Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 7, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:45:49

Tamara Lich Bail Re-Hearing Live Stream - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Right on the second marker.
	Short notice, because I wasn't sure if this was going to happen, if I was going to be able to do it.
	And I hope it doesn't turn into a dud of an attempt to livestream today's hearing.
	It's the judgment on the rehearing of Tamara Lich detainment on mischief charges.
	What do I say?
	Good evening, everybody?
	No, it's good afternoon, everybody.
	And I'll let everyone trickle in because this was such short notice.
	If everyone is on the social medias, share the link around and we'll get the context going before this hopefully goes live.
	So I seem to be waiting in the Zoom meeting.
	Let me just make sure there's nothing confidential here.
	I seem to be waiting on the Zoom meeting on the back end.
	The court has made this publicly available.
	But they've capped the Zoom meeting participants at 500.
	Court hearings, for those of you who don't know, generally speaking, are public.
	Criminal court, public.
	Unless they have witnesses that they want to protect the identities of.
	Family law court typically is in-camera or confidential because kids are involved.
	Gosh darn it.
	And they don't want to disclose the identity of children.
	Commercial litigation, you know, all court as a rule is open.
	And for those of you who might have an afternoon free, you might want to find something entertaining and informative and educational to do, go into court and just go and watch how it happens.
	It's the funny thing, actually, because court hearings are generally public.
	You can walk right into any court hearing, listen to what's going on.
	It oftentimes looks weird if you're not a party to the suit or a witness's exception.
	It sometimes looks weird if you're not a party to the suit or working with one of the attorneys on the suit because you walk in and oftentimes, unless it's a highly publicized case, courtrooms are empty because it's like sometimes as boring as watching paint dry.
	The judge says, who are you?
	And you say, just a member of the public.
	I just want to see.
	It's awkward, but the judge will have respect for people who do that.
	So that's it.
	Court hearings are generally public.
	You can walk in.
	And the seating is limited because they only have so many seats in the courtroom.
	In Canada, they're not often televised or broadcast.
	So this is sort of something new, and it's testing the capabilities of the court because they've made it available on Zoom, capped it at 500 participants, and you're lucky if you can get in.
	So we're going to see if I can get in.
	If I can't get in, I'm going to resort to following tweets from people who are live tweeting.
	So that's it.
	Okay, that's the court stuff.
	It is a good use of a day.
	If you have a few hours, go sit in court and just watch.
	I think it should be a mandatory class for all law students.
	A semester, forget class time, three hours a week, just go sit in court and watch and then write reviews as to what you saw.
	All right, now then, more specifically, you know what?
	I've been sharing the screen here.
	Let me see if I can do this.
	Just on the subject of...
	Testing the...
	On the subject of testing this new feature.
	Let me see what this looks like so I can see if I'm properly situated.
	I am.
	Just going to read an article out of...
	Let's see where...
	Which one is this?
	Ottawa Citizen?
	It's not meant to be a circus.
	Convoy bail hearings.
	Testing virtual court capabilities and courtroom decorum.
	I'm in.
	Ooh, son of a beasting.
	I seem to be in.
	Okay.
	What I'm going to do now, this is part of the segue.
	I'm just going to tell the person, seems to be working.
	Because this is a new technology, new system, it's not obvious.
	This is in Ontario, and I'm a Quebec attorney.
	It's not obvious what the rules are of screen sharing or rebroadcasting the Zoom link that has been provided to the maximum number of people.
	And this actually came up in the, I think it was the Michael Flynn hearings.
	Where the federal court was broadcasting the hearing.
	Was it Flynn?
	Whatever.
	One of the federal court cases in the United States where they had allowed cameras to be in, but you couldn't reproduce the court hearing.
	And then there became an issue as to whether or not it was potentially contemptible behavior to have live stream reacted to that hearing, which you could view online, but you couldn't rebroadcast.
	So I don't take chances.
	I'm going to...
	Plug in an ear bit and listen to the reading of the judgment, and I'll relay what's going on in real time.
	And for anybody who might be concerned...
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on one second.
	Okay, I've been muted.
	And to quell everybody's concern, if you think I'm going to inaccurately relay what's going on, there will be a written judgment of this afterwards.
	I just want to make sure I'm on mute.
	Disconnect audio?
	No.
	Okay.
	So we're going to try and see how this works.
	I've been muted.
	Good.
	For anyone worried that I'm going to misrepresent the judgment, it will be issued in writing afterwards.
	This is going to be pretty boring of a hearing because what it is literally is going to be the judge reading his written decision.
	It happens in civil cases.
	I don't do criminal, so I've never sat in on bail hearings.
	So that's it.
	That's what's going to happen.
	It should be boring.
	But it should be very interesting.
	Let's see here.
	From the Ottawa Citizen article.
	The virtual hearings, Tamara Litch, Chris Barber, Pat King, Tyson Freedom, George Billings, yada yada, have frequently hit the maximum capacity of 500 participants as they're flooded with protest supporters and curious observers.
	Okay, so I hear people talking and they don't hear me.
	The court's newfound popularity, yada yada.
	So it's very interesting.
	I hear the judge.
	This is cool, guys.
	This is cool.
	They're going to be disabling the chat function.
	Okay.
	Okay, you guys can't hear me on the other end of this Zoom call?
	They can't hear me.
	Okay, so that's what's going to be happening.
	Okay.
	Hold on one second, guys.
	I screwed something up.
	Camera.
	USB.
	Okay, there we go.
	Audio.
	Okay, sorry about that, peeps.
	I seem to have cut myself off.
	Everybody can hear me and see me?
	Just let me know.
	Okay, good.
	I hit the USB cable and dislodged it.
	So, the judge is literally going to be reading the judgment.
	Who's making predictions on what's going to happen?
	Actually, let's go...
	Let's go...
	I was going to say something.
	Let's just go over a bit of the context.
	If I get distracted, this is actually mildly distracting.
	And I can usually multitask very well.
	Now I'm having to listen and speak at the same time.
	Okay.
	So this is it.
	This is the hearing of the judgment on Tamara Litch's rehearing on the bail.
	She was denied bail, as was Pat King.
	And Pat King, I mean, I covered it.
	I can pull up an article to go over it.
	But Pat King was denied bail on the basis that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute because of his willful scorn for the rule of law that the judge or the officer of the peace said, if I release this individual, it's going to undermine the judicial system, which...
	I mean, you have to be a character in a Kafka novel to think that that actually makes sense, that the continued indefinite detainment of someone who's been accused of mischief can somehow be lawfully justified.
	I respectfully find that to be outrageous.
	I find it to be judicially outrageous, but alas, I'm not the judge.
	So Pat King is still detained.
	I missed the super chat.
	I just want to remind everyone that...
	Okay, I'll get to this in a second.
	Pat King was denied bail, and the judge, the officer of the peace justified it.
	Now we're waiting on Tamara Lich.
	And for those who are, you know, when you look for consistency in the judicial system and predictability, I'm sitting here saying, I'm not confident that she's getting released, because on the one hand, if she were going to get released...
	I thought the judge would have done it the day of, and if he needed to issue a written motivated judgment, he would have done that in the days following while giving Tamara Lich her freedom.
	When he said, you're going to stay in jail until I read the judgment on Monday, my stomach sank from a legal perspective saying, they're keeping her in jail now, and he's writing up the decision as to why.
	From a judicial consistency perspective, I'm sitting here thinking to myself, what's going to happen?
	If this judge now in his written judgment says Tamara Lich gets out, but Pat King stays in jail, how do you reconcile those two mutually incompatible decisions?
	Or maybe this judge is going to say, the detainment has been absolutely outrageous.
	Have a good explanation why that might be used for Pat King, a rehearing on the rehearing.
	I don't know what the procedure would be in Ontario.
	And Pat King will benefit from a favorable judgment here.
	And the judge, you know, can say, look, the extra five days in jail.
	While I drafted this motivated decision is Tamara Lich's extra punishment for having done what she did, but she'll get her freedom on Monday.
	So I don't know where this is going.
	You know what?
	King is a goof.
	I don't care.
	You don't detain goofs indefinitely on mischief charges.
	When I've been speaking with other lawyers who practice criminal law, drug dealers, fentanyl dealers, accused murderers.
	They might get a $750,000 bail, but they still get released pending their trial because you all have to appreciate pretrial detention is the detention of a legally innocent but maybe ultimately guilty individual because you're not guilty until you're found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
	And what you're doing by detaining someone pretrial is you're detaining someone who is legally innocent but is accused of something.
	And the reasons for which you can justify continued detention, there's a number of factors, but you favor life, liberty, and the pursuit of...
	You favor freedom because no one should be denied or given excessive bail.
	And, you know, murderers, accused murderers are just accused until they're found guilty, and even they get bail.
	So, the idea, goof or not, Goof or not, continued detainment but for the criteria where it meets the necessary threshold.
	Imminent risk to public safety and not imminent risk of causing more mischief.
	Imminent risk of more violence.
	Flight risk.
	Resettative risks.
	It's like the 15th time and they just don't learn.
	But, you know, four charges for Pat King on mischief or mischief-related, inciting mischief, yada yada.
	Oh, shoot.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Robert Barnes is live with Richard Barris.
	They're going over American stuff and international stuff, so this is purely for the benefit of Canada and Canadians.
	I hate overlapping with Barnes and Barris, and it was last minute because I didn't know if I was going to be able to actually see this.
