Billing Supervisor because this involves documented variable surveillance pricing fraud and undisclosed loot box odds."

For Google Android: Go to the Google Play Help Community or use the "Contact Us" feature under your account settings to request an online chat. State clearly that the developer is evading platform policies via multi-step virtual currency.

If this doesn't work, call your bank and report it as fraud/deceptive practices/unconscionable transaction. Get your money back

I can't be the only one so absurdly over the disgusting amount of tokens it now requires to play Peg.

Like I've been playing for years. Almost 200 tokens would get you a substantial way. Now, I've only made it to the first sticker on two different accounts. What's even more fucked is my backup account which had less dice and tokens made it further than my main account with less tokens

On April 11, the day it was announced that Justice Leonard granted her injunction, I came into possession of an audio recording taken out of the emergency separatist meeting that took place later that evening. Contained in it are various members asking questions. Because Mitch Sylvestre can’t keep his mouth shut, he confirms pretty much what anyone who's rational has been saying this entire time. 

​“And in order to get the referendum vote, we have to be able to control the process somewhat”

​“I share your concern [about Elections Alberta] and we understand that the Premier also shares your concern and that she's talking about passing a bill in a couple weeks from now or next week that's going to allow us to have our own appointed scrutineers there, which is something that's never happened before. So I would share with you the fact that everybody feels the same way you do and we're going to protect ourselves.”

​*“The beauty of this is we have the referendum in October. The annual general meeting for the UCP is in November. So if she does not perform or the government does not perform as we want with independence… we should be scaring them… we are too big to rig.”*

​Exactly three days later, on April 14, Bill 23 rammed through the legislature and received Royal Assent a mere 48 hours later. 

Bill 23 was originally announced as a minor bill prohibiting political deepfakes on March 30. While it still includes new rules regarding deepfakes, what's completely devoid from the news is what else was included:

• ​Introduces the allowance of unvetted, partisan scrutineers personally chosen by political actors to hover over ballot boxes.
• ​Repeals the strict timeline that forced referendums to wait for fixed-date elections.
• ​Applies these rules retroactively to ongoing petitions where such retroactivity created a legal argument for the government to give that will likely see the Court of Appeal grant an emergency stay of proceedings with regards to the current quashing ruling that's frozen the separatist petition.

​This isn't a hypothetical and yes, you should be worried. The recent, massive voter database leak that exposed Albertans was just a test run for the referendum day. Except this time they'll know which way you personally voted. 

UPDATE: OIC 160/2026

On May 28, 2026 the Order In Council titled OC 160/2026. First things first. By the way it is written in the OC, it appears as though the question regarding starting the legal process of separation will be written as an A or B style question if this matters to those saying this question isn't allowed because it's unclear, if written this way, it's technically fine. The more important pressing issue is located at the bottom of the OC. 

At the bottom, the OC states that its governing statute falls under 5.1. THIS IS THE INCORRECT STATUTE NOT MADE ACCIDENTALLY. THE GOVERNMENT UNDER DANIELLE SMITH INTENDS TO PULL A FAST ONE ON ALBERTANS AND THE FEDS BY CIRCUMVENTING THE NEED FOR A SECOND LEGALLY BINDING REFERENDUM. 

Section 5.1 ONLY covers NON-CONSTITUTIONAL topics. A QUESTION INVOLVING THE LEGAL SEPARATION OF THE PROVINCE FROM CANADA IS THE MOST CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ONE COULD EVER ASK. 

No media coverage over such serious changes under Bill 23 really makes you wonder.

I'm not looking to stop this referendum outright. That would be undemocratic even though democratically speaking, the majority of the province has spoken that we don't want this. I respect both the Rule of Law and the will of the people. But what I am looking to do is make sure that this referendum is held under neutral, non-partisan, fair, transparent terms that respects our protected Charter 3 rights and having the appropriate actors barred from meddling in the process anyway you can. 

I have invested well over 100 hours to date and filed over 3000 pages worth of relevant documents that factually prove my challenge.

So to the Premier: 

You don't scare me and neither does anyone at the Attorney General's office. 

