Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 24, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

03:08:51

Live with James O'Keefe & Project Veritas - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	To Ms. Christine Anderson for her point.
	Thank you.
	Based on Article 195, I doubt that it would have been more appropriate for Mr. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, to address this House according to Article 144, an article which was specifically designed to debate violations of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, which is clearly the case with Mr. Trudeau.
	Mr. Trudeau, you are a disgrace for any democracy.
	Please spare us your presence.
	Thank you.
	Well, Ms. Anderson, why don't you tell us how you really feel?
	People, first of all, today's stream is going to be amazing, and I've got a special announcement because it occurred at the last minute.
	But if you were reading Canadian press talking about Justin Trudeau's recent escapade to Europe to speak to the European Parliament, you would have thought he was met with standing ovations, the royal welcome, The most beloved leader of all time.
	So far, I have found four, or I have found, people have sent me four clips of European parliamentarians.
	Roasting is an understatement, but absolutely roasting Justin Trudeau.
	I mean, Lisa Lampanelli would not have been as devastating, an eviscerating roast as what we just saw from Christine Anderson.
	And I put together a five-minute supercut.
	Of the four speeches.
	One was from Christine Anderson.
	One was from Christian Torres.
	The other one was from Koso Kuzik.
	Koso Kuzik.
	I forget whom exactly.
	And the other one I'm going to forget as well.
	I put together a five-minute supercut, which I posted on Viva Clips.
	You wouldn't have heard of these speeches, but for Rebel News posting them, as I'm sure people forward them to Rebel News.
	It's atrocious.
	It is exactly what happens when a leader, and I'm putting leader in scare quotes because I consider Trudeau to be more of a tyrant than a leader, but I guess in a way tyrants still are leaders.
	They're just involuntary leaders.
	So they don't actually lead.
	They just coerce following.
	This is what happens when a leader loses the moral authority to govern.
	It's not like...
	These are not...
	You know, people in their basements talking to a camera, complaining about the government.
	These are parliamentarians in the European Union telling Justin Trudeau he would be more fitting to be speaking there on human rights violations than as an...
	Who the heck invited him, anyhow?
	Than as a spokesperson for an alleged free democracy where he's going to go to the European Union to lecture them on Putin's tyranny, Putin's authoritarianism in Russia?
	This is what happens when you lose the moral authority to govern.
	You don't get taken seriously, and you can't do your job because people don't take you seriously.
	But for the fact that there's a, at least as of today, a free interwebs out there, they haven't really reined in freedom of speech on the internet as they wanted to do, and I say they, the Canadian government with Bill C-10.
	But for that, people can still actually discover the truth on their own.
	Because you won't get CBC, CTV, Global News, Toronto Star.
	You won't get the Liberal government subsidized media, Radio Canada.
	You won't get them reporting on what's actually going on.
	You're going to get the headline when Justin Trudeau goes and gets a standing ovation to a half-filled crowd of the fraction of the people who think it's polite to stand up and applaud, even if you loathe the individual that you're witnessing speak.
	Okay, anyhow, so that's it.
	The link, I pinned the supercut.
	And it's not really a supercut because I didn't want to edit their speeches so that someone would say, Viva, you took it out of context or you clipped and snipped.
	Four speeches back to back to back to back of parliamentarians roasting Justin Trudeau.
	And I think, you know, Canadians deserve to know.
	I think the world deserves to know.
	Now, today's stream is going to take an interesting turn.
	It starts off with, let me just close my...
	Email down so I don't keep hearing these notifications.
	It starts off with James O 'Keefe or his attorney Jared Ead.
	I don't know who's going to start first.
	Either way, this is a follow-up on yesterday's breakdown of the most recent outrageous, outlandish, exposing corruption at the highest order.
	Prosecution or seizure of James O 'Keefe, Project Veritas journalist's cell phone records, emails.
	We're going to go over that.
	The surprise of the day is at 1 o 'clock, after we're done with this, because I got a call this morning, from Dr. Crystal Lushkiv out of Ontario.
	Oh, sorry, I didn't say that.
	Winston didn't say hi.
	How dare you ignore me on your lap this entire time?
	And for everybody out there, I don't need to cut the fur on his eyes because he's blind already, and I'm not joking.
	The dog is blind, so the hair is not interfering with his vision.
	Because he doesn't have vision.
	It's a lenticonis, lentoglobus, some birth condition.
	He's a rescue.
	Got him from West.
	He's in need.
	He's already blind, people.
	So the hair in front of his eyes, which I have not trimmed, is not interfering with his vision.
	Crystal Lishkev, who had her medical license suspended or revoked, I mean, we'll get to the details, with 12 hours notice, she's a GP palliative care doctor.
	Her 1,600 patients were up a proverbial medical...
	Schitt's Creek.
	And I'm saying S-C-H-I-T-T-S, the Canadian show.
	Up a creek without a paddle because their prescriptions and renewals which bore her name, signature, and medical license were hitherto voided when her license was suspended for issuing medical exemptions to the Fauci juice.
	So we're going to get there at one o 'clock.
	But in the meantime, we're going to have two hours with maybe less because I think they're exquisitely busy and I'm grateful for the time they're giving us.
	We're going to go with James O 'Keefe and or Jared E, the attorney for Project Veritas.
	I don't know who's going first.
	I'm going to look at the backstage.
	Who's going to give me the thumbs up for who wants to go first?
	Okay, we got the lawyer.
	We got the lawyer.
	Let's start.
	I was going to make a lawyer joke, but I won't do it.
	Jared, you look like you might be on mute.
	Okay, you're off mute.
	Let's just check the audio.
	Can I hear you?
	Good morning.
	Thank you for having us.
	Thank you for coming.
	I mean, this is...
	Okay, for those who don't know who you are, who are you?
	So, my name is Jared Ede.
	I'm the Chief Legal Officer of Project Veritas.
	I've been with the company for about two years now and have been having quite the wild ride suing the New York Times successfully, and in this case now, defending against the overreach of the Biden VOJ.
	And now, just to explain to the viewers, we're not going to have you on at the same time as James.
	I presume there's solicitor-client stuff that would explain that?
	I have no problem with having you both, having James and I both on.
	That's totally fine.
	Hey, James, are you okay with that?
	I'm going to see before I get the thumbs up.
	Nah, okay.
	Oh, thumbs up.
	Okay, good.
	Well, let's do this.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to go on the bottom of this Veritas pyramid.
	James, Jared, how goes the battle?
	Well, thank you very much.
	By the way, should I call you Steven or...
	Or Viva?
	Don't call me Steven.
	Call me Viva.
	Viva's good.
	I don't know why I call you Steven.
	Your name is David.
	But should I prefer you as Viva or David for purposes of this?
	But I'm not even...
	James, this is not to cover your butt.
	I wanted to change my name when I was a kid, and I wanted to change it to Steve.
	I don't even know why, because I don't think that's a better name.
	I just knew that because I'm that good of a journalist.
	Okay, so, Jared, you're the active, I would say, litigation counsel.
	You're the man or the person who goes into battle for this.
	That's right.
	So we're managing all of the litigation for Project Veritas, including, again, here, the defense against the overreach of these FBI raids and the DOJ ultimately now, as it turns out, as we broke this week.
	Spying on Project Veritas for a period of 18 months going all the way back to January 1, 2020.
	It's an unbelievable overreach.
	So, I mean, I did the breakdown, I think, relatively thoroughly yesterday, but, you know, it took an hour.
	We don't have an hour to do the breakdown.
	Give the chronology, Jared, if you could, as to how this went down, roughly speaking.
	You know, sorry, actually, before we even get there, pending litigation that involves Project Veritas right now, you've got the CNN defamation lawsuit.
	Which was dismissed to determine what to do with that.
	You got the New York Times defamation lawsuit.
	You've got this, I could call it a lawsuit, but you got the FBI seizing cell phones and records of Veritas journalists.
	Are there any other pending lawsuits involving James O 'Keefe or Project Veritas that might be relevant for this?
	Oh my goodness, we've got a 16-page list of pending lawsuits.
	That includes such things as, for example, Oregon.
	We had filed a suit in Oregon to challenge their two-party consent law, which was unconstitutional, sought to effectively make it illegal to do undercover recordings in Oregon.
	We just obtained a memo from the Oregon Attorney General saying they will no longer be prosecuting those what we call Bartnicki-style claims in Oregon going forward.
	So we have a huge victory there.
	We effectively changed Oregon law.
	We did the same thing.
	Recently in Michigan, we're being sued in Michigan for one of our undercover recordings on the theory that Michigan is what we call a two-party consent state.
	In other words, that again, undercover reporting is illegal.
	We took it all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court and obtained a victory just today, literally moments before we jumped on this call.
	There was an appellate ruling that came down that cited our case in support of confirming that Michigan is in fact a one-party consent state.
	So, you know, we're making impacts around the country in terms of moving forward, moving the ball forward for not only Veritas' undercover journalists, but every citizen undercover journalist.
	And when you say, first things first, actually, by the way, I just went to check.
	This is how toxic Veritas is on YouTube.
	This video has been demonetized already.
	And I genuinely don't care, but we're five minutes in and we haven't said a word yet.
	I think it's the Project Veritas or James O 'Keefe in the header.
	When you say that Pennsylvania law, that law has been overturned, the one-party consent, that means anybody who wants to record, if they're a party to the conversation, they can, whereas in the two-party consent states, they need the consent of all parties to the conversation.
	Is that as a broad context or only in the context of undercover journalism?
	It's usually as a broad context.
	So a lot of these laws are created to effectively prevent what we call peeping toms, right?
	The unfortunate side effect is not only does it make it illegal for undercover reporting, but it's also things such as, for example, it makes it illegal for the battered wife to secretly record her husband beating her so that she has the evidence when she goes to the police.
	In the age of Believe Her and Me Too, it is insane that we have states that say that a battered wife Should be thrown in jail for recording her husband when he's beating her.
	So we're on the effort of going nationwide, state by state, and trying to change that.
	We've been successful in Massachusetts, now Michigan, now Oregon as well.
	Okay, fantastic.
	So we'll get to the crux of today's subject matter, which is what's going on.
	It's tangentially related to the New York Times defamation suit in a way, I guess, only because the New York Times...
	Seems to be involved in reporting on this raid, which they ought to have had no business reporting on.
	The question is whether or not the seized materials were being disclosed to New York Times, who is involved in active litigation with Project Veritas.
	Starting from the beginning, in a nutshell, what happened to James O 'Keefe with the raid and contextualize everything that's happened in the context of this FBI raid?
	Certainly.
	So I'll let James talk about what happened to him in the raid, although I wish I had been there because things perhaps could have gone differently.
	Unfortunately, I was not.
	So, James?
	Well, are we talking about the FBI raid?
	Yeah.
	Well, they came to my two colleagues' homes.
	There's the camera.
	I just installed a new camera in my office, so I'm still getting used to the setup.
	They raided my two colleagues' homes on November 3rd, I believe it was.
	And then I made a statement the next day, a public statement about everything that went down.
	This is a very unusual thing for someone to do because they kind of try to intimidate you and scare you into submission and silence and subordination.
	But we have broken no laws, obviously.
	This is the first time I've ever heard of the feds being involved in an abandoned diary.
	I'm not even sure why the federal government has jurisdiction in such a matter.
	This was actually Biden's diary.
	So the very next day, the feds came to my house at 6 a.m. and pounded on my door, and I came to the door, and there was 10 or 12 federal agents with guns and flashlights and an FBI jacket, just like in the movies you watch.
	They put me in handcuffs.
	I was not clothed.
	And then they proceeded to ransack my apartment and take my two phones, only my phones.
	They did not take my laptop, my iPad, or anything else.
	They did take my colleagues' everything.
	They took their cameras and equipment and computers.
	And sort of, we're going to talk about this here, but kind of the breaking news here this week is that we found out that they were surveilling us or issuing secret subpoenas, secret warrants, rather.
	We use Microsoft for our emails.
	And then we also found out, we got a notification from Uber this week, that the law enforcement was contacting them.
	So we don't know how many vendors the Department of Justice, the FBI, went to and obtained our information.
	But it's very unusual for the Department of Justice to issue a subpoena against a journalist like this.
	I can't recall that ever happening.
	Under the Trump administration, they attempted to do this with Google, but they did it in an open way.
	The New York Times could fight it.
	And then under Obama, Eric Holder regretted subpoenaing Fox reporter James Rosen.
	So this is an act of violence against the First Amendment.
	We called it an act of violence in our motion with the court two days ago.
	It's probably one of the most fundamental abridgments of freedom of the press in American history.
	It's unprecedented.
	And there's so much to say about it, but I guess they're trying to scare me, intimidate me, get me to stop.
	It's unclear why, David, it's unclear why they're targeting Project Veritas in this way, to this degree.
	And it's also unclear who authorized this.
	In other words, was it someone in Washington, D.C., like, for example, the Attorney General of the United States is required to authorize raids of this nature.
	He actually condemned.
	In a July memo, Merrick Garland is his name.
	So it's unclear who authorized this.
	There's so many unanswered questions about this, and there's more to say about it, but that's what's going on in a nutshell.
	And just to everyone out there who might not know if you're living under a rock of sorts, this stems...
	At the very least, this raid, it stems from the Ashley Biden diary.