	Richard Barris is live with Barnes at 2 o 'clock, and if you're not interested in this bail hearing, I believe they're talking Ukraine.
	I'm not sure.
	So that's my issue.
	The lawyer in me says there is absolutely no way in law that the continued detainment of Tamara Lich on mischief charges can possibly be justified.
	Because if she's denied now, she basically stays in jail until her trial on the mischief charges.
	And that could be, I don't know how long, months.
	The right to a speedy trial exists only on paper.
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on.
	I smell sass.
	Yes, yes, I'm a lawyer.
	And did I ever mention that my wife is a postdoc?
	That's the other Ben Stiller?
	Ben Shapiro joke.
	In my mind as a lawyer, impossible to justify detainment until trial on these charges.
	It's impossible.
	But they seem to have done it to Pat King.
	If they do it here, then you can have a re-hearing, sort of like an appeal of the re-hearing.
	But from what I understand, that's very difficult to overturn because this will be the second time the pretrial detainment has been confirmed.
	So I'm sitting here thinking, how do they let Tamara Lich out on this judgment without conflicted judgments on two individuals ostensibly charged with the same type of mischief?
	I don't know.
	People are asking the question about, isn't Tamara Lich indigenous and the Emergencies Act itself contains an exception?
	And let me share the screen here because there is some truth to that.
	I'll just pull up an article.
	I won't pull up the actual Emergencies Act.
	Emergencies Act regulation bans protest except...
	Is this the one?
	Except for indigenous or refugees.
	What the regulations do not do is explain why specific groups of people are exempted.
	It's an interesting thing.
	So the Emergencies Act was that act that Justin Trudeau invoked.
	Let's just see.
	I'll read the section.
	Section 2.1 of the regulation deals with public assembly and states that a person, quote, a person must not participate in a public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace, end quote.
	But that section has an exception.
	Subsection 1. Does not apply to, A, a person registered as an Indian under the Indian Act, because that's still what it's called in Canada, despite political correctness.
	B, a person who has been recognized as a convention refugee, the regulation states.
	Goes on to include protected persons, yada, yada, yada.
	What the regulations do not explain is why specific groups are exempted from the ban on protesting.
	So, there's that exemption in the act.
	Let me just pull up my screen so I can see myself.
	There's that exception to the prohibition on protests under the Emergencies Act.
	The only issue is going to be that Tamara Lich, insofar as she may be Indigenous, is Métis, which is the part European, part Indigenous, except under the Indian Act.
	That's what it's called.
	Don't judge me, people.
	Métis are not recognized as having Indigenous status under the Act.
	You know, if one is going to look for that method of escape for the judge to say, okay, ordinarily, if it were Pat King, I'd keep him in jail, but Tamara Lich is indigenous, so I'm going to let her out.
	I don't think that flies in law under the wording of the Emergencies Act and how it's interpreted.
	Oh, we hear I heard something in my left ear.
	So there's that.
	Why would they make Lich a martyr?
	Let me just see where I can find that.
	They're not thinking martyr.
	They're thinking making an example.
	I mean, it's interesting.
	You just see both sides of these coins of life.
	A martyr to one is an example.
	A martyr to some is an example to others.
	Court wants to pull a January 6th in terms of its weaponized prosecution and weaponized sentencing and weaponized pretrial detention.
	But I've spoken with lawyers who do this.
	For a living.
	And they say they've seen drug dealers and accused murderers get bail.
	Okay, I hear someone talking, but it's not yet on.
	So there's that.
	Let me turn this down here.
	And so I appreciate that people don't like Pat King.
	You may not like Tamara Lich.
	In a free and democratic society, in a truly free and democratic society, not in a democracy that's sliding towards authoritarianism.
	You do not.
	Not Métis viva.
	Yeah, no, that's what I just said.
	Métis is not recognized under the Indian Act, so they would not be given the exemption that's provided for, for whatever the reason, we can assume politics under the Emergencies Act.
	They're not doing Pat King today, unless I'm mistaken.
	Pat King was confirmed.
	I don't believe this hearing is for Pat King, but someone in the chat, correct me if I'm wrong.
	The rehearing judgment that we're going to hear the judge read today.
	I hear the judge now.
	Good afternoon, Your Honor.
	Okay.
	The judge is in.
	Now, apparently the judge is a Toronto judge, brought in from Toronto to render this decision.
	So, the judge is from Toronto, which, you know, Robert Barnes and I have talked about it.
	As far as the January 6th stuff goes, Having the judges who were there and present during January 6th who felt threatened from the insurrection, having them adjudicate on this could be something of a conflict of interest.
	Now, counsel is speaking to her client.
	Okay, so counsel is addressing the court before he reads the judgment.
	She's saying there's been a breach of the publication, Ben.
	So, I don't...
	So, apparently there's been a breach of a publication ban.
	I wasn't aware of a breach of a publication ban.
	Oh, in terms of the...
	So, apparently, the proposed certi, they want to have a publication ban on his or her identity to preserve anonymity.
	Okay.
	There's a publication ban on the proceedings respecting the name of the certainty.
	So they're repeating the publication, Ben.
	So they're...
	Not allowed screenshots.
	Not allowed rebroadcasting.
	Okay, anyone using electronic devices in the courtroom have to abide by the no reproduction of the court hearings.
	So that's better safe than sorry, people.
	So this might be a little bit boring because I'm just going to digest and then relay.
	It'll be like live tweeting with my mouth.
	Decision is a little long, apparently.
	Decision is a little long, apparently.
	So they're giving the context now.
	I'll give you the essential stuff.
	Summary of the decision is this is a decision of the bail review.
	I'm tweeting with my lips.
	I'm tweeting with my lips.
	Detention was ordered on two separate grounds.
	Detention was necessary for public safety.
	Substantial likelihood of...
	There you go.
	There you go.
	Same reasons as in Pat King.
	Detention was necessary because of likelihood of going out and committing another crime and necessary to preserve faith or confidence in the judicial system.
	They're going over the...
	Regina and St. Cloud is apparently the seminal Supreme Court decision.
	Regina and St. Cloud.
	I don't know if we're going to go into that, but I'll bring up some super chats in the meantime.
	Bye.
	Thank you.
	Oh, I no longer, I don't give or take advice on, thank you, but I do not give or dispense or really follow advice on crypto investments.
	He's saying the reviewing judge does not have blanket liberty to review the original bail hearing decision.
	Let me know if what I'm saying in real time is not clear.
	He's saying it's appropriate for the reviewing judge to intervene if the original justice of the peace made an error in law.
	Or if the original hearing was clearly inappropriate.
	Basically, I don't know how to compare it to an appeal, but this looks like there's more deference to the original ruling judge who issued the bail order.
	Manifest poor appreciation of the evidence.
	Okay.
	So basically, he's setting out his capacity, freedom, as the reviewing attorney to revise the original order.
	The reviewing judge can change the original order if there's been a material change in the circumstances.
	Of the original detention.
	So that's going to be how he can get out, the judge.
	Say, I'll let her out now because the situation has changed now from when it was when she was detained.
	That's what's going to happen.
	This is just carbonated water, people, with Emergency.
	Not an ad, by the way.
	Yet.
	But if Emergency wants to sponsor a video, I will happily sponsor a video with a product that I already use.
	Okay, so after considering the totality of the evidence, he's convinced that if there's a substantial risk, she will commit these actions and will not abide by the order, declaring her to stop.
	Thank you.
	Okay, now I'm not sure if...
	That was the original decision, people.
	So the original decision said, I'm not convinced that if I release you, you're not going to go immediately recommit.
	When they do these things, by the way, they always leave it.
	They leave it like suspenseful right up until the end.
	You only know about halfway through where the judge is actually going.
	Okay, so they're saying that Tamara established a pattern of noncompliance warranting continued detention on mischief charges, people.
	The original judge, or the original justice of the peace, was satisfied that she'll continue to engage in unlawful behavior if they let her out, so continued detention warranted.
	I believe David Amber is live-tweeting this as well.
	Let me see, actually.
	The judge was not persuaded by Tamara Litch's testimony.
	That she'd go home and be law-abiding.
	Her attitude was almost obstructive, according to the original judge who did the hearing.
	The judge rejected the evidence that Tamara Lich apparently submitted that she wanted to go home.
	Frail and not convincing.
	Yeah, she'll continue to be mischievous.
	So these judges always draft the judges so they don't let you know where they're going.
	And you know about halfway through.
	And I had my former mentor back at BLG, Borden Leiter Gervais.
	Whenever I'd get a judgment, I would torture myself reading it through without going to the end.
	He's like, let me see what the conclusion is.
	Right to the end.
	Okay.
	So they basically said Tamara Lich was publicly counseling and encouraging other people, encouraging, quote, truckers and friends to hold the line.
	She was posting on Facebook, apparently.
	Okay.
	She was posting her interpretation of what judges were saying during civil proceedings on the injunction.
	Thank you.
	Oh, shit.
	So they were accusing her of providing misleading summaries of the injunction proceedings.
	Hold the line.
	Well, it's not even clear what it means.
	I mean, it's a trope.
	And they quite clearly were not holding the line because they're not there anymore.
	Okay.
	Oh, they said the proposed certi.
	Unreliable and not credible.
	So maybe they can weasel out of it like that and say, I found a new security or certi.
	Apparently her father was evasive.
	Bail justice found that there was a substantial risk of re-offending.
	The Crown had met the onus.
