All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 11, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:14:06
GiveSendGo Fundraiser FROZEN by Attorney General - Viva Frei Live
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dave Amber, the lawyer representing that elderly gentleman.
He's going to pop in at about 4.20.
So we're going to go over a few things.
He's going to explain what's going on.
But the news of the day, people.
I was going to do a vlog in the car, but I wouldn't be able to shoot it, edit it, and get it out today.
And the old expression, done is better than perfect.
So I think we're going to do a live stream and just walk through this court order.
And just explain some of the context.
With the full disclaimer, here are three full disclaimers.
YouTube takes 30% of Super Chat, and if people don't like that, I can understand that.
We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
They have Rumble Rants, and Rumble takes 20% of Rumble Rants.
So better for the platform, better for the creator, yada yada.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com if you want to follow us there.
And yes, people are picking up on the 420.
Not deliberate, and I'm not...
No judgment, I'm just not into that at this point in my life.
The disclaimer is this.
I'm a litigator, I've done commercial litigation, and I'm only certified Quebec civil law with the federal portion that is applicable throughout Canada.
For those of you who don't know what that means exactly, Canada is both a common law and civil law country.
Quebec is a civil law province, meaning we have the Civil Code of Quebec, which was the predecessor, the one that comes after the Napoleonic Code.
French law is codified, meaning all of the principles are written into a code, hence codified law.
And English law, which is the rest of the provinces, is common law.
So if you want to practice common law, you've got to get your common law law degree, and you can practice in all of the other provinces, but not Quebec.
And if you get your civil law degree, you can practice in Quebec, but not the common law provinces, with the exception of federal laws, which apply to both common law provinces and civil law Quebec.
Bankruptcy.
Copyright criminal.
Now, I've never done criminal law as a practice.
I studied it.
So there's that caveat, too.
So I'm reading these news articles about the freezing of the Give, Send, Go campaign money.
They've raised 10.5 million Canadian, the equivalent thereof.
And I'm trying to make sense of it myself.
I read the tweet yesterday, which was a tweet coming from someone who I don't know who she is, and I don't say that in any bad way.
A tweet.
No way of verifying it.
Giving the news without the actual court order.
And I think it must be maybe misinformation, maybe rumor.
But lo and behold, it's true.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, after having pressured GoFundMe to close the campaign and reimburse the monies, the $10.1 million that had been raised, second largest GoFundMe in Canadian history, after the government pressured GoFundMe, To shut down the fundraiser and reimburse the monies after GoFundMe alluded to the fact that they were going to steal the money.
After doing that, okay, democracy is like life.
It will find a way.
And GiveSendGo, the Christian fundraiser...
Someone's home and someone's crying.
GiveSendGo, the Christian platform fundraiser, steps up and gets involved.
And they open up a platform...
With them.
I hear a kid crying upstairs.
I'm live downstairs!
Please!
So, Give, Send, Go steps up.
They open up an account, and it raises $10.5 million.
And then, after having pressured GoFundMe through political pressure and political means to shut it down, which they did, suggesting it was foreign money coming in from Russia, even at some point, they go to court.
Ex parte.
For those of you who don't know what ex parte means, it means in the absence of the defendant party, in the absence of the other party, they go and get a restraint order or an order of restraint, a restraining order, and the conclusions of which I was reading the reports, and I'm like, I can't even make sense of this order reading the reports of it.
I just had to go make sense of it myself, and I got the order.
I read through the order.
I went to check the provisions of the criminal code on which the order are based, and I'm going to walk through it now because I was going to do this in a vlog.
Can't do it.
Don't have the time to do it and get it out today, so we're going to do it here.
Let's just, before we get in there, I've been sharing your streamers' feeds for days.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The world is watching.
Freedom is rising.
Truth is winning.
Freedom is the best variant.
Test positive for freedom.
Support the truckers.
Lots of retired military looking at Ottawa to support the protesters.
I mean, there's a lot of people who are...
It's the Streisand effect on a political scale.
I love your show.
In my liberal state, I follow another MN guy, Lumberjack Logic.
He plugs your show a ton.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Let me just get a few more chats before we...
I'm going to break open the document and I'm going to show you when I don't understand something, this is my process of trying to make sure I understand it.
Enough to make sense of to myself.
Wait, I saw a couple more chats here.
As far as I can tell, Give, Send, Go is not backing down.
We're going to get to the jurisdiction issue.
And we're going to get to Give, Send, Go's response because they put out a tweet which was relatively unequivocal.
Okay, here we go.
Boom.
You have constitutional freedoms.
Unless you choose to exercise them, then there are consequences.
Wait, didn't hear that somewhere recently.
I forget who it was.
I think it's a dictator talking.
It says, I can guarantee you freedom of speech.
I can't guarantee you freedom after speech.
Forget who said it, if anybody knows.
So, that's where we're at.
I'm going to share the screen.
See if I can do this.
Share screen.
Now I'm going to go to...
Oh, this isn't going to work and I'm going to be an idiot because I didn't do this.
Hold on.
Entire screen?
No, that's not what we want.
Chrome tab.
Oh, how do I bring up a picture, people?
How do I bring up a picture?
Someone in the chat.
SOS.
How do I bring up...
I saved the JPEGs.
And...
Son of a beasting.
Son of a beasting.
Okay, hold on.
Share screen.
Slides.
My computer.
Don't have slides.
Okay, let's try this.
If this doesn't work, I'm an idiot.
I'll just read it and we're going to have to bear with me.
I'm going to read it off my phone.
Share.
Extra camera.
Nope, nope.
I don't have that either.
Share.
Share screen.
If I do the entire screen, if someone texted me, open the picture first.
Okay, Eric Hundley.
Eric Hundley is saving me here.
Okay, open the picture first.
And then what's the second part?
What's the second part, Eric?
Okay, open the picture.
Now I'm going to go.
Share.
Share screen.
Window.
Chrome tab.
Eric, what's step two?
Then share preview.
Who can see the sweat?
Who can see the sweat?
Go to share.
Share screen.
Eric, there's no share preview.
Darn it.
Oh, select tab to preview.
Maybe this?
Okay, people, I'm panicking now.
I might just have to abort this and just read it out loud.
Preview the app.
What's the preview the app?
Okay, I'm screwing up.
Not the tab, the app.
I might have to abandon this, people.
I'm going to read it off my phone.
You know what?
Forget it.
Reading it off my phone.
Darn it.
Unless I can...
Do I take 30 more seconds to try to do this?
Am I seeing Boomer in the chat?
Yes, I'm seeing Boomer in the chat.
Share.
Maybe I'll send all of this to Eric and he'll help me.
Share.
Share desktop.
Okay, hold on people.
Share desktop.
Share.
Okay.
Chrome has lost permission to capture your screen.
Follow these steps.
Okay, forget it.
Forget it, guys.
We're done.
We're done.
I'm just going to read it.
I'm going to read it because it's...
I can't figure it out.
And now I'm panicking, now I'm sweating, and I don't like the way I feel right now.
Okay.
The bottom...
We'll get to the...
We're going to read it.
