Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 25, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

03:24:01

Ottawa Aftermath - Frozen Accounts, Rights Violated, Shattered Trust - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	With impunity, that he can violate international law with impunity, that he can do whatever he wants in the interests of the Russian state.
	And what we are demonstrating with this strong, united response is that is simply not true.
	That democracies can and will All right, people.
	Let me know if that worked.
	I figured that might be the way to intro so that people showing up complaining about the intro ad won't miss anything of the actual stream.
	Okay, based on the comments in the chat, it seems that that worked.
	You all saw that video.
	You all saw what that man, and I'm being generous here, had to say.
	A firm talking down to Putin.
	Justin Trudeau, the preserver of democracy, the employer of reasonable force, lecturing Putin on autocracies.
	Oh my goodness, he can't even read his lines.
	Lecturing Putin on autocracies on reasonable use of force.
	And you all thought, everyone who's been here for a little while now, you thought we were going to start with me swiveling around in the chair and you were going to see Winston's beautiful face.
	And you got that instead.
	So let's just make up for it.
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	Winston, what do you have to say about that?
	Okay, hold on.
	Get comfortable and say hi to the world.
	I am Winston, your overlord.
	Do as I say.
	Alright, you heard him.
	Here you go.
	Yeah, can you believe that?
	This is the problem, by the way.
	We'll get into everything.
	And we've got a show and we're trying a new we.
	I'm trying a new format here.
	We've got an interview coming in at 3 o 'clock.
	Tom Marazzo, who was one of the...
	I think he told me to describe him as a volunteer for the convoy who had his bank accounts frozen.
	Apparently his wife was targeted for having her credit score prejudiced by authorities.
	We'll get into all of it.
	We're going to have him come in at 3 o 'clock.
	I guess we'll go for an hour, maybe an hour and a half.
	Then we're going to have John Carpe from the JCCF, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom, come in hopefully around 4, 4.30.
	I figure, you know, working our way into the two guests, I should start it off with some actual legal stuff, and we'll go over the injunction.
	It's a short injunction, the one that enjoined the convoy from honk honking.
	Did I just commit a hate crime by saying honk honking?
	We're going to go over that short injunction, just because it contains one paragraph that's interesting.
	And I've obtained, it's a public document, the affidavit in support of the ex parte court order restraining the give, send, go monies.
	And we're going to go over that because it's outlandish.
	But before we even get into any of that, I'm going to bring up two super chats.
	Brilliant, love it, truth in your face.
	Thank you, truckers.
	Seize the day.
	That would be more like Ocean DM.
	Okay, seize the day.
	And we got Sheriff 34, you rock, Viva.
	Trudeau dropped emergency act because Putin told him there is only room for one dictator, Putin.
	Can you imagine?
	Oh, first of all, thank you very much.
	He dropped it.
	So we talked about this.
	The theory is that he dropped it because he got the impression or maybe knew that you can whip the votes in the House of Commons, but you can't whip the votes in the Senate.
	And he whipped his liberal cronies into...
	Ratifying or approving of his invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	But when it gets to the Senate, all of whom are appointed, and despite the fact that apparently 52 of the 105 were appointed by Trudeau, they are there, the Senate, as the sober thought or the sober reflection of discourse.
	And although they only have to override or vote down two laws a year on average, something like that.
	Maybe he knew that they were going to vote down his egregious overreach.
	Maybe he had already accomplished what he wanted to accomplish.
	He rescinded the declaration of the Emergencies Act.
	But that was not where I wanted to go with this.
	I want to get one more super chat, and then I'm going to give...
	Not need an all-out...
	I don't know what that means.
	PR campaign.
	I will volunteer.
	Top PR.
	What does an all-out NEG...
	What is an NEG PR campaign mean?
	I hope that's not a bad word.
	Linda, I know you, so I don't think that would be a bad word.
	What is an NEG PR campaign?
	Okay, that's it.
	Disclaimers.
	No legal advice.
	We will talk law.
	I will give no legal advice, and you should not rely on anything discoursed in our interwebs streams for legal advice.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% of the superchats, so if that outrages anyone, and I can understand that it might.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has the equivalent of Super Chats called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20%, and you might feel better supporting a free speech platform.
	It's better for the creator, yada, yada, yada.
	If anybody is going to give a Super Chat and then get miffed or upset if I don't bring it up and highlight it like this, do not give it.
	I don't want people feeling miffed, rook, shilled, or whatever.
	I appreciate all of the support.
	But it's not a right of entry into the conversation.
	I can't interrupt all the time.
	I can't get to all of them.
	And also, if they are abusive or hurtful, I do reserve the right not to bring them up.
	I don't censor speech, but I just don't have to highlight speech that I don't necessarily approve of.
	No legal advice, no election fortification advice, and no undermining the election stuff advice.
	All right.
	Viva, there is a reason they...
	I'm not sure about that, Duncan Videos.
	I think there will be hell to pay for this.
	I hope.
	I don't think they got away with it.
	It's an embarrassment what they did.
	Trudeau embarrassed all of his liberal MPs who he whipped into voting for this.
	He embarrassed the NDPs who he duped or pressured into voting for this.
	And he above all else revealed the Jagmeet Singh as being the hypocrite that the Jagmeet Singh is.
	I say that because that's his Twitter handle.
	So I don't know.
	They didn't get away with anything.
	I don't think they set a precedent except for how egregious the liberal government under Trudeau is in terms of its willy-nilly disregard for constitutional rights, constitutional values, and the Constitution itself.
	I think they knew that it was going to get struck down by the Senate.
	Maybe he had to have known internally what the polling of the Senates were at, the Senators.
	So I think that's what ultimately happened.
	And for those saying he got away with it, I'm asking the question publicly on Twitter.
	To the extent that they rescinded the act, to the extent that Trudeau rescinded the invocation of the Emergencies Act before it was ratified or rejected by both the House of Commons and the Senate, to the extent he did that, it's an open question as to whether or not the banks actually benefited legally from the immunity.
	That Trudeau promised them under the directives that he was going to use under the Emergencies Act.
	It's opaque.
	It's ambiguous.
	It's unclear as to whether or not the banks that acted on the Emergency Act declaration, despite it being ratified, under the promise of immunity for their conduct, it was never ratified.
	It was never ratified, nor was it rejected.
	It was rescinded.
	It's not clear whether or not they actually benefit from the promised immunity.
	So we'll see.
	He would have arguably triggered a non-confidence if the Senate voted him down.
	True, I think he should trigger the non-confidence right now.
	What he did undermines confidence in government, in police, in financial institutions, in a nation as a whole.
	What he did triggered as a matter of fact and policy non-confidence in Canada.
	And he should be voted out.
	I mean, at this point, that might not even be enough, but there should be political repercussions.
	By the way, people, I know it's not healthy, but it's...
	What time of the day is it?
	It's about that time I exercised, I've hydrated, and now I'm going to do the bad thing.
	Oh, yeah.
	I hear there's an occupation going on.
	I guess Ukraine is experiencing some trucks honking, according to Trudeau, at least.
	Then he gets up there on stage, on the public stage, to chastise Putin about human rights violations, about autocracies, about not being a democracy.
	Negative.
	Okay.
	Thank you, Linda.
	I was not trying to get another super chat out of you.
	Thank you very much.
	So anyway, that's where we're at now.
	What a shift it's been.
	The media, all over this convoy, all over this convoy, Nazis...
	Confederate flags, all over them.
	Misogynists, transphobes, anti-black racists, misogynists, all of it.
	Despite the fact that in my walkings of the streets, like Jules from Pulp Fiction, I was walking the earth, speaking with the people.
	I interviewed members of the trans community, members of the gay community, Haitian immigrants, black protesters, Kuwaiti immigrant protesters, indigenous protesters, pregnant women protesters.
	I interviewed all of them.
	But yeah.
	Who are you going to trust?
	The media or your own eyes?
	But what a flip it's been.
	Nothing but convoy for the last month.
	And now that it ended in an absolute political debacle, very convenient.
	I'm not saying anything is conveniently timed in terms of geopolitics.
	It's the media's attention which is conveniently timed because...
	Lord knows, if there was stuff to be politically exploited by the Trudeau-subsidized media in Canada, that's where the focus would be.
	Now that there isn't, hey, look over there.
	Mark Gold, senator for government, was pressed during debate when the protest became illegal, and he told the Senate that invocation of the Emergency Act was the trigger.
	Can share proof if needed.
	When did it become illegal?
	Oh, you know what?
	Good segue.
	When did it become illegal?
	Let's see here.
	I'm going to go get the injunction.
	For all of you, we discussed this in the last stream, allegedly there's a class action lawsuit that's been filed seeking certification from the court against the donors to the lawsuit.
	I should actually post that highlight as to why I think it's preposterous, but the woman who filed the injunction apparently is requesting a class action lawsuit certification against all the donors for the Consequences of the protest.
	But let's go to the injunction that this person got in the early stages.
	Now, first of all, I'm going to shout out Eric Hunley, who helped me figure out how to share a PDF through screen share.
	Eric Hunley, for those of you who don't know, America's Untold Stories, they're going live at 5.30 today with Eric Hunley and Mark Robert, talking about the latest in the Alec Baldwin...
	Story that keeps on storing.
	But he helped me figure this out, so thank you very much, Eric.
	We found the new convoy blockade.
	Pull all money from large banks.
	Make them feel the pain.
	I've been hearing stories, but I don't confirm what I can't confirm.
	Will it be invoked again using Ukraine this time?
	Hmm.
	Maybe.
	If the U.S. or U.K. can't find where Putin hides his money, hand it off to Trudeau.
	The tyrant will find it.
	So let's see here.
	I'm going to share the screen.
	Share.
	And now I want to go...
	Oh, I think I need to stop the share screen with this one.
	Okay.
	Now I've got to go share screen.
	Share screen.
	Go to window.
	Oh, you know what I got to do?
	I got to shrink this.
	Then I can see it.
	Good.
	Injunction.
	Let's share the injunction.
	People, let me know if you see the injunction right now.
	This might take a little bit of time to figure out just to make sure that I can see it.
	This court orders.
	Okay, so we're on the injunction.
	Let me go now so that I can toggle the document.
	Bear with me, people.
	Bear with me.
	Here we go.
	Okay, now I'm toggling it.
	So this is Ontario Court of Justice, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Provincial Court, Honorable Justice McLean.
	His name is McLean.
	Was it Ron McClain or Bruce?
	It's Bruce McClain.
	No, it's Bruce Willis who played...
	What's his name?
	McClain.
	Sean McClain?
	I forget.
	The lawsuit here.
	Let's see.
	Moving Party.
	Zeshi Lee versus Chris Barber, Benjamin Dichter, Tamara Lick, Patrick King, and a bunch of Jane Doe's because they don't know who they are.
	Okay, so here you go.
	This is how it works.
	You go on an injunction.
	It's an incomplete file.
	Everybody files whatever documents they can based on the fact that it's necessarily an incomplete file because it's an urgent injunction.
	This motion made by plaintiff for an interlocutory injunction and costs pursuant to Section 1 of the yadda yadda yadda was heard at Ottawa February 5 and 7 by video conference.
	Upon reading the records of the parties and upon hearing the oral argument made by counsel for the parties by Zoom, The court orders that an interlocutory injunction is granted pursuant to Section 101.
	Okay, that's the provision of law, I guess, under Ontario law that grants the injunction.
	This court orders that any persons having notice of this order are hereby restrained and enjoined from using air horns or train horns, other than those on a motor vehicle of a municipal fire department in the geographical location anywhere in the city of Ottawa in the vicinity of downtown being...
	Any street, you know, whatever.
	So geographically limited, temporally limited, 10 days, which would bring you to the next hearing.
	This court orders that the defendants, Barber, Dichter, and Lich, Fortwith direct that any...
	Fortwith direct that they communicate this order through their social media, ordering the organizers to communicate this order through their social media, and other channels to all persons who they know are or who have been participating in the Freedom Convoy, and I presume...
	That is so that anybody would have notice of it as per paragraph two.
	Whether or not it has to be formal notice served by a bailiff, I don't think so.
	Someone in the chat, correct me.
	If you know of an order and knowingly violate it, even if it hasn't been served on you by bailiff, I believe you can be held in contempt.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	This court orders that any police officer with the Ottawa Police, by the way, getting back to the Emergencies Act and whether or not it was necessary, whether or not...
	under the Emergencies Act.
	Just look at this order here.
	This court orders that any police officer with the Ottawa Police Service and or the appropriate police authority in the jurisdiction in question The police shall have authorization to arrest and remove any person who has knowledge of this order, knowledge of, and who the police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe is contravening or has contravened this order.
	So local police...
	Are empowered to...
	What does it say?
	What does it say?
	Arrest and remove.
	Anybody with knowledge of the order.
	So if they go to someone's phone and sees that they follow Tamara Lick and they see the post of the order and they saw that person honking their air horn or train horn, they could arrest and...
	What did it say here?
	Arrest and remove.
	The provincial police can do this.
	The provincial courts...
	Authorize the police to do this as if the police needed court authorization to enforce the law.
	Anyhow, but to avoid ambiguity.
	The court orders that the police shall retain discretion.
	Again, empowering the provincial police.
	Necessary resources to deal with this national emergency.
	As to the timing matter enforcement order, yada, yada, yada, irrelevant, irrelevant.
	This court orders to detain and release any person without arrest who the police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe it's contravening or has contravened...
	Let's read this.
	The court orders that the police shall retain discretion as to the timing and manner of enforcement of this order and specifically retain discretion as to the timing and manner of arrest and removal of any person pursuant to this order and to detain and release any person without arrest You can detain them.
	Don't arrest them if they undertake in writing not to violate the order.
	The court authorizes that any peace officer and any member of the police who arrests or arrests and removes any person pursuant to this order shall have authorization to release that person from arrest upon that person agreeing to her.
	This court order, this court orders that provided the terms of this order are complied with, the defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.
	So, that exists.
	And that...
	Predated, by a long shot, the Declaration of the Emergencies Act under Trudeau.
	As we've noted, the criteria for which are that there is a national emergency for which the provinces lack the resources to deal with.
	What else do we care about that?
	I don't think we care about that.
	So I'm going to close.
	I'm going to shut.
	Do I want to shut it down?
	Shut her down!
	Okay, did I just shut me down?
	Tell me I didn't shut me down.
	I didn't.
	All right, and I'll stop sharing now.
	I stopped sharing.
	So can you all believe that?
	That was the order.
	It basically said you can continue doing it so long as you respect the order.
	You can continue protesting and it would be lawful and peaceful.
	They stopped honking, I believe, before this court order was issued.
	And so, my goodness, when they come out and declare that it was an illegal occupation, that there was no declaration of any court.
	There was no order of any court.
	That said that this...
	Call it whatever you want.
	That said...
	You can call it illegal occupation all you want.
	There was no court order that declared that protest illegal.
	Nor was there any court order that proclaimed that it was an occupation.
	Oh, sober second thought.
	That's what it's called.
	If Senate is a sober second thought check, why are we allowing Parliament to make decisions under influence?
	Touche.
	So that order was...
	That was the injunction.
	And by my understanding, by the way...
	Although it looked like a smashing victory for the petitioner, the plaintiff, and the media spun it that way.
	Oh, they got a court order.
	Apparently, they had asked for everything under the sun in the injunction.
	It's typically what you do.
	The court cannot grant that for which you have not asked.
	Oh, the hua is now permanently ingrained in my brain.
	The court cannot grant beyond the conclusion sought.
	It's called...
	Ultra Petita.
	The court cannot adjudicate Ultra Petita.
	You don't ask for it, the court can't give it to you.
	And if the court gives it to you, despite having not asked for it, the court has exceeded its authority.
	So they asked for everything under the sun as far as that injunction went.
	And all that they got was an order on the horns.
	So the media spun it as a crippling defeat for the protest.
	My understanding is it wasn't.
	And it only targeted the horns itself, which, you know, is what it is and was what it was, but by all accounts, they had stopped honking anyhow, and by other accounts, although disputed, they had stopped honking at night regardless.
	They did not honk that way throughout the night, although who knows what went on elsewhere with people honking maybe just out of frustration.
	Okay, good.
	I'm still here.
	Good.
	Oh, I missed a chap, but here it is.
	So that was the injunction.
	And a lot of people were saying that the injunction, effectively, the injunction did not declare the protest lawful because you don't need that.
	You would need a court order to declare the protest unlawful, and the court order didn't do that.
	The court order basically said, abide by the terms of this injunction and continue doing it peacefully and lawfully, and it's a peaceful and lawful protest.
	Trudeau and the Liberals were okay with Canadian diplomats talking with the Aza Battalion in Ukraine who are linked to neo-Yazism but wouldn't talk to Canadians in Ottawa about freedom.
	And not just that, by the way.
	Just appreciate...
	I love Red Bull so much.
	If I could find a healthy alternative or a healthier alternative, I would be so happy.
	But just appreciate also that they didn't step foot out there to talk to them.
	I swear to you, I know it.
	Although it doesn't matter whether or not I know it, they wanted a January 6th.
	And they thought that the longer they waited, the more they antagonized, the more they ignored, the more they demonized.
	Or the longer that it went on, that there would be an event that they could legitimately exploit to paint this as a January 6th.
	Setting that aside, they ignore it the entire time.
	They incur costs for policing as a result of their failure or refusal to...
	They then, after three weeks of refusing to engage, refusing to negotiate, refusing to recognize, they then bring in the full-force militarized police.
	And a military by any other shirt is just as much of a military.
	They might not be wearing military garb, and they might not be the National Guard or the Reserves or whatever.
	But the RCMP coming in on cavalry with armed...
	Armed snipers on roofs, armored trucks.
	That is the military.
	So Justin Trudeau said he wasn't bringing in the military, but he brought it in nonetheless, just under a different hat.
	They then bring in all of that, incurring whatever costs that it incurred.
	Abusing and assaulting people that they were arresting, causing injury to, at the very least, two if not three people who were stampeded, stomped on by horses.
	They assaulted an Afghanistan-Canadian war veteran.
	We saw them kneeing to the torso like it was a UFC fight, except the fighter had his hands literally tied behind his back, and it was five on one.
	And then they tried to say, well, now we're going to hold the convoy responsible for all of those costs that we incurred willfully, deliberately, and I will say in utter disregard for our obligations to engage with our own citizens.
	You know what that's like?
	That's like a, I mean, it's like a lawyer basically billing his client for work that the client has not authorized.
	Yeah, I'm going to continue working and I'm going to charge you for this, even though I don't have to do this work.
	You didn't ask me to do this work, but I've got a retainer being tax dollars and I'm going to do it anyhow.
	And then I'm going to go after you if you don't pay me.
	I mean, they incurred, other than the fact that they physically abused peaceful protesters, they incurred three weeks plus of unnecessary costs at their sole discretion.
	Of their own volition.
	And then they say, look at how much this cost us.
	We have to go after the convoy, freeze their accounts.
	Everything.
	Everything.
	It's atrocious.
	I am Canadian tired.
	Yeah, no, I'm Canadian frustrated, is what I am.
	So that was the injunction.