	And they did not like...
	they didn't like the proposed plan of release, which they didn't feel confident would result in a situation where there would not be a continued breach.
	Thank you.
	Okay, so, bottom line, they thought she would re-offend, they found her credibility to be impugned, and they did not buy the certi, which is the person basically guaranteeing monetarily compliance of the released, of the accused, pending the release.
	Let's see.
	The same line.
	To maintain the confidence in the administration of justice, we have to continue to detain them.
	Because if we don't, They're going to run out and break the law again or encourage the protests.
	Let me see if...
	They're talking about detention on tertiary grounds, which I don't fully understand, but we're getting the essence of it.
	They're quoting from the bail justice decision again.
	And so they're saying...
	What justifies the continued detention is that the prima facie case against Tamara Lich seems very strong.
	Let's see what they're saying.
	Her and her friends were counseling people to continue breaking the law.
	Oh, here we go.
	Okay.
	Amber is live tweeting.
	So if this makes it more exciting, we'll have something to read.
	You'll read the finger tweets with the mouth tweets.
	It's like when you want to write a motivated judgment, you can get to the conclusion by just knowing where you want to get to.
	You want to detain her?
	You'll say, yep, you are going to pose a risk to the public.
	You're going to go encourage other people to break the law.
	You yourself are going to go break the law.
	You're defiant.
	I don't trust you, your testimony, and I'm the trier of testimony when you talk.
	I don't trust your surety.
	Okay.
	The initial justice is saying how Ottawa streets were blocked.
	So she's basically saying that in the press conference, Tamara Lich basically encouraged others to continue either holding the line or breaking the law.
	Does everyone like this layout better and I'll continue scrolling down through Amber or should I take it out?
	I'll take it out.
	A, if I should bring back Amber's Twitter feed.
	B, if I should leave it out and only bring it up periodically.
	Viva, honest question.
	Do judges and prosecutors believe their own BS or do they laugh about these arguments in back rooms after court is dismissed?
	I refer everyone to Lewis Carroll's quote.
	I think they believe it.
	I think it's the most...
	I think they believe it.
	They believe that they're doing good.
	By continuing to detain.
	And they believe the purported threats.
	Okay, now the original justice talking about the circumstances of the offense.
	The original judge referring to the impact of the obstruction.
	The impact it had on the community.
	important circumstances regarding the commission of the offense.
	She was a The original justice deemed her to be effectively a leader, advising, counseling others to obstruct and to break the law for an extended period of time.
	You could draft this decision if that's the conclusion you want to come to.
	Interesting question.
	That's an interesting question.
	Why can't Give Senghor put up a million, Surti?
	Okay.
	Oh, now he's citing the original judge.
	we talked about this where the original judge said, you are certainly facing very lengthy time on conviction.
	Well, they didn't break any laws.
	It was peaceful.
	The injunction, which ordered the cessation of the honking, said, so long as you abide by this court order, you can peacefully protest.
	And...
	I don't know that anyone was held in contempt of violating that court order.
	Yet the politicians call it an illegal protest.
	Now that the judge is doing a review of the position of the parties, I could do that for you in advance.
	Detention is excessive, unwarranted, set aside.
	Errors of law, errors of appreciation of evidence.
	Thank you.
	Oh, they've alleged apprehension of bias.
	The decision was clearly inappropriate.
	But good luck trying to convince the court that they're out, that the court is biased.
	I mean, basically, when you ask for the recusal of a judge, guess who hears whether or not the judge recuses themselves?
	The judge themselves.
	Crown is going to argue, they're arguing the position of the crown.
	No evidence of bias, yada, yada, yada.
	Judge did a good job, considered the law, considered the facts, and applied the law.
	It might be bad, but whatever.
	Not bad, but it might be harsh on Tamara, but the law is the law.
	Oh, they argued.
	Vexatious allegations of bias.
	Unless I misunderstood that.
	And...
	Okay, sorry.
	I thought I just lost the feed.
	I thought I was wrong.
	Oh, I might not be allowed to do this, guys.
	Well, I'll stop.
	Okay.
	So I think they might be talking about me, but I didn't think that that would be a problem.
	Thank you.
	So I may not be able to do this the way I've been doing it.
	Thank you.
	I didn't see why this would be any different than tweeting, so I'll just...
	Okay, so I'll stop doing it this way and I'll just go to live tweeting.
	I will publicly apologize to the court if I didn't...
	I thought this would be the same as live tweeting without rebroadcasting, so I'll just go to live tweeting.
	My apologies.
	Okay, so we'll just go.
	I'll read the tweets and we can't do it this way, I guess.
	Okay.
	I'll share.
	Nope.
	Stop screen.
	I'll go share the, I'll go to Twitter and just see what the journalists are doing.
	Okay, we'll go here.
	Yeah.
	I'm just listening now.
	Anyways, okay, I'll go to Twitter and just read tweets as we're doing this, because if this was not permitted, that was not my intention.
	Let's see who's tweeting.
	Okay, so discussion of the bail decision, no record, no prior noncompliance.
	Okay, well, look, I don't know if this is...
	Are we allowed...
	Okay, well, let's see.
	Am I allowed reading the tweets?
	All right, well, we'll see if this was not permitted.
	I mean, this was not...
	Reproducing any portion of the screenshots or the stream itself, and I guess I'll go read tweets.
	Let's see here.
	Place an emphasis on all levels of government telling protesters to go home and stop protesting.
	Original judge found that continuing substantial risk was not reduced by original certainty.
	Found it to be unreliable, not credible.
	Okay, well, I mean, let's see what's going on here.
	We are now in recess because the judge has ticked that live streaming is going on.
	So I don't know if someone's actually live streaming the actual Review judge now in position.
	So this is from Amber's Twitter feed.
	It says defense crown disputes all grounds, yada, yada.
	Okay, and then Amber reports we are now in recess because the judges ticked that live streaming is going on.
	Let's retweet that.
	Do we know who that is?
	Oh, I'm in incognito on Twitter, so I'll have to go to my handle.
	All right, so I don't know if someone was actually live streaming the hearing itself.
	I think that would have been the limitation.
	Of reproducing the hearing itself and sharing screen, which is why I don't know if someone was doing that.
	If someone else knows if someone was doing that, do let me know.
	Well, I'll keep this up here.
	I don't know if someone was doing that, and that's what they're referring to, or if live commentary is any different than Twitter.
	Okay, well, let's see.
	Let's see if my phone rings.
	So let me go back to the chat, remove this.
	Live stream...
	Well, let's see.
	Does anyone know if there was someone else live streaming the actual stream, like screen sharing, or if this was...
	Well, we'll see.
	Look, they read it out.
	I read out the order.
	And people are tweeting live with the update, so I don't know what could be the problem.
	But we'll see.
	Okay, well, I'll read in the chat.
	Oh, someone says, yes, people are live streaming the actual court.
	Okay, well, see, I'm not trying to cover my butt.
	I always defer to the better side of judgment because during the...
	It was...
	Someone correct me.
	I think it was the...
	Oh, gosh.
	It was one of the American ones where people were live streaming commentary thinking that that's transformative.
	Look, I'm reacting.
	It's public domain.
	But...
	You're not allowed rebroadcasting a portion of it, which is why when I did my analyses, at the very least in that particular case, I didn't even reuse clips from the actual court hearing.
	Let me see here.
	Viva makes no way.
	I don't know what that means.
	Hold on.
	Let me see here.
	Viva, remember...
	Okay.
	Because I'm terrified.
	No, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
	I make sure to follow the rules.
	I don't know if other people were live streaming thinking you could share the screen, and because it was public in the first place, you're allowed doing that.
	Anyway, so that's it.
	So there's going to be a break, and I'm reading that iconic cafe being evicted, and I'm reading slow mode, please.
	Someone was doing a live feed in court.
	No, I don't think so.
	I think someone might have been screen sharing.
	The actual Zoom meeting, which was allowed for 500 people to be watching live.
	So we'll see.
	Um.
	Um.
	um Okay, well, let's see here.
	What are the judges?
	I mean, it's open so that people can take notes in real time.
	I mean, that's...
	Anyhow, we'll see.
	Let me see how I'm going to call Amber.
	You know what?
	I'm going to call Amber.
	Okay, so I've got one that says the full 500 were in the Zoom, but can't.
	Okay, well, let's see here.
	I'll call Amber.
	Hold on a second, guys.
	Hello?
	Oh, good.
	Wait, who is this?
	Well, I'm live streaming right now.
	Nobody can hear you, but the question is, Was someone live streaming the actual...
	I've been live commenting without streaming any portion of this and I'm concerned.
	I'm worried that it might have been that, but I don't see how that would be any different than live tweeting this.
	Unless someone was actually...
	So...
	So, okay, well, no, or someone might have been screen sharing.
	Sorry, I'm just talking to someone, people, who the, whether or not the question is whether or not someone was actually live streaming this, screen sharing the actual hearing, or whether or not my live commentary is what they're referring to, but I don't see how that could be.
	No, no, that's it.
	The court, by the way, everyone out there, and I said it at the beginning, not to screen share or republish any of this, because the fact that it's available to the public, Doesn't mean that you can go into a courtroom with a camera and record because you have specific rooms for that.
	And they've given this live feed with people live tweeting, which is reiterating what's going on in the courtroom without actually republishing or screen sharing or whatever.
	Okay, well, we'll see.
	But anyway, so they're still suspended.
	Oh, someone says yes, they were.
	Okay, well, let's not troll.