	The context behind that went over it in detail yesterday.
	You get, James, an anonymous tipster who says, we found this diary and other belongings.
	They communicated to you via their attorneys, which is interesting in and of itself.
	Other than the diary, I keep forgetting this, there were other belongings with the diary.
	Was it anything material?
	Jared, you want to speak to that?
	Yeah, so we don't want to necessarily detail out.
	We've made a commitment at Project Veritas here that we made the decision not to publish what we had.
	That includes what materials were ultimately provided to corroborate the diary as well.
	What I will say is that, you know, one of the caveats here for federal jurisdiction is that the materials have to be in excess for value, have to be in excess of $5,000 in value.
	The idea that what was provided to us is worth more than $5,000 is frankly laughable.
	Well, in law, might the rights to the diary be worth more than $5,000?
	So that could be the argument.
	It could be worth a million if you sell it.
	Well, and perhaps that's what they're going after.
	What's interesting about this too, and this is one of the common misconceptions that people have about this, which is, you know, you read the New York Times, you read the articles that come out about the investigation that we did, and there's a common claim that Project Veritas made a $40,000 payment, quote-unquote, to purchase the diary, and that's simply false.
	We never purchased the diary.
	We never purchased a thing.
	We purchased the right to tell a story.
	That's it.
	And in this particular case, that is for news material, news-worthy material, and nothing more.
	So, you know, I think the idea that those materials themselves that were transferred...
	We're worth more than $5,000.
	Again, it feigns incredulity.
	They were worth more than $5,000.
	One has to wonder why Ashley Biden left them in an apartment in Florida.
	Now, so, James, you explained, I think it was the last time we went live, I'm fairly certain, you explained the decision, the editorial decision not to publish this diary.
	Are either of you able to explain or...
	Tell the viewers how it ended up published on the national file afterwards, just because I know people make accusations about that having happened.
	People draw some conclusions, which I think are untenable.
	But if you're able to speak to that, open question for that.
	Well, I mean, what I'll say is this, you know, I made a decision at the time not to publish this diary and some disagreed with me.
	In fact, as part of our court filing, I published the memo I sent to my staff, right?
	Because I said, I'm not 100% sure this is her diary.
	I'm not 100% sure of it.
	I'm almost certain, but that's not good enough, right?
	Because what if I'm wrong?
	And secondly, even if it is hers, let's assume for a minute that 100%...
	By the way, now it turns out that it is hers.
	Evidently, we're better journalists than we thought we were because the FBI and the New York Times have now corroborated this thing.
	And now we know that it is hers.
	But even so, I felt that there were some...
	I think that there are some things that public eyes should not see, and there's a question of newsworthiness.
	So what I told my staff at the time is, this is sort of a cheap shot.
	In fact, I quoted Ernest Hemingway about ethics, because everything about Veritas is about ethics.
	People like to say that we're unethical scumbags, that we're...
	That we're deceptive, right?
	That's the brand.
	In fact, YouTube is demonetizing your video, I guess, because we're branded that way.
	In fact, we wrestled more with ethics at this company than any other organization, and that's what Patrick Davis tells me.
	He's the guy I hired from CNN.
	I say all this to answer your question.
	I made the decision at the time.
	I quoted Ernest Hemming when I said, you know, ethical journalism is not necessarily what you feel good after or what you feel bad after.
	It's oftentimes you're taking an action.
	You're better off having done it than you would if you didn't.
	And I just felt that publishing this was not the right decision.
	It just didn't feel right.
	And I felt that she said some personal things in this diary, but I'm not sure public eyes should see it.
	And furthermore, I couldn't corroborate if what she wrote in the diary actually happened, right?
	Or what it meant.
	And that's why I'm not comfortable saying on the air.
	What's in there?
	Now, apparently this thing was not just Project Veritas.
	The tipsters didn't just alert us.
	They may have alerted other people, for all we know.
	And therefore, other people may have seen it or gotten a hold of it, which is even more ridiculous why they're raiding me and targeting us.
	So, I don't know if that answers your question, but that's what happened.
	It's perfect.
	And by the way...
	To plug your book, which everyone should read or listen to, American Muckraker, where you have a, it's either multiple chapters on ethics, but, you know, when you need to deceive, when you need to publish, and when you don't, and two good points.
	If you couldn't determine if it was true, you make the decision you feel comfortable with, and even if you determine it is true, true as in an authentic diary, you can't corroborate the substance in the diary, and then even if that is true, these are personal stories that are of the daughter of the president.
	People might want to know all the dirt on the president themselves, but you make an executive decision there.
	And I think people are trying to get me, I mean, even last night on Sean Hannity's show, I have my book in front of me, and I'm going to read a quote from it.
	Even on Sean Hannity, he asked me a question.
	Well, tell us what's in the diary.
	And I said, Sean, I'm not comfortable doing that here.
	I just think there are certain things that public eyes should not necessarily see.
	And this is the quote.
	From Ernest Hemingway, so far about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after, and what is immoral is that which you feel bad after.
	So we kind of reframed that to say morally defensible journalism is really what you feel good about afterward.
	It is only which makes you feel better than you would otherwise.
	And in this case, according to that calculation, I felt that the ethics of journalism are inherently situational.
	And I just, you know, I don't know if this, you know, the Biden children are clearly troubled in various ways, some of which we know, some of which we don't.
	And I just felt that this was not something for public consumption, unless I was really able to corroborate the specifics.
	And I did not do that.
	So it was a combination of all the above.
	And by the way, if we were unethical scumbags, and we were quote-unquote right-wing partisan zealots, We would have published this thing.
	I did not.
	And by the way, the New York Times made no such calculation when they published my attorney-client privilege documents, which were themselves not newsworthy.
	They actually made me look good.
	But there's a strong, as you know, desire in American jurisprudence to protect the attorney-client privilege.
	The First Amendment has its limits.
	You can't defame someone.
	You can't publish the other litigants' privileged memos.
	During the discovery of a lawsuit, they don't care.
	So our adversaries often accuse us of that which they are guilty of, right?
	But this is even more reason why this whole thing is so ridiculous and there are so many more questions, rhetorical questions, so many more questions than there are answers here on this whole matter.
	And we'll get there.
	And the people hypothesizing that it was a deliberate leak to this other publication that published it, I mean...
	There would be no incentive and only disincentive to do that.
	But either way, I mean, fantastic answer.
	It'll be up to people to decide whether or not they would have liked you to publish it in the first place.
	But you make the decision not to.
	And then you try to return the diary and the contents to the lawyers who were representing the anonymous tipsters.
	They refused to take it.
	And then you give it to the FBI to say, like, do what you will with this.
	We gave it to the Delray Police Department in Florida.
	This was a local.
	That's where these tipsters were apparently from.
	And then it later turned out that the diary was abandoned, right?
	So even if, which it appears as though it wasn't, but even if a source at some point in time, quote-unquote, stole it, it appears as though it wasn't stolen.
	But even if that was true, as reporters, if someone...
	Sends us a document.
	Hell, even if we paid for the rights to this thing.
	We're protected under Bartnicki v.
	Vopper, which is a Supreme Court case from 2001.
	A reporter has a right to publish a document, even if the document was stolen by a third party, so long as the reporter played no part in the quote-unquote theft of that document.
	Now, we're not saying that it was stolen.
	It's a matter of principle.
	Even if it was, we'd be protected by United States Supreme Court precedent.
	And that's why all these senators and congressmen wrote letters to the legislative branch of government, wrote letters to the Department of Justice saying, what gives, guys?
	I mean, Senator Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee in the United States Senate, had never seen anything like this before.
	He's been around a long time.
	So we're protected under the First Amendment.
	This would never happen to CNN.
	It would never happen to the New York Times, obviously.
	On the search warrant in my apartment, when I saw it, it said, quote, transporting stolen documents across state lines, which is a crime so absurd, because if that's actually a crime, assuming it was stolen, again, it appears as though it wasn't, if it's a crime to transport a stolen document across state lines, they're going to have to incarcerate everyone at the Washington Post and New York Times for transporting documents across state lines.
	In fact, emailing a document would be a crime.
	According to these absurd things.
	So, again, there's so many unanswered questions here.
	And I guess, and maybe what they thought was that I'd roll over and sort of, you know, I'm so sorry and get scared.
	And, you know, this is what these people do.
	And they're kind of bullies.
	And they punch you in the face and they expect you to kind of back down.
	But that's not really our nature at Project Veritas.
	For my own benefit, though, when the attorneys refuse to take this document back, or the stuff back, do you start getting extremely suspicious?
	Like, do flags go off and you say, we might have just been set up here?
	I mean, maybe, Jared, you want to handle when we reached out to them for comment, reached out to Biden for comment.
	So we reached out in our attempts to corroborate not just the authenticity of the diary, but also the contents of the diary, as is our obligation as journalists.
	We reached out to the Biden campaign and asked them whether or not they would like to comment.
	They instead turned it over to Ashley Biden's attorney, who claimed it was extortion, which is a laughable claim to begin with.
	And ultimately, the conversation ended with them claiming simultaneously, number one, we don't know if the documents that you have are in fact real, i.e.
	that they belong to Ashley Biden.
	But if they are, they were stolen, and so you're in receipt of stolen property.
	And by the way, again, no, we will not confirm that they are ours, but give them to us.
	To which I responded and effectively said, you know, that's not something that we will be doing.
	Unless you're willing to confirm this is, in fact, yours, then...
	No, we're not going to give you what you claim is stolen property that you won't say is, in fact, your property.
	We returned it back into law enforcement accordingly to let law enforcement sort that issue out.
	Their response to investigate the people who turned over the supposedly stolen goods, which, again, we have no information to indicate that these things were stolen at this time, other than Ashley Biden's gratuitous comment.
	And, you know, the ridiculousness continues from there.
	We now find out that within Three weeks of that happening, we were targeted by the DOJ, who sought secret warrants and secret orders and secret subpoenas from Microsoft and most likely other vendors to take in excess of a year worth of our emails from seven or eight different journalists within our organization.
	And not only that...
	But doing so with gag orders that prevented Microsoft from even so much as going, hey, by the way, Project Veritas, the DOJ is looking at your emails, an act that would have allowed us to preserve our rights in court as we have done with the raid, successfully, I point out.
	It appears the DOJ, by seeking these gag orders, was trying to prevent the exact situation we have right now, which is they're being told, you can't look at this stuff because it's unconstitutional for you to do so.
	They were afraid of that, and so they prevented us from knowing.
	And people should appreciate this, say, blackout window on the timeline, because I don't think we even knew that this happened, obviously, at the time in 2020.
	We hear about it a year later when Veritas, two journalists, James O 'Keefe are getting raided by the FBI, and at that time, everyone was outraged or shocked.
	They're like, whoa, you've had this diary for a year.
	Why are you only raiding us now?
	James O 'Keefe put out the videos on it, explained what was going on.
	It was outrageous on its face that a year after or so, after having returned the allegedly stolen diary to authorities, the FBI does a raid one year later, and that was outrageous.
	But then what you've since found out is that even before the raid, a year after or so, after having remitted it to the authorities, shortly after remitting it to the authorities, they had already started this surveillance, going after Outlook.
	What are they called?
	Warrants, not subpoenas, but warrants and secrecy orders to effectively get journalists.
	Now, which journalists had they targeted at Veritas in that year leading up to the raid?
	Not by name, but rather by function.
	Yeah, they had targeted, first off, our HR manager, which is in and of itself mind-boggling, had virtually nothing to do with this case other than simply making sure that our journalists were paid while they were investigating this and other stories, as well as the journalists who were in charge of investigating this story, as well as James.
	And here's an important point, again, with all of this.
	We did not learn of the existence of the Ashley Biden diary.
	Until September of 2020.
	Yet the DOJ sought email records going back to January 1, 2020.
	Eight months before we even knew the diary existed.
	What justification does the government have to seek those emails when they have to show probable cause that those emails would have evidence of a crime related to, in this case, their affidavits or their submissions, or are all targeting the investigation about the Ashley Biden diary?
	In short, the DOJ overstepped their bounds and overplayed their hand here.
	Yeah, and these are 2705B secret.
	We posted them to our website.
	You can read through these documents.
	Fascinating.
	Non-disclosure orders to Microsoft.
	Very, very unusual.
	And Microsoft, to their credit, fought this.
	In fact, this is just a couple weeks ago.
	Microsoft drafted a motion, which we've posted, and just them drafting this motion to oppose the secrecy orders, the feds backed down, and then we were tipped off about it from someone at Microsoft.
	And what's interesting to me is that in these secrecy orders filed going way back to 2020 and 2021, they initially listed certain crimes.
	I think one of the ones, Jared, was extortion on one of these documents.
	Blackmail.
	Blackmail.
	But that was dropped.
	That was not listed in the search warrant when they came to my apartment.
	What that shows us is that they were kind of fishing.
	And I don't know why they would even list blackmail.
	We reached out to the Joe Biden campaign for comment, as responsible journalists should.
	Rachel Maddow tried to insinuate that we blackmailed the president by asking him for comment.
	And we made a funny TikTok video about that.
	But it really is extraordinary to read through these secret warrants.
	Six different magistrate judges, and I have them in front of me here, and they're on our website, signed these search warrant and non-disclosure orders.
	They tried to gag Microsoft a month or two after the special master was assigned.