	Not only did the injunction not declare the protest unlawful, it didn't order anything above and beyond, stop honking your horns.
	And not just stop honking your horns.
	Stop honking...
	Air horns and train horns.
	Not even all horns, but I think it probably extended to all horns.
	Since the 15th, we've listed who is live streaming at supportfreedom.net.
	This is all we do.
	Thank you for the streams.
	Thank you very much.
	I have received minimal amounts of hate, but people are just so bloody brainwashed.
	They don't even understand.
	People accusing Jewish members of parliament of standing with Yahtzees?
	They so lack self-reflection.
	Maybe if you're accusing a Jewish person of supporting Yahtzees, maybe you're wrong.
	Maybe you should just think about that for one second.
	All the black people there supporting extremism.
	All of the indigenous people there supporting white nationalism.
	All of the Jewish supporters, one of the spokesmen, Ben Dichter, Jewish guy.
	It's disgusting.
	How dare these Jewish people support neo-Yahtzeeism?
	Without even thinking, maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.
	Or you're just an absolute paid bot troll and, you know, there's no reasoning with that.
	What if we paid a negative PR ads to bypass media censors?
	Well, that's what has been going on.
	That's not even negative PR.
	Don't publish anything that's not true.
	But that's what the live streaming proved successful at doing.
	It was just not countering a narrative, not bad PR, just showing people what's going on.
	And it's what irked the mainstream legacy media in Canada so much.
	Putin uses the same...
	Parentheses, opening up a parenthesis here.
	I did a stream yesterday with George Samueli, who, critical of Israel, critical of the West, and gets accused of being a Putin...
	What's the word?
	Not a Putin stooge, but a Putin cheerleader, something along those lines.
	Because he looks at Putin and says Putin is not what the West says he is.
	He's by no means perfect.
	There is no perfect politician out there.
	He might not even be better than other politicians.
	But if you're listening to a Western media saying that he's light years worse, you might have some cognitive dissonance yourself.
	We have seen in real time how Western leaders lie through their teeth about that which we can see with our own eyes.
	We've seen Western media lie through their teeth.
	Over half a decade from the Russia hoax collusion business, which is definitively disproven now.
	They went with it for years.
	We've seen how they lied about the convoy.
	And now, despite all that, we know that they've lied.
	We know that they continue to lie.
	We then nonetheless say, well, whatever they say about Putin has to be 100% gospel.
	And if you dare question it, you're a Putin cheerleader.
	That's a little bit of cognitive dissonance that even people on the right...
	On the right, you know, people on the other side have to appreciate.
	When the media and the politicians have been lying to you consistently, you have to assume everything they say is a lie, not just that which you want to believe is a lie, and that which you don't is not a lie.
	That's not how it works.
	A broken clock is always wrong.
	You cannot rely on it for time.
	FYI, OttawaX is in Vancouver, and he'll be live tonight as well as tomorrow at the Downtown Freedom Rally.
	Good for him!
	Is he from Vancouver?
	I thought he was from Ottawa.
	Either way, good for him if he's actually...
	Going on location at the continued protest to livestream reality.
	I unfortunately, given family obligations and special needs dogs obligations, I do not have that liberty.
	Driving, you know, 400 kilometer round trip every day was difficult, but fun, but feasible.
	Leaving my wife with the three kids and the two dogs would not be...
	It would be feasible for an unhappy wife, which would make for an unhappy life.
	All right, so that was the injunction.
	Now, everybody knows of the Give, Send, Go...
	It's a controversy.
	It's nothing shy of a controversy.
	Covered it from beginning to end when they froze the GoFundMe account twice.
	And where I think GoFundMe, arguably, but maybe not arguably, in my humble opinion, hashtag not a legal opinion, not a legal accusation, they committed fraudulent behavior.
	Because you will recall that the GoFundMe...
	Initially froze the Freedom Convoy fundraiser at about $4.8 million.
	They originally froze the...
	I hope this is new for some people.
	I hope it's not too repetitive for others.
	They froze the GoFundMe at about $4.8 million because they raised a buttload of money way too fast and they had not stated how they were going to use the funds on their fundraiser.
	It's a legitimate concern.
	A law officer friend who knows cops that were on the front line in Ottawa says the nameless riot police officer in green That was my impression as well.
	I heard them speaking.
	Because what was clear is that the OPP, Ontario Provincial Police, did not want to have anything to do with it.
	The GoFundMe froze the money.
	You get to $5 million, no stated objective.
	You want to avoid another Bobbitt McClure GoFundMe fraud where the...
	The alleged homeless person allegedly gave his last $20 to the woman who allegedly ran out of gas at a bad neighborhood.
	And the whole thing was a fraud for like $400,000.
	So fine.
	They froze the accounts, although they were still able to receive funds.
	And they said, specify how you're going to use the funds.
	And then we shall release the funds and thus legitimize your account, which they did.
	And they did.
	The convoy specified how they were going to use the funds.
	And GoFundMe released the funds.
	And bear in mind also, this is, unless I'm mistaken, at the time, a federally incorporated not-for-profit.
	Meaning the government itself approved this entity as being a legitimate, government-approved, federally incorporated, not-for-profit entity.
	Different than a charity.
	A little easier to obtain than a charity.
	But nonetheless, a federally incorporated, federally recognized, duly registered, not-for-profit.
	The difference being they can't issue tax receipts, but they have to nonetheless satisfy that it meets the criteria of paper filings for a not-for-profit.
	GoFundMe unfroze the account again, and in the minds of some lawyers, some might say that was a tacit, if not explicit, validation of GoFundMe's approval of the campaign.
	They froze it.
	They said, specify your purpose before we reactivate this.
	They specified their purpose.
	They reactivated it.
	And thus, GoFundMe told every donor out there in the world, you can go ahead and donate to this.
	It's past our quality control.
	It's past our security.
	And they did.
	And then when it got to $11 million, give or take $10.1 million, at the pressure of government of Ottawa, they took credit for it.
	The police did as well.
	They froze it and then said that they were going to keep the money and donate it to a charity of their choice.
	And then when they got blasted on social media, they said, Fine, we're going to reimburse it and any leftovers, we're going to donate to a charity of the Convoy's Choice.
	And then when they got blasted for that, they just said, screw it, we're giving all your money back, and everyone got their money back.
	That's arguably fraud.
	Those that say never forget the lessons of Schmittler usually forget the lessons started in 1933.
	This is a fair point.
	I mean, I've made this point.
	When you compare something to the dictator...
	It doesn't have to be necessarily limited to Germany 1939 to 1945.
	People should pay attention to what happened 1933 to 1939, specifically starting in 1933 with the Reichstag fire.
	The appeal to that apparent false flag to invoke the Emergencies Act to suspend Parliament sounds familiar.
	Viva, your W5 interview was just like when Homer Simpson did wrong.
	You know what?
	That's why they put clocks in the background.
	If anyone ever remembers that episode when Homer Simpson and the Jelly de Milo or Jelly de Venus, when Homer Simpson pulled the jelly off a woman's butt because it was stuck to her butt and she accused him of sexual harassment, then he did an interview with Rock Bottom.
	In that episode, they've had the clock in the background so you could see the time shifting between the edits.
	That's why people do it, people.
	It's not an accident.
	So GoFundMe shuts it down.
	Give, send, go comes to the, uh, arises to the occasion and opens up their own.
	I think it's one of the fastest growing, I think they raised a million and a half in 12 hours, whatever.
	Give, send, go gets $11 million.
	And then what does the government do after having pressured GoFundMe to shut it down?
	Shut it down!
	After pressuring GoFundMe to shut it down, um, the government invokes, we talked about this before and I'll do it quickly, a section of the criminal code, which is...
	It gets an order of restraint against what they call offense-related property.
	So, you know, drugs, weapons, stolen monies, bank robbery monies, things like that.
	When you know that a felony has been...
	Not a felony, sorry, under Canadian law, it is an indictable offense.
	When you know that an indictable offense has been committed...
	Oh, I almost spilled my drink.
	Oh, okay, I should have put my phone on.
	When you have an indictable offense, you can invoke this provision and seize the offense-related property.
	Ex parte, meaning the other party's not even there.
	And cold brew coffee makes me pee too much.
	Can't do it.
	If I have coffee without cream, I will pee like a racehorse uncontrollably for hours.
	I have a hyperactive bladder.
	TMI.
	Now you all know.
	They invoke this section.
	Oh, here.
	In regards to the overthrow, I was told they posted some memorandum of understanding for the citizens to...
	This conflicts with your interview in the hotel room.
	No, it doesn't, Michael.
	You should read the memorandum of understanding.
	There was nothing in it that said specifically overthrow the government.
	There was nothing in that memorandum of understanding, and I read it, that made any allusion to either a violent or even peaceful overthrowing of the government.
	Nothing.
	Where they got that from...
	Might have been another offshoot that co-opted or associated themselves with the convoy who might have said, if you don't meet our demands, you must all resign or step down or something along those lines.
	But the Memorandum of Understanding did not make any reference to overthrowing the government unless I'm mistaken, but I'm not because I read it.
	So a matter of fact, we can disagree on fact, but one fact is true and one fact is not.
	So if I'm wrong, someone in the chat, tell me that I'm wrong.
	Show me.
	Canadians, never forget the lies, rhetoric, disinterest, and elitist attitude towards your freedom-loving brothers and sisters.
	Never forget the NDP stood by as Trudeau trampled on our charter.
	Not just that, Cedar Rose.
	Someone please clip this section right now and share it.
	Not just that.
	Jagmeet Singh's justification for why he begrudgingly had to support the tyrant Trudeau is idiotic to the point of...
	Comical, but to the point of malice.
	He said the government's response to this crisis, the government response to this protest has been terrible.
	It's been a terrible response.
	They haven't done their job.
	And so what do I have to do now?
	Grant the terrible government who didn't do their job extraordinary powers under the Emergencies Act.
	That is not someone...
	That's beyond lacking principle.
	That is someone who ultimately is basically saying...
	One day, one day may I be in power to use these tools that I am now giving to someone who I just said, admitted, in open hearings, the only reason he even needs these is because of his incompetent, inadequate, and failed response.
	Well, one thing you always do to someone who is inadequate, failed, and incompetent is give them a raise.
	Give them more power.
	So, Jagmeet Singh, your justification for trampling on the rights of citizens was idiotic and I would dare say malicious to begin with.
	But no one should ever let the NDP, the party of the people, more progressive than liberals, justifying, invoking the Emergencies Act to trample the rights of the people.
	By the way, people, your NDP supporters, ask yourself long and hard what happens the next time you want to protest for teachers' salaries, for clean air in schools, for worker rights.
	Ask yourself what happens then.
	Oh, no, but they wouldn't do that because the NDP likes those people.
	Back to give, send, go.
	Viva, you say you're not practicing law, so you've perfected law.
	Oh, no, no, there is no perfecting law.
	There's no perfecting law.
	There's only just endless practice.
	When a dog bites you, you'll never trust that dog again.
	Well, Trudeau government is that dog.
	Never trust again.
	Sylvain, that was my analogy from a little while ago.
	You can let it back into your house, but you either muzzle it, and even if you muzzle it, you never trust it again.
	And you certainly never let it back into your house if you have kids.
	That's a hard lesson I had to learn.
	Hold on.
	There it is.
	I want to bring this one up here.
	Viva, when the Ottawa police began action to end the peaceful protest, the Ottawa police Twitter account released a statement that protesters were trying to disarm officers.
	Were any disarmed police officers' charges laid?
	If not, this appears to be false.
	First of all, I was there and I saw it.
	I mean, it's false.
	Disarmed police officers?
	If they tried to say, put your guns down, turn around and go home, is that an attempt to disarm?
	As far as I understand, the charges were mischief, obstruction.
	I don't know, there might have been assault in there.
	I don't know how they charged these people, but one thing I can tell you, and David Anber pointed it out, all of the charges were under the criminal code.
	Existing law to deal with this crisis.
	Thank you very much for the super chat, by the way.
	And I'll just do this one before getting back.
	You're the Joe Rogan of Canada, but with less weed and more legalese.
	Love from Ottawa.
	Yeah, I can't.
	I don't understand how adults remain functional while doing, you know, certain things.
	The Freddy Paradox.
	I like it.
	Freddy Paradox.
	It looks like it's a professional branded avatar, so you might have a show.
	Thank you very much, Freddy.
	Okay, back to give, send, go before we get Tom Morazzo here.
	So they restrained.
	They froze the assets in the GiveSendGo account, which is complicated because GiveSendGo is not within Canadian jurisdiction.
	And so unless you take that court order over into the jurisdiction where the assets are, that court order coming out of Canada has no jurisdictional binding effect on GiveSendGo in the United States unless they were to take that court order, Go to the United States.
	I think the word is either registered, but I think I know it is homologated because it's the Canadian term.
	Go to an American court, have that judgment recognized, and then enforced against give, send, go.
	So the bottom line, they issued this order of restraint against the assets, enjoining anyone from using them, disposing of them, transferring them for the purposes of yada, yada, yada, including give, send, go, over whom they have absolutely no jurisdiction.
	But whether or not they have jurisdiction over give, send, go, the second it ever makes it at the time, the second it ever would have made it into a Canadian bank account, whoever received it would have been breaking that court order by accepting or, what's the word, doing business, disposing of the assets of that offense-related property restraint.
	They got an ex parte order to restrain those monies.
	And, you know, some people are saying it's a rubber stamp because it's built into the law.
	I'm not convinced about that, even when the law has...
	Even when the law allows for ex parte court orders, which is in the absence of the defendant.
	So they want to seize Mr. Orange's property, but they don't want Mr. Orange to be notified because if they notify him, he'll dispose of his property, sell it, throw it away, hide it, whatever.
	So they do it behind Mr. Orange's back, thus depriving of him of one of his fundamental rights.
	So, even when the law has it baked in, as far as I appreciate, it's still a relatively high standard for the court to be satisfied that the reason why you have to do the sex parte is because if you notify them, they will try to hinder the investigation.
	That's the criteria.
	So, you notify Mr. Orange, who's a drug dealer, that we're coming to seize your drugs or your gold chains or whatever, your Ferraris, your proceeds of crime.
	He'll get rid of them.
	He'll bury the gold.
	He'll burn the cash, whatever.
	He'll flush the drugs down the toilet.
	So you have to convince a judge of that.
	And then the judge says, yes, okay, fine.
	I'm satisfied.
	Here's your ex parte order.
	Go seize it with police before you notify him.
	Fine.
	Imagine doing that to give, send, go.
	Imagine saying, this is so urgent.
	This is so criminal in nature that if we notify the defendants, they will immediately dispose of the monies.
	Because that's the bottom line.
	It was just money in a bank account.
	They got the ex parte court order.
	So setting aside how stringent it is to get, I don't know and I can't answer that question.
	I think it should be stringent by the court and it's not a rubber stamp, but I might be wrong.
	They got it.
	So high threshold, low threshold, met or not met, they got it.
	But they had to file an affidavit in support of that motion for restraint.
	And while we went over the court order at the time, I never saw the affidavit until now.
	Now I'm going to lose the chat for a while.
	We're going to go over this.
	I'm going to scroll through it.
	I am not trying to draw attention to the affiant.
	It's public record, but I can't...
	I don't want anyone thinking...
	There's no dog whistles here.
	You never harass.
	You never dox.
	You never go after people personally.
	You never try to get people fired.
	You never try to get people disciplined.
	You do everything in a transparent manner, in a just manner, and in a fair manner, and not in a...
	Mob law, mob justice manner, which is...
	Mob justice is mob injustice.
	So I'm going to go over the affidavit because...
	By the way, I've only skimmed over it, but it's interesting.
	So I'm going to lose all of the chat.
	Let me just see if I can bring one up here.
	When Trudeau called the Freedom Truckers Yahtzees and white supremacists when his right-hand Krista Freeland's grandfather was a Yahtzee sympathizer in Ukraine during...
	Sympathizer might be too easy.
	It might have been an outright collaborator.
	But it's more confession through projection.
	It's just an MO of the government.
	Okay.
	I'm going to lose chat for a second.
	So forgive me.
	I will not be able to see the super chats.
	Share screen.
	I need to minimize here to see this.
	Chrome tab.
	Chrome tab.
	No, not window.
	Affidavit page one, three.
	We're just going to skim through it because it's long.
	And then I'm going to see when...
	When our interview...
	We've got 15 minutes and that should be enough.
	Share.
	Share.
	Let me see what it looks like.
	Sorry, peeps.
	One day, I might get a producer.
	But I don't think so.
	I like doing this myself and I don't want to have to blame anybody else for mistakes when they happen.
	I like to know that the mistake was all on me.
	Alright, people.
	So, this is the affidavit.
	I make this affidavit in support of an ex parte application by the Attorney General for Ontario pursuant to Section 490.8 of the Criminal Code prohibiting any person from disposing or, I think, disposing of or otherwise dealing with any interest in funds collected through online fundraising.
	Imagine they had to do this ex parte because they were going to burn $10 million in cash if you notified them and allowed them to be heard as to why maybe this was not an appropriate remedy.
	But what were the facts upon which this affidavit relied?
	To convince a court to grant the ex parte restraint order.
	The application relates to the ongoing protests in Ottawa.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Which, by the way, the court never declared illegal, even under the current injunction that was pending there.
	They raised over $10 million U.S. in support of protesters.
	They terminated.
	Okay, we got this.
	We went over this.
	So let's just see.
	So he's a police officer.
	I have been a member of the OPS since 1997.
	Fine.
	Don't care about that.
	This is my first time going over a lot of this.
	Here we go.
	Statutory requirements, restraint of offense-related property.
	Offense-related property is defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code.
	Do we care about this?
	Paragraph 14, a judge may make an order prohibiting any person from disposing of order.
	Fine.
	Yes.
	Does it need to be done ex parte?
	Maybe they should explain why this money was not necessarily going to fund mischief and maybe was just going to fund food.
	Unless...
	Unless by eating, it allows you to be mischievous.
	In which case, yeah.
	The indictable offense to which the property relates.
	Mischief, people.
	Okay?
	Mischief.
	I don't know if someone in Ontario or criminal lawyer, not Ontario, a criminal lawyer would have to tell me if this provision of law had ever, in the history of criminal law, been used to seize property or to restrain property, On the basis of an allegation of mischief.
	Because as far as I understand also, by the way, the convoy, the organization, the federally incorporated not-for-profit, I don't believe had been charged with mischief at the time.
	So this was on the suspicion, the fear, the allegation that there was mischief being committed by the entity on behalf of whom they were seizing the property.
	But I don't believe charges were ever laid at this time.
	Description of the property?
	Money.
	We saw this.
	Any and all monetary donations made through the Freedom Convoy, yada, yada, yada, fundraising campaigns hosted by Give, Send, Go, including monetary donations which have been transferred by Give, Send, Go to its third-party payment processors to the benefit of the campaign.
	All right, let's just get to the protest.
	We can skip all of this.
	Okay, there's a lot of history about it.
	It's two parts, so I may have to go to...
	Oh, by the way, remember when the major traffic impacts?
	Remember when they said that the city was besieged and it was crippled and occupied for weeks?