It's the restraint order.
And we'll go through it quickly.
You're going to have to listen to my beautiful voice as we do this.
This is Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The restraint order.
And it says, Now, I'm going to bring this down.
We can't figure it out, people.
We can't figure it out.
I read 490.8 of the criminal code, and then we have to go see what 490.8 of the criminal code is, and that refers to application for a restraint order.
This is going to be real.
This would be like learning in university if your teacher knew what he was doing.
Anyhow.
Section 490.8 of the Criminal Code says the Attorney General may make an application in accordance with this section for a restraint order under the section in respect of any offense-related property.
So, they are asking for a restraint order which prohibits and joins people from doing things with Offense-related property.
So now the obvious question is going to be...
Let me just make sure everybody can still see me.
Yeah, we can still see me.
What is offense-related property?
And I had to go just to find the definition of offense-related property.
And it's defined as such.
Offense-related property means any property within or outside Canada, A, by means or in respect of which an indictable offense under this act or the corruption of foreign public officials act is committed.
B, So now, we can see here that we're in the context of, they're talking about indictable offenses.
And this is something we've talked about previously on Dexter.
For anybody who's watched Dexter, every time they ran the episode, they said previously on Dexter, and they would go over what happened last episode.
Previously.
On Dexter, we're talking now about an indictable offense.
So those of you out there may know you have two different types of criminal offenses.
You have indictable and punishable on summary conviction.
Summary conviction generally tend to be less serious crimes.
Indictable offenses tend to be more serious crimes.
So this is the freezing, the seizure of offense-related properties in the context of an indictable offense.
And so first things first, As far as I know, like, give, send, go, the convoy itself has not been charged with any indictable offense as far as I know.
And so the question is, in virtue of what, are they even seizing or restraining the offense-related property?
And it seems, it seems that the idea is it's in respect of mischief, which is a criminal offense which can be either punishable on summary conviction or an indictable offense if the mischief is serious enough.
So it seems that the Attorney General has petitioned for The restraining of a fence-related property in respect of an indictable offense, in this case, mischief.
So they go ex parte to court, and you have to appreciate ex parte.
Typically, in civil law, you go ex parte when, by the mere fact of notifying the defendant, it would cause risk, imminent risk of destruction loss to that which is the object of the dispute, the evidence.
Stolen goods, improperly acquired goods, etc., etc.
So the idea being, if you notify the party, they're going to act in such a way that any judgment you get would be illusory.
You'd have nothing to execute against.
But in civil law, it's a relatively high threshold to establish because you're depriving the defendant of one of the fundamental rights of justice, the right to be there, the right to know of what you're being accused.
And in criminal...
In my limited understanding, it's the same, except this particular provision of law provides for ex parte application as a matter of the law itself.
But you could see from the order that nonetheless...
Let me see if Eric has written me back.
Let's see if I...
I don't even know if I want to try this again.
Share screen.
Windows.
Preview.
Oh!
Well, I think we might have figured it out, people.
Let me just open up the windows then and we can see it.
I'm going to try...
No, there's nothing to share now because I didn't...
Let me see if I can get back to the order itself, which is going to be number one.
Okay, and I'm going to try this again.
Share.
Share screen.
Window.
Preview.
Share.
Not working.
Forget it.
So going back, the law itself builds in this mechanism where you can go for an ex parte application and presumably...
My limited understanding of criminal law, with all of that caveat there, this is not legal advice.
This is just trying to piece it together with my minimal understanding of a law degree.
In criminal law, the idea is that you do this ex parte because if you notify the criminals, they will dispose of the ORP, the offense-related property, or they'll hide the cash.
You won't be able to get to the goods, so to speak.
We're going to pause it there, because I see Amber's in the house, and I'm not keeping a practicing lawyer waiting while he's in.
David Amber, say hi to the lawyer.
How you doing, man?
How you doing?
In the chat, let me know if the audio levels are balanced, and I'll fix them up otherwise.
Let's do a mic check, one, two.
One, two, one, two.
Sounds good.
Let me know if it's not good.
David, we'll go on with the court order in a bit while you're here.
First things first, who are you?
What are you doing?
Let the world know.
I wanted to meet you yesterday, but it didn't work out.
So let's do it now.
All right.
I'm David Amber.
I'm a criminal defense lawyer.
I'm a member of the Bar of Ontario and Quebec.
And I've been helping out people who are getting charged in relation to exercising their rights under the charter to express themselves.
I mean, I won't say business is booming in a cynical sense, but you have a lot of new mandates stemming from this convoy.
I've been getting a number of new clients, but I can tell you I've probably gotten about 500 calls since the convoy began.
So it's been very busy.
Okay, and here we go.
David Amber is clearly a superhero.
I've got to tell you, we all have our roles in life, but David Amber, you're stepping up and you're handling some of the more prominent cases and one in particular that went viral, which is what I think we want to get into while I have you here for the brief time that you haven't.
Thank you.
You're representing the 5 '2", 80-year-old man who was roughed up by the cops?
I believe he's 4 '10", 78 years old, but that's the idea.
It's Mr. Jerry Charlebois.
He was stopped by police because allegedly he honked his horn at a truck that had some Canadian flags.
And by the way, when I said 5 '2", I wasn't being facetious and trying to make fun of it.
I had read that he was 5 '2".
I just wanted to illustrate.
He's a very unthreatening individual.
I think the word is diminutive the right word, or is that the opposite?
No, diminutive would be the right word.
Tell the world what happened in that situation, and as much as it's public knowledge, we've seen the video, tell everyone what happened, what he was charged with, and what your role is right now for the time being.
So just to maybe go back a few days, after a few days of the convoy being here in Ottawa...
Police Chief Slawley, I think, gave instructions to the officers on the ground to start ticketing for things that would normally be offenses, not quite related to the protest, but things like if someone were holding up a cell phone, for example, while driving, they were getting tickets for cell phones, they were getting tickets for seatbelts, tickets for unnecessary noise.
There have been a lot of people asking about how this violates the injunction.
It had nothing to do with the injunction.
There's a bylaw in Ottawa, as well as a section of the Highway Traffic Act, the traffic law of Ontario, that says you can't make any unnecessary or unusual noise.
And so I believe that the police officers had stopped him pursuant to that allegation.
And then we get into also questions, if and when this ever goes to trial, as to whether or not that is unreasonable to give a little toot-toot.
And particularly where there's constitutional values at play, like expressing yourself in support.
But in any event, the police decided to pull him over and decided to write him a ticket for that offense.
So, so far, I mean, we may disagree on whether or not he's guilty, but that's a regular day at the office, police giving out traffic tickets.
But what happened is, is that as part of the investigation, the police asked him for his driver's license, and he got a little flustered.
When I say flustered, he got a little confused because he couldn't remember where it was, or at least that's what the video...
Seems to show.
So I think he got out of his vehicle with the permission of the officer to go retrieve it from his trunk.
And there came a point in the video where it appears as though he may have communicated non-verbally, or at least that's how the officer may have perceived it, that he was no longer planning on retrieving his driver's license.
And this is where it gets a little problematic for the police, okay?