	And again, special master federal judge cited journalistic privilege and First Amendment issues.
	So we're not aware of this ever happening really in American history, especially to a journalist.
	The prosecutors would argue that we're not journalists, but it really doesn't matter for purposes of the law.
	And the prosecutor's argument there, the reason why we're not journalists is because we don't get permission and consent from the people that we video record, which is an absurd argument.
	Jared, explain the criteria under U.S. law to get these...
	I mean, they're not ex parte, but these...
	Search warrant orders, these secrecy orders.
	In Canada, when we had the trucker issue and the government went ex parte and got what they call offense-related property seizures or freezing of assets of property related to the alleged offense, they do it ex parte so the drug dealer doesn't flush the drugs down the toilet.
	I don't have much experience in criminal law, but I presume that there's nonetheless a relatively serious threshold that is required.
	On the one hand, for these search warrants to be issued in the first place, but even more so for the secrecy orders.
	Because let's say they get the search order, and then once they've gotten it, well, then notifying you should be a no-brainer.
	They've already got it to preserve.
	What's the threshold in law in the United States to get these secrecy orders and then to have them renewed however many times over however long a period of time they were, in fact, renewed?
	Yeah, so the law, which James cited to, is 2703-2705, basically says that you have to show that there is a likelihood that if the person knows, in this case, if Project Baratoss had known, that there is a threat to life, which is clearly not applicable in this case, or that there is a risk of flight, again, clearly not applicable in this case.
	Or that there is a threat that the person, again, in this case Project Veritas, would destroy evidence, which Microsoft even pointed out how ludicrous that position is in filing their motion.
	They said, to the extent the government claims, that secrecy is still needed because there's a fear that Project Veritas would destroy documents.
	Explain why Project Veritas has been litigating in this particular court instead of burning and shredding documents in the back alley.
	Explain why they went and got a special master.
	Explain why they have been taking extraordinary steps to ensure the preservation of documents, not just the preservation of documents.
	As you recall, in the interim time period here between when they started this investigation and when James was raided and we sought the special master.
	We had a flood that destroyed not only our office, but also our computer equipment.
	And we have gone to extraordinary lengths at extreme expense to us to ensure that all records were recovered and rebuild all of that.
	Contrary to destroying things, we are doing the exact opposite.
	And even Microsoft came to our defense in that and said, this is a ridiculous claim and there is no need for secrecy here.
	Well, that would explain the initial secrecy to obtain the initial search warrant and then obtain the initial seizure or access to all of the emails correspondence as of that date.
	What could possibly explain the renewal of the secrecy orders?
	It's as though they're saying James Project Veritas is involved in a criminal organization, and if they know that they're under surveillance, they will not only...
	They can't destroy the evidence that we've already gotten, but they'll cease participating in it on an ongoing basis and stop the plot or something.
	I mean, do you know what they alleged before the magistrates prior to the FBI raid?
	Did you see any of those pleadings, written pleadings, or hear any of the audio if it exists?
	Well, unfortunately, no.
	The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has filed motions, and we appreciate that kind of support.
	From the First Amendment groups has filed a motion seeking to not only unseal the affidavit for the search warrants, but effectively, by doing so, make that public.
	Unfortunately, Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave rejected that.
	That is currently effectively kind of on appeal.
	It's not really called an appeal, but it's on appeal.
	Scare quotes.
	In front of District Judge Torres.
	I think the revelations as to what has happened here and the fact that they're secret.
	Directly to these search warrants, the orders, the secrecy orders, the submissions by the DOJ in order to obtain these are also coincidentally secret and sealed and therefore unknown to Project Veritas or anyone other than the district judge, or excuse me, the magistrate judges who issued those orders or the DOJ who submitted them.
	And that needs to change.
	Ultimately, the RCFP motion should be granted.
	The ACLU has come out and said effectively the same thing, which is that not only should the government stop the review of these emails and these documents, but they should have to disclose the basis for obtaining these things.
	And it's only fair to do so.
	We've clearly shown the DOJ has engaged in what should be accurately described as misconduct.
	That misconduct and the extent of it will only be shown when we can actually see the documents they submitted to the magistrate judges.
	In order to obtain these orders and ultimately, therefore, determine whether or not the DOJ lied to the magistrate judges.
	And as a matter of procedure, like in Canada, you can go in chambers with a judge and technically there's no audio recording, there's no stenographer.
	These hearings, above and beyond the written submissions, these would have been not recorded meetings, no stenographer taking notes of what's said between counsel and the magistrate in the first place.
	You're not trying to access recordings of the transcript.
	You're just trying to access the documents.
	Yes, correct.
	And it is my understanding, and granted, I am mostly a civil litigator, not a criminal litigator, so each district has their own rules here.
	But it is my understanding that these particular search warrants, the orders, and the subpoena...
	Were simply form submissions that were sent to the magistrate judges, thrown on their desk, signed, and sent back.
	In other words, there was no hearing.
	From what I understand, there was likely no discussion, no debate, no disclosure, for example, that Project Veritas is a journalistic organization.
	And I question that here.
	People have said, well, how would you know?
	How would you know that they didn't disclose that Project Veritas is a journalistic organization?
	In obtaining these search warrants and what have you.
	To which I say, what government that responds to the request of a special master by saying Project Veritas doesn't get journalistic privileges would nonetheless a year earlier before anything is challenged say, oh, but they got it back then.
	What we've clearly shown in these reports and what we are seeing with these documents that have been newly revealed is that Microsoft challenged the government and the government stepped down and backed down from their position because ultimately it was never defensible.
	One question before I forget.
	There were eight secrecy orders and renewals, six of which were before Judge Annalisa Torres' motion for Special Master, which means two of them were after.
	Any idea?
	First of all, the one question is, is it the same judge issuing the secrecy orders and the renewals, or are these different judges, magistrates?
	They are different magistrates in most cases.
	I think there's maybe, I want to say, one order that was renewed where it was the same magistrate renewing it that it issued it in the beginning.
	Okay.
	And do we know, or do you know, if they advised under the renewals of the existence of Torres' special master appointment?
	It does not appear so.
	So last night, the government filed a very late, I'd almost call it a midnight response to our motion, which in and of itself speaks volumes.
	And the motion tries to, or the response to the motion tries to kind of back away from this idea that, oh, well, it was secret, it was secret, it was secret.
	And they explain that, well, listen, you know, some of these things here that, you know, we submitted to magistrate judges.
	After, you know, for example, the special master was obtained, the magistrate judges surely knew.
	Surely knew.
	You know, it reminds me that they keep laying the blame, ultimately, and throwing these magistrate judges under the bus as though the magistrate judges have the time or the duty to go and look at all of these things and uncover facts that the DOJ was unwilling to put in front of the magistrate judges.
	It's akin to my wife saying, you know, you didn't tell me to go buy milk.
	And I said, what?
	Are you kidding me?
	Did you not see the post-it note I put in the attic?
	It's an absolutely absurd position that they are taking at this point.
	And that's what I was hypothesizing yesterday.
	It's one of two things.
	Either they did not, or either they notified the magistrate who said, this is so secret, we cannot even advise.
	Or we're going to issue it notwithstanding Annalisa Torres' motion for special master?
	Or granting a special master?
	Or they don't disclose it?
	And then, is it going to be the blame of the magistrate to not know what had occurred in another court file in front of another magistrate, and they're presumed to know of it just because it's a high-profile case that was in the news?
	So, I mean, I guess you'll find out those details, and it'll only exacerbate the wrongdoing of the government.
	James, one question also before I forget this.
	When the FBI showed up, guns drawn?
	Well, they had their hands on their guns.
	We actually released a video.
	I didn't release a video of my encounter, but our colleagues' encounter, and they were sort of hand on their gun as they walked around the apartment.
	A couple other details about the raid.
	The first thing, there was a short guy, a lead agent.
	One of the first things he said to me is, Mr. O 'Keefe, I know you have a flight to catch at 2 o 'clock.
	Again, this is 6.10 in the morning.
	Why he said that to me, I don't know.
	First of all, I didn't intend to get on the airplane that day because my colleagues had been raided 36 hours previous.
	But further, I don't know what he was intending to do.
	Scare me, intimidate me, tell me that he knows my agenda for the next few days.
	They put me in handcuffs.
	They put me in the hallway.
	I did not know this was standard operating procedure.
	Perhaps it is.
	I don't know.
	And then towards the end of the raid, they would put me in a room.
	I have an apartment, and they'd put me in one room and then rummage the stuff in the other room, went into the bedroom.
	And then at the end, they said, do you have any questions?
	And I didn't actually say this aloud, but I thought to myself, have you ever raided a reporter's home before?
	And it struck me that a lot of the people that were there that day, again, between 10 and 12, they had these bright white flashlights.
	They were all wearing baseball caps, cargo pants, and vests that said FBI.
	I almost felt like a lot of them were fans of mine.
	They were wondering what they were doing there.
	My comment here is that they're obviously just following orders because they have pensions and jobs.
	There is a bit of lawlessness here.
	And again, to repeat myself, if this was done to anybody else, I guess they do it to me because they think they can get away with it because I'm not CNN.
	But the actual conduct that we did here is perhaps more ethical.
	It was the stuff of ethical, responsible journalism.
	So that's what makes this so crazy.
	And now, I mean, I don't want to ask too much stuff, but you're using Outlook.
	And the expectation, obviously, is that it's relatively secure that Outlook, your email service provider, I presume you might have more secure alternatives of communication.
	But the presumption is that Outlook is not going to disclose your stuff without telling you in the absence of an absolutely compelling reason.
	But even then, Apple didn't unlock phones during certain investigations, even though there was actual risk of life and death.
	Jared, is there...
	For anyone who's thinking litigiously, is there any claim, are you contemplating any recourse against Microsoft, or are they effectively totally shielded because they were just complying with a court order and had their hands tied?
	Yeah, so Microsoft, first off, should be applauded for their actions in this particular case.
	Not only, number one, when they were approached with these subpoenas and told, you cannot tell your client, you cannot tell Project Veritas.
	Their initial response and their policy as a company...
	Is to turn around and say, no, you need to go back to the client.
	You need to go directly to Project Veritas, not come to us.
	And you see this in Microsoft's briefing, for example.
	Microsoft makes the analogy that in the 1970s, when the DOJ wanted to obtain a company's records, they would have to come in and raid the file cabinet.
	In other words, the customer would know.
	The client would know.
	The person being raided.
	Would know and would have an opportunity to go to court and redress their grievances, say, hey, listen, I have rights.
	In our case, we have First Amendment and journalistic privileges that have been acknowledged by District Court Judge Annalisa Torres.
	That whole process of allowing a customer to defend their rights should not go away simply because the filing cabinet is now in the cloud.
	And that's what the DOJ is doing.
	The DOJ is using this new technology that makes business faster and easier to happen as a way around having to tell people, by the way, we're taking your attorney-client privileged communications.
	By the way, we're taking your confidential source communications that are protected under the reporter's shield.
	By the way, we are taking your communications that are protected under Americans for Prosperity Foundation versus Bonta, U.S. Supreme Court case from just this last year.
	They're doing all of this because they know if they tell us, they will ultimately be restricted by a judge, as they were in this case, from looking at all of the 150,000-plus emails that we believe that they are in possession of.
	And as a result, they're doing whatever they can to prevent the customer from knowing.
	Again, though, Microsoft should be applauding for their efforts here.
	The second that these non-disclosure gag orders were lifted from Microsoft, they called us to let us know what happened.
	I was going to say, the difference, we have these things called Mariva injunctions, which they're issued ex parte.
	You want to seize the assets because if you don't do it, if you notify the party, they'll destroy the copyright infringement material.
	They'll dispose of the incriminating stuff.
	But where something turns from...
	An ex parte seizure into an ongoing spying campaign is once they've seized it, once they've protected what they needed to protect, that's why they did it ex parte, they notify you so that A, you can fight over it, and B, so you can know what's happening going forward.
	This, what they did was seizure for the past, secrecy for the ongoing future, and...
	From what you understand, and elaborate if you have any more details, eight months until you got raided of ongoing surveillance of Project Veritas and eight journalists.
	That's correct.
	And it does beg that question.
	You know, in January 2022, a month after the special master was ordered, right?
	And ultimately two months after James O 'Keefe and two of our other journalists were raided and their cell phones and 47 total devices seized.
	The government was still making the claim to the courts that, well, gee, there's a threat of destruction of evidence, to which I ask, who would be destroying it if you have it all?
	You have all of our emails, you have 47 of our devices, which include every communication that occurred on those devices, and you still are feigning to the court, gee, if they know they're somehow going to delete things that we will therefore never be able to have.
	It is absolutely absurd.
	And people should appreciate it.
	It took me a few seconds to visualize it.
	Everything that they had on those cell phones includes Outlook, but not vice versa.
	And so once they had seized those cell phones, I presume your Outlook was on your phones, I guess, if you don't mind disclosing that.
	Many of our journalists do use email on their phones, yes.
	Okay.
	So they have all the emails, but once they seized the cell phones, they had the overarching umbrella of goods.
	It was under the special master and everyone knew it.
	And so as of that time, any concerns that they had, which could have in theory, but I don't think ever could, have warranted the prior secrecy orders are out the window.