	This is in the affidavit, by the way.
	Two blocks.
	Wellington, the bridge, which I understand why they closed the bridge, but there are like three bridges in that neighborhood.
	Maybe four, actually.
	One, two, three, four.
	This is, by the way, the besieged area.
	One, two, two blocks, Bank Street, Kent Street, McKenzie, McKenzie and the bridge, and the other bridge.
	So when the news says that all of Ottawa was brought to its knees, crippled, this is the affidavit.
	This is not me saying it.
	This is the officer attesting to why they needed the restraint order.
	That was the extent of...
	In terms of traffic impacts, the website has published the map below showing road closures and interruptions.
	It conveys that the demonstration is occupying several streets in the downtown area around Parliament Hill and that major impacts include but are not limited to the following roadways.
	This is their evidence, people.
	This is not me contradicting media claims.
	This is their evidence.
	I don't think CBC, CTV, Global News ever even saw this.
	All right.
	Oh, here we go.
	On February 7, 2022, the judge hearing the class action lawsuit argument for an injunction to prevent the honking.
	Oh, so the class action is part of that injunction.
	Fine, that makes more sense now.
	He issued a temporary injunction finding that the continual blaring of horns was having an effect on residents such that the right for quiet was being...
	Okay, fine.
	I think we could agree on that.
	So then we got slowly.
	By the way, just talking about Emergencies Act and always thinking with that in mind.
	On February 7, Ottawa police chief officer slowly addressed the media and he highlighted a number of issues in relation to the conflict.
	Namely, there had been 20 arrests and criminal charges under existing law using provincial resources.
	500 tickets were issued under existing law using provincial resources.
	Significant reduction in the amount of protesters.
	There has been a significant reduction in the amount of protesters, and the large protest that was planned for the previous weekend was significantly smaller than the...
	Oh, oh.
	And yet, and yet, declare an emergency and bring in the military.
	A militarized police.
	Sorry, I don't want anyone taking anything I say out of context.
	All right, fine, fine, fine.
	So let's keep going.
	Basically, this goes back to the Nancy Pelosi...
	I'm going to end this.
	This goes back to the Nancy Pelosi...
	Wrap-up smear.
	This police officer is doing nothing more than reading the news.
	Reading the fake government-subsidized news to justify...
	This is his expertise.
	This guy, this affiant, is attesting to news articles and matters of fact that are publicly accessible.
	I see our guest in the back, but Tom, give five minutes and I'll end this and then we'll bring you in.
	Let's bring up part two.
	Share.
	Shame.
	I can't hear the word share.
	Share without thinking shame now.
	Share screen.
	Chrome tab.
	No, wrong one.
	Windows.
	Affidavit part two.
	Bring it up.
	Let me see that it looks good.
	I've never drunk a Red Bull so slowly.
	This is nursing a Red Bull.
	Okay.
	I can see it.
	Let me go back to my page now so I can scroll and toggle.
	Freedom Convict.
	February 4, the GoFundMe is a removal of chemical.
	We all know all this stuff.
	Just get to some of the material facts.
	Give, send, go payment processing.
	It is...
	Oh yeah, this is where you get good.
	This is where it gets good.
	So forget that these are the various entities.
	Give, send, go payment processing.
	It is unclear exactly how the funds donated through Give, Send, Go are processed where they held for distribution.
	A review of Give, Send, Go's terms of service are published on the website.
	They use a payment processor.
	Good.
	The following, good.
	We don't care about this stuff.
	Conclusion.
	My God.
	This is the affidavit that was used to justify the ex parte court order.
	Oh, restraint of property for mischief charges that had not been laid at the time the order was granted.
	Unless I'm mistaken, and if I am someone, please correct me and correct the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	I lived through this in real time.
	I do not believe that the convoy itself was formally charged with mischief.
	At the time this order was issued.
	And if I'm wrong, I will specify this in the next stream.
	Conclusion.
	I understand this application is made under subsection prohibiting any person from disposing of or otherwise dealing with any interest in the offense-related property.
	I believe that I have demonstrated reasonable grounds to believe that the actions of some protesters to date have resulted in acts of mischief given the obstruction, interruption, and interference with the public's lawful use, enjoyment, and operation of property include...
	Let that sink in for a second, by the way, people.
	They're seizing and freezing the registered not-for-profits monies on the basis that this police officer believes that some protesters, some of the actions of the protesters have resulted in acts of mischief.
	So they froze the entity's assets because allegedly some people they believe to be protesters, they believe have committed acts of mischief.
	You've turned law and constitution into tissue paper that you use to wipe a very soiled bottom.
	I believe that I have also demonstrated that the Freedom Convoy organizers have vowed to remain in Ottawa until their demands are met.
	God forbid they should stay there until their demands are met, which are, give us our constitutional rights back.
	God forbid.
	And then people fault other people for having supported this convoy.
	Who were there simply to assert the constitutional rights of all Canadians.
	How fascistic.
	How Yahtzeistic of them.
	And therefore that it is reasonable to believe that they intend to continue to commit acts of mischief as the very nature of the protest obstructs, interrupts, and interferes with the public's lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.
	Finally, I believe that I've demonstrated that the funds donated to the Freedom Convoy, yada, yada, yada, are critical to its sustained occupancy.
	Oh, really?
	Oh, really?
	I'm thinking Billy Madison now.
	Oh, really, fool?
	You think it's critical they'd been there for three weeks and they hadn't touched one cent from the convoy and you think it's critical to seize the monies that they have not even touched after having been there for weeks?
	Oh, really, fool?
	I mean, this is logic.
	Or I should rather say...
	Absence of logic.
	Let's see this.
	So if there's material facts that don't support this, I didn't have knowledge of them.
	I didn't know that it was peaceful.
	I didn't know that actually there was no vandalism.
	There was no breaking of windows.
	There was no chanting bad things.
	For the reasons set out in the paragraphs below, blah, blah, blah, give, send, go does not appear to be an impartial provider of fundraising services.
	Okay.
	Just appreciate what was alleged in this affidavit that allowed a court to grant an ex parte restraint order.
	It's clear from the organizers February 9th, 2022 interview, by the way, in which they said we're not, I don't know if it was here that they said it, but they said in an interview, we're not here to overthrow the government.
	He doesn't have knowledge of that, so forgive him.
	Published on Facebook that they are already transitioning from traditional currency fundraising to Bitcoin fundraising because Bitcoin is, quote, unconfiscatable.
	Well, we better.
	The government's going to find a solution to that problem.
	All right.
	Similarly, I believe that Give, Send, Go's support of the campaign and its disdain for the position taken by GoFundMe.
	There is a material risk that should Give, Send, Go be given notice of this application.
	It would work with Freedom Convoy 2022 to ensure that funds remain accessible to be used...
	On what does this individual base this statement?
	I mean, it's probably true, but I believe, I mean, I believe, so it's gone from now personal knowledge to personal belief.
	If they were given notice, not that, you know, if they were given notice and allowed to be heard, that they would, before the judge adjudicates, Do something to dispose of $10 million.
	Yeah.
	He believes it, though, so it's got to be true.
	And that said, I just want to make sure that I...
	Okay.
	All right.
	I don't want to get to the end.
	I don't care about this.
	I don't care who this person's name is.
	So that's it.
	That was the affidavit that warranted one of the more difficult to obtain, I think, one of the higher thresholds to meet, an ex parte application to restrain otherwise private property.
	All protests are now mischief.
	I hope people understand that.
	Teachers, doctors, nurses, union workers, auto workers, I hope you appreciate that.
	All right, with that said, Viva, if it shows that the freezing of funds was illegal, can anyone sue because citizens would have contributed if it wasn't for that?
	No, you know what?
	I have to think about that because the question is going to be...
	Will it ever have been an illegal seizure if it was authorized by the court?
	I think once the court authorizes it, ex parte, even based on incomplete or inaccurate evidence, I don't think it ever is declared illegal because it was ordered by the court.
	That's how you wipe your hands of liability.
	Now, whether or not there was not full disclosure by the petitioning party's ex parte, separate issue.
	That might be an ethical issue.
	All right, now with that said, I see Tom in the background.
	He's been very patient.
	Let me bring him in.
	Let me see if the audio is good enough.
	Tom?
	I'm hoping the audio is good.
	It's good?
	It's good.
	How goes the battle, sir?
	It's good.
	It's good.
	You know, I'm home.
	I'm trying to reintegrate back into some sort of a normal routine if I can.
	But, you know, a couple hours ago, I got a good solid briefing on everything you're going through right now from my lawyer, Keith Wilson.
	Okay, you know what?
	Before we even get there, we've got to start from the beginning before we get into the good stuff.
	And everybody watching now, tweet and share this out because this probably is the moment that maybe a lot of people are waiting for.
	Tom Morazzo, you described yourself to me as a volunteer for the convoy.
	I believe you were charged with certain crimes.
	Maybe not, but your bank accounts were frozen.
	Your wife's credit was attacked.
	But before we even get there, just so people can...
	Assess your story with, you know, whatever skepticism or whatever, however they want to assess it.
	Elevator pitches to who you are and then explain your history leading up into the events of this convoy.
	Okay, well, first and foremost, I've had a crazy amount of support online and social media.
	And one thing I want to be extremely clear about, I am simply a father protecting my kids.
	And I've said that before.
	And I'm embarrassed sometimes when the hero word gets thrown around because I'm not.
	I'm a father, I'm a parent, and I'm protecting my children.
	And so that's important to understand.
	That's where my motivation came from to be involved in this convoy.
	And, you know, the way it started, I was here where I am right now in my PJs in the kitchen, and I got a phone call from a friend of mine who was associated somehow with the...
	With the convoy.
	And they said, you know, you're a retired military guy.
	You've probably got some experience with this.
	And I said, yeah, I do.
	You know, as an Army officer in the Canadian military, I graduated from a course years ago called Army Operations Course.
	It's a pretty big step in your professional development within the Army.
	But it lended itself very well to being involved with this convoy.
	So I said, sure, I can come to Ottawa.
	I was watching it.
	I was glued to social media for two days, watching the convoy and supporting it from the comfort of my home.
	And then I had an opportunity to actually get off my ass and go to Ottawa.
	And once I got there, there was a...
	You know, there was an opportunity to really honestly be involved.
	You know, the joke is that I went there to hand out soup for the truckers, but then I found myself very quickly in the eye of a tornado.
	Let me stop you right there.
	Not for the liberal question.
	That was bad.
	Explain your military background because I think people need to appreciate...
	I don't want to say you're not a nobody.
	You have a lengthy military career.
	Explain that and just tell us what you did, actually.
	And then before even that, thank you for your service because I've never done it and I have great admiration for anyone who actually has.
	So tell the world.
	Sure.
	So to be clear, I did not deploy out of Canada in my 25 years.
	There was...
	There was family issues related to the health of one of my children.
	So I could not deploy at certain times, even though there was the opportunities.
	And then it's kind of a case of, you know, always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
	But I joined the reserves when I was 16 years old because I was in my 17th year.
	I was a member of the Lincoln and Welland Regiment in Niagara Falls and St. Catharines.
	And then when I graduated from college in 1998, I transferred into the regular force as a direct entry officer and I became a combat engineer officer.
	And then I served in Petawawa and various postings all around.
	Predominantly Ontario, but I did a couple years in New Brunswick, a year in Quebec.
	Mostly the rest was in Ontario.
	If I may, when you say like, you know, I never got the opportunity to deploy.
	Correct me if I'm wrong, but like when people are in the military, they go through the training, they put in the year.
	You actually want to get deployed.
	It's not like you're not hiding from it.
	When there's action, your desire is to be there on the front line?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you do the training, right?
	It's kind of like saying...
	I'm going to be involved in football my whole entire life.
	And then the championship game comes up.
	You want to be on the field.
	You want to be part of the team.
	You want to be there doing your job.
	You're trained to a very high level.
	You want to put that training to use.
	And to be clear, it's not always about just bringing kinetic energy to a bad guy somewhere.
	A lot of times it's going in and actually helping other people.
	I had an opportunity in 2008.
	I almost went there just to be involved with training the Afghan National Army.
	I wasn't going there in a combat role.
	I was going to go there as a trainer and as an advisor.
	You know, the military is not always about just going somewhere and doing physical harm to somebody.
	There's a lot of good that can come from it.
	And we have something called the DART Team, which when there's a natural disaster, we deploy the DART because our skills are unique to help out in natural disasters.
	So it's not always about bringing violence to somebody.
	Sometimes it's, you know, bringing peace.
	It's funny.
	Someone says, found your war.
	It's here.
	I mean, it's an interesting thing.
	Ironic, isn't it?
	Yep.
	That your war would actually be against your own government, not against your own country.
	Agreed.
	So how many years in the military?
	How did you get out of the military?
	And then what did you do after?
	I joined in 1990 as a reservist and then in 1998 joined the Reg Force and then I retired medically in 2015 from a parachute accident that I had.
	Going back to 2001, it went misdiagnosed and then it ruined my hip and my back and everything.
	So I medically retired in 2015.
	Then I went back to college for four years and I did a degree in software.
	And as soon as I finished the software degree, I immediately began teaching.
	At Georgian College in Barrie.
	As of September that just passed, I got fired because I sent out an internal email to about 250 or so faculty and the president questioning the legality of these vaccine mandates that they tried to impose two weeks before the start of school in September.
	You know, at one point, because I was always a part-time teacher working towards getting full-time employment, but the day I found out about the first lockdown, I came out of my first student meeting where Georgian was going to let me actually build a self-driving vehicle with a bunch of my students.
	So I went from kind of hero to zero two years later.
	Being fired and they never even bothered to tell my students I got fired.
	They just said he's moved on.
	I looked into a bit of your story after we spoke and just to give everyone the full view so no one thinks it's being sugarcoated.
	You send out an internal email to 250 people, which I'll say from an HR perspective, I know that that gives people headaches in corporations.
	They don't like it.
	One of the issues that they held against you was that Apparently you had included someone's address who was not a faculty member, an outsider.
	Yeah, that was a mistake completely on my part.
	I had forwarded it to an outside person just to keep it as a record because that person had a right to know that I was no longer employed.
	But what the mistake that I made was, which is really stupid on my part, is I did a, all of their email addresses were there.
	However, what I will say is, you can just go online and look up all of the emails of all of the faculty and the president of the school and everything.
	You can look all that stuff up.
	It's public information.
	So it's not like I was giving away secrets of any kind.
	You can look up the president's email.
	You were not doing it with private citizens.
	You were doing it with...
	And this is not to protect or whatever.
	I mean, there's the HR side to it.
	Then there's the giving them an excuse once they deem you to be...
	Oh, yeah.
	...unaligned.
	But these are like you go to a website, McGill.
	You'll have everyone's name at McGill.ca.
	You use that.
	It's not private.
	You're not...
	And you lump them together and don't put them in BCC.
	You're not giving someone else someone else's email address that they would not have otherwise been able to publicly access.
	Yes.
	And then I guess the issue is they said...
	You sent it to someone outside.
	You're publicizing our internal conflicts.
	You're a shit disturber.
	You're out.
	But had it been for something they liked, they might have given you a chance.
	Yeah, and they have their own policy, CS001.
	It's the policy which allows me to actually have free speech.
	But instead of actually viewing it as free speech, they said that I was trying to incite a class action lawsuit.
	Because in my email, I said, are you aware that there are several class action lawsuits across Ontario against universities and colleges?
	That's all I said.
	I didn't actually say, hey, join this one.
	I'm part of it, because I wasn't, and I still am not part of a class action lawsuit against any of the colleges.
	Well, and also, it's a fundamental right.
	To petition?
	For everyone out there who understands, you can threaten a civil lawsuit and there's nothing wrong with that.
	You can't threaten criminal or disciplinary charges in order to get a settlement.
	That's a separate issue.
	But for them to say, you threatened a lawsuit, yeah.
	That's what a letter of demand is, by the way.
	I've been wrongfully terminated.
	Give me X or I'll sue.
	But anyways, it looks like, I mean, it's probably obvious.
	You become a shit disturber.
	You're not politically aligned.
	You're not telling the narrative.
	You gave them, call it a good excuse, but you gave them an excuse.
	And what do they do?
	So you've been working there part-time for two years and they just say, gone.
	Did they give a reason for your termination?
	Yeah, so I was working, let's say, full-time hours with part-time pay.
	And I was also leading two projects with students.
	And they said they terminated me with cause.
	One, well, because I violated their spam policy when I sent out my email to all of them.
	That was a spam policy apparently I violated.
	And also because I tried to incite a class action lawsuit.
	That was one of the reasons.
	And then I sent the external email.
	I was just trying to do that for record keeping because as I got fired, I was completely locked out of every computer system at Georgian College.
	That's normal practice when you're canning someone.
	The employer typically does that before letting the individual know that they've been fired.
	Working HR and working employment law is a very difficult thing.
	What year is this?
	It's September.
	They just passed 2021.
	2021, so you're out.
	What do you do after that?
	First of all, what are you doing for a living?
	And what were you doing to make a living?
	What did you do leading up to the protest?
	So my spouse retired from the Air Force last March, so a year ago.
	And then basically, I continued to teach.
	She's doing a postgraduate degree.
	And really for funding, I haven't had an income since September.
	I had savings.
	So I burned through my savings until the 1st of January.
	And then after that, I cashed out one of my RSPs with the Bank of Montreal.
	And so that's going to be my income for the year.
	I'm not currently looking for employment only because something came up.
	Let's just put it that way.
	So I'm going to focus while I can pay my bills.
	I still have a small army pension.
	Nothing that I could survive on by any means.
	But between my pension and the RSP that I cashed, I could get through a full year.
	I was going to build a house on the land that we purchased, but I'm kind of busy right now.
	And I'll ask you, I mean, I'll pin these things afterwards, no problem.
	Do you have a PayPal by any chance?
	I might.
	I don't know.
	I know my lawyer, Keith Wilson, we were in discussion today because as you went through with this lawsuit that I've now been attached to, there's going to be a substantial legal defense.
	I have every confidence in my lawyer, Keith and Eva, or my lawyers, because they were there on the front lines with us.
	Every single day.
	So I believe in the legal team I have, but there are still going to be costs associated with it, unfortunately.
	So I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
	Well, I'm going to bring up this super chat, and I'm going to ask the question that's in the chat.
	It's not my question.
	Tom, I'm in Midhurst, and any assistance I can give, Legal Secretary of Trade was non-profit, named an injunction.
	I thought the question was something different.
	Let me just ask the other question.
	First of all, Tara, thank you very much.
	Do you have an email?
	That you would feel comfortable receiving if anybody...
	Two things.
	Are your lawyers going to set up a crowdfunding to raise legal fees?
	Yeah.
	Would you mind giving an email where people who want to support you in any way, just through emails of support, could reach you?
	I just had that conversation about two hours ago with Keith.
	They're going to handle all that.
	They're going to kind of set up that crowdfunding thing.
	And again, I want to be very, very clear about this, that Keith is a very experienced lawyer.
	He's got a really high billing rate, but he is the king of all pro bono kind of guys.
	But he does have overhead, right?
	His heart is in it to fight this tyranny.