On the menu of options, arresting Mr. Shalba was not on the menu.
If I could put it that way.
The officer could have decided to just write him the ticket based on what I presume they would have had his name at that point, verbally.
But even if they didn't have his name, they had the option of letting him go.
Or they had the option of asking him for his name.
And if they asked him for his name, a verbal ID, and he had refused to give it, then he would have been subject to arrest.
But that's not what happened.
As soon as the officer appears to have perceived him as not wanting to give his driver's license, and you hear him say that to the camera operator, he's arrested for failing to ID, is what the officer says on the video.
And there's a clear court of appeal decision from Ontario that says you cannot arrest the person for failing to give their driver's license unless you've also asked them for their verbal identity, and they refuse to do that as well.
In the video that I saw, and I put out the tweet the first day I saw it, that the guy recording might not have been helping the situation, telling him he doesn't have to do this, he doesn't have to do that, and it might have looked like he thought, well, this guy says I don't have to do anything, so I'm going back to the front of my car.
Even setting that aside, you're only defending against the ticket right now.
You're not also looking at pursuing charges for, I don't know, what would they be?
Assaults?
Wrongful detainment?
Are you looking at going after the police officers for the way in which they treated him?
There are a number of options that are available.
I mean, first and foremost, we want to fight this charge on a variety of reasons, including the unlawful arrest, including the freedom of expression, including the excessive use of force.
For all of those reasons, this charge of unnecessary noise should go away.
So that's clear.
You talked about laying charges.
It is possible in...
Canada to lay a criminal charge, even if you are not the police, to lay what's called a private information.
That remains an option.
I haven't had a chance to discuss that option yet with Mr. Charlebois, and I mean, there are certain difficulties with going that route.
There are professional standards complaints that could be made to the police service where you could receive a disciplinary record, that officer, for having unlawfully arrested somebody and or engaged in excessive force.
And also there's the ever-present civil action.
Mr. Charlebois was bruised quite badly.
The handcuffs cut into his hands and he had been bleeding for some time.
And he's traumatized.
He's traumatized from that dealing with the police.
So all of those things, to quote Justin Trudeau, is all of those things are on the table as options for Mr. Charlebois.
And I don't deal with the civil action side of things, but all the other things.
Starting with the fighting of the ticket are available to us.
Fantastic.
I mean, just the timeline so that people don't expect anything anytime soon.
What's the timeline for contesting the charge that he was facing?
It's interesting that you say that.
I can tell you that the Provincial Offenses Court of Ontario, that's like the traffic court.
That deals with traffic tickets.
It has not fully gotten back online in the province of Ontario since the COVID pandemic began.
The criminal courts took several months and have been experiencing some degree of backlog ever since.
But the Provincial Offenses Court has not, at least in Ottawa, has not been hearing trials yet.
So I imagine it will be some time.
I mean, we are unquestionably going to be requesting a trial date.
I believe my office sent that off today.
To request the trial date.
And we'll probably get a date into court sometime in the next few months.
But it's going to sort of sit in a holding pattern until the court's ready to deal with it.
Although I will be asking the prosecutor to read the writing on the wall and to just, you know, voluntarily withdraw the charge.
That might be the cleanest thing for everyone.
And then we can look at what other options are available for Mr. Charlebois.
And for anybody who's never faced anything like this, you asked for the trial date when...
And how does it work in terms of disclosure of all the evidence from the prosecution?
Does that happen right away or only within a certain time frame before the trial?
Okay, so for these minor tickets, when I use the word minor, the types of tickets that if you don't respond to, you're default convicted, the ones that you can pay without going to court if you choose to do that.
I never recommend that.
But the ones that that's an option, you have to request the trial yourself.
It's not like they don't have to bring you to court.
You have to start the ball rolling.
We've either done that, I have to double-check my office, or we'll be doing that in the next day or so.
You get 15 days from the day of the offense to do that.
And then the court will mail you a notice of trial in the mail, and that will translate into an appearance that won't actually be the trial.
It'll be a Zoom appearance in the Ottawa court.
And once we have that date, we can make requests to the prosecutor.
For the disclosure of evidence.
And people are asking, has he been released?
This is not America and this is not January 6th.
He was never even taken in.
He was arrested and taken handcuffed, put in the back of the cruiser.
So, I mean, they didn't keep him in custody because, I mean, that's not normally the case unless you've committed some kind of criminal offense.
You're usually released at the scene.
But he was in police custody for some time.
And all he got was...
He didn't even get a ticket for the offense of failing to provide his driver's license.
That was on the menu.
The police could have issued him that.
But all they gave him was the ticket for the toot-toot that he gave to the Canadian flag-bearing truck.
Fantastic.
Are you involved in any other cases as relates to the convoy that are public that you can disclose?
I've been getting a lot of calls from people who got arrested either in the process of or in the vicinity of delivering fuel.
And what I find interesting is that in all of the cases I'm aware of, save for one, you know, where I think there's some unrelated things that were going on, the police arrested the person, took them into custody, and then released them with no charges.
So the idea is that they seized the fuel and or arrested the person.
On the reasonable belief that mischief had occurred, and yet they didn't charge the person on that same reasonable belief.
So that's an unusual thing to happen.
It's sort of like if the police showed up at a scene of a fight and someone said, that guy punched somebody else, it would be rare for the police to arrest the person for assault and then not charge them for assault.
It's either they do both or they do neither.
But in this case, we're seeing instances of...
Arrest on this supposed aiding and abetting mischief, and yet no charges are laid.
So we're looking actually into professional standards complaints about that type of conduct.
And I'll probably keep you posted.
We've got some time yet for that to play out its course, but I'll keep you posted on that.
And some people are saying it's, on the one hand, potentially unlawful seizure of property, and on the other hand, just pure police intimidation.
Dave, I presume you've seen the same video go viral that I saw of the OPP policewoman showing up at someone's house reminding them about peaceful protests because of a social media post they put up.
Have you seen that video?
Yeah.
Other than it being arguably but not so arguably overt police intimidation, what...
Are you in a position to explain what rights any individual has to not be arbitrarily approached on their property by a police officer or what a police officer needs by way of probable cause or other reason to even get on someone's private property to remind them of anything?
Okay, first, I'll say that when dealing with these types of things and prospective advice, I'm very reluctant to give prospective advice, particularly because it takes the normal situation where I have to speculate on...
On certain variables in a hypothetical situation, and that's sort of supercharged with the political nature all of these things have.
So there's a lot of uncharted territory, but I will say a few general observations, David.
Firstly, you're always fine to say nothing to police, okay?
That's usually your best bet, is to refuse to say anything, okay?
Police officers are usually very good at letting you know.
If you decide that you don't want to cooperate with them, they're very good at letting you know if that's not an option, okay?
So the next thing I would suggest is if you feel comfortable enough, ask them questions such as, I would like to close the door on you now.
I don't have anything I'd like to say with you.
Am I free to do that?
And it'll put them in a position where if they're there to arrest you, they'll let you know.
They'll say, look, we've got reasonable probable grounds.
We've got a warrant to enter your house to arrest you.