	Let's not spam the comments, people.
	No.
	Viva, I don't break the law.
	I specifically make sure to adhere to it and reiterate what the court rules were.
	No republication and no photos and no screen grabs and no nothing.
	Okay.
	Okay, well, let me know what happens.
	I'm going to call Amber and just see what the deal is.
	All right.
	Thanks.
	Bye.
	All right.
	Someone who's spamming is in a timeout.
	So let me see here.
	I'm going to call...
	Amber.
	Well, maybe.
	Okay.
	Well, hopefully this ends.
	We'll see.
	What's...
	Well, it says live stream commentary.
	Okay, well, look.
	We'll see what happens.
	I specifically specified what the rules were and why I was doing it this way so as not to breach any orders.
	Changed my title.
	Okay.
	Well, let's see.
	Maybe I'll get a call.
	You made...
	Look, I specified why I was doing it this way even though it's not convenient.
	It's spoken Twitter.
	So let me see here.
	Call David.
	Call David.
	Two seconds, guys.
	Oh, yeah.
	God, is it possible to put me through to David?
	It's all right.
	I'll text him.
	Okay, thanks.
	All right, we'll see.
	My title pops up in Google.
	Well, I'll add the word commentary since that was all that it was.
	Ah, then it's...
	Okay, I thought...
	The title said...
	Okay, well, let me see here.
	Not and I'll go.
	Ah, whatever.
	I'll change it afterwards.
	But it's quite clear that I was not breaching real jobs.
	Well, no.
	The difference is broadcasting court hearings because you can't go into court with a court.
	You can't rebroadcast it.
	Okay.
	So with that said, we'll see when they resume.
	And I can't.
	I'm in the Zoom.
	Okay.
	And tweeting.
	Okay.
	Hold on a second.
	Okay, let's see.
	I'm already in the basement, people.
	Okay, so they don't think it was...
	It's not what I was doing thus far because...
	By all accounts, it wasn't this because I haven't shown anything, but we'll see what happens when they resume.
	We'll get the live tweet.
	I am not broadcasting anything, comma, earbud, and just relaying information as it comes in, period.
	Much like Twitter, period.
	All right.
	Okay.
	So we'll see what they will say.
	Let me know when they resume, but I'll be following your Twitter feed.
	oh wait i didn't want to do that Yeah, if it's not video or audio, it's not a broadcast, and they're back.
	Okay, so I'm going to go back to Amber's Twitter feed.
	I'm going to bring down my screen, so I won't be able to see the chat, people.
	And then we're going to see...
	We're going to get the live feed from...
	Amber, and I also had, but I can't share screen with two people.
	I can't share with two people, so I was going to follow someone else's Twitter feed.
	I'm going to close.
	No, that's my Twitter feed.
	Where is Amber's?
	I don't need this anymore.
	I'll text him afterwards.
	David Amber.
	Okay, let's hear what they are saying.
	I'm going to refresh.
	Well, this isn't going to be as fun.
	Is Viva for the cause?
	Viva LOL.
	Okay, let's see if Amber's making any live tweeting review.
	Okay, so how do I get Amber's most recent tweets at the top?
	We are now in recess.
	Okay, let's see if there's any discussion here.
	I was just denied entry into Canada, Amber, because I did not fill out the arrive count.
	Okay, that's totally something else.
	Okay, well, let me see.
	I'm actually going to...
	They're back.
	Okay.
	I will be refreshing your Twitter feed and explaining things as we move along, period.
	Okay, so let's see here.
	Who was the other?
	There was another Twitter feed that I was going to go look for.
	So I'm being told it was not what I was doing because I was not rebroadcasting the stream, but I'm going to go call this person.
	Well, I don't think it was.
	I'll call one of my two lawyers who I have in this.
	And see if that was the problem.
	Anyhow.
	Okay.
	Let's see.
	I'm going to get this back up.
	I'm going to get this back up.
	Okay.
	Booyah.
	Let's see what we're going to hear.
	So anyway, so bottom line, we're not going to know.
	They read the decision.
	They could issue the decision and you could read it yourself.
	But the judge likes to read it.
	Express the reasoning.
	Basically, it's reading the written judgment.
	So, they go by the same sort of template format all the time.
	Let me just refresh here.
	Set up the facts, the law, the position of the parties, and then the application to the situation.
	Okay, we're back.
	One minute ago.
	Okay, back in business.
	We're back in business.
	Judge resumes pointing out Crown's further argument.
	Oh, you can all see this, right?
	Let me just see if we're still in.
	Okay, we're still in.
	Oh, good.
	I can see it like this.
	Now, I'll go back to the other side.
	It will be...
	I mean, we're going to have to rely on people tweeting as fast as they can because I'm not taking...
	If what I was doing was what gave them concern, I'll just resort to indirect live stream commentary through the live Twitter feed.
	We're back in business.
	Judge resumes pointing out Crown's further argument that claims of bias are not believable.
	Pointing out the Crown's further argument that claims of bias are not believable.
	We've talked about this.
	The idea that this was a...
	I think the initial justice or the initial justice of the piece was from Ottawa.
	And you have the idea.
	You can even see by the verbiage of the original lower decisions with Pat King and with Tamara Lish.
	This is like they wanted to make something of a January 6th out of this and they said you've...
	Terrorized Ottawa, terrorized citizens.
	These are the justices now determining the bail hearing.
	You can believe or not that there was bias or that they were influenced by their own experience with this protest, but in order to prove bias, especially bias sufficient either to recuse a judge or to undermine their decision...
	It's a high burden.
	So the Crown's going to say, no, there's no bias.
	Crown argues that there's no change of circumstance.
	That's going to be an interesting one because there quite clearly is.
	The new certee wouldn't have changed anything at the original hearing.
	Crown argues for deference to the first ruling.
	So those are obvious arguments.
	The certee, so the first certee, from what I understand, let me just go back and refresh and see what we get out of this.
	The first certi was Tamar Litch's father.
	So I think you could have issues there.
	I don't know what the father's liquidity was like.
	But if the liquidity is the issue, you can find a more liquid certi.
	If there was partiality at issue, then it's unclear what you can find another certi who is not involved, not motivated by these things.
	Crown argues New Certi is not suitable.
	Now Certi has other responsibilities.
	New Certi said that they were proud of Lich.
	Crown argues no error of law.
	Okay, obviously.
	So Crown's going to argue the standard stuff, proper appreciation of the facts, proper application of the law, and everything that occurred is justified.
	Keep it going.
	The judge seems right.
	The judge is from Toronto, so you eliminate that concern.
	Or I believe the judge was brought in from Toronto.
	I mean, who knows?
	The judges in Canada are appointed.
	They're not elected.
	And so you can always say they're going to be biased based on who appointed them.
	The courts in Canada, by and large, are nowhere near as politicized in the overt sense as in the United States, where depending on who nominated which judge, you can basically write their decisions beforehand.
	It's not quite that bad in Canada.
	Some might say it's not quite that bad in Canada because...
	The judges are all on the side of the government regardless.
	So that's one way of looking at it.
	On the subject of the reasonable apprehension of bias, this isn't going to go anywhere.
	The bias is sort of like a tertiary argument.
	You've got your main ones, which are, this is not legally justified, it's not factually justified, and then you just throw in there, and also the judge was biased, which is why they so misinterpreted the The facts and the law.
	It's arguable.
	You throw in bias and you might even undermine your first two arguments because you look like you're going after the judge personally and not the arguments themselves.
	That's a double-edged sword to take a chance with.
	Let me just do one thing.
	Just in case the title is something that's confusing or concerning, I will just make sure it's...
	Specified that it's commentary.
	so that nobody thinks Viva Fry does not abide by the rules, even when people don't want me to.
	My channel.
	Let's go here.
	And maybe they misunderstood and thought someone was live streaming the actual hearing, or maybe someone was.
	Okay, so we'll go back to Amber in a second.
	But you throw in accusations at the integrity of the judge, and it's a double-edged sword because you'd better have the receipts to prove it above and beyond a judgment that you don't like.
	Let's see here.
	Commentary.
	Commentary.
	No rebroadcast.
	No rebroadcast.
	Live stream.
	And then we'll save it.
	Okay.
	So that no one is confused.
	Alright, let's get back to Amber's Twitter feed.
	So that's the bottom line.
	Once you start impugning the integrity of any judge, it's not like the higher court judges are going, or the subsequent judges reviewing are going to take kindly to that.
	They don't.
	It was the hardest thing for me to deal with in law is that you oftentimes, you want to go after the other attorney personally.
	You want to call them, everyone of bad faith.
	You go after the lower court judges and say they're biased.
	If you go after the person, judges don't like that.
	Lower court judges don't like it when you do it with the opposing party or opposing counsel.
	And higher court judges don't like it when you do it with their colleagues because they're all colleagues.
	They're not going to say, yeah, I agree, that judge, that officer of the peace was biased.
	I mean, they go to cocktails together.
	If you want to convince them, don't convince them on, don't try to argue something that's going to impugn the character of one of their colleagues.
	There's that.
	Let me see here what Amber's up to, and then we'll bring him back in.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to bring him back in because there's a lot here.
	Okay.
	Add to stream.
	Okay.
	On the subject of the reasonable...
	Okay, fine.
	Review just says it's a serious allegation to make.
	Exactly.
	In this case, there is nothing more than this justice over a decade ago appointed provincially without more is irrelevant.
