Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 15, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:06:28

Ep. 100! So Much Law Stuffs! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, hey there.
	Didn't see you there.
	Because I wasn't looking at the camera.
	Look, the house is a disaster.
	My studio is a disaster.
	So I've moved to the...
	What is this thing called?
	Peter Rabbit.
	The Peter Rabbit.
	It's not even a ceramic cup.
	It's just a plastic sippy cup.
	All right.
	Winston has something to say to everybody.
	He's got nothing to say.
	People.
	Can we believe that it's the 100th episode, but not the 100th live stream with Barnes, the 100th episode of our weekly streams?
	And if I do the math properly, 100 episodes at one a week, that's like almost two years.
	Two years, we have been, and I just saw right now that I don't have a backup on my computer for 506 days.
	That's a lot.
	Two years.
	This beautiful thing has blossomed into what it is.
	And it's been glorious.
	It's been my own personal ikigai.
	And I hope we've made something of a positive difference on the world.
	Because what's the point of life if not leaving it better than when you came in and making it better while you're there?
	So, 100th episode.
	And it would have been glorious if we had all matched up on, I think we hit 500,000 subs on Sunday.
	Or was it Monday?
	It was one of those two days.
	And it all could have worked out timing-wise gloriously, but it doesn't matter.
	It's glorious.
	This is proof that Viva is late.
	I am, sir, never late.
	I grind my teeth when I sleep, and I incidentally grind my tongue, and then it hurts, so it hurts when I swallow.
	Am I live?
	I am live.
	Okay, jeez Louise, I thought maybe I was talking to the camera and not actually being live, in which case, the late would be, no, we're live.
	People, stop making me, I'm going crazy.
	You're making me go crazy.
	100 episodes, it's a thing of beauty.
	100th episode, 500,000 subs.
	I haven't checked the...
	I don't care about any other.
	I just like nice round numbers.
	I don't even like milestones.
	Just nice round numbers.
	So it's going to be...
	For those who are new to the channel, the Barnes and Viva live streams typically are 99%, if not exclusively, the American side of things.
	And only when something really interesting happens in Canada, you know, does what's going on in Canada...
	You know, get on the mantle of the evening discussion for VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Sunday night live streams.
	And lately it's been totally inverted in that nobody's talking about anything other than the revolution that's going on in Canada.
	And it's quite la revolution.
	I couldn't help but send the mute button joke a couple of days ago.
	It was in jest, but you were the first person I thought of.
	Keep up the great work, V&B.
	And I was thinking also, okay, one thought at a time.
	I just forgot.
	Oh, yes, that's right.
	What's going on in Canada is...
	I mean, who would have known that the world would have caught on, would have been inspired by what started in Canada as a...
	Non-existent trucker convoy a month ago to what it is today.
	So we're going to talk about the Canadian stuff, but this is still going to be mostly American stuff because, first thing, I think everybody watching is now very much familiar and I might even dare say saturated by the Canadian legal situation.
	I'm going to bring up some chats, then I'm going to give the disclaimer, then I'm going to give my rant because, my goodness, a rant that actually is something that occurred in between this morning's live stream.
	About the Emergencies Act being invoked, which we're going to talk about.
	If you've heard about it, it might be repetitive, but whatever.
	And this evening.
	Can we get a Brandon Stracca from the walkaway organization on a sidebar with Barnes?
	He was arrested for Jan 6, recently pled to a misdemeanor charge.
	Screenshot.
	We'll see about that.
	All right.
	Next super chat before I get...
	Avid fan, Viva.
	Keep it up.
	Stand for freedom.
	Jennifer Foster.
	First of all, I love your hair.
	You've got the proper highlights.
	I've got the salt and pepper highlights, but nice, beautiful, wavy hair.
	Let's see what else we got.
	Thank you very much for the super chat as well.
	Has there been any discussion about what may occur regarding those who were mandated a med for work and are now...
	My brother, whom you've all met, the lion on Sunday, is now...
	He's a practicing lawyer, and he's looking into taking...
	He's taken mandates that might relate to that because it's a little-known thing that we have effectively what is an injury report fund, an injury fund set up in Canada that most people don't know about.
	So it's not clear if the lack of claims made is because of non-existent claims or because people don't know this system exists in Canada.
	We talked about it on Sunday.
	When we were doing our live stream before that beautiful thing happened on Sunday.
	Have you seen the Snoop Dogg video on YouTube called Police that openly calls for...
	I think I saw that.
	That's an older video.
	That's not a new thing.
	I love that dog.
	Very cute.
	Looks more like a mouse than a dog.
	All right.
	Now, with that said, people, I'm going to do a couple more.
	So Justin the Coward goes for something like a War Powers Act.
	Probably not going to go well.
	It literally is...
	The act that replaced the War Measures Act.
	It was War Measures Act, and then in 88 it got, I don't know if it's repealed and replaced, but replaced with the Emergencies Act, which followed the same raison d 'être, you know, to bring in the feds when stuff's out of control.
	Great reporting, Viva.
	Truly Tim Pool at Occupy Wall Street levels.
	It's funny, I mean, I didn't even think, I don't consider it reporting, I just consider it being the eyes for the people who can't be there in real time, but thank you.
	Okay, standard disclaimers.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats, not 40, not 50, despite some of the rumors in the chat.
	I was on chat with YouTube the other day to make sure.
	30%.
	I know people don't like that.
	If you want to support the channel, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has a thing called Rumble Rants, which are the equivalent of Super Chats.
	They only take 20%.
	I say only, but it is what it is.
	You can support Rumble while supporting the creator and feel good doing it.
	100 episodes, 100 honks.
	And what I was going to say was the best way to support us, if you want the best, you know, access to exclusive info, exclusive hush-hushes, some exclusive funny content coming from me because I can't compete with Barnes' knowledge of the database, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That's where it's 50 bucks a year if you want to support.
	And there's a lot of...
	I make a lot of content available to everybody who's a member, even if they're not a supporting member.
	So that's another place to see us.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com How can I make sure these funds don't get stolen by the Canadian government?
	Okay, we'll get there.
	The rant of the day, people.
	So, earlier today I did a live stream talking about the Emergencies Act that has been invoked by Justin Trudeau, which is...
	It's the...
	Predecessor?
	Whatever comes after the War Measures Act.
	I want to point one thing out.
	Karen Strawn put in a comment on the video from today saying, Viva, gotta disagree with you.
	There was a big difference between when Justin's daddy, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, called, invoked the War Measures Act during the FLQ crisis in the 70s, and today.
	100%.
	FLQ crisis.
	By the way, I went to law school with the grandkid of Pierre Laporte, the politician who was kidnapped and killed.
	In the trunk of a car.
	I went to law school with him, and the FLQ crisis was serious.
	And so when Pierre Elliott Trudeau declared the War Measures Act in the 70s, there were kidnappings, pipe bombs going off, actual violence, not made-up, fabricated lies of violence that we see coming out of the protest, of the convoy.
	So, different context, and definitely, arguably more justified, whether or not it could have been done without the declaration of the War Measures Act.
	Who knows?
	It's easy to play Monday morning or 40 year later quarterback.
	Whether or not Pierre Elliott Trudeau went a little too far with implementing that War Measures Act, arguable, but major difference.
	So everybody should appreciate that and it's not to equate Justin Trudeau and his father invoking the same acts as though to say that the reasons for doing it were the same or morally or factually justifiable or correlative.
	They were not.
	By all accounts, Pierre Elliott went a little overboard in his enforcement and application of the War Measures Act when he declared it during the Front Libération de Québec, the FLQ crisis in the 70s.
	My rant today is about what I heard on CJAD.
	Now, I listened to it, and I know that I shouldn't listen to it.
	It's like smelling rotten meat.
	It's like looking at the carcass of an animal on the side of the highway.
	It's like...
	I can think of more gross analogies, which I won't say, but I listened to it because it's important to know what the other side is saying.
	And what I heard today, coming from one of their contributors, who's a journalist for the Gazette, I clipped a portion of it because I was recording it with my phone off the radio, and I'm just like, it lasted for so long.
	My brain was melting, my heart rate was going up, and my blood pressure was like, you know, near explosion.
	I'm going to play it for you, and I'm going to comment on this.
	It's just a minute and a half of what I clipped from the actual...
	John Lee became a YouTube member.
	Welcome to the club.
	YouTube members get exclusive sneak peeks and some occasional other interactions, but thank you very much.
	You got to hear this.
	Right before...
	Let's get here.
	I can't help but notice how you are looking more and more like the Heatmiser.
	I half expect you to start dancing around and singing I'm Too Much.
	I don't know what that is.
	Okay.
	Share.
	I've gotten to be very good at sharing now.
	Share screen.
	Chrome tab.
	Viva Fry on Twitter.
	Listen to this, people.
	Listen to this.
	I think it's brilliant going after the money.
	I think it's brilliant making sure that when they finally do leave Ottawa, they're not going to leave Scott Green.
	First thing.
	Context.
	This is James Menny, who's a Gazette journalist.
	The Gazette is the Montreal Gazette.
	Contributor to the CJAD in the afternoon Natasha Hall and Aaron Rand show.
	My dashboard is always dirty.
	There's no point cleaning things in life anymore.
	They just get dirty very quickly, so I've just abandoned everything.
	But moving on.
	Punishment.
	bank or God help us, the revenue department will know.
	It's like you wish you had beaten up Don Corleone rather than taking This is in response to Justin Trudeau's declaration of the Emergencies Act and the instructions, if not wink-wink orders, for banks being empowered to seize or freeze or stop doing business with clients with their personal bank accounts if they're involved with the protests.
	And Chrystia Freeland, I think she's the minister of something, I forget which, maybe finance, that might make sense, came out and explained how the banks are going to be authorized to, on their own or at the request of the government, freeze bank accounts unilaterally without a court order and they will be immunized when they do so.
	And this is on CJD daytime radio contributors, analysts saying what a great thing it is.
	Make them pay.
	Make it follow them.
	Come in with get the CRA involved.
	That is the Canada Revenue Agency, much like weaponizing the IRS the way Obama did.
	Weaponize the CRA to go after your rivals who might be involved in protest activities that you don't approve of.
	We'll see how that plays out.
	But as I said yesterday, it was marvelous political theater yesterday.
	That this guy thinks it was marvelous political theater shows a level of delusion that is propagandist in nature.
	I don't think he's telling you what he actually believes because I don't think anybody believes this because even people on the left and the right think it was not marvelous, think it was abusive.
	Even civil rights agencies or civil rights organizations in Canada, which are typically liberal on the liberal side, think this is overreach.
	So I don't think anybody believes this.
	What this guy's doing is reporting not what he truly believes, but what he wants people to believe is justifiable, is appropriate.
	And so he's basically, this is manufactured consent of sorts.
	He's purporting to believe this, to let the viewers of CJAD think that this is reality, when it's the furthest thing from reality, and also the furthest thing from ethics.
	But it gets worse.
	He thinks Chrystia Freeland is going to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
	He just declared Chrystia Freeland is going to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
	Let's see how that prediction pans out.
	I won't forget it.
	All that said, we still have to get boots on the ground.
	Boots on the ground.
	I have a sneaking suspicion we'll see those boots deployed sooner rather than later.
	But in the end, it's still going to be a police operation.
	Police operation.
	They'll do what they have to do, and people will hurt their wallet, but to get that real estate free, it's going to take cops.
	And so we're just going to wait and see.
	Can you imagine he's saying, to get that, to resolve this issue, it's going to take cops.
	This is a liberal journalist of Canada, subsidized by the government on the CJAD radio show of Canada, also subsidized by the government directly and indirectly through incessant COVID ads, saying the only way to resolve this is to get police involved.
	That's forget negotiations, forget discussion with the citizens that the prime minister represents.
	The only way it's going to be resolved, break them financially, make them suffer, make it follow them for the rest of their lives and get the police involved.
	This is, this is liberalism 2022.
	Listen to the last part.
	Listen to this.
	I don't mind.
	Just a very old thing about warfare.
	In the end, it's going to be somebody with a riot shield and a baton and a gun that's going to have to settle this.
	I think it's brilliant.
	Stop sharing, and I want to close this.
	I never want to see this again.
	I never want to see or hear that again.
	Can you imagine this?
	It's going to be, bottom line, I want to know what he's paraphrasing, by the way, because if he's paraphrasing, I don't know.
	A dictator?
	I want to know what he's paraphrasing, who he's paraphrasing.
	But bottom line, it's going to take cops in riot gear with boots on the ground and a gun at their hip that's going to resolve this.
	This is the Liberal Party 2022.
	Outrageous.
	Let me make sure that Barnes has the links for tonight.
	I always get nervous when I don't see him.
	But now I'm going to see him pop in the back.
	You got the links, question mark?
	You got the links?
	I mean, it's atrocious.
	And they want to create the impression that this is something that somehow people believe.
	I appreciate people are frustrated with the protests in Ottawa.
	I appreciate that people believe that it's been paralyzing the city, shutting down businesses.
	People are afraid to walk the streets.
	I appreciate people believe that because they listen to this crap.
	And they believe this crap because they believe that...
	Don't listen to some eccentric-looking dude in his basement.
	And I understand that.
	Listen to CJAD because it's established media.
	They wouldn't lie.
	They wouldn't speak without knowing what they're speaking about, would they?
	Of course not.
	Keep up the great work here.
	A few bucks.