	It's not because he's trying to make money off it.
	And that's the other reason I'm sticking with Keith Wilson, because he was literally there by my side the entire time.
	I just don't have the information set up today.
	We just discussed it about two hours ago.
	There could also be, I'm just thinking out loud, there could be legal issues or legal exposure if they've frozen your account on certain bases and then you raise funds.
	I mean, the amazing thing, people don't appreciate this either.
	The freezing of the bank accounts of anybody who had anything to do with the protest and the offense-related property restraints on the GoFundMe.
	I mean, is that basically saying that these individuals who are accused now of crime can't fundraise?
	Are people people in their own legal defense?
	Anyone who donates to that, are you contributing to mischief because you're contributing to the defense of accusations of mischief?
	We'll work it out.
	I'll talk with your lawyer and see if there's anything I can publicize after this so that people who want to help you can do it legally without creating exposure for you or for them.
	And I knew that that would be a question and people would be like, crap, if I help this guy, how many degrees of separation do we have in order to actually finally get a proper due process for people even being accused?
	In this country, like we have gone off our rocker in this country in the legal system.
	So I would say to people, you know, if that's the situation, if I'm required to do crowdfunding, don't be afraid.
	And, you know, we cannot live in a society where helping somebody defend themselves is now considered wrong think.
	No, it's been that way in the States for almost a little while with Rittenhouse.
	If you donated to his defense, people got fired.
	It's economic warfare, but we'll figure it out because people want to help and people want to do it without, forget their own exposure, without compromising you.
	Maybe they're going to say, look at him.
	He's continued to raise funds despite this court order.
	So now we've gotten ahead of ourselves.
	So September 2021, fired.
	No work, no income.
	What leads up to your volunteering or getting involved with the convoy itself?
	Well, just through a series of coincidence, fate.
	I don't know what you want to call it, but we sold our house and we moved somewhere else that I'm not going to mention just because of all the hate mail and stuff like that that I get.
	So I need to protect my family's privacy and security.
	The plan was really just to take the proceeds from when we sold our home to building a house for the year.
	But all these groups that I got connected with, you know, we started looking at, okay, maybe it's time we think about some sort of a parallel society where in between different people that do farming and do, like, I'm very much into aquaponics and microgreens.
	You know, I've got a complete setup, but because I just moved, it's not assembled right now.
	But aquaponics, microgreens, and all that stuff, and looking at different means to supply ourselves or support ourselves, because my perspective is you're only vulnerable if the government of Canada has something to take away from you.
	And so I was trying to reduce my dependence on...
	You know, institutions.
	You know, my favorite YouTube channel right now, other than yours, is my self-reliance with a guy named Sean James.
	Love it, love it, love it.
	And, you know, we looked for over a year for new property because it's kind of the life that I wanted to live.
	And, you know, it's perfect for what I thought, but I knew deep down that there was going to come a time That you can't hide from the government of Canada.
	They're going to come.
	And hopefully you're not standing alone.
	And what I found was that the truck convoy gave me a legitimate opportunity to get off my lazy ass and get involved and have a voice.
	And so, you know, for me, I guess I'm going to have to put my building my home on hold for a short time because now I have to mount a legal defense.
	You know, and I said it at one of the press conferences that we're still going to fight for the freedoms of even the people that hate us.
	You know, because if we want to honestly live in a fair and a just society, we have to accept that people don't like our ideas.
	And that's what our democracy is supposed to be founded on.
	But we're seeing that being...
	Viciously attacked and violated because you don't think the same way as one or two people in the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP.
	You gave me an idea there and I forgot what it was about.
	People that hate us?
	I get the occasional message because I was quite vocal about my donation before the docs.
	People were like, how dare you support this convoy that supports...
	Yahtzee's been an extremist.
	I was like, you send me one still shot of one dude on the outskirts of that, and I send you 40 hours of livestream, and you think that your one shot trumps my 40 hours.
	And I said, by the way, you're free to say what you want.
	I appreciate that.
	But the thing is, it's not mutual.
	It's not bilateral.
	I support his right to say nasty things to me, and he does not support my right to donate to a not-for-profit of my choice.
	So that's the problem, is that one wants to use the rights to suppress the other, and the other wants to protect the rights of the one who wants to use them to suppress the other.
	So setting all that aside, so you're in a frame of mind right now where you're already trying to look for a different type of lifestyle, given what happened in September.
	How do you find out about the convoy occurring itself?
	Is it the day they arrive, or is it in the days leading up to it?
	No, so, you know, there was a ton of buzz about this convoy.
	And I had every intention of just going and standing on a bridge and waving and everything like that.
	That was really my, the involvement that I thought I was going to have.
	And a really good friend of mine who lives near me, he also lives near the 400, or sorry, the 401.
	So I said, hey, do you want to meet me at the bridge?
	We'll wave the truckers as they're going by in the convoy.
	And he said, actually, I have a whole bunch of them coming to my property to sleep for the night, park their trucks, and we've got a whole ton of food and coffee and everything laid on for the truckers.
	But there was an accident on the highway, an unrelated truck jackknifed on the highway, and the truckers got rerouted.
	So I was out there at almost 2 o 'clock in the morning on a traffic circle trying to get the truckers to reroute to my friend's house.
	And they couldn't make it to his house because of the accident.
	And so then the next day, I was in my kitchen.
	You know, I got brought into a phone call from the same people that were helping out try to park the trucks for the night.
	And they said, hey, can you get involved?
	Like, can you help us out?
	And within three hours, I was actually in Ottawa that quickly.
	And this is on the Friday?
	This is the Sunday.
	So they rolled, basically, they started rolling on around, I think, the middle of the week.
	By the time they got to my area, it was probably about Friday or Saturday.
	And then by Sunday...
	I was in Ottawa, yeah.
	And I think I saw you there about a day or two after.
	Yeah, I was there on the Monday.
	I was there on the Monday because I was hearing what was going on in the news.
	I saw that same still picture of the one guy with the Yahtzee flag who happened to have a professional cameraman right next to him.
	I said, if this is what it is...
	I need to see it because I'm getting two diametrically opposed versions of reality.
	And by the way, one was right, the other one was fiction.
	Maybe that was the same guy at the Calgary Stampede when Justin Trudeau signed the Nazi flag because he couldn't tell the difference between the Canadian maple leaf and a Nazi flag.
	I don't know.
	Call me crazy?
	The other thing is, I'm just going to tell Fred.
	Fred, I'm going to speak.
	I'll take care of things with Tom after.
	I don't publicize the things that I do sometimes just because I don't want to look like that guy.
	Virtue signaling all over the place.
	But yeah.
	No, the thing is, now even looking at that image, I'm not clear if the individual with the Yahtzee flag had it there because he was trying to say that the government is acting like Yahtzees or he was just a saboteur or whatever.
	I don't even understand it.
	But bottom line, in fact and in reality, there were exactly two signs and only two signs of the Confederate flag and the Yahtzee flag.
	And they were exactly on the first day and exactly never recurred.
	The F-2 to fly everywhere.
	If that bothers you, that extremism, fine.
	Yes, I was there Monday.
	So you're there Sunday.
	Yes.
	You're not formally affiliated with this convoy, with this not-for-profit.
	What are you doing to help as of that Sunday?
	So I get there with the person that asked me to come.
	And I get brought into this conference room.
	There's a whole bunch of truckers and two Ottawa police sergeants.
	They're like, turn off your phone.
	I'm like, okay.
	They said, what's your name?
	The two officers were writing down my name.
	I gave my name in full.
	Somebody joked and went, wow, you gave them your full name.
	Because that's what I do.
	I put my full name on everything that I stand behind.
	So, you know, I was introduced.
	It was like, okay, here's Tom.
	He was an Army guy.
	He worked on the G8G20 Summit in 2010.
	And he's going to help sort out some of this.
	And I was like, man, I thought I was just really coming here to hand out some soup.
	That's the joke anyway.
	But in reality, I was just, my intention was to go for a couple of days, help out with some logistical organization.
	Get things up and running, get organized, and then move on.
	But it quickly turned into a need for me to stay 22 days in total.
	You stayed there.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	You consulted with your attorney.
	I'm going to ask you questions.
	I'm always reluctant because I don't want you to say something that's going to prejudice.
	You're standing in court.
	Where were you sleeping?
	Were you sleeping in an Airbnb or in the backs of one of the trucks?
	No, I was sleeping in a hotel.
	And I was very acutely aware that I wasn't in a truck.
	You know, it may have been a criticism.
	I don't know.
	But I'll tell you, there's a saying in the military, and all your military viewers will know this, that leaders eat last.
	I did feel bad that I was in a hotel as opposed to being a little bit less comfortable.
	However, I wouldn't have been able to properly serve the convoy had I been living out of a truck.
	I had a lot of late hours, a lot of early mornings.
	It just wouldn't have been practical.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	You don't have to apologize.
	I think there's a certain...
	Not insincerity, but when you go and do what you don't have to do just to say that you did what you didn't have to do to be legit, I think that's almost as somewhat insincere.
	You don't have to go there and sleep on the street in order to protest properly.
	And if you have the ability, you have nothing to apologize for or even explain away.
	So you're there for 22 days.
	And what does a day look like, actually?
	What do you do when you wake up in the morning and up until you go to bed?
	Well, the nights weren't very restful, I can say that, because my phone wouldn't stop buzzing, so I'd have to turn off my phone, but then the fact that my phone wasn't buzzing, I wouldn't be able to sleep restful, I'd have to keep checking it.
	But then you're up early, you're trying to get the status, what's going on, did anything happen through the night, and then...
	Constantly dealing with the Ottawa police was a really big challenge because, you know, I completed an MBA online years ago.
	And one of the things I chose to take my electives was in negotiating and influence.
	And then I've done other seminars and training and stuff on negotiating.
	And one of my favorite things in the world is actually buying cars.
	I love buying cars.
	I love that process of haggling with the dealers.
	I quickly realized that the two police, as nice as they were, were exceptionally bad at negotiating.
	They were terrible.
	They wouldn't even stop to listen to one another.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I thought the guys were really good guys.
	I'd love to take them for a beer.
	That's never going to happen.
	But they were just terrible at negotiating.
	And I realized very quickly that they felt that I was just some street corner little guy pushing drugs.
	That's kind of how they viewed me, like I was some sort of nobody.
	But I quickly realized they weren't playing at our level.
	They just couldn't play at our level with the negotiating in the discussions.
	What I realized right away was that they were just constantly coming into our conference area or our hotel just to throw us off our activity, right?
	And for a while it worked, but then after a while I said, okay, when they come here, don't even let anyone know that I'm in the building.
	I don't want to talk to them.
	They're a waste of my time.
	So, you know, really there was a lot of activity.
	There was a lot of planning.
	There was a lot of...
	There was a lot of panic sometimes because after they raided us at Coventry and the cops came in as hard and heavy and as aggressive as they did, it did create a lot of panic.
	We were always looking over our shoulders, basically, like, when are they going to come after us?
	So hold on, actually, back it up a little bit.
	And then Coventry, I'm not too familiar with what happened, but you get there Sunday.
	Yeah.
	You become, I say, you're not, you're volunteering, you're not formally affiliated with the convoy, but you're involved in discussions, negotiations with Ottawa police.
	Yes.
	And the purpose of those discussions is what, to defuse the protest?
	And who are those discussions between, is it just Ottawa police and members of the convoy?
	Are there government officials?
	So, you probably have seen my repeated request for the Government of Canada to come and talk to us.
	And to this day, they still never have.
	But the convoy had a board of directors.
	They had to create that official board of directors because of all the money issue.
	And so, they abided by that stuff.
	So, there was this...
	A group of truckers, it was all made up of truckers that are the board of governors or board of directors, whatever you want, who made the ultimate decision making.
	But in my capacity, what I was doing, I would sort of devise some strategies and I would run it by them and we'd go over it and I would talk to lawyers.
	I would talk to many, many, many people and try to come up with some really good strategies.
	But the big turning point for us, Honestly, when we watched the police services board meeting between the president of the police services board and the first chief of Ottawa police, when we saw the words coming out of Diane Dean's mouth, we realized...
	Right there and then, we really need to do something dramatic to change the relationship between us and the Ottawa police.
	Who's Diane Dean, for those who don't know?
	Well, she got kicked off the police services board about a week and a half ago, and another member because of her rhetoric.
	She's actually trying to run for the Ottawa mayor job, but she was the president of the police services board in Ottawa.
	I don't mind saying, I think she needs a psych eval.
	The stuff that was coming out of her mouth was disturbing.
	Give me one example just for illustration, so that I understand this.
	The convoy starts showing up Friday, maybe a little earlier.
	By Sunday, it's on Parliament Hill.
	There's formal negotiations where the police say, we need to meet with who's ever in charge, and they start meeting and discussing, and the cops basically, if I'm understanding it correctly, hard line, get out of here, and when are you going to leave?
	It was very mixed, because by the time I arrived in Ottawa, but I had talked to all the truckers after, a lot of them, and they said, you know what, we had a deal to move into certain locations, and then we start moving, and they reneged on the deal that we made.
	You know, this thing was advertised for quite some time, and it's amazing to me that the Ottawa Police and the Parliamentary Police allowed all those trucks to get right up onto Parliament's foot, standing on their toes, basically, right there on Wellington, right in front of Parliament.
	So you knew this was coming for quite some time, and yet you didn't prepare for it?
	So you allowed us.
	But the thing that really upset the truckers is every time after, let's say the first week, they would negotiate with the police officer right there, right near their truck to move a truck and to do stuff.
	And they were trying to act in good faith.
	And then the cops would move in, occupy their space and say, no, you go somewhere else.
	I'm here now.
	Tom, it's interesting.
	You say the cops would let them show up with no plan, no nothing.
	In hindsight now.
	Quoting Kierkegaard again, in hindsight, it's almost like maybe they wanted something, in fact, to happen so that Justin Trudeau would have an excuse earlier than after three weeks of nothing happening to invoke the Emergencies Act.
	Did you get that impression, like it was a setup, let's get everyone in here and hope the shit hits the fan, or are they bumbling buffoons?
	Yeah, well, the more I reflect on it, I think it's a combination of both, because the Ottawa Police and the Parliamentary Police, after I don't know how many years those services have been in place, Still couldn't figure out their own jurisdictions between, you know, what was Wellington?
	Does it belong to the parliamentary police or does it belong to the Ottawa police?
	They still couldn't answer the question of the jurisdiction.
	So I watched Senator Batters, her speech the other day, and she said, you know, when there was an active shooter in parliament years ago, they refused to close down.
	They refused.
	And she said she was locked in a room for 10 hours, but they still refused to give in to an active shooter running around Parliament.
	But when we showed up, oh, they shut down.
	It was too dangerous because we were a democracy under siege, according to Diane Deans.
	The behavior is just...
	Diane Dean is the one spouting the vitriolic crap.
	Okay, fine.
	Now I got a name at least, a name to the words.
	To the rhetoric, yeah.
	So this is in the early days.
	You've come to overthrow the government, shut it down.
	This is an insurrection.
	This is January 6th, Virgin Canada.
	And so when you meet with these police officers, first of all, people in the chat are like, why would you turn off your phones?
	They ask you to turn off your phones.
	While you're meeting with them?
	Every time I met with the police, they told me to turn off my phone.
	And then they would turn off theirs.
	They would not turn off theirs?
	They did.
	They turned off theirs too.
	I don't trust them.
	I didn't care either way because I always said...
	At one point, I don't know if some officer said to me...
	I joked.
	I said, well, you can turn it on or off.
	You're listening to me anyway.
	He's like, well, yeah, we are.
	So I just assumed that they were always listening to me.
	In monitoring my phone anyway.
	And I was like, well, I got nothing to hide.
	I mean, I'm literally telling you to your face what I'm going to do.
	And so you sit down with them and what was it that you told them?
	We're here until...
	What were the demands that were relayed?
	I say demands.
	What were the demands that were imparted or relayed to the police officers on behalf of the convoy?
	And then...
	Answer that one, and then I have another question.
	Yeah.
	So they were constantly like, well, how long do you guys plan on staying?
	I'm like, until the federal mandates have been lifted.
	That's it.
	It's that simple.
	Like, get the liberals to walk back the federal mandates, and we'll go home.
	And they're like, well, what are you talking?
	Like, in a couple weeks, you think you'll be here?
	I'm like, well, like, right now, it was still February.
	Well, I think it's still February right now.
	It was still January.
	And I said, well, ask me in the spring.
	And he was like, he just shook his head like, what do you mean in the spring?
	I said, well, in the spring, ask me if I plan on being here until the summertime.
	I said, we're good to go.
	We'll be here for as long as it takes.
	Now, this is the question in terms of you're speaking, you know, negotiating for and on behalf of the convoy.
	But what's the structure of the convoy in terms of who is the mouthpiece?
	Who is representing?
	This eclectic group of truckers that have now convened on Parliament Hill.
	Is it Pat King?
	Is it Tamara Lich?
	Is it Ben Dictor?
	Who speaks for the convoy and who are the entities that are co-opting this or jumping in and jumping on?
	Truthfully, everybody who owned a truck, everybody that was volunteering, everybody that supported the convoy was speaking for the convoy.
	I know that there was a message that went out and said that, you know, there are four people that are the official spokespeople of the convoy and stuff.
	But that went out, but nobody ever really abided by it, to be honest.
	I was never constrained by the convoy to speak.
	There were many, many times where on the social media side, we said, look, tell the truckers when you're sitting inside, tell your story.
	Why are you there?
	You know, we get all these care packages from across the country with letters in them.
	And we said, share those stories.
	And yeah, I need to flash up decentralized leadership.
	That's what it was.
	But then this is the question, when it's decentralized leadership, and so there's no, call it uniform message, although there was that Memorandum of Understanding, which was intended to be distinguished from, I think, another statement made by another entity, which was a little more direct, but still did not call for overthrowing the government.
	The Memorandum of Understanding, you know what I'm talking about?
	Yes.
	And so who issued that, and on behalf of whom was that memorandum drafted?
	So I believe that's Canada Unity that had been active long before this convoy was ever even a thought in anybody's head.
	They had been working on that memorandum for quite some time.
	Although they were participating in supporting the Freedom Convoy 2022, they also had their own organization, and there were many other organizations throughout the convoy.
	But there was a group of us in there and said, look, we're all about Team Canada.
	So there's all these other groups that are trying to, they have their own agendas, and they're made public, and there's no intention to overthrow the government.
	There are synergies there.
	And so everybody was trying to take advantage of the opportunity to get their message out, right?
	And I think that that's a fair opportunity because they were there on the ground, spending their money and their time supporting the convoy, but also wanted to get their part of the message out for their organizations as well.
	And I think that's fair.
	But for me, I was all about end the mandates.
	My mission was end the mandate, support the Freedom Convoy, and I'm not here on behalf of anyone else but Team Canada.
	I'm going to ask you the upfront question.
	Did anyone in the convoy that you were familiar with ever make any statement?
	Because the news was saying their stated objective is to overthrow the government.
	Had anyone ever said that?
	If a person had said that in any of our meetings, they would have been kicked out of the meeting.