I know your plays inside and out. I know what your next and backup steps are. You can't out think someone who's already mapped out your entire board but you know nothing about me. Do you know how fast your AG office capitulated in scheduling our hearing date? 2 hours. Do the Albertans taxpayers know how much this referendum is going to cost us? 

~$100,000,000. 

That's a hundred million dollars of supposed money we don't have. Do you have any idea how many classrooms could get upgraded? What about direct funding improvements for disabled children to improve their tiny lives? How about additional rural paramedics? No that's right, you literally don't give a shit. 

Constitutional obligations follow the subject matter of the democratic franchise Ms. Smith. This means your days hiding behind Parliamentary Privilege are coming to an end. Winners don't change the rules of the game halfway through when they realize they're losing. I look forward to our day in court here coming up. 

On April 11, the day it was announced that Justice Leonard granted her injunction, I came into possession of an audio recording taken out of the emergency separatist meeting that took place later that evening. Contained in it are various members asking questions. Because he's such a pathetic loser, Mitch Sylvestre doesn't keep his mouth shut and confirms pretty much what anyone who's rational has been pointing out this entire time. 

​“And in order to get the referendum vote, we have to be able to control the process somewhat”

​“I share your concern [about Elections Alberta] and we understand that the Premier also shares your concern and that she's talking about passing a bill in a couple weeks from now or next week that's going to allow us to have our own appointed scrutineers there, which is something that's never happened before. So I would share with you the fact that everybody feels the same way you do and we're going to protect ourselves.”

​*“The beauty of this is we have the referendum in October. The annual general meeting for the UCP is in November. So if she does not perform or the government does not perform as we want with independence… we should be scaring them… we are too big to rig.”*

​Exactly three days later, on April 14, Bill 23 rammed through the legislature and received Royal Assent a mere 48 hours later. 

Bill 23 was originally announced as a minor bill prohibiting political deepfakes on March 30. While it still includes new rules regarding deepfakes, what's completely devoid from the news is what else was included:

• ​Introduces the allowance of unvetted, partisan scrutineers personally chosen by political actors to hover over ballot boxes.
• ​Repeals the strict timeline that forced referendums to wait for fixed-date elections.
• ​Applies these rules retroactively to ongoing petitions where such retroactivity created a legal argument for the government to give that will likely see the Court of Appeal grant an emergency stay of proceedings with regards to the current quashing ruling that's frozen the separatist petition.

​This isn't a hypothetical and yes, you should be worried. The recent, massive voter database leak that exposed Albertans was just a test run for the referendum day. Except this time they'll know which way you personally voted. 

UPDATE: OIC 160/2026 FAST BAIT-AND-SWITCH

On May 28, 2026 Dani and her Stooges signed off on the Order In Council titled OC 160/2026. First things first. By the way it is written in the OC, it appears as though the question regarding starting the legal process of separation will be written as an A or B style question if this matters to those saying this question isnt allowed because it's unclear, if written this way, it's technically fine. The more important pressing issue is located at the bottom of the OC. 

At the bottom, the OC states that its governing statute falls under 5.1. THIS IS THE INCORRECT STATUTE NOT MADE ACCIDENTALLY. THE GOVERNMENT UNDER DANIELLE SMITH INTENDS TO PULL A FAST ONE ON ALBERTANS AND THE FEDS BY CIRCUMVENTING THE NEED FOR A SECOND LEGALLY BINDING REFERENDUM. 

Section 5.1 ONLY covers NON-CONSTITUTIONAL topics. A QUESTION INVOLVING THE LEGAL SEPARATION OF THE PROVINCE FROM CANADA IS THE MOST CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ONE COULD EVER ASK. 

WE ARE DELIBERATELY BEING LEFT IN THE DARK BY THE MEDIA FOR FAILING TO COVER SUCH A SERIOUS BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST OF OUR GOVERNMENT. 

BUT DONT WORRY DANIELLE YOU BEST BELIEVE I'VE INCLUDED THIS IN MY LAWSUIT. YOU KNOW WHICH LAWSUIT I'M TALKING ABOUT. IT'S THE LAWSUIT YOU'VE DEPLOYED AT LEAST 5 OR 6 CROWN LAWYERS TO TRY AND STOMP ME OUT OF BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THE SECOND IT GOES IN FRONT OF A JUDGE ON THE 17TH. 