	Thank you very much.
	Why is no one talking about the Give, Send, Go hack and the related supposed documents and the frozen video?
	Oh, well, I mean, we're talking about it, but, I mean, things happen fast and you can't talk about everything all the time.
	Never knew of you before Freedom Convoy 2020.
	Well, I think you mean 2022.
	Now you are one of my fays from Sherwood Park, Alberta.
	Wayne, thank you very much.
	Nice to meet you.
	Welcome to the channel.
	It will not be all convoy all the time because one day this will end.
	We will move on to Salomo Baptist Smith.
	I remember you.
	We will move on to normal times yet again.
	We'll see how long this emergency measure lasts.
	We'll see.
	100 for 100.
	You all help to white and black pill me.
	If you treat people as they are, they will become worse.
	If you treat them as they could be, they will become better.
	Good.
	I like that.
	Sehr gut.
	No worries if this doesn't make the cut, but who'd have thought that the Canadian politeness would be the stake we needed to pierce the tyrant's heart?
	Guns couldn't do this, well-played Canadians.
	And that's what people really need to appreciate.
	The blockade was a more aggressive approach of a protest.
	And for anybody who's worried about this, when they call the Ottawa blockade or the Ottawa siege an illegal blockade, Ottawa protest is not blockading anything.
	They have parked on Wellington and, yes, paralyzed Wellington Street, which is Parliament Hill.
	The city itself is fully operational.
	There was honking for the first four days.
	I got disputed reports as to whether or not it was throughout the night.
	If you knew the truckers, I mean, first of all, they are the most polite people that you've ever seen if you've watched my live streams.
	They would have no vested interest of honking throughout the night either because they're literally sleeping in the cabs of their pickup trucks.
	Some of them are sleeping in their cars.
	So they would have no vested interest in honking throughout the night because it would aggravate them as much as everybody else.
	Setting that aside, the illegal blockade in Ottawa has not been a blockade of anything.
	You've seen it in my streams.
	There were emergency routes that were open for any emergency vehicles.
	The roads were open.
	The blockade was sectioned off.
	It was called Bank Street or Booth Street.
	Booth Street, which is the main thoroughfare in Ottawa, flowing smoothly.
	I drove in and out of Ottawa 10 times and had no traffic coming in or out and found parking.
	Haven't paid for parking yet.
	Haven't gotten a ticket.
	So when people confound the Ottawa protest with the Ambassador Bridge, They are two separate units, two separate entities, two separate organizations or entities.
	And when I interviewed Ben Dichter, who is the spokesperson for the Ottawa Convoy, the Freedom Convoy 2022, he says, we don't believe in blockades.
	We wouldn't do that aggressive approach.
	It's not that we're going to condemn it, but that's not our MO.
	So when they come out and say that the Freedom Convoy 2022 is blockading Ottawa, it's a fabrication.
	It's a lie.
	Full stop.
	All right, now I see Barnes is in the house, and we've got some, there is some, surprisingly enough, really interesting stuff coming out of the States.
	Barstool Sports, Portnoy, suing Business Insider, and it's a doozy of a defamation lawsuit.
	I saw this in real time.
	Shocking garbage.
	I'm not down with the spying on the Trump campaign and what was revealed, so Barnes is going to give us the lowdown on that.
	What else?
	More CIA unlawful gathering of information of citizens.
	Vaccine mandate updates because Barnes is on the front lines with RFK filing lawsuits representing whistleblowers, suing Tyson Foods.
	So it's going to be a big night.
	Let me just do one more.
	Thank you for reporting the truth.
	It is not hard to report the truth.
	You just have to tell the truth.
	I have my opinions, but I still believe I'm telling the truth.
	First, Michaela Peterson on Lauren Chan.
	Will Gadsad or you be the next to flee to the States?
	Look, at some point also you make a decision because Quebec is pulling back the vaccine passport system, for those who haven't read this.
	But I will not live in the house with a dog that has bitten me.
	And the Francois Legault government is a dog that has bitten me and they can never be trusted again.
	Ever.
	You don't pull back on these measures and then say, we reserve the right to do it again.
	Never.
	And if that's what people want as a government, they can have it.
	What is the difference between protest and the Tamil protest in 2009?
	Fair point.
	Now, with that said, people, me scoozies for not getting to the other Super Chats.
	I'm going to scroll down to the bottom of the chat so I can get up to speed with this when Barnes comes in the house.
	Looking good, Barnes.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Glad I don't live in Canada.
	No comment.
	The government might come.
	Robert?
	You've heard them talking about freezing and seizing bank accounts.
	I openly, first of all, I mentioned that I donated to the campaign before these orders.
	So I do think nothing bad is going to happen to people who donated prior to this emergency order.
	But you ever heard of anything like this in the States?
	I mean, I think you have.
	But going after the donors and freezing their bank accounts, unbanking them because they contributed to a fundraiser for a cause that the government deems enemy of the States, has that happened in the States?
	Civil asset forfeiture.
	But, I mean, in the States, we follow due process.
	I mean, it doesn't sound like that's really happening in Canada at the moment.
	I mean, like when they talked about the give, send, go, freeze order, aside that, you know, that would not fly in the United States, to have an ex parte order that tries to declare all donations crimes, the product of criminal conduct.
	I mean, tracing principles, which are the same in pretty much all the...
	Western jurisdictions and old English common law jurisdictions that are influenced by it follow the same tracing principles, which means the money itself has to be the product of criminal activity.
	And it shows what some of us have been warning about for a long time, which is these anti-money laundering statutes and laws that they've been imposing through global treaties and global organizations around the world would inescapably and inevitably be misused and abused.
	And credit to Castro Trudeau up there.
	For making it clear to everybody exactly how dangerous that power is.
	Because this is the most egregious example in the Western world that I know of, of criminalizing things that are not a crime, seizing monies that are not the product of criminal activities, engaging in ex parte proceedings where the party whose money and property is at stake.
	Is not allowed to have a hearing, not allowed to have a say, not even given notice prior to the court issuing the order.
	It shows what a complete crock and embarrassment the Canadian judiciary is.
	So there are lawsuits pending.
	Brian Peckford, last living signatory of the 1982 Constitution Act, or the 1982 Charter of Rights, is suing, but only on the travel ban, which will probably not be in effect between now and a month from now.
	We'll see.
	But they haven't enforced this.
	I don't think they've issued any formal directive.
	And there's been some rumors of it happening.
	But when you get the Prime Minister coming out and giving the blessing to banks unilaterally, without a court order, with legal immunity, because he's announced that he will immunize them from doing this, freeze accounts if they suspect that they're using the funds, and to donate to a campaign for something the government has declared illegal but without any...
	I mean, I think Trudeau doesn't understand what he's unleashed even within his own party.
	This has gone too far, I think, even for liberals.
	But God bless him for having done it because he's going to be the source of mockery and, you know, mockery.
	From the international community, because it's over the top, and I love the fact that down in America, they're looking here and saying, the man who's not Fidel's Castro's son, so much so that he had to have a fact check in AP, is now basically saying, we're going to freeze your bank accounts.
	We authorize or we'll instruct.
	With immunity, no due process, no court order.
	Yeah, that's the nice free Canada.
	Well done, Trudeau, representing us.
	Maybe we'll get to the Emergencies Act later, but I think the crowd has heard it, and they've heard the rants.
	But Robert, first, before we get into it, book behind you looks apropos.
	What is it?
	Yeah, Police State by Jerry Spence.
	I thought the title was apropos, considering what's happening in Canada.
	And, I mean, you had the Ontario court that issued an ex parte order declaring all donations to give and send go a crime without due process, without notice, without detailing or tracing how it's a crime.
	I mean, tracing is a careful art.
	I mean, I do civil fraud cases around the globe where someone's been defrauded.
	And you have to show how that money that you're seizing is the product of criminal activity.
	It can't just be tangentially tied to connected to some accusation, maybe somewhere, someplace, sometime.
	Completely gutting all the principles that govern money laundering laws.
	I mean, that court just rubber-stamped what they did.
	It reminds me of the old joke that Earl Long made when he was feuding with his brother Huey Long, who put O.K. Allen in the governorship as Huey's guy.
	And Earl Long said that to give an example of how bad O.K. Allen was in terms of doing whatever Huey told him, he said once a leaf blew across O.K.'s desk and he signed it.
	And that's what some of these judges seem like.
	The government just blows a leaf across their desk and they rush to sign it.
	I mean, pretty pitiful.
	The point to have a judiciary is to be a check on the executive, not another tool of the executive branch.
	But both in the U.S. and Canada, that's been forgotten during this emergency pandemic time period.
	And for those who may not know what occurred, so we all know what happened with GoFundMe.
	Arguable but not arguable, absolute fraudulent conduct by GoFundMe.
	They freeze the account at $4.8 million on the basis that they need to provide direction of how the funds are going to be used.
	They then open up the account again.
	People donate up to $10 million.
	Then, with a little pressure from politics, they say, "Oh, we think you're financing a violent cause, so we're going to shut off the account and donate the money." To a charity of our choice.
	And the mayor of Ottawa, or the police officer, police chief, one of them, took to Twitter to celebrate this victory.
	Outcry, out, you know, backlash.
	They then said, okay, well, we'll donate, we'll reimburse it, and we'll donate to the charity of the trucker's choice for whatever's left over.
	Then they just said, forget it, we're reimbursing everything.
	Give, send, go steps up to the plate and opens up an account.
	And it was the fastest growing account that they've ever had.
	Like, within 24 hours, it raised one point some odd million.
	They get to $10 million, and then the Attorney General of Ontario goes to court on some provision of law related to what is known as, in Canada, offense-related property.
	They go to court and say...
	And for people out there, offense-related property is a specific, particular kind of severe, serious crime in Canada.
	It's not just any offense.
	Misdemeanors don't count, for example.
	That's right.
	So misdemeanors don't count.
	Felonies do, and there is felony mischief under Canadian law.
	So they go to this court, and they say, we need ex parte, without the defendants or the relevant parties even being there to defend themselves or speak, they say, we're going to seize or freeze all of the monies, because the monies that were raised are going to be used to fueling the trucks, which are then being used for mischievous, felonious mischief in Ottawa.
	Does not meet the standard under Canadian law because these are internationally recognized standards they're implementing.
	They had to prove that the donors' funds, that the act of donation was a criminal act.
	They didn't.
	Then they had to prove that the monies would be necessarily used for...
	Well, that's part one, or they couldn't freeze the funds.
	Part two is, if they wanted to freeze the funds once received by somebody in Canada, they had to show that those funds would necessarily be used for criminal purposes.
	They didn't prove that either.
	They just said, maybe there's a crime out here that might happen, and there's money over here.
	So let's just freeze everything.
	That's a violation of fundamental due process laws recognized around the globe and a violation of tracing laws, violation of anti-money laundering.
	That didn't even get close to conforming with law, but it's why we should never give the state this power because they will inescapably abuse it because judges in the judiciary are an unreliable protector of civil liberties as they have proven beyond dispute in the last two years around the globe.
	Because everyone does have to appreciate it.
	It's not as though the convoy has been charged with anything.
	None of the...
	Some individuals might have been arrested.
	I don't know what they've been charged with.
	There haven't been that many arrests in any event.
	The organizers, the fundraisers, nobody's been charged.
	There might be an investigation, but they go ex parte.
	And now I appreciate that the restraint of ORP's offense-related property is baked into that provision of law, but it's not just to say that your employer paying you...
	And then you might use that money to go buy a weapon or do whatever.
	Therefore, we're going to restrain your employer from paying you.
	I'm not a criminal lawyer, Robert, but I suspect that's not how it's supposed to be.
	Patent violation.
	Otherwise, they could freeze everything.
	They could freeze everything, everywhere, anytime, anyplace, with no notice, no due process, nothing.
	That's a patent violation of international law, patent violation of constitutional standards, patent violation of tracing principles, and all of these are codified because they were agreed to by a range of countries to pass anti-money laundering laws.
	So it's not just the United States.
	It applies in Canada, and you read the statute as Ezra Levant went there.
	He's like, this just doesn't apply.
	This doesn't fit at all.
	And it's just a court not doing its job.
	The court said, oh, you want to sign something?
	Let me rush to sign it.
	Embarrassing.
	Embarrassing ruling by that judge who should be held up as a humiliating failure of a judge to the world.
	That Ontario judge who signed that.
	And more important than that, we have yet to see the affidavits filed in support of it because someone must have said something that was somewhat inaccurate in the affidavits to support the exceptional...
	requested remedy of an ex parte issuance of a restraint order.
	Someone had to say something relatively urgent in those, Well, think about how you've been detailing all year long, all two years, how hard it is in Canada to get ex parte orders.
	And yet somehow this is granted over and over.
	Let's just seize everybody's property.
	Seize property from America.
	Seize property from Europe.
	Seize property from Africa.
	Seize property from Latin America.
	From the entire globe with no notice of anything.
	Within the order, no factual foundation established or legal foundation established for that order.
	I mean, I was looking at whether or not...
	If they actually took any action against somebody's property or in the States, I'm not sure that Ontario judge or that Ontario attorney general or Doug Ford has immunity under American law because those actions are without jurisdiction and authority to issue fundamentally.
	Now, I wouldn't expect American courts to do any more than Canadian courts, sadly, but it was worth taking a look at whether or not it'd be fun to sue Doug Ford just on a matter of principle.