They'll let you know of that.
But in most cases, they won't have that power to force you to do what it is that they appear to do.
I mean, police officers often talk in this funny kind of language.
Like, you know, you'll see somebody who's recording a police officer with a camera phone, and the officer will go, hey.
I'm going to ask you to stop recording immediately.
And then the person stops recording.
And then if they complain about it later, the officer said, well, I just said, I asked them if they could stop recording.
And so you should be clear with, there are a lot of things the police officers don't have the right to do, but they, through the, just the intimidating nature of being a uniformed officer with use of force options, people often get fearful and will just go along with whatever the police is doing.
So, I mean, you can say, am I free to leave?
You want this can of gas?
I don't want to provide it to you.
Am I allowed to say no to your request?
So ask questions, and certainly to the extent that you can, document it.
Take notes would be great, but even better is if you could audio or video record the interactions with the police.
Have you heard about cases of the water being contaminated, the fuel containers being returned but contaminated with water?
I haven't heard anything.
I mean, nothing surprises me anymore.
You know, police officers showing up with these, like, Troy McClure pamphlets saying how to protest properly.
And, you know, every day there's something new that, you know, I wouldn't have imagined the day before.
Or if you forced me to come up with some absurd idea of how the government would be interacting with the citizens, maybe I might have come up with it, but I'm not really surprised by stuff much anymore.
Yeah, no, the policewoman showing up and saying, I just want to talk, I just want to remind you of peaceful protests, as if this convoy needed that reminder, but anybody who doesn't perceive that as overt, polite intimidation might have a different threshold than others.
Right, and the manner in which they were interacting seems very eerily similar either to the health agents showing up at Arthur Pawlowski's church or some of the things we saw out of Australia.
Where they show up with this very dystopian friendliness to them.
Well, we're just here to share information with you.
But in reality, we know what's really going on here.
There's a heavy-handed government approach behind it.
And so I don't like it.
I don't think that the OPP should be in the business of encouraging people how to exercise their rights in a state-approved manner.
And so that's definitely something we should keep an eye on.
All right, awesome.
Do you have any more time for us?
I got a little bit of time still.
Do you want to talk about the restraint order?
Yes, while you're here, we'll have more distraction than just merely my face.
I'm just going to read the first part, which we've read the ex parte application.
The ex parte application in criminal, is it a relatively high threshold like it would be under civil or is this baked into the law so it's sort of...
Rubber stamping by the court.
You're asking about to trigger the ability to do it ex parte?
Yes.
It's written right into the section.
I came on, you were just talking about it.
It's the type of thing which is designed to be without notice to anyone else because the idea is if you were to give notice to other parties, it could result in the very thing you're trying to prevent from happening, i.e.
the money being used in a nefarious way.
In the mind of the government, it would allow that to happen before the order could take effect.
So that's why it's allowed and written that way.
Okay, because I'll go to the third paragraph, and we're going to mention the fact that we have not seen the affidavit or affidavits filed in support of this.
Third paragraph says, sorry peeps, I can't bring it up.
Upon being satisfied that there is no requirement of notice of this application, as giving notice would result in the disappearance, dissipation, or reduction of value of the property sought to be restrained.
I mean, there's two questions here.
It's money.
So like in civil law, typically you'd have to show outright fraud that the monies are going to be siphoned off and then therefore never recoverable again.
Whereas this, they're being siphoned in.
So I just didn't know what threshold needed to be required in order for the court to come to that conclusion.
But if it's baked in, it sounds like rubber stamping.
You're still talking about to do it by ex parte?
Yeah, they say no requirement of notice of this application is given.
I think that's just par for the course.
This is, like I told you when we were chatting about this the other day or just recently, this is not a regularly used section of the criminal code.
This is something that is often used mid-trial or at the end of a trial.
Usually in respect of charges that already exist, things like drug dealing, large-scale frauds, where there is some degree of illegality, to sort of oversimplify, some degree of illegality that is connected to the money.
And on reasonable grounds, it's either obtained by illegal activity or going to be used for illegal activity, and that's what's going on here.
They're alleging that there's a mischief under the criminal code that's sort of at the root of...
That the money is going to be dispersed to the truckers.
The truckers are committing a mischief.
That's how the government's logic, at least to my knowledge, is going right now.
And I'll read this as the last paragraph on the first page of the notice, which you tweeted, I retweeted.
So if anyone wants to go to Twitter and find it.
And upon being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the property described below is a fence-related property.
And it says...
Any and all monetary donations made through the Freedom Convoy 2022 and the Adopt-a-Trucker fundraiser campaign hosted by GiveSendGo, they got the website, including monetary donations which have been transferred by GiveSendGo or its third-party payment processors to the benefit of the campaign recipients as named on the said campaign pages being Chris Gara and Incorporated Freedom, yada, yada, yada.
They're basically saying the offense-related property are these monies which other people have donated Because the idea is it's going to be used to fund mischief.
That's the logic?
That's ostensibly the logic the government is using here.
All right.
And then we get into the order itself, which says this court orders that all persons, including but not limited to give, send, go, and its third-party payment processors, designated agents, Chris Gara or designate, freedom, yada, yada.
are prohibited from disposing of or otherwise dealing with in any manner whatsoever any interest in the property except as herein provided.
Thank you.
Here's the logical question.
I mean, I could answer this one as well.
In your mind, Dave, what jurisdiction does this court have over give, send, go a foreign corporation to begin with?
All right.
Well, I wasn't very good at my international law.
Things of that nature when I was in law school.
But what I can tell you is right in the section, right in 490.8, one of the subsections, it specifically says that this applies to property outside of Canada as well.
Now, an interesting question is, can the Canadian law actually bind other countries?
And I think that that's always an interesting question for dealing with the cross-border type of legal disputes, civil disputes, which are outside of my field of expertise.
But I think ultimately where it remains in the criminal law field, and it's a problem for people who are protesting, is that ultimately the people who the money is designed for are in Canada.
The people who are going to disperse the money and help organize getting the money to the right people are in Canada.
It's not going to be very hard to follow the money, and eventually the money is going to make its way back into Canada.
And as I tweeted out this morning, as much as I don't like to say this, I'm very concerned about anyone, including Give, Send, Go, trying to basically push back on this.
I mean, I respect the principle of pushing back where they believe it's wrong.
But understand that courts in Canada don't take very kindly to their orders not being followed.
And if money ends up getting disbursed, it's going to get followed.
I wouldn't like to be Chris Guerra.
I don't know who that person is.
But he seems to be the name who will be the sacrificial lamb who's going to be strung up on the wall if any money goes anywhere.
And it very well could be followed to the individuals who get it.
And then they might be served with the order.
Or there could be subsequent orders restraining the money there.
I mean, this has the potential to turn into a real fiasco for the government.
And so, I mean, that's really one of the limiting factors for them is this isn't a good look for governments.
Well, this one I know that I can bring up because I know how to share screen with web pages.
Chrome tab, Twitter.
And let's bring this one up, people.
Here you can see it now.
This is Give, Send, Go's response.
Know this.