	And asked to probably pack up their stuff and leave.
	Now, the media took some of my words out of context.
	Go figure.
	Like, I'm talking the Canadian propaganda machine, aka CBC.
	They took my words out of context on a few different occasions because I said, listen, I'll sit down with the official elected government of Canada.
	Or some form of a coalition that the other parties want to put together that can actually get this done.
	They took that as, oh, he's calling for a forced election or a coalition to bring down the government of Canada.
	I'm like, that's not what I said.
	You know that's not what I said.
	But you're twisting my words.
	Another example, and I get in trouble at home all the time when I bring this up, is, you know, I said that at one point, Justin Trudeau...
	Has a.22 caliber mind in a.357 Magnum world.
	And wow, did the media attack me for being a gun nut.
	It's an insult.
	It's like those analogies to prior atrocities.
	They're dangerous because they will be weaponized and deliberately misunderstood or deliberately turned into dog whistles for obvious reasons.
	Okay, so fine.
	Setting that aside, if I were your attorney, I would have strongly advised you against that analogy.
	Yeah.
	Well, I guess the question is, if it's decentralized, and there's no four people who speak for the convoy, to quell everyone's concerns out there, or to at least respond to the questions.
	It raised $11 million.
	Who was in charge of that, dispersing it, ensuring that it didn't get misappropriated, didn't go to...
	You know, for people's salaries to...
	Who was in charge of dealing with that money once it was raised?
	So there were...
	And I have to be careful here because...
	Not for legal reasons I have to be careful, but because I'm literally just not inside the inner circle in terms of the money piece.
	That was all...
	Before my arrival at the convoy, the GoFundMe was done.
	I personally contributed to the GoFundMe about a week before I was even involved in the convoy as just an average citizen.
	I'm still an average citizen, but just as a guy who wanted to help out.
	That's all it was.
	I gave $100 to GoFundMe.
	Plus a $5 tip because I never used the site before and I fell for it.
	I know, I fell for it.
	I fell for it.
	But anyway, then everything you spoke about, about the ex parte and what happened there, that sort of disgusting activity by the Ontario government.
	So I was given a full refund of my money plus the tip.
	Then we set up the Give, Send, Go.
	Because we were talking to the owner of Give, Send, Go, and he was trying to help out as best as he could.
	It's not that I didn't want to contribute.
	It's just I was too busy to get in there and contribute to that.
	So that's really the limit of my understanding of all the money piece.
	But I do know this.
	Because of the money that were donated...
	The original sort of leaders of the convoy and the accountants said, look, we need to create this as a non-profit organization and elect a board of governors that come from the truckers and the original organizers.
	And from there, the money will be taken care of.
	But as you know, that money's all been, it's untouchable.
	Right now, because of the emergency act, all that stuff has been frozen.
	And what is it?
	Because it could be considered proceeds of crime.
	Bouncy castles and fuel for trucks is a crime now in this country, as well as making bad jokes about Justin Trudeau's intellect.
	It's so preposterous.
	Just the double standard.
	The double standard, whereas...
	Someone in the chat, correct me, but I believe the Canadian government donated to the BLM cause at one point.
	And it's not to say they're characterized...
	The not-for-profit entity itself might not publicly support violence.
	It might not be characterized by that, but it certainly occurred at some of their events.
	And so to say that this is the new standard, they might...
	And the criminality, by the way, was mischief.
	Not arson, not looting, mischief.
	So, felony.
	So, you know, in terms of the money, as everybody knows, my name appeared, and I saw the list today there.
	I think there's a 42 people, an RCMP list.
	My name appeared on that list.
	And the crime that I committed was stepping in front of a camera.
	That's how I got dragged into this.
	I didn't contribute financially or anything, and that's how I became known to the authorities, was because I stepped in front of a camera to sort of give a briefing of what happened at Coventry, and then after that, I found myself in front of the camera a few more times.
	So that's the crime that I personally apparently committed.
	Give me one second, Tom.
	I'm going to put a dog upstairs.
	Hold on.
	Oh, gosh.
	Go.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Luckily, I have cats.
	Yeah, cats are quieter.
	I was going to say, when you say stepped in front of a camera, do you mean you were captured on camera or you deliberately stepped in front of the camera to block access to an incident?
	And what happened after Coventry?
	After Coventry...
	Hold on, before you get there, what happened at Coventry?
	Where is Coventry?
	So Coventry is by the big baseball stadium that they have in the city of Ottawa.
	And we had a very large convoy that were there.
	A group of truckers moved into that parking lot at the baseball diamond on the outskirts of the city.
	And that's where they were operating from for the entire time.
	So they would...
	They moved into that space there, and they set up a little town right there in the parking lot.
	And exactly one week after I arrived, the police, with all their public order units and their tactical teams and everything, cordoned off the whole area.
	They went in and they seized food and fuel.
	And all the jerrycans.
	And they came in.
	They had over 100 officers.
	We could see the drones in the sky and we saw the snipers up on the roof of the adjacent hotel.
	I was in a Zoom call with a large group of people, but I left the call and I rushed over to Coventry.
	But they wouldn't let the vehicle I was in, so I walked down the sidewalk.
	I got there and they were seizing jerrycans of fuel and doing damage to people's property and their trucks and everything.
	They didn't take a lot of food.
	It was like sausage and stuff like that.
	They confiscated food.
	Yes.
	And mostly fuel.
	But they came in extremely, extremely aggressive.
	And so Laura Lynn was there.
	She covered it.
	And I made a quick statement there in the parking lot as I was leaving.
	And then I went back to where we were operating out of.
	And everyone decided, okay, let's do a live stream and talk to everybody and just let them know what happened.
	And my message was to my group where I was working that, you know, because one of the truckers came up to me laughing.
	He says, you know what?
	The fuel that they stole wasn't even for the trucks.
	It was for the generators.
	It was like...
	Fuel that they were using, like, to cook and for electricity and for, you know, heat for heaters.
	So, you know, it had no impact on our ability to continue with our operations.
	And that's basically what I said at this first time I appeared on any live stream.
	And it was with, you know, the doctors that we had there and one of the other volunteers.
	And we did a little Sort of impact statement from what the police actually didn't achieve.
	And so that put me on everybody's radar.
	And that's the first time I spoke on anything related to the convoy.
	So I think that's how my name ended up on the RCMP list as a person of interest.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Not wind up, wind forward.
	So you're there for 22 days.
	I guess the question is, what happens when it's busted up, when the whole thing goes down?
	When did you get arrested?
	Did you get charges formally laid against you?
	When did you notice your bank account was frozen?
	Bring us to the...
	Let's skip a portion of the protest and get to the end where it gets interesting.
	So as soon as the Emergency Act was activated...
	I got a text from my spouse and she said, look, all our joint bank accounts are all frozen.
	But I was like, okay.
	And she said, our credit cards have all been frozen.
	And then she got a notification from Equifax because she subscribes to some service from them saying that her credit score had gone down 109 points.
	And then she looked at it and there was like...
	Fraud charges or alleged fraud and stuff on our credit card.
	Go ahead.
	By the time this happens, had you been formally charged with anything?
	From the Emergency Act, after Chris Barber got arrested on the street, every time I talked to the OPP, once a day, I would text the OPP, my liaison guy, who was excellent.
	And I would say to him, hey, are there warrants for my arrest?
	Or I'd call him and say, hey, is there a warrant for my arrest?
	And he would come back every day and say, no.
	There was no warrants.
	And to this day, I am unaware of any warrants for my arrest.
	I haven't asked him since I left or returned home on Monday.
	So that's to say, to this day, you have not been arrested.
	You have not been issued a summons.
	You have not been given a ticket.
	Nothing.
	Oh, sorry.
	I did get five tickets in two days.
	I got three tickets one day on my Honda, and then I got two tickets the next day on the same vehicle.
	So I had five tickets.
	Parking tickets?
	Parking tickets, yeah.
	Because the city of Ottawa went in and literally put stickers on the regular signs and changed their bylaws.
	No, but I thought you could not get more than one ticket within a 24-hour period, but I've never done municipal law.
	I got five in two days.
	You may have a grounds to contest three of them.
	I don't know.
	Chat.
	Fact check.
	Other than the parking tickets, you had not been issued any summary conviction notice or...
	Okay.
	That explains people in the chat why you're not in jail.
	Chris Barber, he's not in jail now, right?
	He's been released.
	Okay.
	Pat King, I just pulled it up.
	Hold on, people.
	Let me just get the article.
	And again, you know, the thing is, you need to know what happens in court to make statements on these things.
	Let me know.
	Tom, do you see the article that I just brought up?
	Yeah, I can see it.
	Yeah.
	So it says Freedom Convoy leader.
	I'm curious as to why they call him the leader.
	I'm not sure if that's accurate.
	Pat King denied bail.
	Who wrote the story?
	Whoever wrote the story should tell us.
	Right there, CBC.
	It's CBC.
	There's no question.
	King remains in jail due to likelihood to reoffend and justice's dissatisfaction with certainty.
	And this, I'm not playing devil's advocate.
	This is where someone like Pat King could say, I'm going to take a stand for justice in his mind and say, whatever you tell me to do, I'm not going to do it.
	The second I get out of here, I'm going to run right back to Ottawa.
	And then the judge could conceivably say, okay, I can't let you out.
	Like Pastor Coates.
	But I think it's for a mischief charge equally as outrageous.
	Yes.
	Leader of the so-called Freedom Convoy, Pat King, has been denied bail because of a, quote, substantial likelihood he would re-offend, according to Justice of Peace, Andrew Seymour, Alberta resident.
	He says there's overwhelming evidence against King that with regards to supporting his participation and leadership in the convoy, he cited videos shared by the Crown as evidence and said that there was substantial likelihood he would re-offend.
	Oh, here we go.
	During his first bail hearing, most of the discussion focused on his proposed certi, a fellow protester.
	Certi is not a physical cert.
	Certi could be someone who guarantees for him.
	And whether King was likely to violate any conditions placed on him.
	The certi pledged $50,000 to ensure King won't violate those conditions.
	Yeah.
	That's unbelievable.
	And bear in mind, he violates him, they arrest him, and they seize his certi.
	So it's a win-win for the Crown.
	Yes.
	But let's think about this, too.
	A justice of the peace is not a judge.
	They can be anybody.
	You can have your real estate license and then get hired as a justice of the peace.
	And then, you know, at some point, if you don't abide by this justice of the peace's conditions, they can hold you until such time you go before an actual judge who in this country has to be a practicing lawyer for 10 years minimum.
	So I could literally have been a software development teacher at a college and then become hired to be a justice of the peace in this country.
	They're not law experts.
	I'm just pulling something up here because I was under the impression that justices of the peace were names.
	Hold on a second.
	Sorry, I'm in the wrong window here.
	Were names for judges depending on what type of tribunal they were with.
	But hold on.
	Share.
	Sorry, guys.
	This is where I know that I don't know the answer.
	I'm going to try to bring this up.
	Judges and justices of the peace.
	And we read this.
	It says, Ontario Court of Justice.
	Judges of the court deal with a wide range of family, yada, yada, yada, yada.
	Justices of the peace of the court have jurisdiction with respect to provincial offenses, bail hearings, and search warrants.
	Okay, so they're basically like, I won't say less important justices or judges, but they are administrative to some extent.
	Okay, we'll stop sharing that, and I'll bring you back up here.
	Bring me back up.
	Okay, well, it's interesting.
	$50,000 certi, meaning that the individual who pledged for Pat King says if he violates the terms, I believe the certi, the bond, the $50,000, is forfeited to the Crown.
	And he gets re-arrested.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you know, is Pat King the leader of the convoy?
	I mean, I'm not asking facetiously.
	No, no.
	Pat King is the leader of the convoy that he arrived in.
	And, you know, I had a conversation with him and several other people, and I said, hey, Pat, no offense, but you're a little bit of a hand grenade for us, okay?
	You do your thing.
	You know, you're going to always do what Pat King always does.
	And we had no effort at all to try to stop Pat from doing what Pat was going to do.
	He came there just like everyone else, you know.
	For the same stated purpose, but he goes about it in a different way.
	But he brought people there.
	He brought support.
	He did a lot of things that people who don't know, he actually did a lot of good things for a lot of people.
	He got driver's fuel.
	He got driver's food.
	He got driver's access to showers and stuff like that.
	But on the other hand...
	We were always terrified he was going to go and do some live streaming.
	And I told him this, so I don't feel like I'm talking behind his back.
	I told him this.
	I said, Pat, you're a little bit of a hand grenade for us because we don't know what you're going to do on social media after you do something.
	I know a lot of people out there love Pat King.
	A lot of people out there hate Pat King.
	I know nothing of him personally except my exposure to Pat over the summer as the vlog, the VLAWG, where he was on, I think it was Stu Peters' show.
	And it became this viral piece that COVID has been ended and yada, yada, yada.
	And I broke down and said, it's not exactly what it says.
	And then, you know, I got some flack from people who said, you're killing the inspiration.
	And I said, give me accuracy, not inspiration.
	And he said some things.
	He's quite hyperbolic.
	And the irony is, it was with Artur Pawlowski, where the judge said...
	I'm not going to jail you because you want to be martyred, and I'm not going to martyr you.
	I have no doubt that Pat King, and I'm not saying this negatively or positively, just as a matter of fact, he has no problem being martyred for this cause, and he might even seek that to prove a point.
	And in which case, I can understand a judge saying, upon re-offense, now I can't let you out, but not...
	Oh, $50,000 in an undertaking is not enough because I think you're going to re-offend?
	This is mischief.
	You let him re-offend and then you have all the grounds in the world to do what you're doing now.
	Yeah.
	But when you look at Tamara, like the case with Tamara is just absolutely outrageous.
	Like she'll get her, she'll get a new...
	It's on Monday.
	Tuesday is my understanding, but it'll be with a different judge.
	You know, and I looked this up myself.
	The judge that presided over her bail hearing the other day, you know, if there's even a whiff of the perception of a bias, that is the minimum standard that a judge should have recused themselves from hearing Tamara's case.
	But what we have is a A judge who is an active member of the Federal Liberal Party, and she tried to become elected as a Federal Liberal Member of Parliament, and she was not successful.
	She wasn't elected.
	But, I mean, anybody with two brain cells can look at that and say, you know what, I think there might be a conflict of interest there.
	But the standard for a judge to recuse themselves is that...
	Even if there's the perception that there's a conflict of interest, a judge should recuse themselves.
	Let me bring this up while you mention it.
	I don't think I can find the video in such short time, but just in case anyone wants to trust but verify, the National Telegraph.
	Here we go, people.
	Judge who denied Tamara Lich, I don't know how we pronounce it, I'm not trying to be mean, is a former liberal candidate and donor.
	I understand there was a video of Justin Trudeau endorsing her failed candidacy.
	Yeah.
	Let's see if we can see it in there.
	So how is this not a perception of a bias?
	Well, I don't think it would be perception.
	I doubt people knew it at the time of the initial hearing.
	They know it now, which might be why she's having her postponed hearing bumped up and before a different judge.
	Yeah.
	Oh, hold on.
	Before we run out of time, I want to get a few things.
	So Barbara's out of jail.
	Tamara is still in jail.
	By the way, Tamara is a Métis woman, unless I'm mistaken, correct?
	I believe that she is.
	Okay, and this is coming from Justin Trudeau, 2020.
	I mean, I guess we should give him credit now for being equally abusive with Indigenous women protesters as he is with other people.
	But his treatment of Indigenous women seems to be relatively consistent.
	He's still in jail.
	Again, mischief.
	And again, I don't know.
	Maybe she was utterly defiant in front of a judge.
	Maybe she said, you know, F you.
	I won't do what you tell me.
	Don't know.
	But being jailed now, going on one week today on mischief charges?
	Yes.
	I talked to a retired RCMP officer and I was told that they...
	When they don't really have a lot to nail you for, they'll just tack on that give me, the throwaway, which is conspiracy to commit mischief.
	You haven't actually done it, but you've actually talked to somebody about the possibility of maybe the potential of mischief actually happening.
	So you haven't committed a crime, you just thought about it and you expressed your view to someone else.
	That's why she's being held.
	It's preposterous, unless there's something that we don't know, like an overt act of defiance.
	Pat King, I know enough of their social media presences to know that Pat King is much more openly defiant than...
	And we'll see what happens if it's Monday or Tuesday.
	I'm saying minority report.
	That's pretty much what it is.
	We believe you're on the verge of doing something, so let's do it now.
	So in all of this, you get a call from your wife.
	This is a few days, right after the Emergencies Act is invoked, before it's ratified, before it's voted on, before it's debated, bank accounts frozen.
	And how did your wife discover this?
	She goes to buy groceries and her credit card gets declined?
	Well, she was just doing some online, like paying some bills online.
	And everything, there was a message on there that said something like, your accounts are temporarily unavailable.
	And she went through account after account after account.
	And these were all the ones that had my name on them as joint accounts or my own personal individual accounts, but we also had a joint credit card.
	So anything with my name on it got hammered.
	And of course, the joint credit card, because she was the primary on the credit card.
	They nailed her credit rating and apparently there's fraud charges.
	And I can tell you that the only time I used that credit card in Ottawa in two weeks was to buy myself pasta.
	That's it.
	Two charges in two weeks.
	So, you know, and I understand that the banks were in a bit of a pickle here with their behavior, their involvement in all this.
	Where the RCMP went full McCarthyism with this list of names and said, do a review of your database, and if these people are your client, then immediately freeze them out.
	And according to this Emergency Act, had the banks refused, they actually would have been committing an offense themselves.
	But you know what?
	That's too bad.
	They have more money than You know, God Almighty himself, and they could have hired an attorney and said, you know what?
	We don't think that this makes any moral or legal sense, and we're going to fight you in court.
	We're going to wait until this thing actually passes to take action.
	But they made a choice to just get in line, do what the government told them, freeze people account without any due process.
	And without any consideration to the effect that it would have on my family or anyone else's.
	And so, you know, then Freeland goes on the media and starts bragging about the fact that even when the Emergency Act is over, they're still going to hold on to that power.
	They want your bank accounts.
	I want to bring this one up.
	Cindy Z says...
	RCMP said themselves that they had no list.
	LOL.
	I've seen the list with the RCMP's name.
	I don't know if this is a troll comment, if this is someone who's saying you're lying, or if someone's saying we should now trust the RCMP.
	Cindy, I don't know how to read this.
	Is it a joke?
	Is it an LOL that the RCMP is lying?
	If it's a serious comment and you're choosing to believe the RCMP's public statements, you've heard it from Tom.
	I saw the list today.
	How many people were on it?
	42 names were on it.
	Did you recognize all the names?
	No.
	Didn't recognize probably half the names.
	Did they give you a reason as to why those accounts were frozen?
	No.
	We never got notified by the banks.
	You log in and you get a message saying your stuff is temporarily unavailable.
	We were not notified.
	I was never notified of any of this stuff.
	Did it unfreeze miraculously?
	I think it was Wednesday when our friend JT there in Ottawa repealed or revoked the emergency.
	He rescinded the declaration on the eve of the Senate vote.
	Yes, and you know what's really, really interesting about this, right?