	I'm going to bring this up because this is a decent question.
	Barnes, time to ask the question.
	What can we the people do here in the U.S. when Biden does this here?
	I believe the left is going to do something like this here before November.
	How do we stop this?
	They use civil asset forfeiture, and they've already abused it, but they've never gone this far because it would be seen even by American courts as just an absurd, egregious violation in all likelihood.
	So they might not take action about Canada doing it, but if those Canadian...
	If someone tried to come down and record that judgment in the U.S., it'd be set aside in all likelihood.
	Because even despite all the efforts here, at least, those principles are still mostly recognized.
	Where you lose them is when you've been accused.
	The courts have done a lousy job of protecting your property, but they have required a grand jury indictment generally before they freeze any assets.
	They do do some civil asset forfeiture outside of that context.
	It's been very controversial on both sides politically, and I think they know, the government knows, that if they push too far, they're going to get legislative reform that will gut their ability to ever do it.
	As I, you know, well, you know, Canada's kind of a lost cause these days at times, but we'll see.
	I mean, the trucker convoys had great success.
	It's what should happen in Canada.
	They should re-examine why do we have these emergency powers still in the book outside of a declaration of war?
	I mean, they've only been used in the past in war times.
	It's time to re-examine some of these powers.
	Why do we have the power for them to start seizing people's property without due process of law?
	They need to take away this power because the assumption was, well, don't worry, the judiciary will exercise discretion.
	No, they won't.
	And Trudeau comes out and says, don't worry, when we invoke the Emergencies Act, we'll have to respect the Constitution.
	Therefore, everything we do will be constitutional.
	I mean, it's a circular tautology of a totalitarian government, a tyrant, who says, whatever we do is constitutional because we're restrained by the Constitution under the Emergencies Act itself.
	But we're going to freeze your property without due process.
	We're going to issue massive fines, potentially jail you, they said.
	Take your licenses away, strip you of insurance, and seize your trucks.
	But yeah, we're respecting the Constitution.
	This is why the state can't have this kind of power.
	The things people said were just an Alex Jones conspiracy theory have been nothing more than spoilers for the future.
	So here's the question, Robert.
	So give, send, go.
	I don't give advice and I don't dispense of it, period.
	I just say to myself, nice court order, and it's nice that it mentions give, send, go, but they're not bound by anything.
	It's a foreign entity.
	It's not under Canadian jurisdiction.
	They were not there to be present to the suit.
	They were not properly served.
	They're not part of any suit, period.
	What would it take in order to hypothetically assume the court order itself were legitimate?
	What would have to happen before that court order could be binding on give, send, go in the United States?
	They would have to get it recorded in the United States.
	So some people were asking like mutual legal assistance treaties.
	That just allows for information to be shared in order to get a judgment entered.
	And this has happened repeatedly.
	I've been involved in some of these cases where there's a Canadian judgment.
	We have to get it entered in the United States.
	And that's...
	You have to file something in federal courts.
	You have to give notice.
	The other side gets to object on a range of grounds, including lack of notice previously, etc.
	So it's not very easy at all to get a judgment from one country entered into another country.
	Definitely not the United States.
	That's not a simple, straightforward step at all.
	And until give, send, go is a...
	Courts tend to forget this, but they do not have worldwide global power.
	They only have power over the parties before them.
	And they cannot just go issuing whatever order they want to people that are not parties before them.
	I've dealt with this in multiple contexts where the court tries to hold somebody in contempt that was never before the court.
	And that is almost universally declared unconstitutional.
	Sometimes there's a dispute about once you've been served it legally, is it binding to you?
	Here would be a foreign court order, so it still wouldn't be legally binding on give, send, go.
	They have to get it recorded in the United States and then try to enforce it.
	They wouldn't be able to.
	They didn't meet any of the standards to do that.
	So that's why it was mostly an empty threat.
	Toilet paper was worth more than that court order in the United States.
	And when you say recorded, that's another word.
	I think we call it homologated here, that you have to take it to the court, they have to recognize it, and then basically treat it as a separate U.S. proceeding on the party.
	So people out there were asking, first of all, CBC has a list of the donations and has been calling people.
	We know that Give, Send, Go was hacked.
	A list of the donors were...
	We're disclosed.
	I think a lot of people don't really care because a lot of people were relatively public putting their names in.
	GoFundMe, it's public when your name appears on the list.
	So it says, you know, recent donors.
	Unless you say anonymous, your name's up there.
	So I don't think most people are concerned about that.
	I know they were hacked.
	I know CBC apparently has been calling people.
	I tweeted out, invited them to call me.
	I can explain very well why people, including myself, supported the convoy.
	Although we're not part of the convoy.
	But this is the thing, Robert.
	So people are saying, okay, fine.
	Give, send, go is not under Canadian jurisdiction.
	It's not bound by this ridiculous order, period.
	So they can just go get crypto, pay them off in another way.
	The issue is this.
	Give, send, go is not bound by this court order, but Canadian citizens are.
	So this would be the issue.
	I mean, I don't know.
	They could be, but if you haven't been served, how can you be bound by an order that you haven't been served?
	Doesn't the court have to have personal jurisdiction over you by serving you to bring you in before the court?
	That's why it is the United States.
	I believe the criteria might be having knowledge of the court order.
	And I don't mean Canadian citizens at large.
	I do mean the members of the contract.
	You just have to have knowledge of its existence?
	What's the point of in personum jurisdiction?
	What's the point of serving?
	I mean, don't you have to serve a summons before you can bring a person into court for a civil lawsuit?
	Yes, but when it comes to contempt ex-fashe, or, well, in fashe, there's obviously a different thing, but ex-fashe out of the court, I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that if you have knowledge of the court order and you knowingly defy it, despite not being served by it, that can be problematic, and that was actually how...
	In the United States, it's a violation of due process.
	I mean, because you have to be personally served so that you are before the court, and only then can you be subject to any of the court order.
	And otherwise, they've tried occasionally to hold people in contempt for people that were not served the court order, and in almost every case, there's been a couple of bad exceptions, but in almost every case, they've failed to be able to do so constitutionally.
	And it's the whole point of service of the suit.
	I mean, under that logic...
	If you know of a suit, then you have to file an answer with a certain time frame.
	Why have any requirement of service of a summons if a summons is unnecessary to hold someone in contempt or have other judicial compulsory process issued against them?
	You've caused me to question my own, what I remembered being my knowledge.
	I still think...
	I mean, you may be right.
	They just may ignore due process in the judicial contempt context.
	It's for the contempt issue.
	So if you knew of the court order and then knowingly violated it, how do they prove you knew?
	A separate issue.
	The problem is the theory of the summons is in personum jurisdiction.
	I have a court.
	I now have power over you as an individual.
	Just issuing an order doesn't do that.
	Personal service is the only thing that does that.
	Now, sometimes you can do service by publication if you've tried and so on and so forth, but that's only after you've tried personal service.
	It would surprise me if you can be held, if the court can issue compulsory, hold you in contempt without previously having personal jurisdiction over you through personal service.
	Because that's almost a universal principle.
	I'm going to double-check, Robert.
	You've caused me to question what I thought remembered being my knowledge.
	But setting that aside, the issue would be less so give-send-go, or jurisdiction over give-send-go, but the second they give the monies to anyone involved in the convoy, who, let's just take for granted they've been served or whatever.
	The banks will comply with this order, even though they're not part of it, as long as they think they have immunity.
	And by the way, this happened before this emergency order.
	TV had $1.4 million from the initial release of funds from GoFundMe.
	I believe they either froze it or actually remitted it to court.
	Unsolicited, no court order.
	They just said, well, we don't want to get into trouble.
	Here's the money.
	They gave $1.4 million.
	I think it depends on Canadian law.
	In the U.S., if they did that, they usually can be sued.
	The bank can be sued.
	Because usually the bank has to be served a legitimate compulsory process.
	So a bank levy, for example, is legitimate.
	Even if my IRS administratively doesn't matter, that's legitimate.
	But that's because you dig into bank levy laws and it says if you or a bank receive an IRS levy, you're immune for anything you do with those funds as long as you comply with a levy.
	That's why they do it.
	If a bank just receives something that says hold these funds without that person being identified as a party, That would be potentially at risk for the bank.
	Maybe not in Canada, but in the US it would be.
	And in Canada, my recollection from the practice is that it would not be.
	They're basically saying, put it in trust because I don't want to get in trouble.
	And the trust is depositing it with the court.
	Yes, it is.
	Now, so that's the kerfuffle with give, send, go.
	They might not be bound by this, but they might, you know, if they give the monies or release the monies or direct the monies in any way and any member of the convoy receives it, they're at risk.
	Banks will come down now and shut the...
	It's nuts.
	But, anyhow, in theory, the Emergencies Act needs to be ratified by the government within seven days of the declaration, and if it's not ratified, then it becomes moot.
	And ratified by the government means ratified by Parliament, right?
	By Parliament, the House of Commons, and the Senate.
	And it has to go through both, and it has to get approved.
	If it doesn't get approved, it's dead in the water.
	Some people are saying now that the cops are enforcing it despite the seven days from declaration not having been met yet.
	I haven't seen that, haven't heard that, so setting that aside.
	So that's the latest from Canada.
	Now, Robert, what's the latest from the U.S. with the vaccine mandate or the vaccine lawsuits updates from Children's Defense Fund to Tyson Foods to the Pfizer whistleblower?
	What's the deal?
	No major updates.
	The military case continues to heat up down in Florida.
	The court continues to issue orders that suggest that the court is going to enjoin the Defense Department's...
	The vaccine mandates.
	It may want to try to separate it out and separate out different claimants from different groups, like put civil people in one category, active service military in another category.
	It may separate out.
	But basically, Biden's administration has been systematically denying religious accommodations of members of the military.
	And the court's already made clear statements that suggest that those violate the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, has already issued two injunctions for two individual members of the military, is looking at granting a third, and it appears to be moving in.
	The other employer vaccine mandate case is pitting across the country.
	The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to get involved in the New York case at the emergency injunctive stage.
	And the reason it most likely did is because the allegations were that they...
	That all the damages, according to the defendants, could be recoverable monetarily.
	It does appear that the New York City authorities will lose that case ultimately, and the only question is how much money they have to pay, given there's been implicit admissions along the way that they're violating religious accommodation rights and the policies and procedures that they impose, targeting members of what you could call minority religious beliefs.
	Which is a patent First Amendment violation and that they don't meet strict scrutiny.
	But the media tends to make this a big deal when they deny it.
	It's just denying emergency relief because the belief is that all of your damages can be recoverable monetarily.
	I don't fully agree with that, but unless you said you were going to take the vaccine rather than get fired, which is not what apparently any of these parties allege, the courts are not granting injunctive relief at this stage.
	In the employer mandate context.
	The whistleblower suit that I have was unsealed, but hasn't been served yet.
	So I'll wait to disclose it once it's been served concerning Pfizer.
	But basically, the Ketam case was filed more than a year ago that detailed everything that Pfizer was doing, that Pfizer's clinical training entity was doing.
	Wrong.
	And the FDA and the U.S. Justice Department sat on it, did nothing with it.
	The FDA appears to have actually leaked the information to Pfizer to later try to intimidate my client, who's now gone public, Brooke Jackson, with phone calls directly to her that could have only been known.
	Pfizer's lawyer could only know about it if someone, in all likelihood, the FDA disclosed whistleblower information to Pfizer to try to shut up the whistleblower.
	Then what did the Justice Department do, including during Trump's era?
	Nothing.
	It pretended to be, in my view, it pretended to be investigating.
	It asked for almost a year and a half to keep everything sealed so they could do a full investigation.
	Not because they didn't want it publicly disclosed.
	And as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court had issued a decision in the OSHA case, suddenly then it gets unsealed.
	Then they're like, okay, now it can be unsealed.
	After a lot of big legal and political decisions have been made.
	No evidence in that they're not intervening.
	They're not going to prosecute the case themselves.
	And that shows you how unserious the Justice Department is about meaningfully prosecuting big pharma.
	But we're going to go forward and prosecute it.
	There's also an employment retaliation claim that's been brought with it.
	And now the defamation claim got resolved because the clinical trial company that was doing it, we had said we were going to file suit.
	Under Texas law, they get a chance to retract and correct.
	And on Valentine's Day, they issued a correction and retraction.
	Sent letters to everybody saying, oh, we're sorry about what we said before.
	Actually, yes, Brooke Jackson did in fact work for us.
	Yes, he was working on that project.
	And please take back anything we previously said when we lied about her not working on the project.
	So they're one of the biggest defamation lawyers in the country working for them.
	But they put us through the proof.
	We showed what all of our proof was.
	And they're like, oh, well, now upon reflection, maybe we don't want to be sued for libel.
	And so that's where that case is.
	Tyson Foods case is pending before the federal court in the Western District of Tennessee.
	There's a bunch of EEOC complaints being filed.
	For everybody out there, you have six months to file an EEOC complaint.
	If you've been fired for violation of your religious rights, and if you don't file it, sometimes federal courts won't allow you to file a suit based on it.
	Remember to file with the EEOC.
	You also can file with this.
	Almost every state has its analog version to the EEOC.
	And attorney generals from multiple states are looking at EEOC complaints that have been filed against Tyson Foods and against other employers in this context.
	Had another case, a Tennessee employer was trying to impose a vaccine mandate.