Canada has absolutely zero jurisdiction over how we manage our funds here at Give, Send, Go.
All funds for every campaign on Give, Send, Go flow directly to the recipients of those campaigns, not least of which is the Freedom Convoy campaign.
Yeah.
Even if Give, Send, Go is right about that, and I'm not saying they're wrong, but eventually the money needs to get from Give, Send, Go to somebody.
On behalf of the truckers who will be overseeing the distribution to the people for whom it was intended.
And I think that's where the problem, because once it gets into the hands, maybe they won't go after Gibson Bill.
Maybe the government won't want to fight that fight.
But when it gets into the hands of Chris Guerra or anyone else who is intending to distribute this locally, that's when we get into the real consideration of potential offenses.
Under that section of the criminal code.
People should appreciate that.
It's true.
Give, send, go.
The government perhaps could not seize that money.
They've only restrained it.
They haven't seized it yet.
So everyone bear that distinction in mind.
This is a restraint saying, hold it there for now.
Do not do anything with it, pending the ultimate result of the criminal complaint, if and when there is one.
Because as far as I understand, there still hasn't been one.
But this is not a seizure.
It's restraining.
That's the net shooter drop, though.
A lot of the...
It's sort of analogous to sort of you got that injunction on the honking and then they're going to deal with the case as a whole, the civil action as a whole.
That's sort of a very rudimentary analogy for this.
It's the same factors which animate this sort of...
Provisional preliminary step of restraining the money are going to be some of the same principles that are going to animate the next shoe to drop, which is the request to forfeit that to the Crown.
Well, I presume that would require something of an international recognition of a judgment in order to force that, failing which Give, Send, Go might be compelled to do what GoFundMe did, refund it to the donors, and then...
And then who knows, then maybe the government goes after all of the donors who receive the funds back from Give, Send, Go in non-compliance with this restraining order.
I'll make one more point, David, and then I'm going to have to jump off the call here.
But when we chatted about this earlier, it motivated me to jump back into the criminal code and try and bend my brain around some of these subsections.
And I actually went deep, and there's sections that refer to other sections, and I was trying to...
Follow the way the litigation might go to that point of seizure.
And one interesting provision I found, and I think this is going to be fascinating to watch.
I think you, as you're doing your vlogs, might like to do this.
But there's a provision that even where it is found that there's some degree of illegality, that part or all of the money that's restrained can be released back to the original owners without it being forfeited to the Crown.
If there is a proportionality assessment done, a proportionality analysis saying that the nature and circumstances of the alleged offense don't warrant the continued holding.
And what I find fascinating is, we've seen this in so many areas of politics, but we're seeing this with the protest itself, is that people have divided themselves into these two realities.
of what's going on.
Like there's one reality that sees the bouncy castles and the people singing O Canada and the thousands of Canadian flags and the almost entirely peaceful with the entirely peaceful with a few instances of bad behavior, but otherwise good Canadians protesting for a valid purpose.
There's that reality.
And then there's the reality that there are these swastikas everywhere.
And there are these Confederate flags everywhere, and people are desecrating monuments, and people are destroying the sanctity of people's lives in their city.
And so what's interesting is you're going to have these two realities, and what is proportional, if the argument ever gets to the point where that proportionality provision is considered, if you're applying it through the lens of one reality, it would seem like at best the government's got a mischief charge.
And there was a valid, peaceful protest that went on.
And so there's really no proportionality in depriving the lawful owners of that money from that money.
But then the other reality is that the proportionality would suggest that this was Canada's January 6th.
And it's not just a mischief.
It's a heinous crime which took place against the fabric of Canada.
What proportionality means is going to be very much in the eye of the beholder, and I hope it doesn't get to that point where it gets that far into the litigation, but I'm fascinated to see how that question will be addressed.
Speaking of proportionality, people already find this court order itself to be an absolute outrage, injustice, violation of some of the most fundamental constitutional rights.
You can exercise your constitutional rights, but there will be consequences.
I mean, that's effectively what the government is saying, and they want to suppress the protest, and they want to punish and suppress any ability to even support these truckers.
So it's terrible.
I'll get back to the remainder of the order, just to skim over the last paragraph.
Dave, for anybody who has a problem, don't call me.
I don't practice, and I never practice criminal.
Can they reach you, David, at the risk of...
You can look me up, davidanber.com.
My last name is spelled A-N, like November, B-E-R, as it says on the screen.
So davidanber.com.
Or you can find me on Twitter, at davidanber.
My DMs are open, so feel free to contact me anytime, 24 hours a day.
Okay, awesome.
Thank you very much for popping in.
Thank you very much for the info.
And Godspeed, let us know what happens with your client, the elderly gentleman, as things develop.
I will.
Thanks for having me, David.
Bye.
Pleasure.
Have a good one.
Now I remove you.
Okay, and now I think I'm still here.
I'm reading a lot of stuff in the chats.
I'm not there.
I can't verify.
I don't know who is live streaming now.
I'm looking to see if Zot is live.
Let me see.
Zot appears to be live, people.
Seems to be having some audio-video glitches.
Okay.
So Zot is live.
Z-O-T.
So I'm not bringing up chats.
I don't want to spread rumors.
I don't know if what I'm seeing in the chat is true.
I don't really think we have much more to go over with this order, but let me just blitz through the reading so that everyone can know.
This is paragraph two of the order.
This court further orders that the respondents shall upon...
The respondents being the defendants, the objects of this order, shall, upon written request of the Director of Asset Management, criminal or his representative, and I presume that's the individual...
charged with managing the restrained properties.
Provide said person with reasonable information regarding the status of the property, including but not limited to the balance of all donations held in relation to the Freedom Convert 2022.
And this is where you can get into criminal contempt issues.
If people try to lie, if people try to conceal, or if people willingly defy what is, as much as people will hate it and as much as some people will probably love it, an order of the court.
That needs to be respected and abided by.
Court further orders that a copy of this order be served in accordance with the criminal proceedings rules upon the following persons.
Give, send, go.
Freedom 22, the campaign itself.
And Chris Gara.
Anybody in the chat knows what role Chris Gara has here?
Let us all know.
And then it says, what else?
Further orders that no variation shall be made to this order other than by the court.
Fine.
Court further orders that service of any documents or notices.
Yada, yada, yada.
Shall be served on the Crown Law Office at their address.
Whatever.
And then what else did I have here?
The last part.
Court further orders that, as provided by subsection 490.88 of the Criminal Code, this order as it relates to the restraint of the offense-related property remains in effect until...
And the copy of the order that I have...
Oh, it says another order is made, yada, yada, yada.
So that's it.
That's the order.
I had some sections of the Criminal Code, which I don't think we need to look over.
And that's it.
That's the order for the time being.
So this is...
I mean, it's a full-out political, judicial, and spiritual battle against this movement.
From a strategic perspective, I'm not sure that it's working, because in as much as...
Justin Trudeau digs in his heels, and as much as they come down with a heavy fist, shut down the GoFundMe, the money gets raised on Give, Send, Go.
And other, it's like Fight Club.
other fight clubs spring up across the world.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I don't know if you can see me.