I'm not looking to stop this referendum outright. That would be undemocratic even though democratically speaking, the majority of the province has spoken that we don't want this. I'm not like you and I respect both the Rule of Law and the will of the people. But what I am looking to do is make sure that this referendum is held under neutral, non-partisan, fair, transparent terms that respects our protected Charter 3 rights and have you barred from meddling in the process anyway you can. 

I have invested well over 100 hours to date and filed over 3000 pages worth of relevant documents sustaining my claim. 

And now to you Dani boo because I know this post will get back to you, I just want to personally say the following: 

You don't scare me and neither does anyone at the Attorney General's office. 

I know your plays inside and out. I know what your next and backup steps are. You can't out think someone who's already mapped out your entire board but you know nothing about me. Do you know how fast your AG office capitulated in scheduling our hearing date? 2 hours. To quote that Fat Cheeto pedo loser in Washington that you idolize so much, “you're holding none of the cards.” Because at the end of the day, I live to expose corruption and I'm so sick of yours. 

Do the Albertans taxpayers know how much this referendum is going to cost us? 

~$100,000,000. 

That's a hundred million dollars of supposed money we don't have. Do you have any idea how many classrooms could get upgraded? What about direct funding improvements for disabled children to improve their tiny lives? How about additional rural paramedics? No that's right, you literally don't give a shit. 

Constitutional obligations follow the subject matter of the democratic franchise Ms. Smith. This means your days hiding behind Parliamentary Privilege are coming to an end. Winners don't change the rules of the game halfway through when they realize they're losing. 

First and foremost, this post is fairly lengthy so I apologize in advance.

Second, I want to say thank you to everybody for your support, your words of encouragement, voicing your frustrations, and I want you want to know that I hear you, which is why I'm decided to proceed initially with this lawsuit.

I'll be honest, I am naturally really introverted and conflict adversial. This doesn't mean that I won't ever jump into one, I would just rather not.

This entire process has been a giant learning experience for me and I want everybody to understand how hard that I'm actually working. I'm not a lawyer in any capacity. I should have been but my circumstances growing up from my childhood didn't allow for that.

I'm teaching myself along the way, which in and amongst itself is pretty daunting. But then you throw in some seasoned government lawyers that have a tenacity for ripping apart self-represented individuals, makes it all the intimidating. But the reality is that I know that I'm smart, and more importantly, book smart.

Not to mention I know what is at stake here. I know all the lives that have been impacted by our current administration. It is very frustrating to know that under our current judicial framework there's this thing called parliamentary privilege, which basically grants immunity to the premier and the premier's office to carry out the "duties necessary."

Then there's the legal concept of judicial deference, the legal principle where courts uphold decisions made by another branch of government (the legislature or executive) or specialized administrative bodies, even if the judges might have decided differently. It recognizes the distinct roles of the branches of government and specialized expertise.

There's also the presumption of constitutionality, which is a legal doctrine stating that laws passed by a legislature are presumed valid and constitutional until proven otherwise. Under this rule, the burden of proof rests entirely on the party challenging the law to demonstrate a clear constitutional violation.

Also, let's not forget the presumption of regularity: the legal assumption that public officials have carried out their official duties properly and legally, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

These are thresholds that I have to clear before I can even start to state my case. On top of that, making sure that I don't fuck up some paperwork or take a administrative procedural misstep. Like I don't know if anybody here was aware, but when you submit web links in to back up your evidence, you have a high likelihood of having it thrown out because, quote: "websites can change. So can the information presented on it. So there is no way for the courts to know if the information currently displayed is representative of the time." Basically, make sure the only links that you cite are Internet archive links.

During my case management meeting, the Alberta Attorney General's office lawyers were so kind as to inform me that they were going to issue a motion to strike citing lack of standing. Which basically means I'm not the right person to be bringing this matter forward to the courts. They will also likely cite Haig v Canada where the supreme Court ruled that referendums do not trigger Section 3 protections.