	And forgot about the Tennessee law that made clear.
	I helped draft the law that made clear you can't do that anymore.
	And after they remembered the Tennessee law, they changed their rule, but only for Tennessee employees.
	But they backed down from trying to impose that vaccine mandate.
	So that's where it's at.
	Basically, all the cases are still progressing and proceeding through various state and federal courts, various regulatory bodies and attorney generals in the country.
	Key Tam, I know I've asked you that before.
	What does that mean?
	So Ketam action is basically where the government's been defrauded and you as an individual get to bring the action on behalf of the government.
	So, you know, United States, you know, the relator is, you know, in this case, Brooke Jackson, suing the defendant who, I mean, the issue here is Pfizer basically got billions of dollars from the U.S. government and it got that money by promising to comply with all the required rules for clinical testing.
	It did not comply with all the rules for clinical testing.
	And again, when you subcontract out under the rules, you're responsible for what your subcontractor did, just as if you did it, to avoid companies trying that tack.
	That was fixed many years ago, as Robert Malone detailed.
	And the problem is they didn't comply with the rules that they promised to comply with.
	So you don't even have to prove conventional fraud.
	Did you agree to comply with these rules?
	Yes, they did.
	Did they comply with him?
	No, they didn't.
	Did they lie about it, not complying with him?
	Yes, they did.
	End of story, in my view.
	They stole billions of dollars from the U.S. government.
	Somehow the U.S. government's not interested in recovering a single penny of that.
	Isn't that interesting?
	That's quite fascinating, actually.
	So I know what I think in terms of conclusions to be drawn.
	What conclusions, Robert, do you draw from that?
	The Justice Department has never in history prosecuted Big Pharma related to lies and willful criminal misconduct or other misconduct concerning vaccines in the last 30 years that I know of.
	So that's the issue.
	Like people point out, well, they can be held, their immunity is gone if they engage in willful criminal conduct, but only if the U.S. Attorney's Office agrees with you.
	And they never have.
	And this is a classic.
	I mean, here in the peak of this debate, September of 2020, they had direct evidence that Pfizer was not complying with their promised contractual requirements.
	And the conduct was so egregious that it raised serious questions about the credibility of any information they were providing.
	I mean, when you walk into a clinical testing area and you got...
	You got needles sticking out of bags.
	You don't even do the basic protocol to make sure you bag needles correctly.
	You have people's private medical information sticking up on walls so the janitor can read whether Susie's got an STD.
	If you don't care about that, do you think they cared about making sure to track adverse events?
	You think they made sure to track the actual effect of the vaccine on people?
	Of course not.
	They weren't taking care of the basic stuff.
	There's no way they were taking care of that accurately.
	It means none of their data can be tested.
	And according to their own statements that were communicated by the senior people, when this is exposed, what's their reaction?
	Fire the person who exposed it and then cover it up.
	Because according to some executives, it was all over the place.
	It means it didn't just happen at three places.
	The idea that it only happened in the places that Brooke Jackson got to witness is just ridiculous.
	If that was the case, they would have fixed those three places.
	They would have shut down those three places.
	That's what they would have done, right?
	You know what those contaminating the others?
	They didn't.
	They rushed to cover it up because it was systemic.
	It was systematic.
	And the Justice Department knew about it and sat on it for about a year and a half.
	FDA knew about it and tried to, it appears, leak the information to Pfizer to try to suppress it.
	I mean, there were people opening up my client's mail, including court documents that were sealed documents that were being sent to her.
	How did that happen?
	She gets a sealed court filing sent to her, and it's already been opened.
	Who was opening it?
	So, I mean, you know, it's a degree of...
	Corruption and fraud that's extraordinary.
	Not a shock, though, unfortunately.
	People can watch the last season of Goliath for how Big Pharma really operates.
	And the defamation part that was now settled because of the retraction, what did they initially say?
	That your whistleblower did not work for the company?
	It didn't work on any of these particular clinical trials.
	It had nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccine trials.
	We had the proof, of course.
	Contracts, emails, documents, etc.
	They wanted to get a sneak peek of what that was.
	Their first goal is to just lie about her, see if we can buy time.
	We detailed, okay, here's all our evidence.
	And it's only because under Texas law, unless you're named Alex Jones, then you don't get any of the protection there.
	There's a little footnote that says, this law does not apply for the protection of Alex Jones.
	All over and all the Texas courts there in Austin.
	But under the Texas protocols, it gives you a chance to retract and correct before you can be sued.
	Effectively.
	And so they used that window of opportunity and then fixed it almost the last possible minute.
	I didn't mind the fact it came in on Valentine's.
	It's better to get a correction and retraction than not, but that was what they initially did.
	They initially tried to pretend she wasn't working on the project she was working on.
	Got to unmute myself before I say this.
	Robert, I've been listening to the real Anthony Fauci, and without getting into too much of it, which might get us into the bad books of YouTube, I appreciate Fauci.
	I appreciate RFK approaches it from his viewpoint of an environmental...
	He has an environmentalist issue.
	He's looking for other causes for certain chronic illnesses that he believes have a specific cause starting in the 80s or 90s.
	Particularly children.
	That there's been an explosion of chronic illness, particularly much more illness for kids and particular kinds of illnesses for kids than we had seen before in American history.
	But setting aside all of that, my question is as relates to Dr. Fauci.
	Fauci hasn't sued for defamation.
	Some of the stuff in that book, it's not just damning.
	It's not conspiratorial damning.
	It's just if it's true.
	It causes me to have lower esteem for Fauci and maybe think he's borderline criminal.
	Does anyone...
	I'll spoil the ending.
	Fauci's a criminal.
	Well, so here's the deal now.
	Should anyone draw any conclusions from the fact that Fauci has yet to sue for defamation for the contents of that book?
	I mean, not necessarily.
	Because I've often said...
	You know, Alex Jones probably gets defamed almost more than any media person in existence.
	He generally doesn't sue because he's, one, a big First Amendment believer, and two, it would be, to him, a waste of time, waste of money.
	So sometimes, that's why.
	But clearly, if you compare Fauci to, say, David Portnoy...
	Portnoy recognizes that you can't let those kind of lies and libels linger if they actually are lies and libels.
	Everything about Fauci is true and well documented.
	Robert Kennedy spent a long time researching and detailing that book.
	And you can look at the footnotes and the citations for it.
	Everything is well-grounded.
	He approached it like a lawyer approaching an evidentiary hearing.
	And he was like, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	And there's even more stuff about Fauci that has come out since the book was published that details the scope of his...
	I see Fauci as kind of a representative of Big Pharma's criminality.
	Big Pharma is the one that's behind these criminal profiteering behaviors.
	They're reporting ridiculous amounts of profits without any liability exposure.
	It's the greatest gift in the history of state corporate relationships since the Nazis decided to employ people.
	It's prisoners in Volkswagen and some other factories.
	And also the Tyson Company.
	Coincidentally, I'm sure, just named after the name related to Tyson.
	We did the interview with Dr. Francis Christian exclusively on Rumble to avoid the issues on YouTube.
	But when I interviewed him on the street, he had some interesting historical facts, which some people might be largely unaware of.
	Good segue, Robert.
	Let's talk.
	It's Michael Portnoy.
	David Portnoy of Barstool Sports.
	El Presidente.
	He's the day trader, the angry day trader.
	David Portnoy, the most Boston accent you've heard since Good Will Hunting.
	I remember watching this in real time because Portnoy, after this article came out, went on Twitter and put out a 10-minute video responding to it.
	We'll back it up straight to the beginning.
	Business Insider ran...
	What can arguably, but not arguably, definitively, and unequivocally be described as a grotesque hit piece?
	Depicting Portnoy...
	Got to weigh our words here, Robert, because I don't want to get in trouble with YouTube.
	As a violent, aggressive individual when it comes to certain sexual...
	What is the word?
	Criminal behavior, of illicitly tape recording intimate interactions, of engaging in violent and humiliating encounters that the innuendo was that could constitute a crime in the United States against multiple women.
	And they did so despite knowing and have evidence and information and evidence in their possession that all the accusations of criminal behavior were completely and utterly false and without any merit whatsoever.
	Predilections was the word I was looking for.
	Yes.
	They basically suggest...
	It was a hit piece that took a year to make.
	I remember at the time when this came out, they went looking for individuals who have had intimate relationships with Portnoy.
	One little background.
	It was public knowledge that Portnoy...
	You know, that Portnoy had had, I mean, there's like various film out there and whatnot, that Portnoy has a particular style of interaction and that women had sought him out for those purposes.
	So they figured the kind of women who sought those out for those stories might be the kind of women to make up stories otherwise that they could print for their profit.
	And what was particularly extraordinary here in this case of clickbait defamation...
	Was that they timed the release of the story.
	They did one story and then a second follow-up to correspond with their subscriber paywall promotional pitch for their Business Insider publication.
	And one other thing they timed it with, quarterly earnings of a company in which Barstool Sports has, I think, a 34% ownership.
	I didn't notice at the time.
	But when, Robert, we're talking about predilections.
	They're into certain types of sexual behavior.
	I say no judgment.
	Good for them.
	Not my thing.
	Each their own.
	And I would not want to be a single...
	Everything was clearly consensual.
	Their own communications and conversations, the people involved, and people who knew the background knew that there was absolutely no basis to believe anything other than consensual activity took place here.
	And they just lied about it.
	And they lied about it with misleading headlines, knowing the rest of the stories behind the paywall, and by tagging certain things in the URL for search purposes that would make it clear that...
	The innuendo being that he has systemic sexual predatorial behavior engaged in criminal misconduct towards women, knowing it was utterly false, having the evidence it was utterly false, and planning on using the story to build up their big subscriber base, targeting the timing of the stock announcement that would impact them the most adversely, and as reported in the suit, has cost Barstool Sports over $12 million.
	So this is one of the biggest defamation suits to come down in a while.
	And could bankrupt Business Insider.
	Could be the second gawker.
	The gawker 2.0 is exactly what I was going to say.
	People have to appreciate, sexual predilections aside, I would not want to be a rich man, a rich person who is single, engaging in activity with people, because you just have to watch out for this 24-7.
	When Robert says that they had text messages or evidence to contradict the formal stories, it was...
	Is that my dog?
	My God, my dog is making noise.
	I don't know if you hear that.
	When they say they had text messages, evidence to contradict the formal stories that these anonymous individuals gave to Business Insider after being pursued for the purposes of giving this information.
	Text messages contemporaneous with the accusations of violent sexual encounters bordering on non-consensual.
	There's a word for that which we don't say on YouTube.
	They had text messages between the two of them saying...
	Hey, man, can we bang again?
	Type thing.
	I read through it very quickly.
	Public social media comments.
	As far as I could tell, all three people, anonymous, sought him out.
	Not the other way around.
	Some sought him out aggressively.
	Sought him out aggressively for this particular engagement of this encounter.
	Complimented him later.
	And then publicly sought him out again and again and again to repeat it.
	And yet they're trying to say this was he was the criminal predator?
	Now, you know, I advise people be careful of, you know, women in certain circumstances.
	But, you know, that's just if you're a public figure, you got to be smart about these things.
	But that's another story for another day.
	But clearly what Porter was doing was completely legal.
	Nothing was criminal whatsoever.
	He was as much the victim of these people's misrepresentations, deceptions and aggressivity as anybody.
	And the media reporters knew about it.
	And still reported it.
	And then didn't just do it once.
	They did it twice.
	And then they didn't just do it twice.
	They tried to profit off of it to put it all behind a paywall to build up their new subscriber service.
	And not only that, they have refused to retract or correct a single statement and brag that this was just a part of doing business, the fact that they knew they were going to get sued and refused to correct anything.
	An interview with, what was it, the CEO or editor of Business Insider saying...
	I mean, they had the editor involved.
	They had the...
	High-ranking officers involved, other journalists at the company involved, as it was put in the suit, their army of Twitter supporters involved.
	I mean, this wasn't just one or two journalists lying.
	This was an organizational taking a systematic hit piece and smear piece on an innocent individual for their own profit in his detriment, knowing what they were doing was just pure lies.
	A classic.
	It's the most Gawker-esque case since Gawker.
	Yeah, and that's what I was thinking when I read it, is that that's what it looks like.
	They've dug their own grave and they've sort of continued digging just to exacerbate their own mistakes from the beginning.
	So it's just the filing right now?
	There's been no response and there's been no further progress?
	As far as I know, yes.
	But he filed suit in federal district court in Massachusetts.
	against all these New York defendants because he's from Massachusetts.
	He started out with Barstool Sports as the suit details.
	He did a little publication he used to sell on the subways in Boston.
	I mean, he's built up one of the most impressive sports empires in American history.
	But he's often not politically correct.
	He went after Robin Hood and others when they were screwing over people.
	He interviewed Trump and didn't try to bash him.
	Has employed people regardless of their politics.
	Isn't really that politically involved.
	But that's his other sin and crime in the institutional media.
	Is that he's not on the woke agenda side of the equation.
	Hires people, you know, regardless of their race or gender, just based on their qualifications.
	So he was happy to hire Kelly Stewart, Kelly in Vegas, after ESPN discriminated against her in the hiring process.
	That's a suit to come down the road.
	And, of course, all Kelly Stewart, Kelly in Vegas did was...
	Go on one of the best sports betting prediction runs in the history of sports betting handicapping.
	So, you know, that paid off for him.