	God, I'm dying to know what warranties and representations or what documents they filed.
	What warranties they made before the magistrates who renewed the secrecy orders after the special master was appointed?
	James.
	Yes.
	Well, first of all, I guess, who drafted the pleading that I went over that you guys filed?
	Which pleading was that?
	It was the letter to Annalisa Torres explaining why they should be sanctioned for what they're doing after discovery of what you discovered.
	It was the one filed a few days ago.
	To federal judge Annalisa Torres.
	You're referring to that one, right?
	Yeah.
	Now, when I read it, James, do you have a hand in crafting this?
	Because when I read it, I read it with your voice in my head, and I don't know if that's just conditioning.
	Well, Paul Callay is an excellent attorney, and I guess him and I share a similar vision, and we both learn from each other, and Paul's not afraid.
	He's a prestigious jury.
	And one of the things he wrote in this memo was that this was an act of violence against the First Amendment.
	And that's written in my voice, but it's also written in Paul's voice because it's accurate.
	So Paul wrote it, but him and I share similar core values.
	And from your perspective, James, people might look at this and say, I don't know what your internal mechanisms are, and I'm definitely not going to ask that question.
	Has this resulted in an uptick, downtick, or no effect to the people who are willing to come forward as whistleblowers, knowing the degree of scrutiny?
	And I will dare say, potentially unlawful scrutiny that you've been under from the highest authorities of America.
	Are people more reluctant or more invigorated to get on the project?
	I would say on balance, all things being equal, probably more invigorated.
	Again, we're a charitable non-profit organization, so on two different fronts, both are the people who donate money to us and also the sources that come to us.
	And on the sources front, like for example, we did a story on Anthony Fauci in January using documents obtained from the Department of Defense.
	Of course, I'll never disclose the source and my reporter never would, but I think that person was more invigorated.
	By the feds coming after us because it shows credibility.
	It shows that we're legitimate.
	It shows that we're a threat.
	And anybody with common sense can figure that out, especially in this day and age, this dystopian reality that we live in.
	And twofold, the donation front.
	Again, people like to think that we're some right-wing, gun-for-hire...
	Donors don't tell us what to do.
	And there's tens of thousands of these donors.
	We're crowdsource funded, if you will, whether they give $1 or $1,000 or $10,000.
	And I've seen an uptick in that in the sense that they're not afraid.
	It's not so much that we're fundraising off of this.
	It's that people will double down and they'll realize how important this fight is.
	That they're living vicariously through us.
	Because think of it this way.
	I'm on your show.
	There's a lot of people watching this.
	I was on Sean Hannity's show.
	Harmeet Dillon went on Adam Carolla's show.
	What about all the people who get railroaded by these U.S. attorneys who don't have this access?
	This happens almost every day in this country, unfortunately.
	It's gotten that bad.
	And I think people live by a curiosity through us and understand.
	And we are going to win.
	And I think most people back down because they're afraid.
	And I think they're hoping that we're afraid.
	We just don't have that in our DNA.
	And I think Paul Cowley, when he wrote this motion, which you can read on our website, Paul is not the guy to back down.
	And by the way, I don't know if, Jared, you mentioned this.
	Jared, did you mention that the DOJ has now responded?
	Yes.
	Where might one access that filing if they wanted to cover it?
	We posted on my Telegram page, I got 400,000 followers.
	If you just go to the Telegram app and just type in James O 'Keefe, I've uploaded the Department of Justice's response there, and you can read their response.
	And Jared, I don't know if you want to characterize again how they responded.
	Yeah, I think the key here with this filing is this.
	They've done effectively three things with this filing.
	Number one is...
	They have confirmed that everything we reported yesterday about the secret warrants, the orders, and subpoenas existing is all true.
	They have confirmed that they were, in fact, spying on Project Veritas for well over a year.
	Number two, they have appeared to confirm in their filing that they have never directly informed Judge Torres, who is overseeing our case, of this spying.
	And number three, they claim that they have no accountability, ultimately that there is no basis in law for them to be held accountable under this.
	I tend to think that the judges will disagree with that.
	Well, that's where I'm wondering.
	It's like, Judge Torres, if they're all on equal footing, she'll be peeved.
	But it's not, you know, she can't sanction any other judge.
	And she probably will say, it wasn't up to them to know what was going on in this case.
	It was up to the parties in ex parte applications to duly inform the court.
	But then, you know, what can she possibly do?
	Or what would she even dare do to the Department of the DOJ?
	Like, what would she dare do to sanction the DOJ?
	And what could she do?
	Like, even to make the DOJ or the government pay for the special master, Well, listen, I mean, Judge Annalisa Torres has issued a special master order which directly tells the DOJ,
	stop reviewing Project Veritas' materials, turn Project Veritas' materials over to the special master, and there is a process we're going to follow to ensure that you only see that which you are constitutionally entitled to see.
	At a minimum.
	The government should be forced to follow that process with all records they've obtained from Project Veritas, at a minimum.
	I believe that they have an obligation, after what we have exposed here, to disclose all the other companies which they have done this process with.
	And frankly, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, explain yourself.
	Well, this might be a very ignorant question.
	I haven't even thought about the relevance, but how did you find out about the Uber?
	And then what would be the relevance of that?
	They want to know where you're going and who you're visiting type thing or destination?
	The relevance of that is that we don't know how many vendors they went to here.
	I mean, I'm looking up at my screens.
	Forgive me if my eyes wander here, but I've got the Department of Justice's response as well as my, or Paul Callie, my lawyer's motion that we filed.
	The request we made of Judge Torres is to know the identity of any other third party to which the government issued demands for Project Veritas under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, with or without a nondisclosure.
	So my imagination is running wild right now because we know they did Microsoft Outlook.
	We know they did Uber because Uber notified us just after...
	Just after the non-disclosure was lifted, after Microsoft fought it, again, thank you, Microsoft, in the same way that, by the way, Google fought the Trump, rather the New York Times fought the Trump administration when they did this to Google, then Uber notified us.
	So I'm concerned that they went to eat.
	I mean, did they go to Verizon?
	Did they go to Salesforce?
	I mean, did they get all of our donors?
	I mean, this is a serious, this is a really big deal.
	And I guess they never thought a special master would have been appointed.
	They never thought the ACLU would have defended us, the Reporters Committee, the Society of Professional Journalists have defended us.
	They just didn't think about that.
	And now maybe they're backed into a corner.
	And what strikes me about this response from the Department of Justice, again, they responded to our motion, they responded to our reporting on this, is that they did so without the judge ordering them to.
	And that, to me, indicates some significant guilt.
	Did they indicate in their filing why they had asked for emails for the time frame of eight months prior to?
	Or did they just say, we're just going for a blanket time frame?
	Their response effectively said, you don't deserve to know.
	The arrogance drips from the motion.
	And now, someone had mentioned the word impeachable.
	Let's play this out.
	Someone ordered this.
	Would it be the Attorney General who would be at the top of this, call it a scheme, of this procedure?
	Would it be the Attorney General of the United States who okayed this in the first place?
	Well, and that's a very interesting question.
	So that goes to the heart of some of the problems with this.
	The United States, number one, is supposed to be a place where battering rams do not enter the doors of journalists.
	And that's been a longstanding issue with the First Amendment and longstanding conflict between the DOJ and ultimately the journalistic entities in this country.
	Most recently, President Biden and ultimately Attorney General Merrick Garland came in and promised reform.
	They promised, we will no longer go after journalists.
	They issued new regulations.
	Of course, the Privacy Protection Act supports that as well.
	But these regulations expressly say we will no longer seek the compulsory turnover of documents from journalists, including raids, seizures, search warrants, etc.
	All the things that happen to us, unless the Attorney General signs off.
	There's only a couple of exceptions, and one of those exceptions is if the SDNY went rogue.
	And ultimately said, well, Project Veritas is not journalist, so therefore we didn't seek the Attorney General's advice.
	Now, the SDNY has made a representation in filing.
	They have affirmed to the court and to Project Veritas that they have complied with those regulations.
	That means one of two things.
	Either A, that means that, yes, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed off on this, contrary to his statements in the public, that he is a friend of journalism and that this administration supports journalists from, you know, ultimately politically motivated raids, as this appears to be.
	Well, okay, let's talk about both of those.
	First of all, this is the same Merrick Garland who, according to CNN, felt tremendous political pressure to indict Steve Bannon.
	For failing to comply with that congressional subpoena.
	So we've already seen a very politicized Merrick Garland.
	It retroactively confirms why many believed he never deserved a seat on SCOTUS, the degree to which he has behaved in what many rightly believe to be a political manner.
	So the politicization of Merrick Garland, who might have thought this would have never seen the light of day, and they'll have some spurious defense for why they did it, that's one thing.
	But even if the SDNY went totally rogue, Which is also not inconceivable, given their reputation.
	What are the chances that it was not known to?
	Going rogue is not under the cover of night, but rather just will do it.
	What are the chances, even if they did that, that Merrick Garland and the DOJ had no knowledge of what they were doing?
	It has to be virtually nil, even if that's the secondary hypothesis.
	Yeah, I think it is close to zero.
	It certainly is zero at this point.
	Multiple members of the U.S. House as well as the United States Senate have written demands to Merrick Garland to effectively say, what gives here?
	Tell us what happened.
	And, you know, simply asking for answers, simply asking for some explanation as to why the DOJ is at the doors of journalists at 6 o 'clock in the morning.
	With guns and battering rams.
	And Merrick Garland has refused thus far to respond.
	Okay, very interesting.
	I'm going to think of anything that I might have missed.
	One question is, time frame going forward and procedure, what does it look like?
	You've made the filing.
	DOJ, hold on, I just got a notification here.
	DOJ filed its response.
	Are there any viva voce pleadings or is it all done in writing?
	Mostly everything is done in writing, especially post-COVID.
	It seems like that's just the default now.
	But yes, everything appears to be in writing.
	We hope to have some progress with the court in the coming weeks.
	What I will say is this.
	As is typical with Project Veritas, we haven't seen it all yet.
	We have additional information and additional documents that will be coming forward on this.
	So stay tuned.
	James, what did you think of the ACLU statement?
	I mean, everything after the first introductory eight words was good, but we strongly condemn or disapprove of Project Veritas' deception.
	Look, I don't suspect you're going to ask them for clarification or retraction, but I mean, what do you have to say about their standing by your side while throwing you under the bus?
	Well, I think that makes the statement more credible, right?
	I think that makes the statement more incredible.
	In other words, them using the positive saying, well, they're deceptive, but I think that makes the comments that are defending us all the more extraordinary.
	And this is the mission of Project Veritas.
	People like to think that we're these sort of ideological people, and I repeat myself, but if I really was what they project onto me, I would have published Ashley Biden's diary.
	Or I would have said it on the air last night when I was repeatedly asked.
	I did not.
	So our mission is to forge consensus.
	And what we do is we expose them in their own words, which more people should do.
	And I'm happy when people who are, quote unquote, on the left to do it, as long as they're doing it accurately and fairly.
	So I thought the ACLU statement was good.
	And I think the Reporters Committee needs to come out like they did in November and need to come out again.
	I mean, Josh Gerstein at Politico wrote a very positive article.
	The New York Times wrote a very positive article.
	And they pointed out this is incredibly unusual.
	Just this past week in the New York Times did a front page hit piece on me.
	And then two days ago, they're like, wait a second.
	They're issuing secret warrants against Microsoft for this guy's emails.
	It almost seems to me like, and I'm speculating here, but it appears as though they don't want to be on the wrong side of history.
	Because what they're thinking is, and I don't approach it this way, but I'm sure they do, they don't want it to happen to them.
	When the quote-unquote other guys get into power.
	I don't view the world that way.
	Oftentimes, very calculating people do.
	They're worried that under a Trump administration or a DeSantis administration, this could happen to them.
	And for that reason, it's almost like self-preservation.
	That appears to be what they're doing.
	In any event, I hope the Reporters Committee follows up.
	The Reporters Committee, Jared, did.
	Did file a motion to unseal the affidavits, and that's on the desk of this Article III Federal Judge Annalisa Torres, correct?
	That is correct, and I think what we've uncovered this week and exposed for the world further underscores the necessity for that to be unsealed.
	But really, the mission of Project Veritas, let me be clear.
	Is to get the exact type of consensus I see in the comments.
	So the ACLU is a partisan left wing.
	But we're trying to get people who don't agree with us to agree.
	Because if we don't accomplish that objective in this country, then we're doomed.
	There's zero chance of avoiding a civil armed conflict.
	And I want to avoid that.
	I want us to get back into an area where we can all agree that you shouldn't raid.
	We should all at least agree.
	If we can't agree on that, there's 0% chance of avoiding an armed civil war, right?
	So I think the ACLU statement is phenomenal.
	And I hope that Committee to Protect Journalists, Society to Protect Journalists come out swinging here.
	Well, it's interesting.
	I didn't read it that way yesterday, but now that you mention it, I guess it is somewhat stronger, not that they don't like you but still defend you, but that they say even if what he does is deception or deceptive, they should still benefit from journalism.
	And obviously, what does that even mean?
	If you want to get into that, you know, I wrote a whole chapter in American Muckraker about this idea of deception because all investigative reporting, all investigative reporting involves...
	In fact, the better the investigative reporting is, oftentimes the more elaborate the quote-unquote deception towards the subject because it's a question of relative deception.