	And you should all recall, I keep getting confused between the judges in Pat King's bail denial and Tamara Lich.
	Tamara Lich's judge was a former, I think, failed liberal candidate who Trudeau had endorsed.
	So, you know, they'll obviously argue it's irrelevant.
	It would be...
	Incredibly difficult to convince any subsequent re-reviewer of the bias of the lower court judge that would have tainted the decision.
	Because you are basically saying that judge was incapable because of personal issues, character issues, was incapable of doing their job properly.
	The accused in this case has provided no evidence on which a reasonably informed person could find bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.
	And that's a matter of opinion.
	Because I think a lot of people might feel that a judge who ran for the Liberal Party, who was endorsed by Justin Trudeau, by all accounts, let me see if that's actually true.
	Google, judge endorsed by Trudeau, Tamara Lich.
	A freedom panel has concerns about the judge.
	This is from five days ago from the Star.
	This is from five days ago from the National Post, so let me go ahead and bring this one up.
	I'll just read it to you.
	It says, Tamara Lich says liberal judge should have recused herself from bail decision.
	The convoy organizer is back in court Wednesday to seek review of judge's decision to deny her bail.
	And let's just see what the facts are on that judge.
	The judge denied bail, having deemed the convoy organizer a risk to reoffend in her decision, yada, yada, yada.
	In court...
	They filed an affidavit.
	Okay, let's just get to the bias part.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	Oh, that's funny.
	They don't seem to mention what the bias of this judge was.
	Okay, well, we'll see if we can find that.
	If anybody in the chat knows, and let's get back to Amber's Twitter feed.
	Twitter.
	Oh, hold on.
	I can also...
	Let me do this first, actually.
	I'll be able to find out what the judge's name, which I am not repeating because I'm not about putting anyone on blast, but I'm going to go see if indeed the judge was a liberal candidate.
	There's video from the Ottawa Citizen that the judge was a candidate for the Glengarry Prescott Russell.
	In 2011 federal election campaign.
	So this article is from 2011.
	Okay.
	So that's it.
	Was a candidate in the 2011 federal elections.
	Now let me close that down and get back to Amber.
	Boom.
	Shakalaka.
	All right.
	I do not agree with the Crown.
	Oh, so hold on.
	Let's just see.
	Review judge says this is a serious allegation to make.
	The accused in this case has provided no evidence on which a reasonably informed person...
	So this is what the review judge is saying now.
	I equally find no merit to the argument that the original judge referring to our community suggests bias.
	I do not agree with the Crown's argument that I should make an adverse finding against Mrs. Litch's credibility based on her...
	I do not agree with the Crown's argument.
	This is like the double fakie.
	This is the judge now trying to show that he is not biased in favor of the Crown or the government because the Crown or the government is basically saying...
	Because she raised such a preposterous argument, you should draw negative inferences about her credibility because she impugned the credibility of the initial judge or of justice of the peace.
	And the judge says, I do not agree with the Crown's argument that I should make an adverse finding against Mrs. Litch's credibility based on her misguided claim for bias.
	Now turning to other issues.
	Okay, well, these are the other issues.
	So the judge is trying to lay the groundwork here that he is objective, is not parti pris, as we say in French, and is not...
	And that's the wrong piece.
	I'm going to go check with the other lawyer if we've got any other news.
	Because I've got another lawyer who is also...
	I don't know if they're live-tweeting any other news.
	So, yeah, the judge is laying the groundwork.
	We've got to get into the substance.
	This has been the better part of the decision.
	We haven't even gotten into the merits of it yet.
	Okay, here we go.
	The review judge finds original judge found and was entitled to find that the conduct led to a substantial likelihood of further risk based on evidence at the first bail hearing.
	There was evidence that supports the original judge's rejection of certainty.
	This doesn't look good.
	This doesn't look good.
	I mean, depending on what the bar is, to overturn the original judge's decision.
	I mean, it's a relatively high bar.
	They got into it to some extent, but it's a higher bar than the...
	You have to show the manifest error in law or appreciation of fact.
	So we'll see here.
	Okay.
	Any news?
	One minute.
	This is intense, and it's...
	I mean, I just...
	I can't see how this is going to go.
	It's just...
	I'm reading someone else's tweet.
	Yeah.
	Like, they might commit...
	Now, mischief itself, incidentally, it sounds like mischief and it's not a very serious crime.
	Let me bring this out.
	Let me bring this out.
	Remove.
	And you can bring up mischief in a second.
	Let me do one thing first.
	Okay, let me see here.
	Request this.
	I want to get the mischief charges.
	And I'm going to bring up mischief under the criminal code because it's not quite as mischief Canada criminal code.
	Here.
	Not quite as innocent.
	Here, I'll bring it up and I'll maybe just read it instead of bringing it up.
	431, everyone who commits mischief who willfully A, destroys or damages property.
	B. Renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative, or ineffective.
	C. Obstructs, interrupts, or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.
	Or D. Obstructs, interrupts, or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment of the property.
	And so that's presumably...
	So it's destruction of property, which I don't think anyone can make that argument based on the protest.
	There simply wasn't.
	But quite clearly, renders property dangerous?
	No.
	Useless.
	I mean, that's more like sabotage.
	So you're clipping the brakes or clipping oil cables or whatever.
	C. Obstructs, interrupts, or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.
	And that is obviously what they're going to go for.
	Obstructs, interrupts, or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.
	So that's obviously what they're going to have to go for.
	And so it's not a totally innocuous...
	Mischief like Dennis the Menace type thing.
	I am not constantly saying Pat King is a goof.
	You better not be talking with me.
	I don't say that at all.
	Pat King has some pretty opinionated positions.
	He says things that can be deemed to be liabilities.
	Nonetheless, I analyzed his thing over the summer where he was on that Stu Peters show and suggested that he ended COVID and caused the Crown to...
	Rescind all the measures.
	And I said, that's not exactly what happened.
	I don't know Pat King from a hole in the wall except from what I've seen online.
	So I'm not saying he's a goof.
	And I'm just saying, even if he is a goof, you don't detain indefinitely people because you think they're goofs.
	I'm going to...
	No, I don't want to add that to the screen.
	I want to stop screen sharing and bring up...
	Share screen.
	Bring up...
	Amber.
	Boom shakalaka.
	And I think this is it.
	Let me see what we see here.
	Okay, good.
	All right, let's see what Amber's up to here.
	Okay.
	As it pertains to the tertiary ground, confidence in the administration of justice.
	Respectfully, I find that the original judge committed several errors.
	It was an error to confound the severity of the impact of the protest with the seriousness of Litch's offenses.
	Okay, good.
	Wait, respectfully, I find...
	That the original judge committed several errors.
	Okay, good.
	So this is getting, this is looking better.
	What he's saying is, and by the way, respectfully, is I'm going to disagree with you, but I'm not going to say that you're biased or tainted or partial or whatever.
	I respectfully, I think you confounded the impact of the protest with the severity of the accusations against the accused.
	And that's a good argument.
	The errors are not minor.
	The trial judge also erred in finding that there would be lengthy imprisonment without considering sufficiently the role of Ms. Litch.
	The honking of horns was aggravating, but there was no assessment of Ms. Litch's involvement in these egregious aspects.
	Well, the horns, I mean, that's the other thing.
	Like, the horns were honking.
	Whether or not it's egregious, the horns were noisy for the first four days, certainly until they got the court order, but I think they stopped even beforehand.
	But, you know, this is the thing, like, even still.
	Even assuming that Lich said, go out and honk your horns, that has now stopped.
	That stopped under the initial injunction.
	And that's no longer the case now.
	So even if that were the motivating, even if that were true, that Lich was instrumental in ordering people or inciting people to go honk horns, that stopped after four or five days.
	And then in which case, it's a question of damages.
	What sanction, what condemnation she could even get if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?
	So...
	And let's see, here we got more.
	Who else?
	By the way, if anybody else knows of anybody...
	There was another CBC reporter who was live-streamed tweeting as well.
	Justice...
	This is from K9.
	I don't know who this individual is.
	Justice Johnson says that Lickbale, judge, did commit an error in law that was not minor.
	When deciding to deny bail.
	So that's encouraging.
	Because now the judge can get out of this.
	But the whole question is going to be, I don't think they're ever going to address the exception, the indigenous exception to protesting under the Emergencies Act.
	I don't think it applies on its face.
	We'll see if it does.
	Refresh here.
	Let me go back to the chat and see if anyone's telling me who the other live streamers are.
	Everything has stopped, so what the heck?
	Well, that's another issue.
	And even if the...
	Bail justice is convinced of conviction.
	That's what the trial is for.
	And I'm not sure that the guarantee of conviction...
	Someone can correct me on that.
	I'm going to ask Amber, see if you can do this.
	Is even the virtual guarantee of conviction...
	A mitigating factor in deciding to give bail?
	If you can answer that in a tweet, I will live commentary the answer, period.
	Okay, we'll see about that.
	I'm going to see if...
	Why is everything...
	Everything is over.
	I've got to tell you, I get nervous because it's like...
	One thing we've learned is you don't actually have to do anything bad to get into trouble.
	But I mean, it's inconceivable that it could have been what I was doing because no difference in live tweeting.
	Unless someone just misunderstood and thought that someone was actually live streaming the actual feed.
	Okay, let's see here.
	Maxine Bernier, goofy, arguably.
	Maxine Bernier also arrested for defying Alberta public health directives by having an outdoor...