	But it's a very popular service that has cultural influence, that has not joined the woke revolution, and that was the other reason why he was targeted here.
	It wasn't just for their profiteering.
	It was because of his politics.
	Now, he intelligently, I mean, he had Marty Singer's firm involved in L.A. I'm sure Marty wrote a fun letter somewhere that's going to show up in the evidentiary trial.
	He's infamous for it.
	But wisely, Marty's based at L.A., but they sued in Boston because that's where he's from, and there's lots of jurisdictional grounds to do so.
	People don't know this, or don't often know this.
	Two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Caldery, New Hampshire, and another one, established at federal court, you have personal jurisdiction for defamation cases anywhere the statements were printed or published.
	And people underappreciate that.
	He wisely, unlike the next person we're going to talk about, sued in Massachusetts.
	Sarah Palin...
	Thought she could get justice in New York, and the Southern District of New York proved once again that's not possible.
	Before we even get there, sued in Massachusetts because when it comes to defamation, it's where the statements were heard and therefore defamed.
	So he can sue in Massachusetts even though the defendants are domiciled elsewhere.
	To be continued, but before we even get to Palin, did you see Portnoy's 10-minute...
	Yeah, I saw that at the time and that he was predicting he was going to bring suit and he wasn't going to lay down on this.
	And they just assumed he didn't want his, you know, he's also sued for invasion of privacy.
	They'll likely, I think they assumed he wouldn't want to be subject to discovery about his personal life, which could be put at issue in the proceedings.
	But I think they underestimated Poitnori.
	I mean, he proved during the whole...
	GameStop and related cases that he was unafraid to challenge and contest people with a lot of power, number one.
	Number two, he's proven by his refusal to join the woke revolution that he's not an easily intimidated individual.
	And then he understands long term that these kind of things you have to correct and can't let linger.
	Otherwise, you're like Julian Assange and you have these allegations that linger that were never proven in court.
	He understood he needs to prove that they were false in court to prevent someone else from jumping on this or people misperceiving it in the future.
	And if he could establish a second gawker, I mean, look at what the first gawker did for Peter Thiel.
	People stayed away from attacking Peter Thiel personally after that.
	So I expect the same, even though Thiel just funded it, he didn't personally bring the suit, but it was his rage at what Gawker did that facilitated his motivation to fund the suit for Hulk Hogan.
	I think you're going to see the same thing here.
	Looking at the facts of the complaint, I think Business Insider is likely to fail in that Portnoy should win the suit.
	Someone said, Viva opens his mouth and 2,000 people leave.
	If people came...
	If people want to leave when I open my mouth, enjoy the evening.
	But no, Robert, my question was, when he put out that 10-minute video, would that have been something you would have advised your client to do or to refrain from doing?
	Because he's a public figure and he needs to defend his public reputation right away.
	You can't let an allegation like this linger, period.
	Okay.
	And I would have been the other way, but I do appreciate I have less experience with this.
	I would have said, the more you say, the more they're going to try to hold against you.
	I do appreciate if you don't lie.
	There's very little to hold against you, but you misphrase something and then Business Insider says, okay, well you acknowledged having aggressive sex, therefore it's substantially true or true enough that you can't sue for defamation.
	That was my reflex at the time, but I do appreciate, I wouldn't rely on my own advice.
	I mean, the problem they made is they made specific allegations of non-consensual activity.
	That's their problem.
	And of criminal acts.
	So defending that is going to be real hard unless those, unless people, unless one, those, the people they relied upon come across, repeat those.
	They might not.
	And that they come across as credible, that'll be a real hard problem given all the evidence he's been able to document and demonstrate.
	Okay, good enough.
	You're in the Boston, you're in the First Circuit.
	Even in Boston, you know, there's better places to sue than Boston.
	I mean, he's in Boston, so that's why he sued there.
	Better than New York.
	But it's not the best place still.
	I mean, it's about, you know, the worst jurisdiction in the Southern District is the District of Columbia.
	The second worst is the Southern District of New York.
	And the third is the Northern District of California.
	We'll get into that.
	We talked Berenson suit later against Twitter.
	But the Southern District of New York clearly proved its incapability of holding the New York Times responsible, particularly if the person suing is seen as being on the political record.
	Okay, so let's say I'm not up to speed with the Sarah Palin lawsuit.
	She had her trial, as far as I understood.
	Well, what the judge did, the same judge who dismissed the case and got that dismissal overturned by the Second Circuit announced during the jury deliberations that he was going to dismiss the case entirely, no matter what the jury came back with.
	Whether that got back to the jury, you never know, but you got to wonder whether that didn't influence in some respect if they heard about it.
	I mean, during jury deliberations, he says, this case is meritless.
	I'm going to dismiss it no matter what the jury does.
	Then the jury comes back and says no liability for the New York Times, even though the facts clearly established the New York Times made false statements and made it with reckless disregard for the truth.
	There are embarrassing depositions that Project Veritas has detailed and released, embarrassing testimony that came up at trial.
	The only reason is, my view is, Manhattan, it's very tough in the Southern District of New York.
	I avoided as much as possible.
	The Heist versus Lemon case is there because another lawyer filed it.
	I inherited the case.
	I didn't initiate it there.
	I think it's very, very hard if the defendant has the right politics as defined by New York and your client has the wrong politics to get justice.
	And I was always curious why Sarah Palin filed there.
	She did.
	She established good law in terms of what the Second Circuit established.
	Getting the New York Times even to trial is very difficult.
	I mean, examples of Project Veritas.
	Project Veritas won initially on denial of the anti-slap motion, won initially on no stay for discovery.
	Then the New York Court of Appeals came in and said, no, no, we're going to stay discovery right away from there on out.
	So they got some discovery, but not a lot.
	Then again, the Project Veritas wins again against the New York Times for illicit disclosure and publication of their attorney-client privilege communications that were illicitly seized by the FBI and then illicitly provided to the New York Times.
	And what does the New York Court of Appeals do?
	They step in and stay that ruling.
	So it's just New York, the courts are so political in some places in America that it is very, very hard to get any...
	Semblance of justice.
	But the Palin case against the New York Times, I mean, why is it the New York Times can never be successfully sued in New York?
	Does it have anything to do with the courts being concerned that that's the national newspaper with local power that might be supervising them?
	Does that possibly influence them?
	I don't know.
	I just know it's at least the reputation in New York is that you cannot sue the New York Times in New York.
	And the reputation of the Southern District of New York is that it's one of the most politicized courts in America.
	I'll just read the basis of the defamation lawsuit.
	And that was equating the pinpoints on the map to targets suggesting that she incited violence.
	It was utterly absurd.
	And it was something the New York Times itself had previously printed.
	It was not true.
	And their internal communications proved that they were completely reckless in how they went about publishing it.
	And their retraction was a partial retraction later.
	Now, it does seem to me like Adam Klassfeld at Law& Crime appeared to believe that actual malice required malevolent intent or ill will.
	That's a complete mistaken standard, but maybe the jury believed that as well because maybe the judge's instructions were not clear.
	Actual malice in the libel context is about...
	What standard you used for public, what sort of evidentiary methods you used for publishing any information.
	It is not about whether you like or dislike someone.
	It's not about ill will or malice or anything else.
	It is solely, actual malice just means reckless disregard for the truth in publishing certain factual information.
	Here they clearly showed reckless, they printed false information.
	No doubt.
	Were they reckless?
	There was plenty of evidence that they were reckless.
	So it appears to me that the jury either, because of politics, didn't like Sarah Palin and was going to rule against her, period.
	You know, in Manhattan, that jury pool was something like 90-10, thereabouts, in favor of Joe Biden.
	So what's the likelihood that anybody on that jury was going to like Sarah Palin?
	It's very different.
	So it's tough enough with a jury pool.
	And then you have a hostile judge.
	Who in the middle of deliberation saying, by the way, I think this case is garbage and I'm going to dismiss it.
	Maybe the jury didn't find out about that.
	Maybe they did.
	I've never seen a judge do that.
	Judges always wait until after the jury is finished.
	Explain how that happened in what context or how the judge came out to say that.
	Basically saying, I don't think there's factual basis for this regardless.
	So would it be a directed verdict after jury verdict?
	Yeah, he was going to issue a directed verdict.
	But normally you always wait until after the jury gets back to issue the motion for directed verdict, or you shut down deliberations and do it.
	He was hopeful the jury would come back with the same ruling, and so it limits his risk on appeal.
	But normally the way you really limit your risk on appeal is you say that afterwards.
	He could have kept his mouth shut and not said anything, and no one would know how badly he was biased about the case.
	It was in the Project Veritas lawsuit with the bird dog where the judge came up with a directed verdict before the jury came down.
	I said, look, you haven't established sufficient facts to even succeed.
	Directed verdict dismissed.
	Not to suggest that there would be a directed verdict dismissal before or while the jury was deliberating.
	That's shocking.
	This is funny.
	If you want justice, go to a brothel.
	If you want to get screwed, go to court.
	Well played.
	The engaged Phew.
	I picked that up.
	So is there a chance of appeal if it's a jury dismissal, much harder for an appeal?
	It'll depend on what the jury instructions were and evidentiary rulings of trial.
	So he clearly showed his bias.
	So the question is whether the Court of Appeals will reverse him a second time.
	I don't know the full scope of the debate that took place over jury instructions and what evidence was excluded from trial.
	That part is not crystal clear.
	I know he made comments during the proceedings, but I don't know if those comments were heard by the jury.
	That could be the other issue.
	And she might not be inclined to continue to fight.
	I mean, maybe she'll appeal it, maybe not.
	She just wanted to make the point of stopping this particular lie from happening over and over again.
	And just the suit and getting past the motion to dismiss stage with the Second Circuit achieved that.
	And she made good rulings at the Second Circuit level that are good precedent in that area.
	But it's a reminder.
	Southern District of New York is not a place you can get justice if you're considered to have the wrong politics.
	And she could have sued in her own state, for example, because if it's defamation, she could have sued in her own state.
	A lot of lawyers misunderstand that.
	A lot of lawyers don't know the Calder decision and the history that in personum jurisdiction is very, very broad.
	And you can sue for defamation pretty much anywhere.
	Now, you might get a motion to transfer venue.
	But often even there, you don't.
	I don't think there was any motion to transfer venue in the Sandman-related cases, for example.
	That was a risk by filing it in federal court where they initially did, but it didn't happen.
	So, I mean, in state court, you have to move to dismiss because state court doesn't have the capacity to transfer a case from one state to another.
	Federal court does.
	Now, speaking of biased jurisdictions, another one that I think is going to...
	To prove its bias once again is the Northern District of California, where Alex Berenson has sued Twitter.
	Twitter filed its motion to dismiss this past week, and they cited multiple cases, including Bobby Kennedy's case against Facebook, and another decision where they came down where the Northern District of California does more to immunize big tech than any district in the country.
	They're very hard.
	Almost all the bad law on this comes from the Northern District of California.
	And they're going, and my guess is they're going to go to great lengths.
	And the Twitter motion to Smith cited all these bad cases that basically say, yeah, you can't sue them no matter what.
	Now, Berenson is pursuing the theory.
	That they are a common carrier, number one, and he's pursuing specific reliance theories based on Twitter executives promising him they wouldn't do what, in fact, Twitter did, which was summarily suspended.
	And to back up Berenson, Berenson is the journalist who's been very heavy on the COVID stuff, writing a lot of great material, like it or don't like it, great material, well-researched, well-documented.
	He was assured...
	I think he had some issues with Twitter.
	Was assured privately by the former CEO, Jack Dorsey, not the current one?
	No, by a different executive who's still at Twitter.
	Okay.
	Was assured, and my mistake, I'll get some of the facts wrong.
	Was assured that he would not run afoul of the Twitter rules, and then was suspended.
	And he would be given adequate notice before anything was taken.
	And both, of course, didn't happen.
	He was just summarily suspended.
	Out of the blue, without notice, for simply reporting his own views on a range of topics for which he had evidentiary basis.
	And he's a guy that's reported as much as anybody of exposing a wide range of questionable decisions made by public health authorities.
	And the reason why Barrington, as far as I know, I met him once, a liberal Democrat, as far as I know.
	Not a big Trump fan, as far as I know.
	What it is, is Berenson has background.
	He was a long-time journalist in the New York Times.
	Then he went and wrote a lot of spy novels and other novels and became successful that way.
	He jumped into this because he did have a reporting background involving Big Pharma.
	And that's why right away he was suspicious of a range of things that were coming out.
	I was like, that doesn't seem to make sense.
	He's like, that doesn't seem to make sense.
	And he knew about how compromised public health authorities are because of the pernicious role of Big Pharma over the last several decades.
	And so he just started reporting what he saw and became controversial kind of by accident, not by intention.
	It became so effective that Twitter suspended him.
	Controversial by telling the truth.
	It's an amazing thing how that happens.
	And by the way, if anybody wants to know the corruption, it's not new.
	It's not revelatory.
	It's just the insidious nature of corruption, mutatis mutandis.
	If you want to know how it happens in the medical industry, listen to the real Anthony Fauci.
	If you want to know how it happens in the law industry, talk to a lawyer.
	The corruption pattern always operates in the exact same way, and it's not different from law to medicine to whatever.
	It's about buying interests.
	It's about buying people's esteem, ego.
	It's about financing or subsidizing people's research, which is predicated on that which they are researching.