	Either you deceive the subject you're talking to such that you can extract the truth out of them, or you're completely honest with your subject about who you are, thus getting falsehoods from your subject and disseminating those falsehoods to the masses.
	So that part of the statement was disingenuous, but I just viewed that as a dig against us because of what we expose.
	And they don't like...
	A lot of these ideologues don't like who we expose, but to be honest with you, Veritas is going to be exposing a lot of people on the right in the months ahead, and you'll see that soon, so stay tuned.
	I think Fox News might be top on that list if I'm just throwing a name out there.
	And one of my other reflexes was ACLU coming to your defense, New York Times.
	We know how tooth and nail New York Times fought and is continuing to fight to avoid...
	What do we call it in the US?
	Deposition discovery.
	In your defamation case, I presume they have some pretty incriminating emails among themselves internally, as does the ACLU.
	It is self-preservation through altruism.
	It's not just self-preservation through altruism.
	I talk about this constantly.
	The Carl Jung concept of projection.
	Because I write this, I don't mean to shamelessly plug American Muckraker.
	All proceeds do go to Project Veritas.
	It's a great book.
	I sent it to you.
	There's a chapter called Secrecy.
	And one of the things I learned about litigation is I've been deposed so many times, I don't keep any secrets.
	Which is ironic because I'm an investigative reporter.
	I only keep our whistleblower, our identity secret.
	These people have everything to hide.
	And oftentimes, because that is the soup that they swim in, they project their own hidden malfeasance onto me, thinking that I have something to hide.
	So if only we get all of O 'Keefe's emails, we'll find some venality or crime.
	We don't break the law here.
	In fact, I am obsessed with this ethical concept of behaving like there's 12 jurors watching you.
	I tell my staff every day, guys, there's 12 jurors in the room.
	And I'm obsessed about this.
	That is not the way the New York Times behaved.
	And that's why in the answer to our defamation complaint, which they were required to answer, they said things like, we got the facts wrong.
	We're not an opinion writer, Your Honor.
	They admitted all these things.
	And what's extraordinary about the New York Times defamation lawsuit is they admitted these things in court, yet they still haven't corrected the article.
	They admitted in court they got the facts wrong.
	But they left the erroneous article up on the website.
	So if that is an evidence of actual malice and bad faith, what is?
	Gentlemen, I won't keep you any longer than I feel comfortable keeping you because I know, Jared, between the two of you, you've got more than too many things to do.
	One last thing.
	The status of the New York Times defamation case, was it put on hold, suspended indefinitely, or is there a date as of which that comes back to the fore?
	Yeah, it's currently pending in front of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division on a number of issues, not the least of which is whether or not discovery can continue in the pendency of the motion to dismiss.
	The motion to dismiss is also pending.
	An interesting kind of development is the motion to dismiss was based upon a new law in New York that was passed after we filed our motion.
	And in part, the New York Times' position of why they're saying that the motion to dismiss being denied was wrongful.
	They're claiming that, well, gee, that law is retroactive, and therefore it should apply to our case.
	What's interesting is, in the interim time since they filed their appeal within the last couple of weeks, the New York Appellate Division has come out with a ruling that says, no, that law is not retroactive.
	So I like our chances on appeal.
	Fantastic.
	I remember that being the question.
	Typically, procedural stuff can be retroactive, but substantive law can't because you have to abide by the law at the time.
	And even if it were retroactive, though, would this have made the suit harder for Project Veritas to institute?
	I remember there being an issue with that law that it actually made it harder for the Davids to fight the Goliaths by the wording of the law.
	It effectively would have done that.
	It's an interesting law, but I don't think it's going to make a difference in our case now that it's been ruled that it's not retroactive.
	And I just want to remind, you know, I do have to go in a moment.
	I want to bring up again this, because your viewers may not be aware of this memo issued July 19th, 2021 by Merrick Garland, the Attorney General.
	Subject, I have a copy of it in front of me.
	Use of compulsory process to obtain information records.
	Members of the news media.
	And this is pretty explicit from doing what they did, subpoenas, court orders, warrants.
	But it goes back to this age-old metaphysical question of how do you define news media?
	But another federal judge, Jared, I believe, just shortly after our raid, issued a memorandum saying, even if you purport to be a member of the news media.
	And it was that language, purport to be.
	Because if you look at what we do, we obviously distribute information, oftentimes hidden camera videos.
	So the question is this, and this is an unanswered question about the raids and the warrants.
	Who authorized this?
	Was it Washington DOJ?
	Was it the Attorney General?
	Was it the Deputy Attorney General?
	We don't know the answer to that question.
	If the Attorney General of the United States did authorize this, that's a scandal.
	If the Attorney General did not authorize this, that's a scandal.
	And I guess I can just have to leave it there.
	It's fantastic.
	Jared, James, thank you very much.
	We'll follow up if you have time, but one way or another, I'll follow up and keep everyone on this channel apprised of what's going on.
	Gentlemen, we won't get to say our proper goodbyes because I'm going to stay live after you gentlemen leave, but thank you.
	From the chat, people love you.
	People should love you.
	Keep fighting the good fight and stay strong.
	I don't know how you guys deal with this level of stress, but you look young enough that you're dealing with it well.
	So, James and Jared.
	Thank you very much.
	We'll talk again.
	Talk soon.
	Talk to you soon.
	Thank you.
	Thank you as always.
	How do I get out of here?
	All right, people.
	Now, let me just get my...
	That was fantastic.
	That was...
	My goodness.
	If the DOJ ordered it, it's a scandal.
	And if they didn't order it, it's a scandal.
	One thing for certain, scandal sandwich.
	Now, let me see if I can get Crystal on here earlier.
	I'm just going to see if I can...
	Any chance you can come on a little earlier question mark?
	This is what happens when you organize the schedule and produce the special effects.
	That was phenomenal.
	Can't believe it.
	Jared, you can tell the...
	James would have been a good lawyer.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I think he did study.
	Wait, did he have to study law?
	I think he did.
	By the way, the critical analytical way of viewing things, dissecting things, breaking things down.
	Oy, all right, well.
	We're going to get into some Canadian stuff now.
	I'm going to play the full five-minute supercut on the Viva Clips secondary channel.
	It will give everyone who does not like Justin Trudeau quite a bit of cathartic relief.
	And in the meantime, I'm going to also go take care of some scheduling.
	So enjoy this five-minute clip.
	And just to give you the heads up of who's coming now.
	I'm going to continue to mangle...
	I think it's Lushkiv is her last name.
	A doctor...
	I'm going to pull up an article to summarize it, to go over it before we get the doctor on the show.
	Had her license revoked or suspended, I forget exactly which, because she was issuing exemptions, medical exemptions, and apparently a few religious exemptions to people getting the...
	The Fauci juice.
	If we can make that word sound even grosser than it is.
	It's the funny thing about censorship is sometimes the substituted word, which is, you know, we're doing this as somewhat facetious now, but the substituted word becomes even grosser than the original.
	Fauci juice.
	It's like that scene in Fight Club.
	Someone knew the original line.
	The substituted line was even worse.
	And from what I understood, I think for the blood in the movie, they also use, like, syrup.
	Instead of reddish looking stuff, which made it look even worse.
	So hold on a second.
	I'm going to bring this up so you can all bask and revel in five minutes of Justin Trudeau getting roasted.
	Thank you.
	Based on article 195...
	Doubt that it would have been more appropriate for Mr. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, to address this House according to Article 144, an article which was specifically designed to debate violations of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, which is clearly the case with Mr. Trudeau.
	And with the Prime Minister of Canada, the way he's behaving right now, he's exactly like a tyrant, like a dictator.
	He's like Ceausescu in Romania.
	If even you doubt, if you raise doubts about the vaccines, you're outcasted.
	What's the difference between what he does and what happened under the Inquisition?
	See, on one side they say, well, we should not believe in God, but on the other side they say, believe in science.
	We don't have to.
	Science is not about belief.
	Science is about measurements, conclusions, hypotheses, and arguments.
	We got to a point right now where even if you say something, if you raise any doubts, you're already considered, you know, as whatever, you know, they label you in very different ways.
	This is not okay.
	And I have to tell you, you know, that when I saw the protests in Canada, you know, the way the truckers over there reacted, you know, I got in touch with some of them, others contacted me.
	I congratulated them and I want to use this opportunity.
	To thank them.
	And I hope this movement for freedom and for rights is spreading all around the world.
	Because at the end of the day, we have to make sure that all these elected officials, they understand that they were elected in those offices to work for the people, not to behave like masters of slaves.
	Thank you.
	Honorable members, we keep discussing here our European democratic values that underpin all of our actions.
	I worked in Syria and Pakistan for many years as a diplomat and therefore value democracy very highly.
	Now, the invitation to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau is an invitation to someone who's been trampling on democratic rights, who's been cracking down on people who protested against disproportionate corona measures.
	People who were supporting a non-sanctioned movement coming under criticism.
	So clearly the values of democracy being despised by this individual.
	Let us not give someone like this any speaking time in this house of democracy.
	Dear colleagues, dear citizens, Prime Minister Trudeau, freedom The right of choice, the right to freedom, the right to work.
	For many of us, these are basic, fundamental human rights that millions of people across Europe and across the world have given their lives.
	In order to defend our rights and the rights of our children, rights that we have fought for for centuries, many of us, including me, myself personally, are ready and willing to risk our own Freedom and to lay down our own lives.
	Unfortunately, today among us, there are also those who want to trample those basic rights.
	Canada, once a symbol of the modern world, is under your quasi-liberal leadership and over the few...
	The past few months, it has become a symbol of violating basic human rights and civic freedoms.
	We have witnessed women being trampled by horses.
	Single parents, their bank accounts are being blocked so that they cannot pay for their children's schools.
	They cannot pay for medicine.
	They cannot pay their electricity bills, their water bills.
	They cannot pay the debts they have, their mortgages.
	For you, maybe these are liberal methods.
	But for many citizens across the world, this is a dictatorship of the worst kind.
	Be assured that the citizens of the world, when united, can stop any regime that wants to abolish the freedom of citizens, whether by bombs or by harmful medicine.
	Thank you.
	That closes the debate.
	Thank you, dear colleagues.
	Thank you once again, Prime Minister, for being with us.
	We look forward to having you here quite soon again.
	Thank you.
	This debate is closed.
	move to the next item What was the episode of The Simpsons where he goes...
	It was the German guy says, oh, this exhibit is over.
	It was The Simpsons episode where...
	Oh, geez, what happened?
	It was at a fair and there was a German guy showing a display of what...
	Oh, they were doing...
	Crash tests on dummies in cars.
	And after the crash, the dummy flew to the car and the dummy started moving.
	And then Lisa Simpson said, is that dummy moving?
	And the guy goes, this is over.
	When the way, I don't know who the spokesperson was who put the meeting to an end.
	Can you people, not you people, can people out there appreciate what we just witnessed?
	I don't know if there are more than four of these.
	This is Justin Trudeau.
	Going to the European Parliament to lecture the international community on the rise of authoritarianism and to condemn Putin and what he's doing in Ukraine.
	And this is the problem.
	Even when the criticism is warranted, when it's coming from someone who has no business issuing it.
	I mean, imagine Kim Jong-un.
	Lecturing the Canadian court system on what an equitable trial is and what equitable punishment is.
	He might be right to condemn what Canada's doing vis-a-vis Pat King, Tamara Lich, Chris Barber.
	His hair is all over the place.
	Unlawful, indefinite detainment on mischief charges.
	I shouldn't say unlawful.
	Indefinite detainment on mischief charges.
	Kim Jong-un might very well be right in condemning Canada, but no one's going to take him seriously.
	And if the goal is to get Canada to change its policies, well, it's not going to do that.
	But can you appreciate that you have Justin Trudeau going to the European Parliament, and if it was only four, that's still four members of the European Parliament saying, get out of here.
	You have no business being here.
	Why would we listen to you?
	You have as much right being here as Putin himself.
	Well, let's see Putin come in and lecture the European Union on the rise of authoritarianism.
	See how far that goes.
	Now, I did notice that we had a rumble rant on the rumbles, where we are currently simulcasting on the interwebs.
	I can't find the rumble rant anymore, but I know I took a picture of it.
	It was Imors says, keep it up the good work.
	Thank you.
	But just appreciate that.
	So while Justin Trudeau is going there, getting lambasted by no less than four members of the European Parliament, let's just...
	Let's just see how it's being reported by CTV News.
	Let's go.
	Let's see this here.
	Just make sure that we're reading the same article.
	Then we're going to move on to an article discussing this Dr. Krystal Lushkiv.
	We're going to find out how to pronounce her last name.
	I couldn't get an audible of it.
	I'm looking to see if we see the same document, and we do.
	Let's just go read.
	Watch live.
	PM Justin Trudeau speaks amid meetings with NATO leaders.
	Begins at 12.30pm.
	Now, in fairness, this was published yesterday at 4.37am after midnight.
	That's in the morning?
	What day is it today?
	Thursday?
	So maybe some of these speeches...
	I don't know.
	Maybe the speeches hadn't occurred by then, so maybe we have to factor that in.
	But Trudeau calls on European leaders to unite, aid Ukraine, and further sanction Russia.
	Because you have to sanction authoritarians.