	Political gathering of 30-some-odd people while, a few days later, thousands were protesting in Ontario, Toronto.
	Okay, let's see here.
	Strength of the Crown's case is persuasive on bail on all three primary, secondary, tertiary grounds.
	Who's saying that?
	I want to get back to...
	Okay, let me get back to Amber, see if there's any update.
	Oh, this is cool.
	Now I can finally see both screens at the same time.
	Okay, should have done this a long time ago.
	As it pertains to tertiary...
	This is seven minutes ago.
	No, we already did that.
	Okay.
	There will likely be...
	Oh, the errors were not minor.
	We saw that.
	There will likely be tribal issues with respect to the...
	If the accused is to be held responsible for the more aggravating factors, tertiary ground detentions usually involve violence or weapon...
	Or great harm to the community, i.e.
	drug trafficking.
	No allegation of physical violence.
	Good.
	So if my meter's going up now, this judge is going to get it right.
	And how that's going to impact Pat King if he can ask for another rehearing of the rehearing.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Justice Johnson says the lick bail judge did...
	Commit, I think, an error in law that was not minor.
	Okay, well, we've seen that.
	All right.
	That should be a good indication that the judge is going to overturn it and release.
	Let's see here.
	Ten seconds.
	I find that it's not likely that this accused will face lengthy imprisonment.
	It's good, but I don't even understand why the judges are adjudicating on a potential condemnation on a bail hearing.
	Highly unlikely that this 49-year-old employee person would face lengthy imprisonment.
	This was an error.
	It's an interesting thing.
	We all agree that that was an error.
	It was an error in assessment, but it was also an error to include in the judgment.
	And, you know, Lich is going to argue that that error made it there because this person was so biased and so tainted from the beginning that they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Lich's condemnation and sentencing before even having a trial by a jury of her peers.
	In light of errors, review judges considering the bail de novo, a fresh consideration.
	That would be a problem because he would basically send it down either to the same judge or to a new judge, and in which case, Tamara Lich stays in jail until there's a de novo hearing on the bail.
	That would not be a victory.
	I mean, that would not be a victory.
	That would just be...
	Oh my goodness.
	Lock her up, lock her up.
	There's people chanting lock her up in the chat and I don't know if it's a pun on Hillary Clinton.
	Now, if they send it back for a de novo, that's going to be more, you know, she'll be in jail until there's a hearing on that.
	And she had to wait.
	What did she have to wait for?
	The first hearing she had to wait and then she had to wait for the ruling on the hearing.
	Another four days for her to be held in there.
	Proposed Surte is now being considered.
	Lives near accused, in close contact with accused.
	Purportedly, Surte readily admitted apparent support for Lich.
	Surte was proud of family member for standing up for what she believes in.
	No suggestion.
	Proposed Surte attended blockade.
	I wonder what that would be relevant about.
	Everyone should also know, like, a Surte is someone who just guarantees...
	Is someone who guarantees...
	Basically, warrants for someone.
	So, someone can post bond.
	Someone can act as a certee who undertakes to pay a certain amount if the individual is released and then recommits or commits another offense or breaches the terms of the release.
	So, the support, all of these issues, I don't know what relevance that is.
	I'd like to ask someone who knows more about this type of practice because bias and all the stuff aside, The certi is guaranteeing a certain sum of money to guarantee the obligations of the accused when they're released.
	Now Amber is up to 90%.
	He made a secret, guys.
	I know that Amber has a number of these graphics and he was going to change them depending on how his mood changed as this went along.
	I was impressed that proposed certi admitted things I didn't expect her to admit.
	Proposed certi stood by her answers.
	Proposed certi was sincere in answering crown questions.
	Surte said they would find time to enforce bail and, quote, check her every day, end quote, referring to Lich.
	So I guess the issue is Lich might be on some sort of house arrest if released.
	Does anyone in the chat know the answer to that?
	What the terms of the proposed release would be?
	Where are we now?
	I think I've lost it.
	Okay, so Amber's back to, he's up to 90%.
	This is like tracking the election night.
	I believe they had Hillary Clinton at 99% chances of winning the election.
	Okay, let me see in the chat.
	Does anybody know what the proposed terms of lich's release would be?
	There are no terms.
	Consulting to commit mischief.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	Certi is a bond.
	Yeah, it's a bond provided by a person.
	And I just don't know if she's not allowed to leave Alberta, if she's not allowed to go to Ottawa.
	So I don't know what the terms of the release would have been.
	Just say bail since it's, for most intents and purposes, what it is described as.
	Yeah, people don't appreciate that bail is not just necessarily a sum of money in court, but someone warranting that they will do it.
	If they have a house, whatever, they can guarantee or be the certi, which is basically bail.
	So we'll call it bail from now on.
	Certi in house arrest?
	Most likely.
	Yes, but we'd like to know for sure.
	Okay.
	Let's see.
	What do I bring it back in?
	Bring this down.
	See what Amber is up to now.
	Here we go.
	13 seconds.
	I love this.
	This is so exciting.
	Judge accepts proposed Certi will turn in Lich if she breaches.
	Good.
	Certi has no record.
	Has no record.
	appears to live in a pro-social life and is suitable.
	Ms. Litt will require supervision if released, but any risk can be addressed with the search.
	All right, the judge.
	Amber, you better update your thing.
	I think it's getting to 100% now.
	Although, if he was going to order it for a hearing de novo, why would he be assessing the certi?
	So I'm going to go out on a limb and say the judge is going to overturn the hearing.
	The initial rejection of bail and authorize bail with terms.
	Because if the judge was going to actually do a de novo hearing on bail, unless he wants to color the waters, so to speak, by setting out what he thinks is the credibility of the proposed certi, there would be no purpose for doing this.
	And it might actually otherwise taint.
	Some could say it could taint the process if it goes back for de novo hearing.
	And everyone's like, but you said the certainty was good, so you sort of prejudged the de novo hearing.
	So I think the judge is letting her out.
	Okay, let's see.
	Let's see.
	One minute.
	Show more replies.
	So now, is this the best way to do it?
	If I go here, show offensive replies.
	Yes!
	My goodness, that's offensive.
	Why would that?
	Okay.
	Okay, forget that.
	Let's refresh.
	Yeah, this doesn't seem to be working better.
	All right.
	We'll see.
	This is intense.
	This is when you're getting to like the last few pages of the judgment and you're like, now I think I see where the judge is going and I think the judge is getting it right or I think the judge is, if the decision is against you, getting it wrong.
	Focus.
	Dude, you must be new to the channel.
	Viva doesn't focus.
	Tamara is going to be released.
	Let me see here.
	This said, what's considered offensive?
	She's a flight risk, not if...
	She hands in a passport.
	Also, I don't know what makes her a flight risk.
	She's getting out.
	I don't know if this is statements of where we're at in the live reading of the judgment or this is basically how...
	Yeah, some people say she can't fly because you need to be fully vaccinated to go to the States unless those get rescinded as well in the near future.
	Okay, that's what someone said there.
	Yeah, we got that.
	Well, she will certainly not be encouraging anything on social media or whatever, and she will weigh her words, which is, you know...
	Yes, ADHD or people who have been following the channel for long enough.
	So let's see.
	Public opinion court.
	Okay.
	Okay, bring it back.
	And I'm going to...
	No, bring it back.
	Don't bring it out.
	And let's go refresh.
	So when he does this, am I going to see the most recent?
	Okay, we've seen that.
	So now refresh and show me what's going on.
	Release for now.
	Okay, I hope she gets released.
	Okay, well, look, until we get an update from Amber, we'll see.
	Who else would have been live-streaming this?
	There was a journalist, people.
	I think he was a CBC journalist live-tweeting.
	Nothing new yet.
	Okay, someone just texted me.
	Oh, no, no.
	If I said Tamara's from the States, I misspoke.
	Tamara's from Alberta.
	No, what I meant is that she's going to flee to the States to abscond on her bail conditions.
	You've got to fly or cross the border.
	The flight risk means flight not from one province to the next.
	Unless she's under house arrest.
	Oh, CTV Glenn McGregor.
	So let's go pull up Glenn McGregor's Twitter feed.
	Glenn McGregor.
	Oh, I see why people are saying Glenn McGregor in the chat now.
	It's because of that.
	Forward slash.
	What's his Twitter handle?
	Glenn McGregor.
	That's definitely not the right one.
	Glenn McGregor.
	Here we go.
	CTV.
	Okay, so Glenn McGregor.
	Oh, here we go.
	Now finally on to Crown request to detain on tertiary grounds.
	Okay, good.
	Amber, we're going to move on to Glenn McGregor.
	Remove.
	Share screen.
	Oh, hold on.
	Share screen.
	Share screen.
	Chrome tab.
	Chrome tab.
	McGregor.
	Shit, there we go, loss.
	Glenn McGregor.
	Now, finally, onto Crown request to detain on tertiary grounds.
	So what did we miss before that?
	Johnston, I guess that's the judge's name, says he considered that Litch has a job, has lived a crime-free life up until the alleged offenses.
	Glenn, congratulations for saying alleged offenses, because she is nonetheless innocent until proven guilty.
	I'm satisfied with the appropriate conditions that the risk of Ms. Litch, I guess either...
	Has now or can now be managed.
	Crown has not met onus to detain on secondary grounds.
	Good.
	It looks like the judge is going to get this right.
	Okay.
	Finally, onto the Crown's request.
	Okay.
	That message I saw.
	If they didn't get it on the...