Let me remove my old me.
Can we see me again?
This is the trauma in which we're living.
The second there's a technical glitch, I, as much as everyone else, just assume the government has come down and shut my internet bill or cut my internet service.
I'm still here.
Let me know if you can see me and we're going to wrap this up anyhow.
Good.
Silas, I'll tell you, I think the kids are exhausting the bandwidth of the internet.
In as much as the government keeps digging in its heels and pushing back and not listening, not negotiating, not treating this protest like Canadian citizens that they represent, but rather Canadian citizens that they think serve the government, it keeps expanding.
It's getting international attention.
They're blocking the Ambassador Bridge, which carries anywhere between $100 million and $1 billion worth of goods across a day, depending on which article you read.
It's spreading everywhere.
This is to be followed.
We'll see what happens this weekend, reading the chat, but I do plan on being in Ottawa tomorrow to livestream, talk to people, hear stories, document on the ground so that no one can make up stories about what's going on, and if they do, we can come back and say, here's the video, you're a liar or you don't know what you're talking about.
So, the people who are currently livestreaming, ZOT, Zot, TravelFun69, Autowalks, Adam Nucci, And anybody, let me know if missed anybody.
And I should be seeing everybody tomorrow.
Let me see if I can get to some questions.
Thank you, Viva.
I missed a chat.
Please, Viva, give the donation to the truckers.
Dude, that could be problematic under the convoy, but...
It's amazing.
It's amazing.
The government is actually criminalizing protests.
It's criminalizing constitutional rights.
They're basically saying, you've made your point, go home.
The people against whom the protest is directed are telling the protesters, you can stop now, go home.
And you go back to tweets from politicians saying that protests are intended to be disruptive.
This is disruptive.
I don't think that I've seen anything in this protest that has been criminal.
Interrupting traffic on a bridge.
I mean, if that's the new standard.
And by the way, everyone in unions.
And I'm borrowing from Ezra Levant's tweet again.
Ezra Levant, Rebel News.
Borrowing from his tweet.
Everybody who's like, everyone on the other side saying, yay, bring the hammer down on these people.
If you support the unions, you support unionized workers' right to protest.
You support unionized workers' right to protest without having their salaries seized.
Or...
Without being deprived of the ability to support them if you want to do that, be careful what you wish for.
Because this precedent, if it stands, Jack Posobiec said this will cement Canada as a regime and not a democracy.
I don't even think he's being hyperbolic.
Let me see what I...
This is scary, depressing, sad, and it's causing damage that's going to take...
Years to heal from.
I tweeted a little while back, how long is it going to take Canada to heal from Justin Trudeau?
This last two years has desecrated not just the reputation of science, the reputation of the field of experts, not just politicians because they never had anything left.
This is desecrating our constitutional rights where now people are saying, what's the big deal that the government gets to lock you in your house?
After 10 o 'clock at night.
You can leave during the day.
How much freedom do you need?
So, that is it.
People should see the protests if they haven't seen it.
See it firsthand.
And come to your own conclusions.
And if you can't do that, you can watch my vlogs and see what you think.
I'm still sitting here listening to daytime radio and I want to retch.
I want to turn it off.
But I can't turn it off.
It's like rotten milk.
You don't want to smell it.
But you have to keep smelling it because of how bad it smells.
And that's what Daytime Radio, CJD in particular, spouting off the same lies, trying to make this into an overthrow the government January 6th insurrection.
So they can criminalize all of the protesters and criminalize anyone who supports them, criminalize anyone who's donated to them, and they can solidify the power of the regime because they have stifled any opposition's ability to challenge it.
Not my place, but go pull your...
Chat proceeds from one of your walks to Ottawa and go hand it out in cash.
First of all, I'm not saying what I do, but I do a lot.
I do a lot, but you can't do that, by the way.
Just so you know, under the law and under the threats of the government, you can get into trouble for doing that.
So this is why I usually read my chats before pulling them up.
Bad advice can get people into trouble.
And the truckers are not lacking money.
They're not lacking food.
They're not lacking support.
What they're lacking is freedom.
I mean, like the rest of the country.
And they're happy.
And they're determined.
And I talk to them.
Where else are they going to go?
You're going to make all those trucks stall?
You're going to slash the tires like that CNN analyst expert said?
Who was it?
I think it was one of Obama's national security advisors.
Slash the tires, arrest them, and jail them.
I may be mixing up tweets here, but support for truckers.
It is what a time to be alive.
But this is big, because my concern is if the government stifles this, and if the government manages to actually criminalize this, and if the government manages to sway public support and public opinion, so that anybody who's out there supporting this in spirit or in person...
Is criminalized, is demonized, is ostracized.
They will have won because it will be one party rule.
And if you dare, you can protest.
You can have a BLM protest.
And like the counter-protester said to me, he'll support the BLM protest because he agrees with that protest.
But he won't support the trucker's protest because that's a bad protest.
Adopt the freedom of speech rationale criteria.
You don't need to protect a speech that the majority likes.
That's not what it is.
But if they manage to suffocate this and stifle it and criminalize it, I am concerned for the future of Canada.
The future of democracy.
Thank you.
Much love and support from Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA.
Go Canada, keep up the good fight.
God bless.
All right, thank you.
Tomorrow's going to be, unless something bad happens, tomorrow's going to be perhaps the biggest and most festive day, as all other previous days have been huge, festive.
I've driven in there eight times.
I've never had any excess traffic coming in or out, parking anywhere.
I found parking.
Not only did I find parking, I have yet to put in money in the meter.
I took my chances.
I got a speeding ticket going home, but not that much.
I was going 128.
And I deserved it.
And I deserved it.
I was going too fast, and I knew it.
Or I didn't know it.
I knew it the second I saw the cop, man.
And I have no charm that can get me out of a ticket.
But when you deserve the consequences of your actions, you can't complain.
No, no, don't worry.
Nobody is digged and nobody's insulted here.
We're not a group of sensitive people looking for a fence.
So let's see here.
We'll take a few more chats and then we'll wind up.
I hope this helps, by the way, guys.
I would have liked to have done a shorter vlog, but I think actually the description and the discussion with Dave also is good.
Criminal to eat during odd hours if you are not...
So many things.
By the way, a lot of the provinces have now announced that they're dropping the restrictions as of March 14th.
Not related to the convoy.
They've just decided to do it themselves.
And I'm not about rubbing someone's nose in their concession.
My tweet and my observation is, if it's going to be scientific to drop the measures as of March 14th, we're February 11th, there's absolutely no science to justify not dropping them now.
And if the only reason why you're doing it in a month is so that you can then say, oh, things have changed, so now we're not doing it, that's what you call negotiating in bad faith and trying to lull people into concessions knowing that you're going to renege on your offer.
Or what was a promise on the basis that, look, the science has changed.
The curve which is going down everywhere.
The curve which is going down here in the exact same way it's going down in Florida.
Who have not had any of the restrictions that we've had here.
Just, you know, put those two graphs together, by the way.
I tweeted it.
Go compare the three-month COVID cases and hospitalizations in Florida and compare it to Canada.