	And you...
	I mean...
	I'm not sure I agree with sanctions anymore because I've seen the way they actually play out in reality.
	But let's just say you have to punish the authoritarians.
	I agree with that.
	Which means that Justin Trudeau himself might be deserving of some international condemnation, which he seems to be getting.
	But let's just see if...
	We'll have to double-check whether or not it had occurred by the time this article was published.
	But one thing is for certain, I didn't find any articles talking about those lambastings, except in a publication called Todayville.
	Brussels, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is making a plea to European leaders to come together as democracies in the face of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and tackle rising uncertainties citizens have about the future.
	Come together as democracies to tackle people's uncertainties that they have about the future.
	You know what makes people have uncertainties about the future?
	Not knowing if the money that they have in their bank accounts is safe from government-directed freezing or seizures by banks at the government's request, immunized behavior by the banks granted by the government.
	That causes people to have uncertainties in the future.
	It causes people to have uncertainties in their country.
	It causes people to have uncertainties in the very financial system that maintains.
	Now, I'm not comparing it to the uncertainties in Ukraine where Mariupol is being leveled, cities are being shelled, and there's an active war going on between two military powers.
	They're not comparable.
	It doesn't mean, though, that from a national perspective, one gets ignored because there's worse stuff going on elsewhere in the world, and it certainly might cause one to question the The audacity of Justin Trudeau to come and lecture Europe about democracies and uncertainties citizens have about the future.
	Speaking to European parliamentarians Wednesday, the Prime Minister said, those economic uncertainties have percolated for years but are now stoked by rising global inflation.
	Global inflation.
	I wonder what might have had to do with that.
	Let's just assume it is global inflation.
	I don't know what the inflation rates are elsewhere.
	I know what they are in the United States, and I sure as heck know what they are in Canada.
	And then the question becomes, okay, fine, call it global inflation, but there's national inflation, which is being labeled just inflation, or just inflation, or just inflation.
	It's a good one.
	I think Pierre Poilievre, I don't think he coined it, but maybe he did.
	Trudeau said economic frustrations are threatening the stability of the world and driving a deep uncertainty about the future and distrust of government.
	You know what drives a distrust of government?
	When the government is distrustful, when it's deceitful, when it lies, when it pooh-poohs on the Charter of Rights.
	Hold on a second.
	I've got to do one thing.
	I want to cough and I don't want you to hear.
	Excuse me.
	That might also.
	He also said democracies face a new threat from Russian President Vladimir Putin and his attack on Ukraine, which Trudeau called a violation of international law with the targeting and killing of civilians in hospitals and residential buildings.
	Trudeau said the war in Ukraine poses a security threat not only to Europe, but to Western democracies and the world.
	He keeps using that word, Western democracies.
	I do not think he knows what it means.
	I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
	Anyhow, let's just keep going.
	The speech...
	Oh, here we go.
	He argued that governments should play...
	Can and should play a positive role in people's lives.
	Two weeks ago, Trudeau developed a similar theme in a speech to an international audience at the Munich Security Conference, where he called for a renewed commitment to democracy in the face of rising authoritarianism.
	I mean, it's enough to make you...
	I want to puke, actually.
	I mean, there's no other way to describe what we're reading other than the most in-your-face, shameless, audacious deceit.
	I'll say accuse others of doing what you're doing so as to create confusion, but the accusations might be justified.
	In fact, the accusations are justified to some extent.
	But they are just such shameless truths about this individual himself.
	And in all of that, they don't even, that article, CTV, one of the, I believe it was 175 Canadian outlets that got $600 million bailout in 2018 from the Liberal government.
	Love watching the way your brain works.
	You are one of the few people I truly can't wait to hear a question from.
	You listen and only speak when something truly useful is about to leave your mouth.
	Well, thank you very much.
	I am a human, and therefore I am susceptible to flattery.
	But hearing that my brain works well, I don't mind hearing that.
	Yeah.
	God help us all.
	Do we play it?
	Five times August.
	Go listen to God help us all.
	And he actually had one with Jesus.
	What was it?
	Oh, let me just see here.
	Just so everybody, go follow Five Times August.
	It was Five Times August.
	And what was the song?
	Jesus.
	Oh, hold on.
	I really messed up that search.
	Five Times August.
	Jesus.
	I know that that was in the title.
	It was called Jesus, What Happened?
	Oh, that's the whole thing.
	Okay, so that was a double joke on the chat.
	Thank you.
	So that was CTV, by the way, who's among the, you know, Many outlets that got 170, sorry, 170 some odd outlets that got $600 million in bailout.
	But, you know, according to Trudeau and his own joke, he gets maligned by the media.
	So, you know, even though he paid them out, bought them out, they're still rough on him.
	Rough my butt.
	Someone out there, correct me if I'm wrong.
	There's not one legacy media in Canada, CBC, Radio Canada, that I know of.
	That is highlighting the lambasting, the outright public excoriation, humiliation that Justin Trudeau got before the European Parliament.
	And there's good reason.
	God forbid Canadians should understand that other international leaders feel the same way so many of us do here.
	But this is all going back to Canadian stuff.
	So, talking about the government can and should help people's lives.
	In theory, the government can and should be there only when absolutely necessary and by and large should F off and let people make their own mistakes.
	By and large.
	I mean, it depends on what your perception of the government is.
	I view it as parents that I have no underlying loyalty to that I didn't ask for, although I didn't ask for my parents either.
	But family unit is one thing.
	My father always said, still says it growing up and as adults.
	Exceptions aside.
	The one thing that you can take for granted among your parents is that they can and always will and ought to have your best interest in mind, even above their own.
	And I can say that as a parent, that is true.
	It's not true of the government.
	Sorry.
	And anybody who thinks it is, my goodness, I don't even know what to tell you.
	If anyone actually thinks that, read a book, observe the government.
	The government has...
	Absolutely.
	Their only best interest of my best interest is what's good for their best interest.
	So they will only feign looking after my best interest when it's in their best interest to do so.
	They are nothing but a corporation in the metaphorical sense.
	I'm not getting into the question of whether or not Canada is a corporation.
	The government is a corporation.
	It has a president.
	It has a vice president or a prime minister and whatever.
	It has a secretary.
	It has a budget.
	It files annual returns.
	It lets you know what you do.
	It has income.
	It has expenses.
	It's a corporation of sorts.
	It operates like a corporation.
	And in as much as people don't trust private corporation, and you shouldn't, if you think that there's any underlying reason why you should trust a government, you're grossly naive.
	And I would dare say, I don't want to malign.
	I'm not trying to insult.
	It's ignorance.
	It's ignorance to presume that the government as a corporation, as a corporate entity that operates as a corporate entity, is any more benevolent than any private corporation, than any public corporation.
	It is run by people, and people are self-interested.
	People are...
	Self-motivated.
	People are corrupt.
	People are liars.
	And if anyone thinks that the government attracts more benevolent people on average than any private corporation, which you already don't trust, I ask you why you would possibly think that.
	So there's that.
	But now, getting to the story, I've got to lay the groundwork down so that when we get the guest, the doctor who had her license revoked, we're going to understand what's going on.
	It's shocking.
	Robert Barnes has talked...
	At length about why he distrusts licensures?
	What is it?
	The bodies that issue licenses.
	338.
	I mean, and you think they're less...
	And anybody thinks that they would be less corrupt than private entities?
	At least a private corporation pretty much has one driving factor.
	Profit.
	Politicians...
	Don't have profit as a driving factor.
	So you got to ask yourself what their motivating factor is.
	They probably still have profit as a driving factor.
	It just happens to be on an individual personal level and not at a corporate level.
	Viva, could you please do another DJI drone fishing episode?
	Wow, that was the best video I've ever seen.
	Could you tell us the story about how you felt in that moment?
	Great work, Bitskin.
	I can't even show that video on this channel because this stream will get copy claimed by the video licensing agency that is handling that video.
	Everybody, I'll put the link.
	Drone bass fishing.
	The first one.
	The second one, when I caught a pike, was equally as glorious, but nothing is ever as glorious, all things being equal, as the first time you do something that you don't think can be done.
	Drone bass fishing.
	It was...
	Among the best moments, close this.
	I mean, I'm not joking.
	It was among the best moments of my life because it was so shocking, so surprising, so out of this world.
	I had been trying to do it for so long.
	I'll tell the story in a bit if we have a five-minute space to kill before the guest comes.
	Link is there, people.
	Check it out.
	I thought that video would have gotten 10 million views because it was the first time anyone had ever caught a fish off a lure.
	As far as I know, I might be wrong, but I'm not.
	People had caught fish with a worm and a hook and little crappies.
	I was trolling a jitterbug on a DJI Phantom.
	And a jitterbug, for those of you who don't know, it's a topwater lure.
	It's not even a spoon.
	It's a topwater lure with a convex or...
	Like this on its face.
	So when it goes on the water, it goes...
	And I caught a...
	It would have been a good smallmouth bass on my best day of fishing.
	Off the drone.
	Okay, I'll get to it later at this time.
	Let's pull up the article of what the licensing body of Ontario did to this doctor and why they did it.
	Families hunt for new physicians after this doctor GP who's involved in palliative care has her license revoked.
	Be the first to know?
	No.
	Barry today, people.
	Barry today.
	Let me just make sure that we can see the same thing.
	We do pull this down.
	Barry today.
	When is it published?
	Two days ago.
	I think this was updated, but maybe I'll see if there's a more updated article.
	Families hunt for new physician after Barry Dock has license suspended.
	So not revoked, suspended.
	As of March 17, Dr. Krystal Lushkiv.
	Someone in the chat, tell me if I'm doing it properly, because I presume that the W is pronounced like a V. Lushkiv had her license suspended by College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
	The suspension of a Barry Physician's medical license has left many people searching for a new family doctor.
	And let me pause it there just to tell you that anybody who lives in Canada, and I think it varies by province, but anyone who lives in Quebec, Finding a family doctor and finding a pediatrician is even harder.
	I lost my GP who retired five years ago.
	I still haven't been able to find a new GP.
	There's a word for it, not a technician, but it's sort of like an intermediary between a GP and a nurse who does an amazing job.
	But anybody who's lost their GP or needed to find a new one...
	You know what the problem is.
	It's impossible to find a GP.
	It's impossible to find a pediatrician.
	They are overworked.
	They're not enough of them.
	And to the extent that they're overworked, even if you have one, it's virtually impossible to get seen.
	We happen to be very lucky with our pediatrician.
	And none of them are taking new patients.
	So appreciate this.
	Anybody in Canada knows it's great.
	It's a free healthcare system.
	But sometimes you get what you pay for, and sometimes you don't get what you pay for.
	So finding a GP is already incredibly difficult.
	They are left looking for a new family doctor, which is incredibly difficult.
	As of March 17, Dr. Krystal Lishkov had her license suspended by the Investigations, Complaints, and Reports Committee at the College of Fish...
	I don't know why I'm reading in French.
	College of Fish...
	The CPSO.
	Shea Greenfield, the CPSO's Senior Communications Advisor, told Barry today that under the Regulated Health Professions Act, Section 25.4 of the legislation permits the college to issue interim orders where it has evidence to support that patients would otherwise be exposed to risk of harm or injury.
	So let that threshold for the interim suspension of a license sink in before we even get into the consequences of this and before we get into an interview with this doctor.
	Democracy dies in darkness, as does justice.
	Although we are limited in what we can disclose at this point, additional information about the concerns related to Dr. Lushkiv's conduct We can't tell you why we did what we did now.
	Just trust us.
	Because...
	Trust us.
	We work for the government.
	We're here to help.
	That may include allegations referred to the OPS Discipline Tribunal.
	Members also have the opportunity to appeal interim orders to the courts, at which point the college would present information in support of its decision.
	You can appeal your interim suspension of your license after we've...
	We've eviscerated your client base and sent them to other doctors.
	Good luck getting them back because they need treatment in the meantime while your license is suspended.
	And if you appeal it, we'll give you more information then.
	Dr. Lischkiew has an office at the Tolandale, okay, I don't know where it is.
	Barry, Ontario is...
	Barry, Ontario, actually, now that I've just triggered a memory, was where the health agency had issued that publication, that directive that...
	Children exposed to someone who tested positive for the RONA should isolate alone.
	And parents should isolate their children alone as young as five years old.
	I did two videos on that because Barry, I believe it was the Barry Health Research, someone who knows in the chat what the exact word was, but it was Barry.
	They issued a public health directive telling parents to isolate their children as young as five, not if they're infected with the RONA, if they Came across someone who tested positive.
	And then there were people posting these tweets on the Twitterverse.
	I hear my kids sobbing in the other room and my heart's broken.
	It used to be that isolating a child would have been child abuse until the government says you can do it.
	Multiple calls to the office seeking comments on Tuesday went unanswered.
	Lushkov appears in a September 21 video interview with Liberty Coalition Canada, an organization which claims to educate people on human rights and constitutional freedoms.
	Quote, With legal backing to defend rights and freedoms.
	In the video, Lushkov questioned the elevated staffing levels in relation to patient numbers.
	She also noted that reaching certain patient numbers would get to Barry Hospital increased funding.
	There's staffing shortages in other areas of the hospital.
	I'm not sure why, but never in that area.
	What does this have to do with anything?
	Is this why her license was suspended?