	I mean, look, bottom line, if they didn't get it on primary or secondary grounds, they're not going to get it on tertiary grounds.
	But I do forget exactly.
	It's always fun to see.
	The ecosystem on other people's Twitter feeds.
	Now finally onto the Crown request.
	Okay.
	We'll see.
	They're not going to get it on the tertiary ground.
	But Johnson says Lich is one of a number of those allegedly involved in the more aggravating factors of the Ottawa protest, and this will be assessed at trial.
	As it should.
	Can you imagine we're talking about...
	Justifying the indefinite detention.
	What has hitherto been an indefinite detention of a woman, and the woman doesn't matter, of an individual.
	Never committed a crime in her life, even by the judge himself, on mischief charges.
	I mean, I've spoken with criminal attorneys who say that it's unheard of.
	It's unheard of.
	And even if an accused murderer gets out on a quarter of a million dollars bail, they still get out.
	At least, you know.
	There can be nothing more excessive in terms of bail than no bail.
	So, do I toggle between...
	Let's see if I can do this.
	I'll toggle between this and divabarnslaw.local.com.
	That's not what I'm trying to do.
	And why would Incognito pull up a prior address?
	Forward slash David Amber.
	Okay.
	Refresh.
	This is exciting.
	I mean, we're watching the justice system in real time.
	The only question is whether or not people are losing faith in it in real time or getting faith in it.
	I think it's probably more the former than the latter.
	Johnson says it's not certain the most egregious element of the mischief.
	Okay.
	Oh, here.
	But Johnson says it's not certain the most egregious elements of the mischief will be proved against Lich in particular.
	So a conviction isn't certain to carry a lengthy sentence.
	Why are they even doing that?
	I understand that these tertiary aggregating factors, by all accounts, apply to the most serious accused criminals, not to mischief and protests.
	People don't appreciate what they're unleashing in terms of setting this standard for future protests.
	How this could be used against teachers.
	Alleged.
	Alleged murder.
	Amber update.
	Yeah, there was...
	Oh, Amber update.
	We are listening, Viva.
	Okay, well, no, people...
	This is...
	Look, we're seeing the functioning of the judicial system in real time.
	Putin would bail Tamara.
	I don't know if you mean...
	I don't know if this is intended to be a troll, as in Putin would bail out hardened criminals, or even in Putin's Russia, someone like...
	Lich would have been given bail.
	I'm not so convinced things run better with the criminal justice system in Russia than in Canada.
	But the fact that we even have these comparisons is a bit of a symptom of the problem, should we say.
	Bring this up.
	Take this out.
	Okay.
	Let me see here.
	Now, I actually have to go by 3.20.
	I've got another important meeting at 3.30.
	I didn't think this was going to go quite that long.
	Let's just see.
	But Johnson says it's not certain.
	Okay, fine.
	He already said that.
	Someone just texted me here.
	Yeah, Putin allegedly put people in jail.
	I don't say allegedly.
	Putin jailed people, gave him 15 years for protesting.
	So, you know, it could be worse.
	It's the old...
	The old Irish expression.
	David Anber.
	One minute.
	Elements being proven against this accused.
	Judge says it is important to consider strength of Crown's case for more aggravating aspects, and this is debatable.
	Okay, good.
	Yeah, look, anyone calling me a Putin apologist, you wouldn't want to protest in Russia.
	You wouldn't want to be a political adversary in Russia.
	But...
	The whole thing, like, well, it's not as bad as Russia, so we don't live in a police state and we don't have serious problems with democracy here is not an argument because I don't live in Russia.
	I live in Canada.
	And when protesters accused of mischief have been detained indefinitely going on three weeks now, we've got a problem in Canada.
	I don't care that it's worse in other countries.
	I'm not measuring Canada by the lowest common denominator.
	I'm measuring it to its highest ideal.
	And we are certainly right now not living up to that ideal.
	In my humble opinion.
	Offenses are serious.
	Okay.
	The judge's offenses are serious, but really not that serious compared to more violent charges in the criminal code.
	These offenses are at a lower scale, and I think everyone agrees with that because a great many criminal charges are not hybrid charges, either...
	Punishable on summary conviction.
	No, I'm fairly certain.
	There are certain criminal offenses which are indictable offenses.
	No potential lesser summary conviction which carries with it different procedure under criminal law.
	So it goes without saying.
	It goes without saying, but yet this initial justice of the peace was convinced Tamara Litch is going to jail for a long time.
	Let me just yeah.
	Yeah, we have to agree that this protest was certainly unpleasant and disruptive for a great many people.
	Can't pretend it wasn't.
	A protest that's not disruptive doesn't really achieve its purpose, which is to disrupt.
	That being said, a protest which is disruptive but not criminally violent, don't call it that just for the sake of it.
	This was definitely not criminally violent, although people are suing for tinnitus from the honking of the horns and yada yada.
	You can't stop people from suing.
	You can just hope the court system comes into play and gets things right.
	That's not to say the impact of these offenses isn't serious.
	This is not sucking and blowing people.
	This is a judge trying to preserve balance.
	Nobody's saying it wasn't serious.
	Yes, people couldn't, you know, had traffic.
	There was honking.
	They couldn't get to their houses.
	They couldn't drive.
	Yada, yada.
	Certain people were definitely impacted by this.
	That being said, is this such a serious accusation, even if she's convicted, that she's going to definitely do substantial jail time that warrants pretrial detention until trial?
	Please, no.
	Do we go back to, um...
	McGregor.
	Let's see.
	Conan McGregor.
	Let me see here.
	tweeting them.
	Johnson says the level of disruption of Ottawa protests ranged from mild to very intrusive.
	Notes allegations some lived in fear.
	And clear violence of economic...
	Oh, clear evidence.
	That might be my own bias.
	I'm looking for something wrong in what Glenn McGregor is reporting here.
	Clear evidence of economic impact and enjoyment of residents of their homes, cities, sites, sites Lee lawsuit.
	That's the woman who's suing the class action for damages on high decibel levels of horns.
	Yeah, I mean, I'd like to see the evidence of that anyhow, because I was asking people while I was...
	Live streaming, interviewing, and really getting very perfectly mixed responses.
	During the day in the epicenter, my goodness, yeah, it was loud and you shouldn't have been there with a kid, let alone a dog.
	But even when I was walking the streets, you moved one, two, three blocks away from Wellington.
	I didn't hear anything in terms of...
	I heard it, but I would have been curious to know about the decibel levels.
	Oh, are we going to be finished by the time I have to get on this call at 3.30?
	Let me see something here.
	Yeah, 3.30 people.
	Hopefully this is done by 3.30.
	I don't think it's going to be.
	Well, Amber's Twitter feed is going to get a massive following if I have to end this before there's an actual judgment.
	Refresh Amber.
	Okay, let's do this.
	A highly...
	David Anber...
	I'm getting direct DMs, text messages.
	Ms. Litch is seen on video saying, hold the line, but use of tertiary grounds to detain usually involve violence or terrorism charges, home invasion, serious drug trafficking.
	None of these are present here.
	It is alleged...
	Now, this is where Anber...
	If I'm looking to write Amber off as bias, he's emphasizing the alleged, whereas on McGregor, they would have put alleged in as small font as possible.
	It's alleged that business is closed and people left their homes due to noise and fumes and fear.
	Fumes, you really had to be walking between the trucks to smell the fumes.
	It appears clear that there is alleged interference with enjoyment of property of citizens.
	Yeah, you're going to go with indirect interference.
	Okay, we got that.
	They're going to go.
	Indirect interference by protesting and rendering certain streets unnavigable to traffic, that's interference with people's enjoyment of property, business, etc.
	Although it's worth noting that the only reason the restaurants and the businesses shut down was because the government told them to, not ordered, but rather said it could get violent and it could be dangerous, so you better shut down.
	I mean, that's why.
	I'm sure many of them would have found that had they stayed open and offered business to potential unvaxxed, they might have had good business.
	But we'll see.
	And the other thing is, that is also just a lawsuit with allegations.
	Nothing has been proven in a court of law.
	Nothing has been deemed to be a judicial fact by any judge.
	Dude, we're not going to be done by 3.30.
	Oh, that's going to be annoying.
	Let me see what Amber says.
	Okay, no, he won't do that.
	Let me see here.
	Any chance this is done before 3.30?
	I don't think it's going to be done before 3.30.
	I'm going to apologize in advance.
	I didn't think this was going to go for an hour and a half.
	Let's go back to MacGregor.
	See what he has to say.
	Oh, it was the same.
	So Regina, St. Cloud.
	And highlighting the distinctions because they're citing the seminal case, except the fact pattern was materially different in the alleged crime of the accused.
	St. Cloud case involved violent assault on a Montreal bus driver by the accused, and it was recorded on video.
	Yeah, somewhat different.
	Somewhat different.
	All right, I'm going to go back to the chat.
	It looks very much like Lich is getting bail, but waiting to see what Johnson will say about tertiary ground of maintaining confidence in administration of justice.
	He had better say what I think is the proper argument.
	I hope he comes to the proper conclusion that maintaining confidence in the administration of justice means respecting the Constitution, which means, let me see if I can pull up this provision, Google, excessive bail.
	Canada.
	Let me just see this.
	Right not to be denied reasonable bail.
	Section 11G of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	Provision.
	Any person charged with an offense has the right E. A, B, C, D, E. Not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.
	That's what the Charter says.
	And if I'm going out on a limb...