	It's grotesque.
	So Berenson, it's not just that he gets suspended, but the reason for which that they said that they suspended him, Robert?
	Yeah, I mean, well, they were unclear in communicating with him precisely what that was.
	And then they made arguably false statements about him.
	So he brought a Lanham Act claim saying they'd made false statements about him in the process.
	So you could bring a defamation claim, but in certain circumstances, you can bring a Lanham Act claim, but that requires it being a commercial transaction.
	They have a motion to dismiss.
	And mostly what they're really relying upon, in my view, is not law.
	They allege it's based on the Northern District of California's bad case law, which is, hey, we're big tech.
	And because of that, look at your brethren in the Northern District of California.
	They always immunize us, no matter what the legal theory or fact pattern is.
	So we get the First Amendment right of editorial privilege, but Section 230 gives us immunity in ways that nobody else gets.
	I have a First Amendment right to speak, but if I lie about someone, I can be sued.
	If I lie to promote a product, I can be sued.
	If I induce you to give me money or value and lie in that process, I can be sued.
	But not according to Big Tech.
	Big Tech says we have all the same First Amendment rights as mine, just none of the accountability, none of the responsibility, none of the liability.
	And it's not based on the way the statute's written, because the statute's not written that way.
	It's based on the Northern District of California finding every excuse it possibly can to immunize Big Tech, which is the big political social power center in the Northern District of California.
	And they do this all the time, and they do it repeatedly and routinely.
	And the only time they rule against big tech is when somebody else is big and powerful on the other side, like another big tech company over in a patent dispute, things like that.
	They do not rule against them in these kind of cases.
	And they've recently issued a sequence of bad rulings, really bad ruling in the Children's Health Defense, Bobby Kennedy against Facebook.
	Really bad ruling in a subsequent case where there was direct proof that the state actors were colluding with them because Berenson has brought all the theories.
	He's brought that they're acting as a state actor based on statements and comments made by the Biden administration.
	He was able to prove and demonstrate and others that they are a common carrier under traditional California law because they transmit messages for money, that the way they make the money is indirect.
	It's not the same as Western Union, where you pay whatever to get the message sent.
	But it's still commercial.
	Does anybody think Twitter's in the pro bono space?
	In the charitable space?
	They pretend to be that way in their defense to that.
	They argue that none of this is commercial, so they're exempt from it.
	But most of their arguments are, hey, judge, look at this other judge who says big tech can't be sued.
	And it's right here in the Northern District.
	And they just go, okay, argument by argument, case by case.
	That's their real argument.
	They're probably going to win.
	They're probably going to get Berenson's suit dismissed in full, despite some of the unique facts and legal theories he's brought, because the Northern District of California cannot, in my view, be impartial when it comes to big tech.
	And it proves we have to have legislative reform about Section 230 to fix this problem, because this case will be an example of how egregious it has been misused and abused in the federal courts.
	Okay, so what is the status of Berenson's lawsuit right now?
	Twitter's brought a motion to dismiss all of it.
	They'll file their reply, their opposition, and Twitter will file their reply.
	Probably be heard sometime late spring, early summer.
	But I don't anticipate that he can get justice in the Northern District of California.
	Then the question is, does he get a roll of the dice with the Ninth Circuit?
	Then the question is, does he get a chance at the Supreme Court?
	In all likelihood, the bigger case that will...
	That will flow down from this will be the Children's Health Defense Bobby Kennedy case against Facebook, which is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit, especially on the State Actor Doctrine, but they also brought a range of these other claims that are also brought in Berenson's suit.
	And it was the same kitchen sink list of excuses by the judge as to why you just can't sue Big Tech no matter what they do.
	Well, just look, Robert, we are demonetized, but I don't care about that whatsoever.
	So while we're on it...
	What's the status of the Children's Defense Fund lawsuits?
	So Children's Health Defense, we filed our brief in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	The federal district court had dismissed our initial bait-and-switch suit because said, nobody can sue the FDA.
	Just can't sue them.
	Can't sue the FDA.
	Unless you're a big drug company.
	Then you can sue them.
	But nobody else can sue them.
	And said, no standing.
	No standing.
	No standing.
	And so we established why that is bad policy and bad law in our Sixth Circuit brief.
	That will be probably determined sometime this summer in terms of when the Sixth Circuit actually hears it.
	We filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas, challenging the emergency use authorization for children.
	They were thinking about doing it all the way down to six-month-olds.
	They backed off because of some, in my view, because of backlash.
	Their excuse was, well, we obviously don't have enough data to do this.
	We didn't have enough data to do any of the others either.
	But that suit is pending.
	The U.S. Attorney's Office says that even though they're aware of the suit, even though they've been served the suit, they haven't been served the suit in exactly the way that they want.
	So we have to re-serve it, and this other protocol costs another 400 bucks, whatever.
	It's the way the government gets away with this.
	I mean, how is it the government?
	You can even serve them, and they say it's not service, but some ordinary person in Canada suddenly has their money taken away when they've never been served by admission of everybody.
	That's how the system really works.
	And I'm sure they do that, if I can be very, very cynical.
	They do that to discredit the lawyer in the eyes of their client.
	How could you have not served this properly?
	I've paid you however many hundreds of dollars an hour, and you didn't serve it properly?
	And they say, it's a total, I won't say discretionary, but arbitrary, meticulous thing.
	It has a hundred excuses why.
	Well, you did service.
	Yes, we have it.
	Yes, a service provider filed an affidavit saying you served us, but we wanted to go to door number 227, not door number 225.
	You know, it's that routine.
	So, fine.
	We don't do it.
	But ultimately, they'll bring a motion to dismiss.
	We'll litigate that.
	We'll bring a motion for preliminary injunction.
	It'll be litigated probably sometime in March.
	But that case is pending.
	And there's a couple of other defamation cases that I'm looking at concerning them as well, and I'm helping out on the Facebook case.
	So the Children's Health Defense continues to take the lead in a lot of these areas trying to make new important law while also protecting public health benefits that are currently at issue in the country.
	Let me just ask one indiscreet question, and then I'm going to get to this Super Chat.
	Children's Health Defense or Children's Defense Fund, how do they subsidize or how do they finance their lawsuits?
	So yeah, it's Children's Health Defense, all by donors.
	And that's what Facebook tried to shut down a year ago.
	And if you do that in Canada now, maybe they decide that that's a freezable account.
	You donate to Children's Defense Fund, freeze your accounts.
	Immunity.
	No oversight.
	No due process.
	Fuck it.
	Hey, we don't like it.
	You are contradicting Fauci.
	It's crazy.
	So it's all donor subsidized.
	And what's the name of that website again, Robert?
	Children's Health Defense.
	So you can just look up Children's Health Defense and you can find it, support it.
	The Defender does great updates on a constant basis.
	They always source and cite.
	The information that they put on there that's very well done.
	So you can look up the underlying information, the underlying records.
	They have draft templates you can use for college students, for school students, for employees, all posted there as well.
	A range of, if you want the medical data about what's actually in the vaccine, they've reprinted that entire thing.
	So you can see if there's something in there that maybe you're not overly comfortable with.
	So all of that is continuing.
	But speaking of...
	Let me just stop you there.
	Why is the Durham thing so backseat?
	Does that mean it's BS?
	We got a lot to talk about.
	So the order does not determine hierarchy, importance, truth, or whatever.
	And so I presume, Robert, I'm not up to speed on this.
	I presume these two are intertwined.
	David, like many others are requesting, Clinton please too.
	But please move the discussion to Rumble Freedom for the 17th.
	First of all, if you're here, give a thumbs up so that, I don't know, so that number correlates with the views.
	But I don't care about that.
	Robert, what is the dealio with Durham, Trump spying, Clinton involvement?
	I have been out of it to the point where I don't even know what question to ask, but my questions will come as you speak.
	What's the dealio?
	So two different stories broke this past week.
	One was the CIA got caught spying en masse with the collusion of big tech on everybody in America.
	Fortune had a good article about it.
	Some other people had good stories about it.
	Congress members were upset about it.
	So that was part one.
	Then part two was Durham has brought an indictment against an attorney.
	I think it's named Sussman, if I pronunciate it correctly.
	Just to say the word pronunciate to annoy a few people.
	You're getting in trouble, Robert.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And as part of that, Sussman's counsel has represented tons of other people that have apparent conflicts.
	And so Durham's team used that to educate the court as to the scope and scale of those conflicts.
	And in order to explain that, what happens is the government doesn't have the power to disqualify your counsel because there's a conflict of interest.
	They can simply apprise the court that there is a potential issue at risk.
	And then the court uses that information to do a waiver colloquy, basically to have the defendant say, okay.
	Do you understand?
	Here are the conflicts.
	Do you waive this conflict?
	Because one issue is you can't just have the defendant waive conflicts if the defendant does not know what the underlying conflict is.
	It's a subsequent potential habeas motion down the road for ineffective assistance of counsel because they had a conflicted counsel and they didn't know who their counsel was.
	In terms of what conflicts existed with that council.
	So as part of that, they detailed part of the process, and what shocked some people was some of the information put into the motion, or into the notice to the court, which included that a tech executive that was working with the...
	Oh, and further background, Sussman is being charged because he lied to the FBI, and now it turns out apparently also lied to another agency.
	You can guess that agency is probably the CIA.
	According to the indictment, about the fact he was doing this for Clintons.
	He made it seem like, according to the indictment, that he was just doing this out of the goodness of his heart.
	He'd come across this scary, frightening information involving implicating Trump with Russia in some bad way, and he was just volunteering this information.
	Ask yourself, who gets to meet with the general counsel of the FBI?
	This is a random lawyer.
	Why is the general counsel taking the meeting?
	So now my view of what Durham is up to is Durham wants to fully, in part, ventilate Spygate, but only to the degree that it implicates non-governmental actors at a high level.
	So his whole thing is going to be the Clinton campaign and these other people are the reason why this bad Spygate happened.
	It happened because they lied to the FBI.
	They lied to the CIA.
	They misused their access to the FBI and CIA.
	That's going to be his narrative because that's Durham's history if you go back and review his prior cases like this.
	He tends to shift the blame to outsiders rather than high-ranking institutional insiders.
	So I still don't bank on Durham's case going anywhere in terms of Brennan and Comey and Clapper and James Baker, any of the big names that were involved, or Peter Stroke or any of them.
	It's going to be outsiders.
	But what it is doing is detailing the degree of culpability and complicity by the Clinton campaign to coordinate Spygate, in my view, with the direct collusion of deep state operators within Durham's narrative.
	Tricking those poor little CIA guys and FBI guys.
	But as part of this, he detailed how a tech executive spied with the...
	What it is is he had access to files he shouldn't have had access to.
	The CIA and FBI and NSA apparently all gave him access to.
	That's not detailed in the motion, but it's indirectly referenced.
	And people have been thinking it was true now going on five years.
	But basically, this was like the Alpha Bank story that was always false.
	And it turns out it was sourced originally from this crew, from the Clinton campaign, laundered through their lawyers, laundered through private investigation companies that they hired, like Fusion GPS, who had ties and connections inside the highest-ranking aspects of the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA.
	My view is this was being heavily coordinated by the Obama administration.
	That's not part of where Durham is going.
	But people were startled to see, hold on a second.
	So there really was spying on Trump Tower.
	There really was spying on the president's personal home apartment.
	And there was spying on the executive office of the president after he won and after he became president.
	But Robert, what Trump said that they fact-checked is false.
	They wiretapped.
	Not that they were spying.
	They might have been spying, but they didn't wiretap.
	So it's the semantics debate of the fake fact-checkers.
	And I do just want to bring up, at the risk of getting in trouble, it was a chat that said, Sussman, who would have thunk?
	Here we go.
	That's his name.
	Yeah.
	A shady lawyer named Sussman couldn't have seen this coming.
	Now, I know what you're getting at, Psalm Dipnag.
	I know what you're getting at.
	I think, I suspect it's the Jewish card.
	That's Sussman.
	I went to school with a Sussman.
	It is an ethnic name.
	I thought just the name Suss.
	I thought Suss he was thinking.
	Maybe I have my own baggage.
	I think he is because he wouldn't have highlighted the Suss part.
	Oh, son of a bitch.
	Somebody named Suss.
	Okay, that's fine.
	So here's where my own baggage comes into play where I thought that might have been like a...
	Because when you look at Avenatti and you look at lawyers and you look at certain areas where there might be over-representation.
	In certain demographics of certain issues.
	And then you cannot...
	Look, you might blame the people for coming to conclusions, but you can certainly understand them.
	But, okay, fine.
	Sus, as in suspect.
	I didn't even see that.
	Alright, well, now I've opened my big mouth.
	I should have just shut my big freaking mouth.
	But Susman, I went to school...
	We called him Susman, by the way.
	It was never Sus, so that might explain why I didn't read it that way.
	Okay, fine.
	I don't know how this guy's name is pronounced.
	So, Robert, they're basically confirming...
	Trump was...
	I mean, we knew it.
	It had been printed in the New York Times.
	Leslie Stahl at 60 Minutes tried to pretend that they couldn't confirm anything.
	I knew about it.
	I got into a debate with Dan Abrams, who's the owner of Law& Crime, ABC News analyst, father of famous New York Times, First Amendment lawyer, sister on the federal bench in the Southern District of New York, because he printed a piece that I wrote.