	Which is probably pretty concerning to anybody because there was never very many patients in there.
	So it didn't require full staff at all times.
	But again, there's probably some kind of provincial accommodation that has to be met.
	Okay, I don't see what this has to do with anything.
	But where's the part where it gets to why she had her license suspended?
	Okay, well...
	Let's see this here.
	The mother of three told Barry she had only met Lushkiv.
	Okay, I'm not sure exactly.
	Maybe I should read this properly.
	In mid-October 2021, RVH confirmed it had fired 14 people.
	Okay, what does this have to do with...
	Lushkiv's license is suspended indefinitely but has not been revoked.
	She can file an appeal with the CPSOs and evidence for the suspension can be revealed.
	Okay.
	That doesn't really explain very much at all.
	Well, this one.
	Simcoe looks like it might explain a little more here.
	Don't know what Simcoe is.
	Cannot vouch for it.
	I don't like this picture that they're using or the cutout.
	I don't know where they got that.
	Okay, whatever.
	Barry doctor suspended following the Rona vaccine exemptions investigation.
	Family and palliative care doctors is appealing after Ontario College of Physicians and surgeons suspended license.
	They got a fine, yada, yada, yada.
	It was issued March 17 through the inquiries complaint.
	Okay, fine.
	Now just tell us.
	No details about the suspension were listed on the college's website, but it comes after restrictions were imposed against Lushka's medical certificate February 23. Okay, this is not, I will say, not quality journalism here.
	I don't exactly still understand.
	I know why.
	The reason is that apparently she was issuing exemptions.
	Mostly medical, a portion religious exemptions, and apparently that's sufficiently serious that the reasonable thing, the thing that's going to cause less problems to fewer people, is to suspend the license and to basically tell all of her 1,600 patients, some of whom are palliative care, go find another doctor in the meantime.
	My MD told me she'd lose her license if she exempted.
	We've all heard stories about this.
	And I say heard stories not like rumor.
	We've heard anecdotal, concrete stories of people who were sanctioned for doing this.
	My partner is in hospital as of yesterday with MS. I'm unjabbed and cannot be with him.
	Indefinite hospitalization.
	This is cruelty.
	It is beyond cruelty.
	I don't know if there can actually be anything beyond cruelty.
	It's dehumanizing.
	It's dehumanizing.
	To not allow people to grieve, to live, to celebrate, to mourn, as humans do.
	And, you know, imagine, and we're going to get into it when, let me just see if I've got an email here.
	Imagine that at some point, some authority, some college, some order of, you know, the people who issue the licenses said, it is more risky.
	For a doctor to be giving out medical exemptions in his or her professional medical opinion than it is to tell 1,600 patients, some of whom are on palliative care, end of life.
	You got to go right now find new doctors.
	Some of you, from what I understand, and we'll get into it, the prescriptions that this doctor had filled, which included renewals, We're invalidated as of the time of the suspension of the license.
	So in theory, had anyone needed emergency medication for whatever the reason, for palliative care or whatever, they would not have been able to get it.
	This is the world in which we are living.
	It's cruelty, it's dehumanizing of the human experience.
	Look, I'm not saying that I think it's by design.
	I'm just saying, at this point, I understand people who might feel that way.
	I made a meme criticizing the Canadian News Network and Trudeau.
	Where can I send it to you?
	You might get a kick out of it.
	Well, if you're on the Twitterverse, it's tough.
	I don't receive notifications for, what is it called?
	Mentions or being tagged on Twitter, but there's that.
	I mean, try any, I don't want to, if I give the email out, I mean, it's already inundated, but go to the about and you'll find an email to send it to.
	It is, over the last two years, and I talked about it during the pandemic, People are afraid to come within proximity of one another.
	People now, and this is not mask shaming and there's no but.
	This is now understanding how malleable the human psyche is.
	It takes a certain amount of time and it takes a certain amount of conditioning.
	People avoid proximity to one another.
	They feel unsafe if they're not wearing a mask.
	You know, even outdoors.
	They feel like they are exposing people if they're not wearing a mask, even if they have no symptoms, even if they are double Fauci juiced.
	They feel that they are putting people at risk.
	That's the level of conditioning.
	And it's trauma.
	I mean, conditioning and trauma are two ways of describing the same reaction to external stimulus.
	Pavlov's bell is not trauma because it's not negative, but it's conditioning.
	And when you get bitten by a dog, it's traumatic conditioning.
	But we've been traumatically conditioned over the last two years, incessant fear-mongering, to the point now where people have these lingering traumas, which are going to be, I suspect, for the rest of their lives, conditioning.
	Look, I was so neurotic before all of this that when someone sneezed in an elevator, you know, I would hold my breath until I got out as though that would make any difference.
	I've actually gotten a little less neurotic now.
	I've gotten a little more defiant in my neuroses to say, screw off.
	Now I'm actually, I'm going one step further.
	I will shake hands now.
	I mean, I'm not going to go pick my nose after I shake someone's hand.
	But I'm deliberately shaking hands now.
	And it's an F you to my own neuroses.
	And it's an F you to this conditioning.
	I went to the bowling alley.
	Just an absolute meandering rant.
	They've taken away the dividers between the alleys.
	But on the sign, it says, you know, the four green lights.
	Stay away.
	Stay away from each other.
	Disinfect your hands.
	I don't know what else.
	Wear a mask.
	And there's another one.
	And then the big red one in the middle.
	No to this.
	And I'm like...
	I've got one finger on my five-finger hand that I think is relevant for that.
	Viva, can you please look into and give your thoughts on Canadian government confirms plans for publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry?
	I'll look into it because I don't even understand the words that just came out of that chat.
	If it means what I think it means, I suspect the government always had the right to do it in the first place.
	Just watch the drone bass video.
	I envy you in my 62 years.
	I have never been close to as excited as you were in this.
	You know, we've got a few minutes.
	I'll tell you the story about that.
	Okay, so I had this stupid idea.
	This is in Venison, Quebec, for anybody who knows.
	It's the Canadian side of Lake Champlain.
	It's like 15 kilometers long, flat.
	Obviously, all lakes are flat, but shallow.
	And the bass fishing and the pike fishing is second to none.
	I was once upon a time big into drones because drones were awesome.
	Until the government regulated the hell out of it, that you can't even do it for fun anymore without this perpetual fear that if you do something wrong, you're going to end up on the front pages of the newspaper.
	I used to love flying the drone.
	They killed my joy of flying drones with the excessive regulations, and now I haven't gotten a new one, but I might get a small one.
	I always had this dream of catching a fish on a drone, because people were always doing the dunk a little worm into a pond in Florida, come up with a little crappie or a sunfish and whatever.
	Whoop-dee-doo, good for you.
	I was like, no.
	I want to troll a lure.
	I want to troll a lure.
	I want to do it legit.
	And so I started doing it with Len Thompson spoons.
	I started doing it with diving lures, like the ones with the little nose, they call it a beak or a lip, and they dive.
	The problem was in Venison, Quebec, it's very weedy, which makes it good for pike and bass fishing, but bad for drone trolling.
	And so I said, okay, I'm going to use a topwater lure because that's...
	That'll prevent it from getting stuck in the weeds more often than not.
	One of the other problems that happened is that when I was trolling it with the drone and it got stuck in the weeds, well, the drone doesn't come back and I can't really latch off the line, so I had to go out in the kayak and get the drone because I couldn't bring it back in because it was anchored into a weed or a rock.
	So I started going with the topwater lures.
	The Rapala floaters are good, but they don't make as much of a topwater disturbance as the jitterbug.
	And so I was doing this for however long I was, a long time.
	I had had bites.
	I had seen strikes.
	I was like, oh my God.
	Then I get it.
	I finally had a wicked strike and it was within like 10 minutes of doing it.
	And I mean, when I mean a wicked strike, you see it on your iPhone.
	You see the camera view on your iPhone.
	I saw the fish striking.
	I was like, oh my God, that was the perfect capture of the strike.
	I was like, that already was good enough.
	Then I was like, is it still on?
	The drone starts going backwards in the water.
	I was like, it's on.
	It wasn't just a strike.
	It was on.
	Then the fish jumps out of the water like multiple times.
	It slaps its fat belly on the water like it would have been an invigorating catch on an ordinary day.
	And then I'm like, I just want the fish in.
	It's struggling, it's struggling.
	Then I get the drone and I see how big the fish is.
	Then I'm like, I just want it.
	I see it like it's not hooked all that well in the lip.
	And it's an old jitterbug.
	I've had this lure easily for 10 years, 15 years, easily.
	The hooks are not sharp.
	It's like, it's steel.
	It's not this new sharp.
	Then I was like, I just want to get, I just, please come to, I just want the fish in the mud.
	Then I get it.
	And I start screaming like an absolute madman to the point where my My relative, a relative-in-law who lives nearby, thought something bad had happened, rushes out of the shower, comes out of the house in a bathroom, like, what's going on?
	I run, show my wife the fish.
	If the fish had been mortally injured, I would have eaten it.
	A minute.
	Take it out, get a picture, put it back, swims off, healthy to live another day.
	Top five moments of my life, and I can't even envision what another moment would look like that would trump that, with the exception of childbirth.
	Now...
	That's the story.
	Link is in the description.
	And I just saw a super chat come in that I should probably...
	Hold on one second.
	Did I get...
	Okay, look into that.
	I saw that.
	Thank you for everything you do.
	You are real news.
	Much love.
	Yeah, I've never thought this would be.
	Just want to understand the world.
	And just once you understand how much you're being lied to, misled, and duped, you get mad as hell, say you're not going to take it anymore.
	YouTube keeps blocking me from saying what I want to say.
	Hopefully this speaks loud enough.
	Thank you, Vasidius.
	I don't know what words you're putting in there that are getting blocked, but...
	All right.
	Well, with that said, now I see a doctor in the house and after this stream is over, I've got questions.
	I'm joking.
	I'm not going to ask the doctor my neurotic questions.
	People, you know the backstory at the very least in as much as it's being reported by the news who by and large seem to be saying they'll release the details of the suspension on the appeal.
	In the meantime, not only is this doctor absolutely screwed, not only is her livelihood suspended and devastated, decimated, 1,600 patients are up Canadian shits creek without a paddle.
	Okay, Dr. Crystal, I'm bringing you in.
	Dr. Crystal, how goes the battle?
	Hi, it's so nice to meet you.
	The same, and everyone should appreciate how quickly this happened.
	I believe you emailed me this morning, right?
	I did.
	Actually, it was late last night.
	So I saw it.
	I mean, we spoke this morning.
	I was like, no time like the present.
	Are you available today?
	And doctor...
	It's Lushkiv, right?
	It's Lushkiv.
	Oh, well, I was so far off.
	I couldn't imagine.
	You were pretty close.
	It was good.
	Lushkiv.
	Yes.
	Okay, awesome.
	And may I call you Crystal for the duration of this stream?
	It'll be easier.
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	I say like, no time like the present.
	And I don't know what the timeline on your situation is.
	And Crystal said, we're good to go at one o 'clock, and here we are.
	Let me see what this says.
	Viva, have you seen the hand microchips being used in Sweden?
	Yeah, well, the rice-sized thing.
	Yep.
	Thousands of people have submitted to this voluntarily.
	Okay, you know, where do we start?
	First of all, are we waiting for someone else, or are you comfortable if we start now?
	Yeah, so my lawyer, Michael Alexander.
	Is going to be joining us.
	He's aware and had a previous meeting, so he'll jump on.
	So maybe, if you don't mind, I'll just kind of share a little bit about myself to start.
	I don't think that's...
	Everyone on this channel knows that I start from childhood to the present date.
	Let me just ask the question.
	Are you born in Canada?
	How many generations Canadian?
	Where did your family come from?
	And how did you end up as a doctor?
	Okay, that's good.
	So I am born in Barrie, Ontario, Canada.
	So I'm born and raised in the community that I work in.
	And we are third generation Canadians.
	We have a mixed bag in our family in terms of our heritage.
	My grandfather's family was from Ukraine.
	My father-in-law's family is from Ukraine.
	We have some Scotland and England in there too.
	But we've been in Canada for generations now.
	And my journey to becoming a doctor is a little bit different.
	I trained my university studies to be a teacher, actually.
	And along the way, I veered to the path of medicine.
	And I think it was a good choice, although some people may question that today.
	I think I'm here for a reason and part of that reason is to stand up for things that I believe in, in terms of medical freedom.
	So I went to McMaster University for medical school and then I did residency in a rural stream program in Collingwood, Ontario and it was through McMaster.
	And I had great training, I have to say.
	Definitely prepared for challenging times in medicine.
	Part of my practice when I started was largely hospital-based, and I took care of sick and patients as a hospitalist in Barrie, Collingwood, and Alliston, actually.
	Small town.
	And I kind of veered my practice.
	Based on things I was seeing that needed some extra help, which was palliative care.
	And so I started doing a lot more palliative care and backed away from the hospital work.
	And then I took over a practice, a family practice, in Barrie.
	October of 2019, I officially took over.
	So six months just before the pandemic started.
	For those who may not know, the process to become a doctor, how many years study do you have to do?
	And then if you move into palliative care, do you have to specialize in anything in particular in order to practice in that field?
	So you have to have four years of your undergraduate degree in university.
	And mine was in English literature and psychology, actually.