I apologize because in my other post I wasn't realistically properly explaining the serious constitutional concerns behind my case. So let me try to do a better job now:

Back on April 11, when the First Nations went to the courts to ask for and subsequently granted their injunction, later on that night there was a separatist emergency Zoom meeting. The responses from Mitch to the questions he was asked by people in the zoom meeting, were alarming. The good news that came out of this though, is that they were also incredibly telling. One of the key things that Mitch stated to supporters was addressing their distrust of Elections Alberta, namely the chief electoral officer. Mitch told everybody (paraphrasing): "don't worry, the Premier has the same concerns as everybody here which is why I'm the next couple of weeks, maybe even next week she's going to be passing a new law that's going to allow us to have our own scrutiners be present during the signature verification process of their petition."

Now one week prior, the government had an announced a "housekeeping Bill," which is basically just like how it sounds. Just a bill that makes minor changes and clarifies a few things here and there and is generally typically passed uncontested. This bill was Bill 23.

Now Bill 23 sat on the legislative shelf for five legislative sittings without doing anything until April 14th, 3 days after this emergency Zoom meeting, all of a sudden bill 23 goes from the 2nd reading, committee of the whole, third reading, and then an out of house sitting Royal Assent within a mere 48 hours. If you look at the actual legislative discussion around Bill 23, it was anything but "housekeeping." In fact, it was heavily debated its entire process.

Bill 23 after Royal Assent, became the Justice Statutes Amendment Act. There are substantial changes that were made. One of which, directly invalidates the main citizens initiative Act section that Justice Leonard primarily focused her ruling on for the First Nations ruling. That's why the government was able to file a notice of appeal within one fucking business day. Is because they already knew because they set it up, they engineered it.

My lawsuit touches on this. However, the main point of my lawsuit is the introduction of partisan scrutiners. Partisan scrutiners that can only be lawyers and only be selected by either the minister of Justice or a referendums proponent.

This means that on October 19th, and even likely beforehand, because the premier is the one who would be the proponent or her counsel, she has allowed herself the ability to assign her own selected scrutiners to oversee not just voter data, but voter's selections. Anyone who votes yes for Alberta to stay in Canada, stands the real possibility that their information could be recorded by the separatists.

This means that the cease and desist and the confiscation most likely of the voter data given to the Centurion project, it's just going to be given right back to them. Our voter data is not secure and as citizens we are not safe. I'm not trying to cause a panic, but we need to be alarmed and you have the right to be informed. I have been fighting tooth and nail to get in front of a judge to have an injunction granted that would block the Premier at the framework rather than on the outcome.

This is why I was so disgusted at the mere suggestion that I don't have standing in this matter. My section 3 rights are non-negotiable and were triggered the moment I was born. I am a Canadian. Same as my parents. Same as my grandparents. I have family who have served to protect this country going all the way back to the first world war. My great-great-grandmothers, on May 24, 1918 went to bed that night knowing that their future daughters would never have to worry about their right to vote being taken from them. Yet 108 years later, I worry about whether my daughter will have the same rights that I did in the future.

So is it nervous and overwhelming to stand in front of a judge knowing that you don't know the proper court procedures, or what to do if you misfile your paperwork, or have to stand toe-toe with a seasoned and vastly experienced Attorney General constitutional lawyer?

The answer is 100% yes. I have physically had hold on to things so that I went run away because I wanted to puke from being nervous or scared. But then I think of the billions of women and little girls that don't have the same rights that I do or that we do that they would die to have. While I can't make a difference in their countries, I can try to make a difference here.

I'm not looking for anybody's pitty when I say that I've been doing this alone in spite of the courts. In spite of the fact that it seems like every fucking constitutional lawyer in the province is too busy. In spite of the fact that everybody I know either doesn't care or doesn't understand. In spite of the fact that I have to be a mother too to my child, my disabled child.

Realistically, I don't expect to win. I mean if I did that would be phenomenal. But realistically all I am hoping to do is get us back to the status quo. The status quo that kept all of us safe and maybe show to the premier that she is not above the law or the courts. That they bind her just as much as they bind the rest of us and that she should act fucking accordingly.