	Explaining the illicit spying back in February of 2017 and what legal consequences could flow and the reasonable inferences from that.
	And he got blowback and he said, maybe I shouldn't have, that he shouldn't have printed it.
	And he told me that it was the Alpha Bank story that people should be following, not my theories.
	And of course, it turned out my theories all turned out true.
	His theories were the product now of a criminal indictment.
	That part of the story was this fake Alpha Bank story that they all knew about it.
	But what was critical was this overlap.
	It wasn't just illicit spying that took place.
	It was the integral involvement of high-ranking government officials.
	Who, according to Durham, apparently were all just duped.
	I'm not buying the duped part.
	I'm buying co-complicit part.
	And they just put certain things in the file to cover their own rear ends.
	So we'll see.
	But that's the development well vetted by Technofog.
	You can find his substack.
	He's been going through this for years.
	Also, the last refuge, the conservative treehouse, went through a big, long article explaining this.
	There's been evidence of it before, but this was the first formal federal governmental filing that confirmed all the illicit spying that took place by the Clinton campaign with the collusion of...
	And then you combine this with the revelation of the massive scale spying the CIA was engaged in over on everybody around the country.
	Illicitly with the aid of Big Tech.
	And maybe you could combine the two and figure out maybe there's a correlation there.
	Okay, and we're going to get there in one second.
	In my defense, ever since Robert did the debate with the name that shall not be named, I've been dealing with certain accusations which I took for granted as being the basis of that suss minimum.
	Not the suss.
	Okay, so there you go.
	This is why I have eaten my foot.
	It's hilarious and I will laugh about it once I stop sweating about it.
	But Robert.
	Explain to the world.
	I guess we've got to back this up to Edward Snowden, the NSA leaks.
	Now, I know that I was familiar with it, but I was not politically or legally conscious.
	Just going back to the NSA leaks, where Snowden comes out as the whistleblower, undisclosed at the beginning, and then gets identified.
	My question was, what was the NSA?
	They were collecting data on Verizon users.
	What were they collecting?
	Why were they collecting it?
	And why was it relevant before we even get into the CIA data collection issue?
	Well, systems like Echelon, like even Dan Brown discussed in a book called Digital Fortress, it was available even before Snowden went public and confirmed it all.
	But the Patriot Act, of course, immunized a bunch of stuff and authorized the gathering of a bunch of stuff.
	That was a bad idea from day one.
	But they were always going to do this.
	And what is it?
	They just used the new modern digital age to be able to get every single text you send, every single phone call you make, every single email you send, every single post you make is being recorded, collected, and aggregated by the NSA and by other agencies, probably, too.
	What it was is operations like Echelon and others were not really fully public until Ed Snowden.
	And the reason why Ed Snowden worked at a private contractor that was contracting with the NSA, and he'd already seen bad things before that the NSA and the CIA do, was unsettled by it.
	But what shocked him was he thought Obama was going to, he believed in Obama.
	That gives you an idea for how naive Ed Snowden was.
	I mean, that requires such a unique level of naivete.
	But almost all whistleblowers are this way.
	They're shocked when they discover what the world is really like after they disclose the reality.
	Never meet your heroes.
	Never meet your heroes, people.
	So when it comes to, and this is not confession to projection, I met Robert.
	He's as much of a hero in real life as I thought he would be when I met him.
	But don't meet Obama, because Obama's the one saying, yeah.
	Go ahead and do exactly what you think you're whistleblowing, sir.
	Sorry, Robert.
	Obama might have learned his ideas in Hawaii and Indonesia, but he learned his politics in Chicago.
	People can watch a TV show called The Boss with Kelsey Grammer to understand what that is like.
	Of course, he prosecuted more whistleblowers than all 44 presidents.
	43 presidents before him combined.
	And he loved surveillance.
	And he was born for surveillance and, of course, massively expanded it.
	And what was different was, aside from the expectations that he would be different that Snowden had, it was the degree of perjury that particularly Clapper kept making in front of Congress, claiming they weren't doing any of it.
	And that so shocked Snowden to realize, one, this is systemic.
	Second, this is intentional.
	Third, I can't go through the internal whistleblowing process because I'll be floating out here off the ocean, off the coast here in Hawaii, and no one will ever hear from me again.
	So that's why I went to Hong Kong, met with Glenn Greenwald, published the story, and then had to sneak out of Hong Kong, end up in Russia in order not to end up whack.
	And people have criticized Snowden.
	I don't agree with any of the criticisms.
	I just don't.
	I don't think that the government lied.
	If they hadn't lied, he would have never blown the whistle.
	So blame Clapper and blame Obama if you're going to blame anybody.
	Second, this was illicit obtaining of information.
	They're like, oh, but now you've taken away some military edge we have.
	And I was like, I could care less.
	I could care less.
	I care about our constitutional republic.
	I don't care about our military prowess.
	Our military prowess means nothing if we have no constitutional rights in the first place.
	It's not worth anything.
	It ain't worth the paper it's printed on if we're now a military state.
	So, you know, go join Trudeau if that's your mindset mentality.
	And so that's what...
	And so this has been recurrent.
	They've been trying to hide it.
	The FISA court occasionally will scold them for lying and abusing this.
	And then they'll get caught again.
	They'll go back to doing it.
	And, you know, there's been, you know, Vault 7, which was thanks to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks released.
	I mean, people said, Alex Jones is crazy.
	He's saying that you can...
	Zap a car, and they're going to put something in your car where they can kill somebody in your car without you knowing about it.
	Then, of course, the Vault 7 leaks come out, and that's exactly the technology the CIA's been working on developing.
	So it's just more confirmation.
	But what was interesting was the timing.
	Was somebody in Durham's team putting that information before the court?
	Right at the same time it was coming out public that the CIA has systematically and systemically been doing this.
	In other words, what made it possible for the Clinton people to do what they did is, in my view, that the CIA has been doing this on such broad scale that all you need is a couple of keystrokes to figure out who do we...
	CIA's already spying on them, so I just need to piggyback off the CIA's illicit spying in order for me to illicitly spy.
	And it appears that's what happened here.
	But this is my question.
	Going back to the NSA.
	Let's just say Verizon's accumulating everything.
	They're recording everything.
	They're transcribing everything.
	What are they looking for?
	And does it depend?
	Transcribe everything.
	Text messages, phone calls, video shares, whatever.
	It's all going into one system that the algorithm searches certain information, code words, and combinations for.
	Theoretically, they're looking for terror threats.
	My guess is they're going a little past that.
	And so, hypothetically, they decide the order of the day is January 6th, insurrection, or whatever.
	So then they go into that infinite database of everyone's text messages, voicemails, transcribed, whatever, just search terms and say, okay, we'll pull it up and we'll analyze it as it comes up.
	And then it's a question of, is this number talking about January 6th?
	And then how far do we delve into that?
	That's what it is.
	Correct.
	Yeah.
	In fact, it's referenced in the first season of the TV show based on the film and the book, The Condor, where someone has designed an algorithm to try to target and identify terror suspects before it occurs.
	And you can watch The Condor Show to see what that's all about.
	All three seasons.
	I think it's three seasons.
	I mean, at least two.
	Maybe there's three, but have been pretty good.
	Not bad.
	The movie was fantastic, of course, with Robert Redford back in the early 1970s.
	The book itself was good.
	You know, Operations of the Condor.
	Now, there's also a Condor reference that's specific to Latin American illicit activities, which is Operation Condor, which is totally separate, and its own illicit criminal behaviors.
	I have a new hush-hush up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Just about the Sins of Sin City and the shooting of Tupac.
	But there'll be some more about...
	I think I referenced it once, but we'll be doing some more deep dives into it.
	But it's just more revelation of there was this overlap, in my view, going on between police state kind of activities, between the Clinton campaign was deeply embedded within deep state operations.
	The only real question is, was it witting or unwitting on behalf of the government?
	But the Clintons probably couldn't have got away with the illicit spying they got away with, but for the fact that our government is doing it on such a massive scale in the first place.
	Yeah, there's nothing unwitting when it comes to the government.
	I think that's bottom line 101.
	Okay, Robert, what do we move on to now?
	January 6th, defendants, have there been any meaningful movements that you're familiar with?
	Not really, just the government got caught lying about where the location of Kamala Harris was.
	On that day, it appears that Kamala Harris was not in the capitals.
	People said that she was in other buildings.
	There's other people doing inquiries about this.
	Julie Kelly for American Greatness continues to do good inquiries.
	Darren Beatty for The Revolver continues to do a lot of interesting inquiries.
	Just to tweak a few people in the chat, the person who introduced me to Darren Beatty was actually Jack Murphy.
	The people that they've been obsessed with.
	He actually platformed him, one of the first people that did it.
	Also, Amanda Milius, who was friends with him, who we met down at the Project Veritas event, who's got a lot of great, cool documentaries coming out.
	Plot Against the President details aspects of what a lot of this illicit activity was.
	She was privy to it because of people she knew at the State Department.
	Was aware of some, and is friends with cash.
	Tell, who has agreed to do a future sidebar.
	It's just a matter of timing.
	He's got his own show on Epoch.
	I think it's Epoch Times.
	They're doing their own streaming service, and he has his own show there as well.
	And then tomorrow, we'll have a sidebar with the Duran to get into all these.
	Craziness with Canada, but are we really going to war in Russia?
	Is Russia really going to war in Ukraine and some of the other craziness around the globe?
	You recently did an episode with the Duran where you discussed this, and everyone should watch it because I'm going to go watch it before tomorrow so that I don't look quite as ignorant as I am.
	I have no knowledge of this dispute.
	Above and beyond, it comes at a time when Joe Biden's approval ratings are virtually zero.
	Canada would like to distract as well.
	Trudeau is declaring the Emergencies Act while simultaneously threatening war with Russia.
	So it's interesting.
	Politics are a beautiful thing.
	It's a unique time to be a lot.
	No doubt about that.
	Robert, what do we move on to now?
	We're almost running low on time, which is nice.
	Duran tomorrow night.
	Ukraine, Russia, the history, the backdrop to the present because everyone needs to know this because most people don't.
	We just know what we're being told.
	Let me, while you do that, Robert, see what the screenshot was of the next subject matter.
	There was, oh, the mass surveillance we did.
	Palin, affirmative action.
	Oh, affirmative action.
	Okay, go for it.
	The Supreme Court has agreed to take two major affirmative action cases, one out of Harvard, one out of the University of North Carolina.
	And the fact that the Supreme Court has taken it means they're probably going to reverse a very questionable decision that was issued back in the early 1990s, which was the idea that essentially the universities began in the 1960s, late 1960s, especially to openly and overtly discriminate.
	Now, they've done so before.
	The Ivy League notoriously discriminated against Jewish applicants from the 1920s to the 1940s to try to limit the number of Jewish students who could get in.
	They started doing it again in the late 1960s, early 1970s, discriminating in favor of favored politically protected minority members, particularly African Americans and then later Latinos.
	But they don't consider Asians to count within the diversity calculation, so they have often discriminated against Asians.
	Now, some schools have recommended, some schools have implemented, but most did not, a socioeconomic-based standard, which was, let's have our schools reflect America.
	If that really means reflect America, we need a lot more poor and working-class kids.
	I was part of an organization that started Real Diversity at Yale University when I was a sophomore there with Sam Ingersoll.
	You know, he's still a hardcore leftist, hates Trump.
	We get into some fun debates, but great guy.
	He adopts all kinds of kids and does all kinds of work.
	He lives as principals.
	But he was part of starting it, and we started it, and we caused a little ruckus.
	And then I left in protest of Yale because they were trying to buy me off rather than meaningfully address the concerns.
	But since then, Yale has maintained, certain Ivy League and some other institutions have maintained equal access for lower-income students, but they haven't fully embraced what they could do.
	And they openly and overtly discriminate.
	And the Supreme Court said diversity is such a valuable goal that as long as it's the most narrowly tailored means to meet diversity, we'll allow it.
	Now, the big universities all lied when the Supreme Court did that.
	They promised the Supreme Court, oh, it's only when there's like a little tipping factor.
	That isn't what was going on.
	And everybody knew it's what wasn't going on.
	So universities and law schools, and to quote Professor Gates, African-American studies at Harvard, if you really looked at the Ivy League and you called it a movie, it wouldn't be straight out of Brooklyn.
	It would be straight out of Brookline, the affluent suburb outside of Boston.
	That's because the primary beneficiary of affirmative action in the United States, particularly at premier and prestigious schools, has not been lower-income African-Americans or blue-collar African-Americans or even working-class African-Americans.
	It's been upper-middle-class affluent.
	African-Americans.
	So basically, it's been a way for the system and the establishment to buy off the prominent privileged members of racial minority groups to make sure their politics interests align.
	In other words, it's looking at the Titanic and thinking the problem is we don't have nice racial color around the table, not the whole class structure that's being involved in the process.
	So they got really bad at discriminating against Asians over the last several years, last several decades, really, refused.
	And the students, they get screwed because these universities still do legacy admission benefits, donor admission benefits.
	You start to figure out who's really getting screwed.
	And basically, it's upper middle class minority kids at the expense of poor and working class non-protected minority kids.
	They're not going to have a rich white kid not get in and have a poor African-American kid get in.
	That's not what's happening.
	It's a rich African-American kid at the expense of a poor Asian or poor white kid.
	And then the definitions of race.
	And then what is they got?
	They got discovery in these cases.