	Because, you know, everyone has looked at who's a liberal MP or who's a liberal senator, who's a conservative senator.
	And I think the majority is that they're liberal senators.
	And he was probably going to get them to rubber stamp it anyway.
	So everyone was like, well, why did he do this?
	My suspicion is when everyone realized in Canada that the banks were...
	You know, in law enforcement and all that ex parte, we're going after people's financial assets with no due process.
	There was a run on the banks.
	There was an actual run on Canadian banks because there's only five chartered banks in this country.
	And people started pulling their money left, right and center.
	And they couldn't actually, they couldn't cover it because they don't keep the money in their vaults.
	So because there's a run, my guess is, this is just my guess, the banks probably called them up and said, hey, This is not cool.
	We don't care.
	We're going to screw our customers and play your little game, but now it's affecting us.
	So I think stop it.
	And if you don't, you know what?
	Good luck getting a loan from us again.
	If people don't appreciate this part of it.
	Justin Trudeau rescinded the invocation of the Emergencies Act after two full days of debate before the House of Commons, where they voted to ratify it 185-151, and after two full days of debate before the Senate, and four days of all of government debating this crap, how much that costs because this nincompoop from day one refused to engage.
	He didn't engage, but he admonished the Indian government when they had tractors showing up in front of their parliaments for a year.
	And he was all over the Indian government for not talking to the farmers.
	You know, and he had some truckers and a few tractors show up in his front yard.
	He went into hiding, and then he invoked the War Measures Act.
	Sorry, the nice name is the Emergency Act.
	Yeah, people have to appreciate that.
	The Emergencies Act declaration or the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the measures they intended to implement were never formally ratified and they were never formally rejected.
	The House of Commons approved, Senate never voted, and then it was rescinded.
	There's an argument as to whether or not they were ever valid.
	I mean, not valid, rather.
	He acted on something that had not received approval and then once he did what he did, rescinded it.
	There's an argument as to whether or not the banks actually benefit from any immunity that would have been promised to them had it been ratified.
	Great question.
	It's a great question.
	I am going to pull my money out of the Bank of Montreal once I move it to somewhere else.
	You know what?
	They had a choice to do the moral and ethical thing.
	They didn't have a choice in the eyes of the law, but they had a choice in the moral and ethical thing to do, and they chose wrong.
	So I will be pulling my money out of BMO and I won't be doing business with them again.
	You know what?
	They were in a pickle, but they chose wrong.
	Do you know which banks acted on this?
	I know BMO from what you're saying.
	I believe TD.
	I'm not sure about RBC.
	I don't know.
	What's the other one?
	You've got National Bank and Scotia.
	The only ones I can speak to were my own personal one, which was BMO.
	And I don't spread the rumors.
	I'm not saying Jordan Peterson spread rumors.
	Jordan Peterson relayed what someone that he knows within the military told him about you have to be nuts to have your money in Canadian banks given what they just did.
	I got calls and people saying, you know, here's my story.
	Do you want to mention it?
	I can't verify.
	I can't vet.
	I don't even care if you have a recording because I don't know what that recording is.
	But I heard a lot of stories about it.
	And, you know, it's predictable.
	Let me just say this.
	This is, you know, wild theory of Tom, but this is what I've researched because, you know, I'm one of those guys that read the federal and the provincial budgets every year.
	Like, I go line by line, and I look at this, and when you consider the amount of debt that Canada had incurred, both in Ontario and federally, you know, we were paying Between the federal government and the provincial government, if you're an Ontario resident, we paid $4.5 million per hour in interest payments on the loans that our governments have accumulated.
	But here's the thing.
	When COVID started, Justin Trudeau started racking up the debt on unprecedented levels like nothing we've ever seen in this country.
	As if, though, he was a guy who had six months to live and was now racking up the credit card, mortgaging his house, having parties, spending money like there was no intention whatsoever ever, ever to pay that money back.
	The amount of money he's borrowed and spent on frivolous things and the money he's given to other countries and, you know, did he spend any money yet on any hospitals in Ontario or across this country?
	If COVID's so bad, Where are the new hospitals to put all our patients?
	It's so bad that instead of nurses and doctors and incentivizing them, you need a vaccine passport.
	It's a billion on that.
	Yes, and you know what?
	For the vaccine passport, I taught iOS and Android apps as a subject I taught.
	I could have done it for a cool $10 million.
	No problem.
	Really, I could have done that with a couple of months' work and maybe 50 grand.
	Not a billion dollars that he gave out to provinces to create a vaccine passport.
	It's ludicrous.
	But you look at his steps and everything he's done over the last two years, and I don't know how you can't look at a guy and wonder if he is sane, or is he literally, by all of his actions, is he deliberately trying to destroy the Canadian economy?
	I can't come to any other conclusion, and I'm very, very focused on economics.
	I look at this guy and all these steps he takes with COVID, with the borrowing, with international trade, and all of these things, and I think there's a guy to me who's literally trying to destroy the Canadian economy.
	And again, people are going to say, hey, you know, conspiracy theory, but it's not.
	It's public knowledge.
	Go on the World Economic Forum.
	He's right there.
	Chrystia Freeland is on their board.
	Like, you can't say that you'll own nothing and be happy about it.
	And then ignore his behavior and her behavior.
	Like, I'm sorry, but it just, it all meshes together for everyone to see.
	And they don't even hide it.
	And you've all seen the video of the banking industry coming together with the digital ID.
	And there was the other video of Klaus Schwab bragging about having infiltrated a third.
	Let me see if I can pull that one up real quick.
	Sorry, go on.
	I've seen it.
	So when you look at the behavior, like how is it that he can violate people's charter rights, invoke the Emergencies Act, beat the living hell out of veterans?
	I personally saw them getting beat up.
	Okay?
	Dropping, you know, having the cops beat the crap out of people, dropping them off on the highway, way outside the city limits and saying, good luck, find your own way back to some warmth with a big giant black eye with no charges.
	And one of them was a decorated Afghanistan war veteran.
	Yes, absolutely.
	I found it.
	Actually, I found it, and it was Maxime Bernier that tweeted it, or retweeted it, but it's not.
	Anyone wants to go for the source and attack Maxime Bernier, just listen with your own ears.
	Here.
	Yes, I've seen this.
	And mention our names, like Mrs. Fockel, even Vladimir Putin, and so on.
	They all have been young global leaders of the World Economic Forum.
	He looks so nice.
	What we are very proud of now is a young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, that we penetrate the cabinets.
	So yesterday I was going to say...
	Penetrate the cabinets.
	And I...
	We know that half of this cabinet, or even more half of this cabinet, are actually younger leaders of the world.
	You want to readjust the world and start with your mics.
	This is not fiction.
	There's no context that will attenuate what you just heard.
	Yeah, and so, you know, when you look at the, in this country, the Constitution and the Charter are supposed to be the supreme law.
	And I, you know, I heard it come right from the man's mouth, which is, you know, Brian Peckford said to a group of us in a room, he says, look, after the Charter came into effect, every law had to be reviewed to make sure it felt in line, it was compliant with the Charter.
	Okay?
	And this was one of the big reasons why in our Roadmap to Freedom that we published and we gave to the Government of Canada, they'd never acknowledged, but we sent it out to everybody.
	I've shared it on my LinkedIn.
	We were asking for two things.
	We want a charter or constitutional reference at the Supreme Court.
	The second piece to that is we want a public inquiry.
	We want to dissect this and we want...
	The government of Canada, the provinces, and also the mainstream media in this country that are taxpayer-funded, we want them to be publicly examined for their role in everything that's gone on throughout this pandemic for the last two years.
	And this is, I think, vital to getting out of this mess, and I think it's vital to healing the people that have been affected and brutalized by this.
	But I also think if we want our country back, we need to have, not a witch hunt, we need to have a public inquiry as to what went wrong and ultimately, I think, after reading the Charter backwards and forwards, I don't know how many times, I think we need to have an amendment to Section 1 of the Charter on Rights and Freedoms in this country.
	Because with the Charter, it was so badly abused and stepped over.
	That's how we got into the position we're in right now.
	Let me ask you a question.
	Do you have any aspirations of potentially running for office now?
	You know, throughout my life, I've thought about it.
	But the more I've gotten deeper into this whole last two years with the behavior of the government, I just can't see myself being in a room full of these people.
	You know, I just don't think I could join their ranks, but I'll say one exception.
	And I'll tell you, the reason I voted for the PPC this year, the most important thing, there was two things that caused me to vote for the PPC.
	Three things, really.
	One, conservatives federally were acting like liberals.
	So we now know that, you know, Aaron O'Toole...
	Got replaced because he was more of a liberal than he was a conservative, and he paid the price for that.
	We'll see what happens within that party next.
	The second thing is, every single freedom convoy, or sorry, freedom protest in every weekend, Maxime Bernier was there.
	There was no conservatives, no NDP, no liberals, no bloc, nobody else.
	The only candidate was Maxime Bernier.
	So the third thing is no other candidate for a federal member of parliament position got arrested except Maxime Bernier.
	And he was arrested on the order of a premier, which is bizarre to me that a politician could order an arrest of somebody.
	Like that's just unbelievably stupid.
	Bearing in mind that for everyone who's watching.
	He was arrested for having an outdoor political rally in a park of 30 people.
	Three days earlier, Justin Trudeau was talking to thousands of people in Toronto.
	And I think it was about that horrible attack on the Muslim family with the car.
	It was in London, yeah.
	It was in London.
	Thousands of people.
	Three days earlier.
	And what's disturbing about that truck insulin, that wasn't a Muslim extremist.
	I lived in London.
	My son went to kindergarten with one of the victims.
	The person who ran them over with the truck was a young, disturbed, mentally ill person known to law enforcement in London.
	He wasn't, you know, a sane person.
	And it was disgusting and sad and tragic.
	But for Trudeau and Ford to go there, to go there and...
	Score political points and call that Muslim fundamentalist extremism was ridiculous while he was bringing people in under a supposed lockdown.
	It was just disgusting.
	So, you know, my issue, like, you know what, as a person that was speaking on behalf of the convoy...
	In Ottawa when I was there, I was very, very clear about my political stance or what we were there to do.
	It was not to overthrow the government.
	But now while I'm home, it's clear to me that we do need an election.
	We don't need a coup.
	We don't need overthrowing.
	We don't need any political trickery of any kind.
	We need an election in this country.
	My full support will go behind the PPC, only because the Conservatives had two years to do the right thing, and they didn't.
	But as for running, I don't know if there's any value in it.
	I think I have more of an opportunity to fight in the background.
	What would I do?
	I just don't know what I would do as a Member of Parliament.
	I'd probably just stand in the corner screaming and being frustrated.
	Well, if that's what...
	That's what Pierre Poilievre has been doing for two years.
	For two years, yeah.
	While the leader of the Conservative Party was being more...
	And I'm saying liberal not in terms of policy, just in terms of politics.
	Define the liberals as a party.
	O'Toole came out and said, yeah, we're going to do that.
	It's a little lighter, a little lighter.
	In a perfect world, PPC would form a government.
	In a perfect world for me.
	But I'll take as a consolation.
	Because I have to.
	The Conservatives will probably, because they've had a longer history in this country of an actual government, my prediction is that they'll probably, you'll probably see in the next election, Paliyev will probably be the Prime Minister, but my hope and what I will fight for would be for the PPC to become the official opposition.
	But how is it that 311 PPC candidates in September We're in play, including you, and not one of them got elected.
	And not even Maxine Bernier got elected in his own writing he held.
	I'll tell you what, and people don't like me for saying this.
	I don't buy into the election issues that were alleged to have occurred in the States.
	There was political strategizing that needs to be reassessed.
	Running a good candidate in a district where they have absolutely no chance, and I'm not thinking about myself here.
	Well, you were going up against Mark Garneau.
	Well, I'm in Western, and I'm terrible at winking, but running good candidates in areas where they have no chance, you can get a million votes across the country, but the reason why the Bloc Québécois do so well is that they get a million votes in one province, and so they're guaranteed to get seats.
	So, before everyone jumps on the stolen election stuff, I think it's just strategizing and not...
	The reality is they wouldn't need to do that which is unlawful because it would have happened just by virtue of the spread.
	So they would need to re-strategize for the next election and take a lesson from the bloc.
	Maybe just dedicate all of your resources to the areas where it's close and not to Westbound NDG.
	Although they didn't dedicate their resources.
	They're just strategically.
	I inquired with the PPC to see if they were actually going to form an Ontario PPC but they said no.
	They need to spend their energy on the federal level.
	You know, I spend an enormous amount of time inside of hospitals with one of my children.
	So if I was ever, I would probably look at being the health minister for Ontario would be something that I would really sink my teeth into.
	However, do I really want to be the guy who has to clean up all of the carnage that was created by the Ford government in the last couple of years?
	Do I have to take ownership of it?
	His mess?
	Well, I think you'd do good doing it because people are saying, like, you know, how do we go forward?
	You have to go forward with a calm, logical voice that can't be coming out of the same mouth that has been illogical and abusive for the last two years.
	So, you know, Justin Trudeau coming out the other day and saying, it's time for unity and healing, where two weeks earlier, he's like, those people are putting us all at risk and racing.
	Can't do that.
	Unacceptable views.
	Yeah.
	No, Francois Legault in Quebec coming out and saying...
	We don't want the emergencies act because it's too divisive.
	You're the one who just put in the vaccine passport for grocery, for in-box retail.
	So the voice of reason has to come from another mouth.
	I have never met you, Tom.
	I want everyone to know this.
	I've never met you before this interview.
	My conclusion, I like you and I think you're actually quite good.
	And I wasn't expecting, I was a little scared because I had never met you before.
	Your bank accounts are unfrozen.
	You got the five tickets.
	No criminal charges that you know of.
	What are you doing now going forward?
	What's your plan of action?
	I am in contact with some of the other volunteers of the convoy.
	So I know there are plans in the works there.
	Obviously now, because of this...
	I'm a little bit short on $306 million right now, so I guess I should start getting interested in mounting my defense on that.
	But really...
	Stop right there.
	That's to say because you're one of the defendants in the class action lawsuit against the convoy, which is a different lawsuit than against the donors to the convoy.
	There's another class action lawsuit that they added me to that list of plaintiffs, or defendants, sorry, whatever it is, because they saw me on a live stream as participating in the convoy, so my name got added to it.
	Originally, it was roughly the same amount of money as the GoFundMe, so we all knew, okay, they're trying to get the money from GoFundMe.
	But then now it's been bumped up to $306 million because of horns.
	Horns.
	Literally because of horns.
	And I asked the people on site who said that some of them said they heard horns, but it was really for the first four days.
	Others said they stopped at night, which would make sense because those truckers were sleeping in the backs of their cabs.
	And by the way, I don't own a truck.
	So I never blew one single truck horn the entire time I was there.
	And I didn't even touch my car for two weeks.
	Let me ask you the obvious question.
	You've been in the military on a personal level.
	How are you internalizing the stress?
	How are you dealing with this?
	Do you find it tremendously stressful?
	Or are you coping relatively well?
	You know what?
	I was born with the gift of not panicking.
	And I'm very, very good at compartmentalizing my emotions for...
	When they need to be used.
	There was a time early on that I had a lot of anxiety about getting a COVID ticket, you know, $880 and stuff like that.
	And at one point I transitioned from being afraid of my government and afraid of the police and having anxiety.
	I didn't want to go out because I just didn't want the trouble of it.
	To all of a sudden thinking, you know what?
	Give me a ticket.
	Give me a ticket.
	I want that ticket because now I want to go to court.
	Now I was starting to get pissed off.
	And now with the Freedom Convoy, so I haven't worn a mask in public other than at SickKids Hospital since last spring.
	Every time I walk into a place, I get a lot of anxiety, but I refuse to put that thing on my face.
	I will not do it.
	I just will not do it other than at SickKids Hospital.
	I have gone from having a lot of fear and anxiety from my government to now I'm just pissed off.
	And, you know, while I'm integrating back into my home, I am not afraid of my government.
	I'm not afraid of the police.
	I don't get anxiety about wearing a mask anymore.
	Now I'm mission focused at this point.
	And it's not coming from stress or anxiety.
	I'm focused on a mission.
	And I'm not going to stop.
	People in the show, first of all, that's magnificent and beautiful, and I would have ended it there, except I wanted to ask the two questions.
	Where is Tamara?
	How's she doing?
	And we know now, but have you been in touch with Tamara personally?
	No, I haven't.
	I don't have access to her, but one of the lawyers does, and she spoke to her this morning, and she said, you know, right now she's in custody in Ottawa, but she's bored out of her mind.
	You know, nothing to do.
	But, you know, she's just waiting for Tuesday to go before a different judge.
	Alright, now, people who want to help you and want to support you, we'll figure it out.
	You'll figure it out with your lawyer.
	Where can people find you to support you on the social media, not necessarily financially, for updates and the like?
	You're on Twitter, right?
	Yeah, I'm on Twitter, but Twitter won't open for me.
	It's funny, because my name, I went under Tom M, and I was posting stuff throughout the whole thing.
	But the media posted my LinkedIn.
	And so my LinkedIn blew up.
	And I was getting great messages of support.
	And I was sharing them with our team all the time.
	But then I changed my name.
	It said Tom M. And then I changed it.
	And I put my full name on there.
	And it's blown up.
	And now it hardly even opens up.
	It's not that I don't want to respond to people.
	It literally won't work on my phone anymore.
	But it is your Twitter handle.
	It's just Tom Marazzo.
	Tom Marazzo, M-A-R-A-Z-Z-O.
	Yes.
	Okay, and I'll put some links in the pinned comment so people can find you.
	Tom, I'm going to bring you out, and then we're going to have John Carpe from the JCCF come in.
	Okay.
	Okay, fantastic.
	I mean, stay strong.
	That dog is so annoying.
	He barks down here.
	He barks upstairs.
	Stay strong.
	And, I mean, I don't think you need anybody to tell you that.
	You are strong.
	And thank you for sharing your story.
	For anybody...
	I will accept this now.
	I mean, I knew that Ben Dictor's bank accounts were frozen.
	I believe those have been unfrozen as well, as has another one of the big names in the convoy.
	This is the story for anyone who had any doubts.
	Believe or disregard if you don't think Tom is telling you the truth, people.
	You've heard it here.
	Now you know and you can move forward smarter and slightly more educated with unfiltered information.
	Thank you, my friend, for having me here.
	I really appreciate it.
	We'll be in touch.
	And if you can, message me your links and I'll put them in the pinned comment.
	I absolutely will.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	Thank you.
	Have a good weekend.
	You too.
	Bye.
	All right, people.
	That was good.
	And I see John Carpe like clockwork in the backdrop.
	We're doing this.
	I've got to pee so badly because I've had now two.
	This is 500 milliliters of liquid that has been converted into urine.
	But I'm holding it in because we are going to...
	Oh god, don't make me laugh.
	That was fantastic.
	That's very interesting.
	You know, the faces behind the acts of government.
	Tom is the man.
	Tom is the man.
	I think John Carpe disappeared.
	I'm going to wait for Tom to come back before I bring him in.
	Obviously.
	Okay.