Thank you to everybody who read this post. I do feel a little bit better. Please be kind and please share this post. Make it go viral. Again, for those wanting to donate, my campaign name is the title of this post. I appreciate every single one of you in whatever way you're able to support me. Even if it's liking this post, or deciding to want to wake up tomorrow and get out of bed.

Last night Danielle Smith sat in front of a camera and spoke as if she has any understanding or authority to live your life as an Albertan. Albertans are hard workers who are the first to show up, sometimes uninvited or even for someone they don't necessarily like, grumble, but will get the job done. We'll give the shirts off our backs to anyone who needs one and we look out for and take care our own. Moving to Alberta taught me how to be a better friend, neighbor, and person.

And if this happens to come across her path, Danielle, you and your loser separatist losers friends, you ain't like us.

Edit: Also, please keep in mind that this post took me nearly all day to write because I had to focus on other things and when I post and if I don't respond it's not that I'm trying to ignore everybody. It's just that I really have to focus on other things. I'm literally trying to do the job of like 4 to 6 other professions as one person. I outsource where I can but that's often not enough. Hopefully this post gives a little bit more clarity to any questions. Since it is the weekend, I'll probably have a little bit more time to come back and reply. Thank you

Good afternoon everyone!

​In anticipation of the Premier's announcement set for tonight at 6:45 PM, I wanted to share a critical update beforehand.

​Earlier this afternoon, I met with counsel to lock down the scheduling track for an emergency Case Management Conference, sitting across the table from not one, but two senior lawyers representing the Attorney General of Alberta, and one lawyer representing the Attorney General of Canada. Talk about good cop, neutral cop, and hard ass cop!

​While a scheduling conference might sound administrative and dry, and believe me when I say that it's about as exciting as watching paint dry, it is in fact the final, critical gateway before walking directly in front of a Judge. And here is the unvarnished reality:

​They are scared of this lawsuit. They are scared of the injunction I am seeking.

​The Premier thinks that she is unstoppable by using the power granted to the office of the Premier, believing there is no legal vehicle swift enough to stop her machinery in its tracks.

​She is wrong. Very wrong.

Because when her and her bff Mitch enslaved the Minister of Justice to come up with a Plan B in case they lost their case to the First Nations and violating their Section 35 rights, they shifted their violations to Section 3 through the rapid and publicly silent creation and deployment of Bill 23.

My Section 3 challenges not the outcomes of Bill 23, but rather the legislative wording itself and the colorability behind the reason given to the public for needing yet a 3rd amendment to the Citizens' Initiative Act and the actual motivated reasons.

The Crown’s loudest play right now was threatening a Motion to Strike on Standing. This is their chosen shield. Yet, who has more standing over a democratic referendum matter than an individual Alberta citizen?

The Attorney General of Alberta tried their best to put heavy suggesting emphasis on scheduling my injunction hearing in front of the judge closer to the two-week mark, I refused to give them the breathing room.

I simply indicated to them that ​given the pressing issue of my (all of our's) Section 3 rights being actively compromised by the continued engagement of Bill 23, and looking at the absolute lightning-speed with which the Crown managed to file their recent appeal to Justice Leonard's ruling, I refused to let them slow-walk this.

​Instead, I opted to schedule for this coming Monday morning, May 25, 2026, keeping the pressure white-hot and protecting our nearly severed Section 3 rights.

I also informed them that I will be present at the courthouse to file an initial memorandum of legal argument along with a notice to admit to the uncontestable facts of my claim as a sign of confidence that their client, our government, has done such a shit job of hiding their corruption and that the hour of accountability is nigh the horizon.

I am truly privileged to have all of your support. Knowing you are standing behind me has helped me ride out the exhausting, long nights I've spent preparing this file while battling sleep deprivation and intense mental strain, but my fight is long far from over.

I do have a campaign currently running to help offset the cost expenses incurred as constitutional lawsuits are one of the most expensive lawsuits to pursue. The campaign name is titled Safeguarding Alberta’s Privacy & Democratic Integrity. Its listed on the website one would expect to find.

​Let the Premier think this is her moment in the Sun at 6:45 tonight when in reality, all she is doing is providing the light necessary to expose her own shadow.