	And while they had hostile lower district courts, the discovery was embarrassing.
	It was, oh, yeah, look, I got a black one.
	I mean, it's just overtly racist.
	It's defining people not by their life experience, which might be shaped by their racial background.
	It's defining them solely by the color of their skin, period.
	That's it.
	It's solely racial definite.
	It's racial overt discrimination, and they detailed it both in Harvard and North Carolina's internal admissions processes by their own notes, by their own comments, by their own communications.
	Robert, I did read somewhere that Asians were then deemed to be Caucasian for the purposes of admission in terms of applying discriminatory policies or preferences to other religions.
	Am I wrong or did I read something wrong?
	It was very overt and no interest whatsoever in helping out poor working class kids regardless of their background.
	Whether they were African American or Latino or white, it didn't matter.
	And they also wanted to keep up their little test scores and their GPA averages to look good in the U.S. News World Report ranking of colleges.
	Multiple alternatives were given to them.
	Alternatives that actually would have established a higher, more diverse Racial, ethnic representation on campus, but was going to be class-based primarily at the University of North Carolina.
	They had no interest in that because down deep, they want the upper middle class privileged kids to acculturate them, to bring them into the power structure, to make sure their donations come in, to help those legacy kids.
	The way I put it at Yale, and there's some people that are still bitter at me for it, but if you ever look around in your classroom and you wonder, why is that idiot in here?
	Chances are he's a double legacy and a donor is his mommy or daddy.
	And just because it was true, it's why it agitated a good number of people.
	So these schools are not committed to real diversity, nor should racial diversity ever have been a proxy, a compelling public interest to excuse public institutions' actions, or private institutions governed by various racial discrimination laws.
	So I think the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn that prior case that was a bad precedent, that was done to try to compromise, because all these...
	Justices go to Harvard and Yale and...
	Cornell and whatever, Dartmouth and whatever, like Jake Tapper, you know, Dartmouth, you know, those kind of places, that they were going to be naturally protective of their institutions.
	And it's worked out like a disaster in our entire collegiate admissions system.
	And hopefully they come out and just say diversity is never a basis for anybody, anywhere, anyplace, not racial diversity.
	I mean, I think the idea of having a diverse life experience in the collegiate law school graduate, I like that.
	I believe that is...
	I think that can matter.
	Did it just based on the color of your skin?
	No.
	But just based on your religious beliefs?
	No.
	And so I think that these overt, open racial discrimination should end, and I think the Supreme Court, in fact, will end it this term by the fact they took this case, because these two cases, that's the issue.
	Let me just say this.
	David, since you received money from Superchats at the protests, have your finances...
	Dude, don't give anybody any ideas.
	What's wrong with you?
	Come on, man.
	I was going to make a joke about when do you expect the SWAT team?
	Not only did I receive Superchats, I donated.
	I publicly owned it.
	I don't care.
	We'll litigate.
	We'll litigate.
	Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
	Let's just say I've been doing that as well.
	Thanks for what you guys do.
	The only stream I look forward to, David and Robert, just regarding previous discussions.
	Do either of you see an end in sight or just us congregating here every week to complain about it?
	Well, we can do that.
	There's been a lot of improvement.
	I mean, OSHA vaccine mandate lost.
	Head Start vaccine mandate struck down.
	Federal employee vaccine mandate was struck down by another court this week.
	I mean, it had already been nationally enjoined.
	The federal contractor mandate stopped.
	I think the military mandate's about to fail.
	And because of the truckers...
	You saw a bunch of Canadian premiers suddenly reverse their passport.
	Doug Ford finally come out and said, maybe this whole vaccine passport thing, not such a good idea.
	By the way, was his brother the cokehead, or was he a cokehead?
	I think it was crack, and I don't judge.
	Oh, crack's even worse.
	Even worse.
	Good Lord.
	You got crack premieres up there.
	But even the Quebec premier walked back taxing the unvaccinated.
	Countries around the world are announcing.
	So this matters.
	The court of public opinion matters.
	It's not just sitting complaining about it.
	It's taking action that makes meaningful remedy, including in the court of public opinion, that ultimately shapes everything.
	Look at all the lawsuits that have been brought.
	It was the trucker convoy that finally reversed course in Canada.
	And just so everyone appreciates this.
	First of all, you two are good, Ben.
	Thanks for trying.
	I'll continue trying.
	I don't mean that facetiously.
	I don't mean to disregard that.
	Yes, Robert.
	Public shame is the most useful tool.
	Not public harassment.
	Not public doxing.
	Not public threats.
	Shame.
	Shame.
	I feel like the episode of the family.
	No, but that's what works.
	And by the way, it's not just that they withdrew the tax in Quebec.
	Just today, Robert, they withdrew or they've announced the pulling back of the vaccine mandates.
	As of March 15, every vaccine passport requirement in Quebec is done except for international travel, but that's federal, not provincial.
	And by the way, everyone's talking about this in real time.
	In real time, I follow the chat and I go check up the news.
	CTV News.
	Bring it back here.
	Whatever.
	You can't see it.
	CTV News.
	Quebec National Assembly officially rejects use of Emergencies Act.
	That's not as big news as I thought it was going to be because Quebec did not want the Emergencies Act to be a vote.
	But he really is.
	He's down to the Liberal Party, isn't he?
	And the NDP.
	It looks to me like the Quebec Party is saying no emergency.
	Don't they normally vote with the left?
	They do.
	And Quebec votes either with Liberals or the Bloc.
	And Quebec Premier, whatever, Francois Legault, Supreme Leader, said we don't want the Emergencies Act.
	So I don't know if that's the article.
	Apparently some people in the chat are saying that the Emergencies Act was rejected.
	Provincially, it won't be a shock because Legault said he didn't want it, as did six other provinces.
	But bottom line, public mockery.
	We are the jesters in the king's court and we're going to mock the king relentlessly when they act like buffoons to the point where we might become the enemies.
	But that's the price you have to pay because I'm not sitting here watching my country burn without saying anything, without mocking the tyrant that is burning our country.
	But with that, let me just do this here.
	Federal employee here, thank you for saving my career.
	Dennis Rogers, that's U.S. and not Canadian, so that might make more sense.
	Robert, thank you.
	Hold on, hold on one more.
	I'm going to get this before I lose it.
	If you only love one person with all your heart, everyone seems lovable.
	Go to elective affinities, or you love everyone, or you should.
	Thank you.
	I think you might have gotten me.
	Robert, have we missed anything for the week?
	There was a case in New York that upheld the right to bowhunt, which was good.
	Bowhunting.
	Yeah, bowhunting, which was cool to see.
	On a range of grounds.
	It was mostly the internal statutory grounds.
	It wasn't Second Amendment grounds.
	But still good to see that being enforced and applied, especially in a jurisdiction where it's not always sympathetic to such rights.
	And there might have been one or two other cases, but there's a range of other interesting cases out there that we'll get to in the coming weeks.
	We did good.
	We did good.
	Let me just think.
	So, by the way, the prediction is that the Emergencies Act is going to be struck down.
	That's mine.
	When I said that this was going to end yesterday, as of Monday, the symbolic end might have occurred yesterday with Trudeau thinking he's going to flex his big, dumb muscles and invoke the Emergencies Act, which will be his coming of down, his takedown.
	So it might be true that it ended yesterday, but it'll take some time for that to ripple through.
	Quebec?
	has re-reversed its vaccine passport.
	Ontario has as well.
	I think a few other provinces have.
	Quebec says, we don't want your Emergencies Act, as have other provinces.
	Trudeau himself is sitting there taking punches in Parliament.
	The party is getting dumped upon as they deserve to.
	And this revolution, I'll call it a revolution, the most peaceful revolution you've ever seen.
	And if they come after those who donated to the campaign, We will take that battle when it comes.
	They will not take that battle because it's just tyranny and the people are laughing.
	International laughing.
	The best meme ever, Robert, is I think it's President Xi of China getting a call from Putin saying, dude, have you seen what Trudeau's doing in Canada?
	And he's like, hold on a second.
	I'm getting another call on the other line.
	And it's Kim Jong-un calling.
	He's like, bro!
	Like, Trudeau, congratulations.
	You've shamed a country.
	And you've embarrassed yourself and destroyed the integrity and the international reputation of Canada, the land of the free, where we can see this crap happen.
	And that's what it takes.
	So that's what it takes.
	Every tyrant just goes one step too far.
	I think Trudeau did.
	Robert, tomorrow we've got...
	It's the Duran.
	All three of them?
	There's just two in the Duran.
	How are we going to do that?
	We'll figure it out.
	Yeah, we'll do it four square like we did before.
	And next Sunday, live stream.
	Next Wednesday, do we have anybody?
	Yeah, we do.
	I've got to figure out which one it is, but we have commitments for the next couple of weeks.
	And your career going forward, what can we look forward to you on a professional front next week, the week after?
	Yeah, so just a lot more vaccine mandate cases.
	There's some cases that will be in the news in the coming months, but probably the biggest one is this representing Brooke Jackson, whistleblower against Pfizer, and the clinical company that was involved with Pfizer pursuing the retaliatory firing position, but also bringing the position on behalf of taxpayers that Pfizer...
	Effectively robbed the government of billions of dollars based on failing to keep their promises and then lying about the failure to keep their promises because it implicated public confidence in the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines.
	That was not the chat I wanted to bring up.
	Oh, yeah, dude.
	Everyone has to read the real Anthony Fauci.
	It will open your mind.
	It's nothing new.
	History repeats.
	History does not repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	History rhymes.
	And from what happened 30 years ago to what happened now, mind-blowing.
	Robert, my own personal one that I'm infatuated with, Don Lemon, any news on the lawsuit?
	No, no, no news.
	There was some news that circulated about a ruling made in December that said a jury trial was appropriate, but they've moved to reconsider that, so we'll see what the judge ultimately does.
	The case is pending in the Southern District of New York.
	We'll see how it goes.
	But so far, the court's been fair, so I presume that we'll continue and we'll get our jury trial.
	Fantastic.
	And now, people, thank you both, Viva and Barnes.
	Thank you all for being a part of this journey, this enterprise, this community.
	I might be in Ottawa tomorrow.
	I might even go to Ottawa and stay overnight, or I might just go back Thursday.
	I will be back in Ottawa before the end of the week.
	Hold on.
	I think the truckers have done way more for the world's view of Canada than Trudeau, undoubtedly, without a question.
	Parliament should all bust out laughing at Trudeau instead of angrily asking hard questions he runs from.
	Thank you, you guys.
	I will rewatch.
	Thank you all.
	So, with that said, I will be back in auto before the end of the week.
	One day in the near future, we will be able to move on from the daily Canada stuff to the other stuff.
	Alec Baldwin, there is some updates.
	I'll check out the lawsuit.
	He's been sued by the woman he killed.
	Yeah, by the estate, by the father, by the son.
	Hunley and Gruber on America's Untold Stories.
	We're supposed to do something tonight, but Gruber is sick.
	He'll be fine.
	Friday, they're going to air it.
	I might.
	We'll see if I sneak a peek in there beforehand.
	And Prince Andrew decided he didn't want to face a public proceeding after the Queen said he was going to kick him out of the royal house.
	So he just wrote a big check and went home.
	There was another settlement that's a little bit unsettling.
	Remington ended up writing a apparently $73 million check.
	To the families of the Sandy Hook case, somehow blaming them for what the U.S. Supreme Court had done its job.
	They shouldn't, in my view, have been allowed to be sued for in the first place.
	But that precedent means a bunch more gun manufacturers and gun sellers are going to be sued down the road.
	Anytime any tragic trauma occurs that involves the use of guns, expect more lawsuits to come because every plaintiff's lawyer is going to be sniffing that when they see that $73 million.
	And it tells you why they're going after trying to bankrupt.
	That kind of settlement means they want to bankrupt Alex Jones and InfoWars and kick them off the air.
	So that's what, you know, is faced there.
	So that was some of the other developments during the week.
	And I'll just say, the Rumble Rants problem is that I don't get the Rumble chat on the StreamYard because it's not integrated yet.
	I just see one.
	It's one.
	German says, great show tonight.
	Been watching you live on the street, covering the protests too.
	Thanks for that.
	Thank you.
	And let me just see if I can get one more before we call it a quits for the night.
	Call it a quits.
	I'm going to go back to Ottawa.
	I think I've exhausted or at least fully worked the interviews.
	The story's out there.
	The truth is out there for anybody who wants to see it.
	I don't want to be repetitive.
	I don't want to look exploitive.
	If stuff hits the fan...
	Justin's...
	Oh, Jones.
	If the stuff hits the fan, I will be there in a heartbeat, or at least two hours away from a heartbeat, and I might just go back regardless.
	Robert, let me thank you.
	100 episodes of the live stream, setting aside the sidebars, setting aside the spontaneous appearing on Eric Hunley with Nate Brody, Rakeda, all the other channels.
	100 weekly episodes.
	That's two freaking years.
	Thank you.
	Robert, thank everyone who's been watching us for two years and supporting us and everything.
	Viva Amazing?
	No, it's Viva Barnes Amazing.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com It's amazing.
	And may we continue to do this and evolve and grow and hopefully the world regains its sanity so we can go back to having more fun than trying to save humanity from itself.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you.
	Thank you for the super chats.
	Thank you for the support.
	Clip, link, and share and whatever.
	And see you tomorrow with the Duran.

▲