	You want to maintain confidence in the administration system.
	It means respecting the Charter of Rights and not denying reasonable bail where someone is accused of a patently non-violent, albeit potentially extremely disruptive crime of mischief and encouraging mischief.
	Yeah, people not so...
	Hold the line does not make her the leader of the protest.
	Hundreds were saying the same.
	Yeah, but I don't think...
	Well, I think there's no argument.
	Or minimal argument that she was one of the organizers of the protest.
	So when an organizer says it, it'll be deemed to be a direction by, you know, whomever wants to deem it that way.
	Whereas if a protester says it, it's just a protester.
	Although, you know, even a protester saying that, stop harassing Iconic Cafe.
	What's the deal?
	I was told that they're being evicted, but I don't know what they're being evicted for.
	And I see that there's someone complaining about troll.
	Let me see here.
	How can Canada...
	Okay, hold on.
	I think I've missed...
	They achieved the effect of deterring people, of protesting in the future of fear.
	There's no question about that.
	Church of Bubbles is live streaming.
	What is that?
	Well, go check.
	No, I'm telling you, other than neurotic phobias, the good thing about always respecting the law is that I know when I respect the law.
	Church of Bubbles.
	What was Church of Bubbles?
	Well, let me go see what that was.
	I'm not going to bring it up.
	First, I'll refresh McGregor and see if there's anything new.
	Oh, there's new stuff.
	Okay, let's see here.
	Go here.
	I'm not satisfied.
	The detention of the accused is necessary to meet tertiary grounds.
	I find this accused ought to be released.
	Okay.
	I think she's out.
	So it's an interesting thing.
	Why explore the idea of de novo when you're not going to engage in it?
	David Amber.
	And let's just see here.
	Bail granted, people.
	Look, I don't want to say hallelujah.
	I had no vested interest in Tamara Lich as an individual.
	Okay.
	Apparently it was another individual who was a live streamer and not me.
	Thank goodness.
	People out there.
	Okay, thank goodness.
	Look, it is better to err on the side of caution and it is better to always, you know, people don't like it.
	Follow the rules until, you know, you have no choice.
	But my goodness, it's always better to err on the side of caution, people.
	And also to know the rules.
	You can't claim ignorance, although in the early stages of the hearing, they mentioned what was allowed and what was not allowed.
	So I find that this accused ought to be released.
	I don't believe in these miracle things.
	I have no vested interest in Tamara as an individual.
	Justice is justice.
	And when it's denied to someone...
	You know, it's denied to everyone on the prospective hypothetical basis because once, this has already been an injustice in my mind.
	People asking, can she sue for malicious prosecution, wrongful detention?
	No.
	Short answer is no.
	Malicious prosecution, first of all, that relates to the prosecution, not to the detention.
	So I don't know that there's a subcategory of malicious prosecution known as malicious detention.
	But the judge basically said, look, the judge made a mistake in fact and in law.
	Order the release.
	So, you know, you have to find some emails between the judge and someone else saying, I'm going to lock this itch bay up for good and teach her a lesson.
	So that's it.
	It looks like bail was granted, people.
	And just in time, because I've got a meeting, it's seven minutes.
	I'll keep Amber in the backdrop and just refresh it.
	See if there's anything new.
	You know what?
	Let's just go to, what's his face, one more time, McGregor.
	He fixes the bond in the amount of $20,000.
	That's a lot of money, by the way.
	You know, that's a lot of money to lose if she breaches the terms of her release, because the certi's losing that money.
	How much faith does the certi have in Lich not to break the terms of her release?
	$20,000 worth, because that's him, or her, I don't know who it is, out of pocket if she breaches it.
	To motivate both the accused and the certi to comply with the bail conditions, if certi doesn't agree to higher bond, court would...
	If certi doesn't agree to hire bond, court would have concerns, he says.
	I don't know what that means.
	Johnson will release Litch with the proposed certi and significant conditions.
	Cash deposit is not required in this case, though.
	He notes cash bail rare in Canada.
	No, just because so long as they have a certi who's liquid, they don't need the cash bail.
	They just need the certi who assures the court they're good for it and evidences that they are.
	Okay, well, that was just in time, people.
	And my goodness, thank goodness for that, because...
	The meeting that I'm going to, I could not miss.
	And David Anber.
	Let's see what he's got.
	All right.
	Doesn't look like...
	Okay, so it doesn't look like Anber's got any more.
	So what are the other terms?
	We're going to see what the other terms are.
	But...
	Okay, so Johnson requires Lich to post 5,000 bond.
	Fine.
	Lich shall leave Ottawa in 24 hours and get out of Ontario in 72 hours.
	Report daily to OPS of her location on way back to authority.
	That is Ontario Police Service?
	I think that's what it has to be.
	Okay, people.
	That's interesting.
	So we've lived through a saga.
	Extreme assassin, I don't think there's going to be a lawsuit in effect.
	No social media?
	Okay, well, that would be torture for many of us, but that might.
	No social media.
	Yeah, I mean, that's the way to, you know, prevent them from further incitement.
	No, not $10 million.
	So bail is $20,000.
	Certi is $20,000.
	Bond is $5,000 for her.
	Ottawa Police.
	Okay, Ottawa Police Service.
	That censorship, yeah.
	Ask Tamara what she'd prefer to have.
	No social media, but be at home and surrounded by friends and family.
	She didn't have social media in prison anyhow, so in jail.
	Don't be late for your next meeting.
	Okay, well, I got four minutes to wind down.
	So that was interesting.
	That was fun.
	I'm glad.
	Thank you very much.
	We are ensuring that our...
	Some people think it's already too far gone, that our judicial system is compromised, our politicians are compromised, and that the police force, the authorities are compromised.
	There is nothing more disinfecting than the cleansing light of the sun.
	So can we get a recap?
	The judge went over the decision, lengthy going over the original bail sentencing.
	Bottom line said that the judge basically presupposed a conviction and thus misapprehended the facts that, you know...
	Detainment, continued detainment, is for serious crimes of violence.
	It's not by any means certain that Tamara Lich is going to serve a lengthy prison sentence if she gets convicted on the mischief charges.
	And the judge basically made an error in law and fact of sorts.
	I might be overstating it, but an error in law as to her continued detention.
	And she's going to be released with a certee who they find credible, trustworthy, honest, forthright.
	For $20,000, $5,000 bond to be posted by Tamara Lich herself with apparently some conditions, no social media.
	And that is it.
	Finally, a judge recognized how long she would be sitting in jail awaiting trial with no violence alleged.
	Well, I hope that they take this and add to stream.
	I hope they take this and revisit Pat King because other than being, I'm not saying this to be mean people.
	Other than a character who they could find more social media content to use against him, he doesn't deserve to be locked up any more than Tamara Lich.
	Lich will also have to give Surti to access electronic devices or let anyone post messages on social media on their behalf.
	She'll have to give Surti access to electronic devices or...
	Okay, I don't know what that means.
	I guess she will not be able to let people post on her behalf.
	Can't enter Ontario except for court hearing or to meet with counsel.
	Must not associate with the co-accused, Pat King, Chris Barber, and others, and must not log onto or post messages on social media, not to engage in organizations of protest of COVID mandates.
	People are going to find that shocking, as do I. So that's it, people.
	Go to either Glenn McGregor or David Anbar folks for continued updates.
	Pat King next.
	Well, I'm going to go see what the deal is with Pat King because he's already had, from what I understand, his rehearing.
	I think.
	Unless he...
	Guys, does Pat King have a...
	Well, okay.
	Pat King made the mistake of inciting violence.
	I don't think that any of that was alleged.
	I don't think any of that's in evidence or even among the allegations.
	Okay, I got two minutes to get to my next meeting.
	But I'm going to go look up whether or not Pat King already had his rehearing.
	I thought he did.
	Because I thought the judge affirmed the continued detention of Pat King.
	But I might be wrong.
	We got Arthur Pavlosky, who's been...
	Jailed again, allegedly, for breaching the terms of his release.
	It's...
	Well, Kiss Podge...
	Oh, Pat has a previous record.
	Okay, I did not know that.
	I still...
	I don't care.
	I mean, call me biased.
	I still don't care.
	For what he was accused, mischief detainment is not fair.
	Why should people suffer for cops and courts malicious acts and other...
	Look, there's no easy answer to that.
	Someone just said Pat King is not having a rehearing.
	Well, I think he had his rehearing.
	I think he had his rehearing.
	That's the issue.
	So, Pastor Art in solitary...
	What they're doing to Pastor Art is an absolute injustice.
	I covered it back in the day when the judge released him with those outrageous terms of what he must say when exercising free speech, as if compelled speech is not a form of a restriction on freedom of speech.
	And they got him.
	They got him on some...
	I don't know, I guess he broke the terms of his release again, and now they've locked him up.
	They wanted to, and they did.
	And it's an absolute...
	Outrageous injustice.
	And meanwhile, they are rescinding the very measures that I think he was alleged to have violated to justify his detention.
	Okay, people, thank you very much.
	It was very entertaining, very interesting.
	I hope you appreciate it.
	I hope I offered some insight.
	And to always conclude on the note, respect the law and know the rules because ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
	People, peace out and see you Wednesday, sidebar.
	And I'll probably see you tomorrow.
	Yeah.
	Bye.
	Thank you.
	And because I'm an idiot, I didn't end broadcast.
	I just left the studio.
	Now I'm ending the broadcast, people.

▲