And then ask yourself who's trusting the science and who's following the science.
Thank you for your calm explanation of the situation.
Thank you very much, Dave Dove for Spirit.
What you're doing now is priceless.
No doubt you are supporting in many ways that we know.
There's no greater support than the truth.
I have a pet peeve when it comes to parenting, when it comes to lawyering, when it comes to friendships, when it comes to relationships, and when it comes to life.
I hate being lied to.
I hate being lied to as the biggest pet peeve on earth, which makes it in turn, I hate, I mean, I don't think that I lie in meaningful senses, you know, the white lies.
I hate being lied to, and I know that now that we are being lied to by legacy media, and it enrages me because a lot of people are believing it.
Are you aware of Mark Carney's statements?
No.
I don't know who Mark Carney is offhand without seeing a face.
I am aware of the convoy coming out and specifically reiterating their goal is not to overthrow the government.
They've said it now multiple times where the only people who are saying this and repeating it are the liar Jagmeet Singh and his lying supportive media, the lying CJAD, who just say it as fact.
And don't discourse with anyone who might elucidate on the lies.
I've called in to CJAD.
I'm surprised they don't have my number on a block right now.
But I call in.
They won't have a discussion with me.
Why would you have a discussion with someone who spent 30 plus hours live streaming from the street?
Who are they going to trust?
Them or my own eyes?
My own camera?
There's a Canadian consulate near me that I can protest there.
Yeah, that won't do anything.
Viva.
Support from Texas.
Also love the hair.
Dude, yeah, I washed it yesterday, so that's why it's a little fluffy.
Greasy hair don't care.
Clean hair go everywhere.
Even hours, you can still eat.
We got it.
We got it.
The measures are...
Trust the science.
Science is a debating process.
Science is a process that is intended...
To be distrusted, to be constantly verified, to be constantly challenged.
Trust the science is itself illogical.
It is a contradiction in terms.
You challenge.
Science is about challenge.
It's about intellectual challenge.
There are some things you could say I don't think can be challenged anymore, but you have to entertain the idea of them being challenged.
What time are you going to be there tomorrow?
Well, it depends what time I leave, but I mean, I'm going to be there at some point.
And I just couldn't find any hotels.
So I don't know if the hotels are fully booked or fully booked.
There's the truth.
Oh, wait, wait.
There's the truth and the truth.
Lionel Hutz.
Best episode of The Simpsons ever.
Probably the most realistic perception or depiction of the law.
Way too many politicians whose only discernible talent is audacity.
When being a politician is a career and not actually having had a career, a meaningful life experience or just turning to rely on your political career as a life career, it will corrupt inevitably because you cannot remain connected to the sensitivities, the concerns of the people when you no longer have those concerns and when those concerns not only become a distant memory but become a nuisance to you.
Freedom?
That nuisance of a concern?
The ability to have as many people as you damn well want at a funeral?
Police just made them take down bounce houses and a food tent for no permit.
Well, I'm surprised they didn't say it was a training ground.
The youth are training for military purposes on the bouncy castles.
How'd y 'all electrodo a third time in 21?
It was the most...
Minimal minority re-election possible.
He's done.
I'm surprised he doesn't know it.
I'm surprised the party has not gone a little more aggressively.
I think they still think there's political currency in trying to demonize this convoy.
I don't think they realize what the general sentiment is, but maybe I'm not perceiving that accurately.
Viva, police did dismantle the big tent just now.
Lionel de Grand Prix, I know you.
I've seen you before and I know that you're reliable.
I also love that beautiful, lush beard that you have.
My goodness, that's glorious and majestic.
So this I would be inclined to believe.
And there probably will be 120 kilometers.
I can't get that in math.
It's about 78 miles an hour.
Yeah, something around there.
The thing is, I just come out of Ontario.
Ontario, the speed limit is 110.
So you can go a little bit faster without getting a ticket, but whatever.
Thank you for all the groundwork you've done and staying calm around those who paint you a different color than you truly are.
It's very depressing.
We can't say we're not losing friends and not sensing an unbridgeable distance.
It's like a void.
It's like you feel this weird distance because people have become intolerant because they believe they're so virtuous and they're so morally justified that their intolerance is not just justified but necessary.
Okay, let's wind it down.
Oh, I went over one hour.
I wanted to end it on one hour on the nose.
Okay, let's see.
You give a communist an inch and they'll hash in your food for freedom.
I mean, this is the discussion I had.
Oh, plug.
I've changed the Viva PPC YouTube channel into Viva Clips.
Caps with an exclamation point.
I might turn it to lowercase without the exclamation point.
So I'm posting, I'm just going to post clips on Viva Clips.
The highlights from some of the...
Viva on the streets and just, you know, when I can get back to the Viva in the car vlogs, which I love, but, you know, the situation is evolving so rapidly now that I'll spend five hours editing a video and then the news will be different.
I'm late to the party.
The give, send, go has now been frozen.
It has been restrained, which is technically frozen.
It has not been seized yet, but the fear is that that check is in the mail because...
They're really fighting dirty.
They're fighting for keeps.
And they're fighting for keeps of freedom.
Not just the money.
That's what people have to appreciate.
And the beautiful thing is the people I talk to, they're like, yeah, I don't agree with the mandates.
I don't agree with the lockdowns.
But I don't agree with the protests.
Because they think the protests are characterized by people running around downtown Ottawa with the Yahtzee flags and Confederate flags.
And someone said something about the Confederate flag.
Where do you even get those?
The police want to do some good sleuthing and researching?
Find out where the online sales for these flags are and find out who's buying them.
Yeah.
No words.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And let's just see here.
No, it's under 80, sir, because 130 translates to 80. And I don't want to...
80 sounds fast.
70 and change sounds a little slower.
But it was a straight...
It gets you on the straightaways.
And I was listening to CJAD, so I was getting angry.
My foot was going down fast.
Okay.
First ticket I've had in as much time as I can remember.
It was only two demerit points, so I'm good.
Don't worry about it.
So does this mean USA is in charge of Canada?
I'll tell you one thing.
I don't know.
Restrictions should be stopped now, not in a month.
And let's see what we got.
USA government sucks.
If I can erase your burden, let me know.
If I can ease your burden, let me know.
Yeah, that's it.
I mean, all government.
Government is a necessary evil.
But it should be kept as minimal of a necessary evil as possible.
Not as big of one.
Because government is like the proverbial blob from that horror movie.
Speaking of horror movies, I just read the plot for Hellraiser.
Because I was thinking of horror movies to suggest to people.
I forgot how sick that plot was.
I just remembered one scene from that movie, and I went to read the plot.
This might be why I'm neurotic.
I watched that as a child.
That cannot be good for brain development.
However, in this case, it is the speech that is popular among the majority being silenced.
Only the violent minority of left-wing has free speech.
No comment, but you can't...
I mean, no comment in terms of the generalization.
I just found what was interesting, even talking to the counter-protesters.
You know, if we were to discourse organically and naturally, we would agree on a great many things.