	Utterly fascinating.
	And it's just, this is a government, this is like girls gone wild, except it's governments gone wild.
	Except it's not fun to watch.
	It's actually painful to live through.
	Let me see here.
	If I go pee now, then everybody knows that I went to pee.
	That's very embarrassing.
	Don't hold it in too long.
	No, no, dude.
	Someone says, don't hold it in too long.
	You might get a UTI.
	I once, during some of the streams, held it in so long.
	It got to the point where, like, you lose the ability to go afterwards, and it's just utter pain.
	But no, I'm fine.
	I'm fine.
	Don't worry.
	I'll live it.
	I'll live it.
	John Carpe is here.
	He's a lawyer working with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
	Everybody, don't make me laugh.
	And his time is valuable, and we're bringing him in.
	John, get ready.
	Booyah.
	John, how goes the battle, sir?
	Crazy times.
	Government gone wild is a pretty accurate description, sadly.
	Part of me is still in a state of disbelief that you've got some peaceful truckers in Ottawa.
	How do we know they're peaceful?
	Because if they were doing looting, arson, violence, assault, vandalism, any kind of crime, the so-called mainstream media, which is the government-funded media, would have been all over it.
	And it would have been front page every day, and the same thing replayed 24 hours a day.
	But there were no tickets issued to the truckers in their first three weeks there.
	It wasn't until after the declaration of a national emergency on Valentine's Day, February 14th, and a few days later, finally there were some arrests.
	So a peaceful protest in downtown Ottawa, and this is a national emergency?
	I'm stunned.
	John, we've done interviews multiple times in the past.
	I remember the first one where you were saying things are going off the rails a little bit, but it can't get much worse.
	You didn't say it can't get much worse, but how much worse can it get?
	And then we come back a little while later, locking up pastors.
	What is your take on what is going on here?
	First of all, I'm going to run.
	While I run to the little boys' room, I'm going to bring myself out.
	Tell everybody who you are and what you do if they have not seen any of the prior streams.
	And speaking of streams, I'll be back in a second.
	So will I. We both ran.
	Everyone in the chat, enjoy a blank screen for two seconds.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Yes, I beat John Carpe.
	This might be the funniest thing that's ever happened during a law-based live stream.
	My apologies for the delay, people.
	Now everyone knows exactly how fast I can go to the bathroom.
	Okay, I'll start.
	John Carpe doing, I will say, the legal god's work for Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, JCCF.
	Hey, I've donated to the JCCF as well on multiple occasions.
	I wonder how long it is until the government says, well, if the JCCF is defending people who are accused of insurrectionist behavior, then anyone who donates to the JCCF frees their bank accounts.
	JCCF is the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
	They basically...
	Take the litigation related to...
	You know what?
	I can probably bring John out until he comes back.
	Although this will not hide however long it takes John to go to the bathroom.
	They have been handling a lot of the litigation, a lot of the thorny litigation.
	In the States, when the government comes in with the unconstitutional edict, diktat, fiat, whatever, there's no shortage of lawyers to run to court.
	It's a very litigious society for good or for bad.
	And in this case...
	For good, because, you know, suing for constitutional violations is a little different than suing for whiplash because you got a fender bender.
	Did you see ragging dissent video on YouTube, Jeremy McKenzie?
	I did not.
	I'm going to have to go see that.
	Synchronized being.
	Put a legal dollar figure on this.
	So the JCCF is one of the few entities in Canada that is taking these political hot potato lawsuits.
	Constitutional violations, constitutional challenges.
	For those of you who don't remember, her name was, is, she's still alive, oh, the pastor's wife who was whisked away into a quarantine facility, Nikki, one of the people who was taken off to one of the government-designated quarantine facilities, not allowed to tell her husband and her family where she was going.
	Someone in the chat, let me know what her name is.
	I know you'll get it before me.
	They're representing her.
	They've contested the quarantine facilities.
	You know what?
	John will tell me.
	He's right here.
	John, you're representing the woman who was taken to the government-designated quarantine facility.
	I forget her name now.
	Nikki?
	You are embarrassing me, David, because...
	No, I shouldn't have done that.
	Hold on.
	No, but we have so many cases and I'm really sorry.
	But yeah, Pastor's wife was effectively kidnapped.
	Put into a van, taken to a place where they were not going to tell her where she was going and that she's not allowed to contact family.
	Just utterly the type of thing you'd expect from Haiti or El Salvador, Nigeria, Uganda, Burma.
	Just really a sign or a symptom of being a third world country.
	Quasi-fascist or banana republic with polar bears.
	Just really obscene.
	It was Nicky Mathis is the name.
	Just so everybody appreciates, the structure of JCCF is that there's lawyers who work for the JCCF handling these files locally.
	John, what's your position within the JCCF and what is the JCCF for those who don't know?
	So we are a not-for-profit public interest law firm.
	We are funded entirely by...
	Voluntary donations from Canadians.
	We have 15, that's one to five, 15 staff lawyers and close to a dozen paralegals doing court cases all over Canada.
	We represent people without charge.
	So our clients do not pay us.
	They can donate if they want to.
	Most don't.
	They don't have to.
	The clients get free legal representation from the Justice Centre.
	The Justice Centre gets its money to pay the staff lawyers from donations.
	So we are a public interest law firm, and our mission is to defend the fundamental charter freedoms like conscience, religion, expression, association, peaceful assembly.
	And more recently, we're defending bodily autonomy that the government does not own your body.
	You own your own body.
	And the charter gives us a right to determine what gets injected into our body, yes or no, without coercion or pressure or threats.
	That was a dog upstairs.
	If anyone can help me, I have GSG for suing a business who refused to serve me due to my mask exemption filing in Ontario Superior Court.
	Interesting.
	So, John, you have 15 lawyers throughout Canada.
	Do you have any in Quebec yet?
	Yes, we have Maître Samuel Bachan, who is on contract with us in Quebec and started a month or two ago.
	And one of our Quebec clients, not the only one, is Maxime Bernier, who is suing against the federal travel restrictions because he cannot, as the leader of a political party, go from place to place.
	We are strictly non-partisan, I should mention.
	We happen to...
	The lawsuits, I say the violations seem to be unidirectional right now.
	And so for everybody who doesn't know, and now I forgot, I actually have to do a breakdown of that lawsuit.
	Maxine Bernier is challenging the federal aviation and train mandates, which prevent the unvaccinated from traveling within their own country, despite the charter guarantee to mobility rights within interprovincial travel.
	Along with Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier from 79 to 89 for 10 years, the last living signatory, the last living First Minister of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is now suing the federal government over violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the year 2022, which is the 40th anniversary of the Charter.
	The National Post did not cover this until three or four days after the lawsuit was filed.
	The government-funded media did not think it was a big deal that the last living signatory of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was suing the federal government over charter violations in the 40th anniversary of the charter.
	Government-funded media, and that's not just CBC, but that's Global Mail, National Post, CTV Global, etc.
	Did not think that was worth mentioning.
	And you guys are representing, the JCCF is representing Peckford as well.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	No, what's amazing is they're going to, I'm predicting it, they're going to pull the exact same tactic they pulled with the convoy, the fake news, ignore, then spin, and then demonize.
	They'll find a tweet, Brian Peckford, women are going to come out of the woodwork to say that in 1972 he did something naughty.
	So the bases of the lawsuits are identical.
	I won't even ask the legal question as to why not join them, but charter violations.
	Bottom line?
	Nothing in the review should make sense.
	It's not proportionate.
	It's not sufficiently targeted.
	It does not respect.
	It's not a minimal infringement on charter rights.
	What's the time frame for this suit to be heard?
	You know, I've never been an advocate for more government spending.
	But the exception I would make is that we have too few courts and too few judges in Canada.
	I think most judges, hopefully all judges, but certainly most of them work very hard.
	But we just have too much litigation on the go.
	And it's a shame and it's a national disgrace.
	That it takes years.
	It always takes years for any court action to move through the courts.
	There's no excuse for it.
	The court action should take weeks, sometimes months, and maybe a very small number of cases should take years.
	Anyway, all of these constitutional actions, they take a year or two or three.
	So we'll see how long this one lasts and if the government hopefully repeals these terrible measures.
	And restores freedom to Canadians to travel freely within our own country and travel freely abroad.
	We would probably still like to continue with the court actions just to get a ruling about how unscientific and ridiculous these measures were.
	Well, and now if you can give an update, I don't want to pick one that you might be more or less familiar with, but if there's one of these current pending constitutional lawsuits that...
	Is fresh in your mind or that you want to draw public attention to in particular?
	Which one?
	What's the state of it?
	And elucidate the crowd who may not have ever known what the JCCF was until now.
	Okay.
	Well, we did file and we will be announcing this more publicly pretty soon.
	But for those of you who are watching live stream...
	We have filed a court action against the abuse of the Emergencies Act by Prime Minister Trudeau by declaring that a bunch of peaceful protesters in Ottawa somehow constituted a serious threat to the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
	So we have filed and will be proceeding with the lawsuit against the abuse of the...
	Emergencies Act.
	And I anticipate the federal government will respond by saying your action should be dismissed as moot because the Emergencies Act is no longer in force.
	It was revoked on February 23rd.
	But we're going to say, look, we can't have governments just getting away with inventing an emergency out of thin air when the facts are just not there to support that declaration.
	So that would be our most recent lawsuit.
	Who's the petitioner in that lawsuit?
	Or not by name, but rather, who has the legal standing to file that suit?
	Any Canadian?
	Yes, any Canadian can file that.
	We have four clients.
	Two of them retired from the Canadian Armed Forces.
	One of them decorated with a Medal of Bravery.
	A third one is a retired or current police officer.
	And then a fourth person.
	So we're going into court on behalf of four people to seek a court declaration that there was no national emergency, that it was not valid for our Prime Minister to have declared on Valentine's Day, on February 14th, that there was a national emergency based on peaceful truckers in Ottawa.
	Now, you know it's going to happen.
	They're going to argue mootness because the incident is over.
	It's been rescinded.
	The counterargument is going to be, I forget what the term is exactly, but it's ripe for repetition.
	So you need to address it because, in Trudeau's own words himself, we'll see what happens in the future.
	And we basically reserve the right to reinstate this Emergencies Act declaration.
	What's been the likelihood of success on those arguments before court?
	We've seen what happened in the States.
	During the elections, when they say moot because the issue is no longer there and we're not hearing it because we don't think it's likely to repeat, do you anticipate getting to the merits on this?
	You know, I hope so.
	I've often said anybody who predicts the outcome of a court ruling is a fool.
	So I don't know.
	It depends on the luck of the draw with what judge you come before.
	You know, one judge might say, well, you know, there is no emergency.
	It's moot.
	It's pretty straightforward.
	But another judge might say, well, wait a minute.
	This is important litigation because we need a ruling on whether this declaration was warranted, yes or no, because otherwise the government can, on a whim at the drop of a hat, just declare an emergency whenever it feels like it.
	So hopefully we'll get the second kind of judge.
	And now, the question I've been floating around, let me know if you have an opinion on this.
	They rescinded the, or they, Trudeau rescinded the Emergencies Act declaration.
	It got through the House of Commons, it didn't get through the Senate.
	First of all, if you have an opinion on this, do you think they rescinded it because they didn't think they had the votes before the Senate, or they had accomplished what they wanted to in terms of fast-tracking certain bank policies?
	And then they no longer needed to even have the debate.
	I'll start off by saying I don't know.
	The theory that the Prime Minister rescinded the declaration while the Senate was still debating it, there's a theory that he was scared of losing in the Senate, where he doesn't exercise that same degree of control over a bunch of liberal senators who are now officially independent senators.
	Whereas in the House of Commons, it was presented to members of Parliament as a confidence vote in the government.
	And so you had the Prime Minister and Cabinet Minister saying, if we lose this vote, it's going to be the fall of the government and it will trigger elections right away.
	And there were at least three MPs that I'm aware of.
	liberal MPs who felt that the declaration of a national emergency was not justified, not warranted.
	And so they got it through the House of Commons by basically whipping, whipping these MPs into, uh, The other theory is that there were so many runs on banks with so many Canadians lining up to...
	withdraw cash that the banks were very upset with the federal I've heard that.
	I have no idea if that's true.
	I'm stupid.
	Do we have credit unions in Canada or do we have alternatives to the big banks?
	Well, not really because the Emergencies Act applies to all financial institutions.
	So putting your money into a credit union.
	You know, wouldn't save the day.
	And the hardships that people have suffered are just horrific.
	It's something I hadn't thought about, but just hearing the story, oh, yeah, right, okay, so your bank account gets frozen and your credit card is frozen or suspended, and you cannot receive your paycheck into your bank account because that's how many people are paid these days, you know, electronic deposit.
	You can't cash a paycheck.
	You can't pay your mortgage.
	You can't pay mortgage or rent.
	You can't buy food for your children.
	You can't buy medicine for somebody who's sick, for a loved one or a family member who's sick.
	You can't buy medicine.
	You can't pay your bills.
	You can't pay your heating bills in winter.
	It's just horrific.
	In some ways it's worse than getting tossed in into jail, because at least if you get tossed into jail, if you've got a spouse on the outside, he or she can still buy groceries for the kids.
	Right.
	And in jail, they feed you and they, they heat yourself.
	I'm going to ask you the obvious question.
	Could you ever, in your wildest imagination, have foreseen Canada turning into this in your lifetime?
	I thought it would take a lot longer.
	I mean, I think Canada has been heading in the wrong direction for decades.
	You know, in particular, one example is just the situation on...
	University campuses where started out 15 years ago, it was the kind of persecution of pro-life groups on campus because their viewpoint is extremely unpopular.
	But it has spread into this massive cancel culture where if you are not woke and if you don't follow the religion of diversity, equity, inclusion, then...
	It's just a decline.
	Mount Royal University in Calgary, Dr. Frances Widowson fired from her position basically for thought crimes, for not towing the party line.
	The cancel culture has gotten so horrible on campus, and that's just one example of the decline of the rule of law.
	The other big one is the discrepancy.
	I don't know if you remember the blockades.
	From two years ago.
	The Indigenous blockades where they were blockading the railways, they had stopped CN from traversing the country.
	They got an injunction, and the issue was that the injunction wasn't being enforced.
	Yeah.
	You know, the federal government just sat back, and this is a breakdown of the rule of law, because there should be one law for everybody, and what you're allowed to do or not allowed to do in terms of protest...
	And I'm very much on the side of saying that your protests should never interfere with other people earning a living and going about their business.
	But whatever your standard is, you can't base it on, well, I really like your cause because you're advocating against racism or you're advocating for Aboriginal rights.
	You're advocating for environmentalism.
	Therefore, you can break the law.
	Oh, but you guys over there, on the other hand, you're advocating for charter rights and freedoms to be restored to us after having been taken away 23 months ago, and so you're not allowed to protest peacefully because we really don't like your cause.
	That's the double standard, and it's disgusting, but it's also very dangerous because it makes people respect the law less.
	When you have flagrant, blatant...
	Double standard, where what you're allowed to do or not is dependent on your politics.
	It's dependent on your political opinion.
	This is new news that didn't really make the front lines here.
	Hold on, let me just see this.
	I'm going to bring this up.
	Here we go.
	People.
	John, can you see this?
	Yeah.
	CBC.
	This is, sorry, who is this?
	Vancouver Sun.
	CN Rail will not pursue contempt case related to 2020 rail blockade in BC.
	The BC Prosecution Service announced in April it was not in the public interest to pursue criminal contempt charges against protesters, but a BC Supreme Court ruling last month found CN could continue its own legal action.
	So not only are living double standards where people put up with those protests to some extent.
	They used the court system to get the requisite court orders to declare an injunction to cease the protests.
	Law enforcement refused to enforce the injunction.
	And now it seems that they're not even going after those who violated the order of which they had knowledge for contempt.
	And just compare and contrast to, on the one hand, the nature of this protest, any damage or any...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Inconvenience that it caused.
	The...
	Degree to which the government is going after the protesters for the charges for which they're being accused.
	I mean, it's...
	Worse yet, it's to go after people that donated $20 or $50 to freeze bank accounts of individuals all over Canada.
	Hundreds of Canadians had their bank accounts frozen, who never set foot in Ottawa, but they donated through the truckers' convoy.
	They donated...
	Initially, it was...
	GoFundMe.
	Some people describe it as GoFraudMe.
	And then my understanding is they issued the refunds, issued $79 million worth of refunds to people that have donated to the trucker's convoy.
	And then it was Give, Send, Go, a different website.
	And so that was hacked into by somebody, which was illegal.
	It's illegal to hack into websites.
	Steal confidential information about donors.
	And that was released.
	And then you have the government making use of illegally obtained information to freeze bank accounts.
	I'm going to say, in fairness to the government, their defense or what they stated was upon pressing during these debates, it was great.
	I don't know who was pressing whom, but it was a great line of question.
	And they said...
	Are you threatening to freeze the accounts of people who donated before the Emergencies Act declaration?
	I said from the very beginning, I mean, look, it's not like Trudeau respects the Constitution, but there is that Section 11G that says you can't be found guilty of something that wasn't a crime when you did it.
	And so whoever was asking the question said, you know, it's ambiguous.
	Are you reserving the right or are you threatening or saying it's possible that anyone who donated before the Emergencies Act could have their bank account frozen?
	And the woman answered, she's like, No, it's only going to be afterwards.
	And he's like, well, I'm reading the sections of the Emergencies Act directives, and it's quite ambiguous.
	And I don't know that they actually did that.
	They froze 20, 206 bank accounts.
	They said it was only active participants, organizers, and those who parked their trucks.
	But they left the door open to anyone who donated after the Emergencies Act declaration upon pressing could be a legit target.
	Legit.
	I mean, how do you, I mean, legally, as a nation, ever restore trust in the government, restore trust in the financial institutions from the citizen's perspective and from a foreigner's perspective?
	Trust, you know, gets built up slowly over time and I think it also, it can get diminished very rapidly or it can get diminished slowly, but trust is based on your trustworthiness.
	And this is, you may have caught a postmillennial column that I wrote that was published a few days ago, but it was about whether Canada is slowly sliding into a form of fascism.
	And as a guy with a political science degree, I can tell you that some of the features of fascism include the silencing of opposition.
	The targeting of opposition and forcing society and the economy to rally around a goal that's chosen by the government and vilification of a minority as the other.
	You have that.
	So fascism is very much us versus them.
	We, the good guys, them, the bad guys.
	In a fascist system, you vilify, demonize the minority to legitimize taking away the equality of that minority and mistreating them.
	And I see all of those in Canada.
	You see Trudeau calling the unvaccinated racist, misogynist, extremist, anti-science who should not be tolerated.
	Anti-black racist, transphobes, xenophobes.
	That might have been the convoy, not anti-vax or the unvaxed.
	The convoy was called dangerous, violent, criminal, and falsely accused without any basis of trying to replicate what happened in the United States on January the 6th when they had the storming of the Capitol building.
	And you could see Trudeau trying so hard.
	I think Trudeau wanted the truckers to...
	I think he would have loved that because then he could really justify a national emergency.
	No, there's no question.
	Actually, I want to bring this up.