But the line is literally divided and drawn down the road and promoted and misrepresented by the government because it's very easy to have the people fighting among themselves as opposed to unified and keeping the government in check.
My goodness, could you imagine if all the Canadians were talking about Justin Trudeau's Aga Khan ethics violation?
Absolute corruption of government.
The prime minister of a country receiving undeclared gifts in the order of tens of thousands of dollars private island vacations to the private island of Aga Khan, while Aga Khan philanthropist is petitioning the federal government for $50 million and getting it.
Can you imagine if we were talking about that?
Can you imagine if we were talking about the We Charity scandal, where Justin Trudeau's wife, mother, and brother are on the payroll or gift roll of the We Charity?
His mother and brother.
$300,000 in speaking fees while Canadians are getting $2,000 a month and having their lives destroyed.
We're not talking about that.
We're not talking about, you know, keep the people divided.
Keep us fighting each other, either through, you know, fabricated or instigated or manufactured division.
And my goodness, can you get away with a lot?
It's not divide and conquer.
It's distract and conquer.
All right, let's get this here.
Justin, FYI, Port of Regway, SK, Port of Raymond, Montana to be blocked as of tomorrow.
Keep it up, government.
Keep pissing off the people that literally feed you and that literally bring you the very iPhone that you tweet from your bunker with, coward Trudeau.
The very people who bring you the things that you love in life, that you need in life, you're now dumping on them.
And I hear people on the radio just...
You want to talk about privilege and entitlement?
Thinking that truckers have obligations to citizens and not rights themselves.
Thinking that they have an obligation to drive their truck and deliver goods to people.
Thinking that nurses have an obligation to shut up and take a jab that they may not want.
And not that they have rights and they are the ones who are giving you the things that you are privileged to have.
No.
Shut up.
And serve me.
Shut up and drive.
Shut up and dribble.
I mean, it's the modern iteration.
Is there any merit to the legal advice circling around using the Bill of Rights over the charter?
I'm not sure I understand that question because the charter basically is the Bill of Rights, the 1982 charter.
It's just that nobody's respecting it.
Hence, Brian Peckford filing a federal challenge in the federal court to charter violations.
All the best, Canada.
Think of Australia today.
Going to be a seriously tense day in Canberra tomorrow.
God be on our side.
A lot of Australians like it.
It makes you feel safe.
We, as a collective, have possibly lost our...
We've lost perspective of our fear.
And we fear things now that we should not ever fear, should never have feared, like normal human interaction.
Okay.
I'm afraid that the mandates will be lifted, but government will not have learned a thing.
That is true.
And that is why next election, you never forget the politicians who tolerated and imposed these mandates.
And if people don't want to vote them out of office, you get what you vote for and you reap what you sow.
And if these governments get re-elected, you are welcoming back into the house the dog that once bit you, thinking that the dog is somehow not going to bite you again in the future.
Okay.
I hear a dog whining, speaking of which upstairs, I need to go feed that dog.
Is the provincial dropping it irrelevant if Fed doesn't?
So there's federal mandates and there's provincial ones, and the argument which some people say, go protest in front of Ford's house because he's the provincial PM who is implementing the provincial mandates.
It's a legitimate argument.
The only federal mandates that I know of are the air travel and train travel vaccination requirements.
The rest are provincial, and that's why they vary.
Trust the science, but the science varies from Quebec to Ontario to Manitoba to Alberta to British Columbia to Prince Edward Island.
Trust the science.
So, it's true that there are provincial and federal distinctions, and the provinces have provincial autonomy.
You know what else is true?
When Trudeau comes out and promises a billion dollars of our taxpayer money to provinces that implement a vaccine passport, I don't care that it's a provincial implementation.
Yeah, the provinces are free to say, no, you can keep your money.
When has the government ever said that?
So, it's true, there's a federal and provincial distinction, but when the federal is subsidizing the provincial mandates, directly or indirectly, there is no more appropriate place to protest than the federal.
Except, arguably, go protest provincially as well, and vote, and protest peacefully, yada yada, and vote.
Frosted Fedora, thank you.
Okay, let's do this.
Winding it down.
Winding it down now.
Go watch the live streamers.
Help them.
Support them.
They're doing amazing stuff.
It's amazing.
Woody Allen, not possibly the best person to quote, but 90% of success is just answering the phone.
And these guys are on the ground right now just answering the phone by being there and documenting.
Army tanks in Paris streets and threats of prisons.
Scotland supporting you all.
It seems like a global affair to stifle what once made the West...
The West.
Freedom.
And oddly enough, people who have fled Poland, people who fled Russia 10, 20, 30 years ago to flee this stuff are now saying, holy cows, they're getting messages from Poland, from Russia saying, what the heck is going on in Canada?
Alright, that is officially it now.
Trudeau and Biden can't deal with truckers, but they're going to stop Putin.
Yeah, I tweeted that out the other day.
By the way, Ukraine and Russia have much less severe restrictions on its citizens, no question.
But that's not to say that Russia's hunky-dory...
Corruption is corruption.
Governments are corrupt universally.
So, you pick your corruption.
Thank you so much from the free state of Florida.
Yep.
Okay, so with that said, people, tomorrow apparently is going to be a big day.
Unless the government does something stupid, hopefully they don't.
One thing I know, and one thing I could bet on and rely on, the convoy is not going to escalate, and the convoy is not going to do anything violent.
I've spoken to so many of them, I cannot count.
It is not in their DNA to get violent against the government.
On the one hand, everybody knows it's not a fight that they're going to win.
And it's not how they're going to win this fight.
They're going to win this through...
Mahatma Gandhi, passive resistance, passive opposition, and they're doing it.
What can be more passive than parking your trucks on the front lawn of Parliament and just waiting there?
What are my thoughts on Fauci?
If what Robert F. Kennedy wrote about Fauci was factually incorrect in that book, The Real Anthony Fauci, I would have sued.
And though I often say you do not...
Get to decipher much from not suing when someone has made defamatory statements.
Cardi B being accused of having herpes.
I might not have sued about that because it's not a big deal.
These things, if they're true, are a big deal.
And if Fauci doesn't sue for defamation, I'm going to draw some conclusions.
Because these are serious allegations.
And they're factual.
And if they're factually incorrect and Fauci doesn't sue...
Maybe they're not that factually incorrect.
Viva, where is the Bill of Rights?
Does it say Canadians have to follow the science?
That is one intense, intense William Wallace.
Okay, so people, go support the other people.
Clip, share, spread the word.
I mean, I don't know.
Look, discrimination and intolerance and ideological intolerance are not good on either side.
So I see this word.
I see this thought.
But judging someone who came to their own decision and did what they wanted with their own body, that type of reverse discrimination is no better than the other type.
So my two cents with respect.
Respectfully submitted, I should say.
Okay, people.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
Thank you for tuning in.
I hope this is good.
And if there's news, hey, just pop on and do this again.
So we'll see what happens.
I'll be in Ottawa tomorrow, walking the streets, talking with the people, walking the earth like jewels from Pulp Fiction.
And everyone else out there, thank you very much for all the support, and enjoy the evening, people.
▲
Export Selection