	Someone had asked, is it true that Jagmeet Singh's brother-in-law donated?
	Let's just see here.
	Here we go.
	Singh's brother-in-law.
	This is from Global News, so you know that whatever is unfavorable has to be true.
	Singh's brother-in-law has asked for his $13,000 trucker convoy donation back, source says.
	I wonder why.
	NDP leader Jagmeet Singh's brother-in-law has asked for his $13,000 GoFundMe donation to the trucker to be returned, according to an NDP source.
	The development comes as the convoy rolls towards Ottawa, hoping to convince the government to quash all vaccine mandates upon their arrival.
	When is this from?
	January 27th.
	Oh, they knew early on.
	As first reported by CBC News, the source said there was a misunderstanding in what the donation would be for, and once Singh's brother-in-law, Dhaliwal, understood the true nature of this organization.
	I'm curious as to how that changed from what they described it to be versus what he thought it was.
	He requested his funds to be returned.
	Well, that's begging for forgiveness real quick from the cancel culture mob.
	Yeah, because, you know...
	Coming to cancel all mandates when he donated to the convoy, whose stated objective was to end all mandates.
	It was unclear, unclear in his head.
	People are saying, what do you do, John?
	But, I mean, you're doing a lot right now.
	Your 15 lawyers are full-time, busy 24-7?
	They've all got too much on their plate, and we are interviewing another batch of...
	We've had more applications for more positions.
	And we're going to be hiring some more lawyers as soon as possible.
	So yeah, the Justice Centre is super swamped.
	We are too busy.
	During the three weeks of the truckers' protests in Ottawa, we had two lawyers on the ground in Ottawa.
	One of them a staff lawyer, one of them retained outside counsel.
	And we've had several lawyers working on...
	The court application that we just filed on February the 23rd against the abuse of the Emergencies Act.
	So yeah, we are super busy.
	Now, I don't want to ask for free legal advice or even anything that could be legal advice.
	Do you think there's any plausibility to the argument that I've been raising that maybe the banks don't actually benefit from any immunity for what they did But whatever.
	The directives of the Emergencies Act that had not been ratified, is there an argument that they might not actually benefit from any form of immunity?
	Don't know.
	Sorry.
	No, no, let's go.
	My theory.
	But the ambiguity is troubling because one of the characteristics of a good law and a just law is that there is clarity there.
	And I had a discussion a few days ago with one of my staff lawyers who had...
	I spent a great deal of time researching the Emergencies Act.
	And I asked the question, if there was a true national emergency that was grounded in reality, grounded in facts, there really was a valid basis for declaring a national emergency, would it be valid for the government to have frozen bank accounts?
	And even there, it was not clear whether that would have been valid or not.
	Ambiguous laws or bad laws.
	But freezing the bank accounts, it's not for financing known designated groups.
	This was freezing bank accounts.
	It was either for having donated or continuing to donate to a registered not-for-profit or for allegedly having participated in a convoy.
	A convoy which was not a designated group was not accused of any...
	The only charges against them were mischief.
	Freezing bank accounts on the idea of mischief or donating to a federally incorporated not-for-profit.
	It's over the top.
	The first warning signs were when the Ottawa police were illegally stealing fuel from truckers.
	Fortunately, these thugs, that's what the Ottawa police are, they're a bunch of thugs.
	They were outsmarted by the protesters because the protesters saw to it that everybody in Ottawa was carrying a jerry can.
	So it became completely impossible for the police to police this because you'd have to stop every single person and check their jerry can.
	Was it empty?
	Was it full of water?
	Or did it have fuel?
	But the Ottawa police, their pretext for stealing fuel from the truckers in winter was that the truckers were committing a crime.
	They were violating Section 430 of the Criminal Code, which is called mischief.
	And their criminal behavior consisted of interfering with the lawful use and enjoyment of property and obstructing people from enjoying their property.
	That was allegedly the crime that the truckers were committing.
	Now, here's what's interesting.
	Not a single ticket was handed out.
	And not a single trucker was charged with the criminal code offense.
	Not a single trucker was arrested for criminal code violation in the first three weeks.
	While the police are not charging or arresting any trucker in respect of any crime, they are stealing fuel on the pretext that the fuel is enabling crime.
	And this is the same reason, the same pretext now, why our client Tamara Leach, One of the leaders of the convoy is in jail right now for ostensibly assisting or counseling for the commission of violation 430.
	She's a political prisoner, effectively.
	Well, we'll get to that in one second, actually.
	I want people to appreciate that the stealing of the gas and the stealing of the fuel and the stealing of food, for those who don't know, in Ottawa...
	The truckers involved in the protest sleep in their cabins, whatever it's called, in the back of their trucks.
	To stay warm, they run the trucks, they idle the trucks through the night to warm the cabin.
	So to effectively steal the gas would be to try to run them out of gas so they could not heat their cabins, so either they freeze to death or freeze their way to abandonment.
	And stealing the food we just saw from Tom that they were stealing sausages is to try to starve them out.
	So they were trying to freeze them out and starve them out.
	Even if you think it was an obstructive protest, that's what Canada has become and may no one forget.
	But getting back to Tamara, you guys are representing her.
	We represent Tamara Leach.
	Yes, we do.
	I should say that there's an Ottawa lawyer, Diane Magus, who is the criminal defense lawyer who is defending Tamara Leach.
	And the Justice Centre is paying for that.
	And someone says, Aviva, police told them to go seek shelter at homeless shelters after they ran out of fuel, already past capacity.
	Yeah, after they were allegedly already accused of having stolen food from homeless shelters.
	I mean, the accusations never made sense, but setting that aside, I mean, is there, I said hypothetically, playing the mind game, maybe if Tamara Leach got up in front of the judge, you know, with two middle fingers and said, I'm not doing a damn thing you say, Let me out.
	I'm going to run right back out there and do it.
	Did she do anything of the sort that could be construed as overt defiance to any eventual terms of release?
	No.
	I mean, she's willing to be available to stand trial.
	And she's not a threat or a danger to anybody in any way.
	She has no criminal record herself, which is relevant because...
	When there's a bail hearing, that's one of the things the judge will look at.
	Do you have a criminal record already?
	And if so, how long is it and what's it for?
	And it stands in the person's favour if they do not have a criminal record.
	And so this woman without a criminal record, who's just charged with, I guess, advocating for the protesters' protests in Ottawa.
	And there hasn't even been a conviction.
	Of any kind that any trucker committed a criminal code offense.
	And yet, here we have somebody in jail for having advocated for, counseled for, doing something that in respect to which there's no finding that it actually is a crime.
	I want to bring this one up because Richard brings up a decent point.
	There is always this mention of January 6th.
	I need to know.
	What do you know about January 6th and where did you get that information from?
	The same place it called the truckers racist and violent.
	So, Richard, I don't know.
	I doubt this is directed at me or you, John, because Robert and I, we were talking January 6th the day it occurred.
	There are some analogies in terms of how the media spun the events.
	One thing that is just undeniable, there was some violence.
	There was violence at the January 6th, there's no question.
	Whether or not it was the exception or characterized it, it was there.
	There's no doubt.
	Which is the main distinction between Ottawa and this.
	The media uses the comparisons where they are not comparable to begin with.
	But there's no doubt misrepresentation of what occurred on January 6th from the media.
	Just to clarify that.
	And then someone else said freezing them out and starving them out is shameful.
	It's beyond shameful.
	But John?
	What's going to happen?
	What are the chances that the government is ever held accountable for what they've done here?
	Well, some of that has got to be a democratic accountability whereby the voters at the polls punish the politicians and the parties that so blithely threw freedom under the bus.
	I mean, I keep on going back to this like a broken record.
	You know, I hope that we'll be very successful in our court actions.
	Time will tell.
	But ultimately, we've had all these violations of our Charter Rights and Freedoms because there's been substantial support.
	Maybe not majority support.
	I mean, who knows for sure.
	But there's been substantial support from fear-filled Canadians who bought into the government's big lie that COVID...
	Would be as bad as the Spanish flu of 1918.
	For people who know their history, you'll know the Spanish flu of 1918 killed between 50 and 100 million people around the globe.
	So just fathom that for a moment.
	At a time when the world population was barely a quarter of what it is today.
	So you figure minimum 20 million, possibly 50 million, possibly 100 million people dying.
	That was the Spanish flu of 1918.
	And what got us kick-started onto this fear rollercoaster was the government's believing Dr. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London, who said that COVID-19 would be like the Spanish flu of 1918.
	So this is something, you know, like 100 times worse than an annual flu, is what we were told.
	Now, COVID is much worse than your typical annual flu.
	However, if you can picture a spectrum with typical annual flu here and Spanish flu of 1918 here, the COVID is way, way safer to the side of the annual flu.
	And yet, when people are in a state of fear, they want a quick, easy, simple solution that they can just act on.
	So along comes the government and says, well, You know, isolate yourself.
	Cut off.
	Destroy your own social life.
	Don't go to the gym.
	Don't go anywhere.
	Stay home.
	Wear a mask when you go out.
	Live in a state of fear 24 hours a day.
	Stay six feet away from other people.
	And a lot of people have just bought into that.
	Anyway, all of that to say that in terms of accountability, we need to have a public opinion that's based on facts, not fear.
	Well, I was just going to add in terms of on which end of the spectrum between the Spanish flu and the regular flu COVID situates itself, when you subdivide within COVID itself and which ends of the spectrum it affects more in terms of age and demographics and underlying conditions, it's heavily weighted, so much so that policy should have been heavily weighted as well.
	Whereas I think the Spanish flu really affected, it didn't only affect a certain demographic.
	Well, it did.
	Actually, the majority of the Spanish flu deaths were people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.
	And so this had a huge impact on population life expectancy.
	Many, many children were left orphaned.
	COVID has not left children orphaned.
	I mean, it's left people in their 40s and 50s orphaned, I suppose, when elderly parents pass away.
	But COVID has not...
	It's not left children orphaned in the way that the Spanish flu did.
	COVID is a serious threat to roughly 10% of the population.
	If you are elderly and you're already sick with one or two or three serious health conditions, then COVID is a threat.
	But for 90% of the people, you risk death more by just getting into a motor vehicle as a driver or as a passenger.
	you run a greater risk of death than you do dying of COVID.
	And so, you know, the politicians with the government-funded media have been very successful at promoting this fear and even I don't know.
	I hope it's a small percentage, but you still have Canadians living in total fear of COVID.
	See, the state-funded media with their state-funded pollsters are now saying, People pulling back the measures are going to cause anxiety in people because they're so used to the ball and chain.
	John, do you know how many people, are you guys involved in the events at Coutts?
	No.
	No, we were not.
	So we had three border closures.
	The one you mentioned, Coutts, and then there was Emerson, Manitoba, and there is Windsor, Ontario.
	The interesting thing about those is maybe, maybe, maybe possibly That could have formed a basis for a national emergency.
	I'm not so sure because if you can get rid of those blockades through regular law enforcement, then there is no national emergency, right?
	But interestingly, all three of those border blockades ended prior to Justin Trudeau declaring a national emergency on February 14th.
	And?
	They were ended, John, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, with existing laws and using the court systems with the provincial resources.
	The Ambassador Bridge, whether or not it was directly because of the injunction, they got a court injunction that seemed to have resolved that.
	That was resolved before the Emergencies Act.
	And the other two, I think, did they get court orders?
	Do you know offhand?
	I don't know about the Alberta one, but the police were persuasive.
	There were negotiations ongoing over a period of quite some time and eventually the protesters decided to put an end to it.
	The key point is that when Trudeau declared there was a national emergency, no borders were being blockaded.
	It was only the situation in Ottawa that forms the basis.
	Melanie Lantzman, the Conservative candidate.
	Put out a tweet that was mildly inaccurate in that it implied that the Ottawa protests had been broken up by the time Trudeau called the Emergencies Act.
	And Rosemary Barton from the CBC, who's very much fact and detail-oriented, accused Melanie Lanceman of fake information.
	It was wrong, but Rosemary Barton is in no place to criticize.
	John, do you have any plans to...
	Are you contemplating suing the banks?
	Would you take on those cases if anybody who had their accounts frozen suffered damages?
	Would want to take one of those suits or file one of those suits?
	I mean, part of me hopes that somebody will do it, and it would be an interesting test case to see, you know, to what extent was the bank really forced to do this or not?
	Was the bank really required to do this or not?
	Typically, the Justice Centre, our court actions are against governments and government entities, federal, provincial, municipal government.
	Governmental authorities like universities, professional bodies like law societies.
	Banks are private actors, so we would not be the ones to take it on.
	But I do hope for some accountability because it's very easy for a bank to just go, you know, zap, you're frozen.
	And, you know, be completely callous about the person who's being impacted who can't buy groceries and can't pay their heating bills.
	Someone says, Viva, can the courts ever find the current government committed crimes?
	Never crimes.
	I mean, no.
	Maybe damages, but they're just going to pay it from taxpayer dollars anyhow.
	And then there was a super chat I want to see here.
	The Ontario Ministry of Transportation has effectively shut down 39 trucking businesses in the wake of a crackdown on so-called Freedom Convoy protesters.
	Thank Doug Ford.
	Thank him at the office, at the voting booth.
	It's atrocious.
	I can't verify this.
	I can't vet this.
	I've heard similar stories.
	All right, well, John, so if you're not going to take those files, I might consult with my brother who's practicing out of Ontario because a good class action or a good joinder of actions for anyone who had their accounts frozen for punitive damages, for rights violations, it's atrocious.
	Okay, I won't keep you too long.
	John, where can people find you?
	And if you can help people have some hope in the future, what good news can you give everybody who's watching?
	Well, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
	That's a saying attributed to Edmund Burke.
	And so I think just to be active and to speak the truth, to not be manipulated by politicians into living in fear.
	To speak truth to power.
	Sometimes it's those everyday, ordinary, practical things that people do that turn the tide.
	I think in the long run, we're going to win because truth in the long run will vanquish the lie and justice triumphs over injustice and people will appreciate facts over fear.
	On a practical level, One thing that the Justice Centre has already distributed hundreds of thousands of brochures across Canada to educate the public about their charter rights and freedoms and explain how and why vaccine passports are a gross and unjustified violation of our charter rights and freedoms.
	And so if you want to do something, you know, meaningful, practical, constructive, that makes a difference, contact the Justice Centre, And you can email us.
	You can ask for a stack of 100 brochures.
	And just go into your neighborhood and put them in mailboxes and educate your neighbors.
	Because if you change the public opinion, then this nightmare will come to an end.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	And I'll put in the link so everybody can donate if they want to.
	I'm going to go myself and make a donation immediately after this stream.
	John, it's going to be the one time I don't end the stream with you to say our proper goodbyes.
	I will email you or text you afterwards and thank you very much.
	Keep it up.
	Are you looking to hire more attorneys?
	Yes.
	Spread the word.
	If you've got an aunt, uncle, cousin, brother, child, daughter-in-law who's a lawyer.
	And if they are freedom-minded and freedom-oriented and want to fight for our charter freedoms, tell them to go to our website, www.jccf.ca, and apply.
	And we want to hire more lawyers as soon as possible.
	Okay, excellent.
	Well, we'll see.
	We'll see everyone out there.
	You'll have the link if you want to donate.
	You know where to submit your CVs.
	John, thank you very much.
	We'll do it again when there's updates.
	And when there's anything public, you can share on the multiple lawsuits you guys are involved in.
	Let me know and we'll come back on.
	All right.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	Have a good weekend.
	All right.
	Bye-bye.
	All right, people.
	I hope everyone appreciated that format.
	It's interesting.
	It's like a daytime radio show now where we just line up guests and talk about things that are going on at the current time.
	Never let the government forget what they've done here.
	Never let them forget.
	And do not get discouraged.
	To the point where you'll become apathetic to letting them forget.
	Next election, people have short memories.
	And people want, you know, like once the hardship is over, like, okay, it wasn't so bad.
	This should never be forgotten.
	Government pays lawyers the best and give the best retirement and the most security.
	And that's why freedom suffers.
	Unions should never exist in a democratic government.
	Look out for them.
	Okay.
	I'm not sure I agree with that or disagree with that entirely.
	But there was one chat that I want to get that I saw because I want to.
	Oh, come on.
	The chat is still moving too quickly for me to...
	Was it this?
	Yeah, here we go.
	I know what this is.
	I haven't clicked on it, but I know from the words in the Google, two things which are going to blow your mind.
	The military saw the COVID pandemic as a good opportunity to test propaganda techniques on citizens.
	That was about a year and a half ago.
	Ottawa Citizen, the front page is a man with a very stern-looking face grimacing from the military.
	And the other thing that the government did was track the devices of 33, it was 33 million devices in Canada during the pandemic to track movement of Canadians during the lockdowns, during the pandemic, for our safety.
	They are weaponizing all government resources against the citizens for what can only be described as the destruction of all civil rights and liberties that ever existed in this country, for our safety.
	I'm tired of...
	Oh, sorry.
	I thought that might have been a suggest of violence.
	No.
	I'm tired of voting out.
	I want to vote someone in.
	Loving the format and enjoying checking in daily, though I realize this isn't sustainable.
	But when you want to build a studio out, DM me on Instagram.
	Cassidy the Carpenter?
	Screenshotted.
	Thank you.
	Cassidy the Carpenter also running for office, I believe, in Windsor.
	So everyone check that out.
	Cassidy, don't do another Super Chat.
	Just post your links.
	But I tweeted it out.
	I promised you I would, and I did.
	So that's it.
	That's the latest.
	We'll see what's happening.
	Sunday night, we have our stream with Barnes.
	I may be in a different location.
	We'll see what happens.
	Hold on.
	I just wanted to bring this one up.
	Here we go.
	Not for the flattery.
	We thank you so much, Viva.
	Such a breath of fresh air.
	I've been watching for quite a while.
	This is one of those infections.
	We'll call it a political infection that needs the sterilizing light.
	Of as much attention as can possibly be given to it.
	The war in Russia that is being hyped up by the Canadian media right now, the Trudeau-subsidized Canadian media, shifting all attention away from the outrageous conduct in Ottawa, government conduct, is now, look at this shiny thing, look right over there, the Ukraine, Russia, and ignore that.
	It's important what's going on in the world.
	Do not be...
	National-centric in terms of news only.
	Pay attention to it.
	And what's going on over there is extremely important.
	That said, we have national interests that Canadians should not be distracted from focusing on and national violations that should be remedied, rectified, and ensured that they never occur again.
	What I liked about Tom is he said, you know, like, amend Section 1 of the Charter.
	Because these are rights that cannot be violated.
	And they cannot be violated except in accordance with the rule of law and the free and democratic society because that means nothing.
	We've seen that it means nothing now.
	So that's the latest in the world from Canada, people.
	Thank you all very much.
	I have a dog which I hope has not done their business upstairs.
	I'm going to go walk the dogs.
	See you Sunday night.
	Maybe see you tomorrow.
	We'll see what the weekend holds.
	Thank you all for the support.
	I'll put the links in the pinned comments so you know where to go.
	To provide whatever support you want to provide.
	And with that said, good evening.
	Enjoy the weekend.

▲