	So the schools I could apply to were actually only three in Ontario.
	So I applied to McMaster only, logistics-wise, because I was living here in Barrie and I was married and, you know, a mature student.
	And once I got into medical school, it was three years consecutive.
	There was really no breaks.
	Other schools are four.
	And then residency for family medicine is two years.
	And then there is an optional third year.
	For palliative specialists, but it's not required to practice in Ontario.
	And I did not complete that extra training.
	I just had my own experience in training and did a lot of palliative care work over the last probably four to five years.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And you started your own...
	I'm not GP.
	You started your own practice when?
	In 2019, October of 2019, I actually took over a retiring doctor's practice in my community.
	And it's in a retirement home.
	Well, I should say it's an independent living facility.
	They're all fairly well and independent elderly people.
	So my practice currently entails a lot of...
	Largely elderly people in my community.
	And it's right on site for them.
	So mobility issues aren't always a barrier to care.
	So it's been a really welcomed practice.
	And the community here adores me and the care that I provide them.
	I'm going to take a screenshot of one question that I'm going to get to.
	I'm not going to bring it up now because...
	I'll bring it up just to let you...
	It will interrupt with the stream, which I've already done indirectly, but I'll get to this.
	You don't inherit, but from a business perspective, do you acquire someone's practice or do they give it over?
	Is it like buying a business or is it a question of trust where they say I'm retiring and I want someone I know and trust to take over my patients?
	So the way that I...
	My experience was I found out about this opportunity through our family health team and I reached out to the doctor and we met and I started kind of doing some not shadow work but it's called locum like I'll come and fill in and see some patients and get a feel for the practice and the patients and then we made an agreement that I would Take over this practice by a certain date.
	But at the time, I was actually pregnant with my second child.
	And so I wanted to be able to extend that a little bit.
	So I was able to kind of transition a little bit slowly, have a little bit of a maternity leave before I took on the whole practice by myself.
	And so I didn't, in Barry anyways, we don't pay for the The patient roster, per se.
	But we do pay for the equipment and everything that's kind of there as a kind of structural business.
	You're buying the assets, but not the client base.
	Although, if the doctor is basically saying, she's taking over, you can leave if you want, and there's no guarantees.
	But if you're a sufficiently competent and good bedside man or doctor, people are going to stay.
	And so how many patients did you have as of 2019?
	And did it grow over to 2020 or 2021?
	So when I first took over this practice, it was larger than I anticipated.
	So I actually, as patients either moved or left or unfortunately passed, I didn't add more patients to my roster.
	So I wanted it to decrease in size just a little bit.
	Largely because I was doing other work in the community.
	I was still working at the hospital doing inpatient palliative care and at our hospice, and I do home visits.
	So it took a lot away from my office time, too.
	So at the time, I reduced my practice size to about 1,800 from about 2,100, I guess, or about 2,000.
	And then now it's at 16. 1,600 and a bit.
	1,800 people to whom you respond directly as their doctor?
	As their family physician.
	And it's like the quarterback, right?
	It's kind of the starting point.
	We know our patients the best.
	I spend a lot of time with my patients trying to work through their usually multiple issues.
	And we're the ones who get all the communication from the specialists and order all of their medications and try to keep consistency and continuity of care because it's extremely important and vital.
	If you describe the practice of medicine broadly, people don't typically view it this way because they don't necessarily understand.
	They call it a practice.
	Same thing with law is that, in theory, You are the only person who should be making decisions in your best judgment based on your specific expertise, training, knowledge of the patient, for the patient, without outside influences, certainly not least of which people without direct knowledge, direct experience with the patient.
	Look, if that's the ideal of what the practice of medicine is supposed to be, did you ever feel that it was like that, or was it always sort of supervised in an insidious way?
	Or did it start like that and turn into something totally different if it did?
	How do you view what you thought it was going to be, whatever it was, compared to what it became?
	So when I trained at McMaster, and so my answer to what should the practice of medicine be described as is it's an art.
	There's definitely a lot of biological and...
	Scientific knowledge that's required.
	But there's also the humanistic component that is essential.
	And I always describe caring for patients as, you know, a compassionate and ethical approach or kind of care to any individual.
	so when I trained at McMaster we were very um They were very good at training us, understanding the social determinants of health and the ethics that drive and found everything that we do in medicine.
	And most certainly, I practiced under that kind of, I don't even know what the term is, I guess, an approach.
	For the first number of years in my career, I certainly have seen moments in time with certain patients of mine that that didn't happen and there was challenges to that type of care.
	But I myself make a very conscientious and active process to be sure that I'm always caring for my patients in that manner.
	And the doctor-patient relationship is what you described, and it's sacrosanct.
	It is, above all else, what should be valued and respected and preserved and fought for.
	So between a doctor and a patient, that is how a decision is made, and the patient ultimately decides what's right.
	So my job is to provide risks and benefits.
	and alternative options for the patient and you know if they have need more guidance or need more information I help the best I can but ultimately they make their own medical decision and I respect it regardless if it's what I would do or not and so I find that we're in a bit of a fork in the road there where we have a government And
	public health recommendations and advisory committee recommendations, and that's all that they are, but they're being enforced as if there is laws or statutes behind them.
	And so, you know, the overarching message for physicians, and it's been publicly put out there, and it's probably on many websites, that we are not to be Providing exemptions for vaccines or talking about things from our own perspectives, but only from this one narrow perspective that's provided for us.
	And that's absolutely not possible and sustainable and it's not how I can practice medicine.
	So there's been a big shift.
	Absolutely.
	And I guess one point of clarification for anybody who might not know, palliative care is end of life.
	It's terminally ill patients who, I mean, at what point, temporally, does one become palliative care?
	Is it under, is there a time frame or is it just the determination that they suffer from something terminal?
	So, sorry, I'm just messaging my lawyer.
	My mother used to volunteer at the palliative care at a hospital up here.
	I just always wonder, like, Does it have to be under a certain timeframe within which someone becomes a palliative care patient?
	So palliative, that's a great question.
	Thank you for asking it, too, because oftentimes people think that palliative care is exclusively only imminently end-of-life time period, but it's actually kind of an approach to care that...
	Changes gears a little bit.
	So if somebody's diagnosed at any point in their life with a terminal illness, then they can kind of consider or start discussing a palliative approach.
	And that just means that we kind of shift gears from always focusing on as much as we can do to fix or change the problem.
	And we focus on to...
	Quality of life.
	And so we have many discussions that involve a lot of different areas of a person's life about their goals of care and end-of-life planning for when that time period comes.
	But most often, I'd say my patients are closer to the end of life.
	I have had a couple of patients that I've had for years that are not even imminent yet.
	However, most of them do tend to be very, you know, within a year of the end of their life.
	And, you know, there's some restrictions on places like hospice, for instance.
	Somebody has to be three months or less in terms of their prognosis.
	And it's a very gestalt type of ability to...
	Walk someone through all of the complexities and intricacies of what kind of gets you to that point of figuring out how close they are to the end of life and things like that.
	There's some scoring systems that we use.
	One is called the Palliative Performance Scale.
	And we look a lot at people's functional ability, you know, whether they're able to function in their normal life or if they're more tired and sleeping more, they're not able to get up out of bed on their own, you know, if they're eating and drinking, that kind of thing.
	So it's a very broad scope and you have to be able to put a lot of pieces of the puzzle together in order to provide that type of care.
	Now, I see your lawyer's in the backdrop.
	Michael, I see you there.
	I'll bring him in in a second.
	This is going to be the segue question into the need for counsel.
	So, you know, I asked the question.
	Practice is independent.
	It's an art.
	It's, you know, nobody's supposed to get in the way of doctor-client relationship any more than solicitor-client.
	Because if one cannot discourse freely and rely on the advice of their medical or legal professional, and if external forces say what has to happen, then it's the government's doctor and it's not the patient's anymore.
	I presume you noticed...
	Well, let me ask a loaded question.
	Was the pandemic the first time where you really felt that the government was interfering actively with your professional opinion as a doctor?
	And as I say that, I'm going to bring in Michael and just swap sides here.
	So was the pandemic the first time that you ever really felt active, not just supervision from governing bodies, but active interference?
	External to the doctor-client relationship?
	Absolutely.
	Prior to that, the practice of medicine was very much focused on doctor-patient relationship and if there was a complaint about that or that somebody did something that maybe they didn't like.
	Some patients complain about various things.
	They've always been able to be resolved through the college.
	Nobody has ever intervened in any of my patient care previously.
	It's been very challenging to try and navigate because it's been a very abrupt change in the way that we're allowed to be practicing.
	It's been unbelievable, to be honest.
	Michael Esquire, I don't know if you go by Esquire, he's in Ontario.
	Tell the crowd who you are and supervise me because I'm going to ask questions and I expect you to object if you don't want Dr. Lushko...
	Oh, now I forgot about it.
	Dr. Crystal to answer.
	Who are you for the crowd?
	Oh, you seem to be on mute.
	Are you on mute?
	I can't hear him.
	Can't hear you?
	Now take it off mute.
	Maybe unplug your earphones.
	It might...
	We don't hear anything.
	Try now.
	Nope.
	Are you on mute on my end?
	No, I can't hear you.
	Well, he's going to try again and I won't ask any questions that I want to reserve the ability to intervene with counsel.
	No, it's definitely not on my end because I can hear Dr. Crystal and I do not have you muted.
	I'm going to say the ridiculous thing, Michael, maybe...
	Reboot your computer.
	Or sometimes...
	It's definitely...
	It's definitely on...
	Yeah, lipread.
	We're not...
	We can't...
	I don't think we can lipread.
	Okay, so give him a second.
	Okay, now, so without...
	Well, I guess you could set up the temporal context of what happened to you here without getting into the legalities of it.
	What was your timeline evolution like?
	Throughout this pandemic, you take over the practice in 2019, whatever month it was, it's a little over a year or not even a year later, this hits.
	What happens to you as of March 2020 and to your practice up until this moment?
	So up until that moment, I was open seeing lots of patients in my office physically every day, seeing their faces and hugging them as I normally would do.
	Throughout the pandemic?
	No, prior to the pandemic.
	Then the pandemic hit and all of our offices had to close and we were forced to be managing people's medical care and medical issues virtually.
	My office is not set up to do any kind of video conferencing or telemedicine that way.
	And I certainly didn't think that this would...
	Expand so long.
	So I didn't want to put any expense into it to do that.
	And so I ended up seeing patients mostly by telephone.
	I know that sounds strange.
	And it was okay for the beginning.
	And as things went on, I knew that I needed to open up and see people in person again.
	Isolation does not foster.
	Wellness.
	You're dealing with palliative care patients remotely during the pandemic.
	Yeah, except that I would go to hospice or to a person's home, I would still see people.
	Because I felt like I could do that safely, no problem.
	And as more and more information became available and I was following...
	Very closely with all of the data and literature that was emerging.
	I realized that it was causing a lot of harm to people.
	And I was never trained to practice medicine in a virtual setting.
	And it takes a lot away from the interaction if you can't.
	Be with another human being that you're trying to assess for sometimes a challenging medical issue.
	So I opened up my office in, I think it was about a month after the lockdown started and I kind of offered both.
	You could either come in person to see me or you could have a phone visit, whatever people were comfortable with.
	We followed all of the safety protocols, although some people would question that, and I had a complaint to the college from a patient, and that's kind of, I think, where this road started.
	Okay, so hold on before we get there.
	Michael, fingers crossed, can we hear you?
	Oh, no.
	You could actually join, Michael, on your phone.
	It won't be ideal, but just click on that link on your phone.
	It'll be the easiest thing, I think.
	Okay.
	He'll block out.
	Okay, so I think I can ask this question.
	I don't think...
	Well, we don't even know.
	You got a complaint from a patient.
	Yes, so a patient called Public Health about my infectious disease protocols in my office.
	Public Health then actually called the college.
	I resolved that issue initially.
	And then I had a health inspector from the Ministry of Labor come in and inspect my office and gave me the all clear.
	If I may, was the complaint related to COVID protocols or just protocol in general?
	COVID protocol.
	Okay.
	And so I was all cleared.
	And then there was this person.
	Put a formal complaint into the college and then I had the opportunity to respond to that and provide evidence and that was done through a different lawyer through our CMPA.
	It's the Canadian Medical Protective Association.
	And it was resolved in October.
	Give me one second.
	I'm going to bring in Michael and hopefully...
	Let's see how this works.
	Michael, can we hear you?
	Okay, testing.
	Yes, okay, good.
	We're in business.
	About the process, the complaint process for doctors in Ontario, I presume it's the same across Canada.
	There's an initial investigation, and then they decide if they proceed to a formal complaint, or is it straight to formal complaint and investigation?
	Well, the way it works in Ontario, with all the colleges, there is a complaint.
	So it might be a direct complaint by mail.
	It could be from anyone.
	It could be a patient, a member of the public.
	It could be a doctor.
	They also have these situations sometimes where they talk about information that comes to their attention.
	And that is a little more loosey-goosey, but they rely upon that as well.
	And so then if they have a complaint in Ontario, for instance, That meets reasonable and probable grounds for an investigation, and then they can proceed.
	But the legal test is reasonable and probable grounds, so that means they can't just proceed on anything.
	They have to have objective facts, so to speak, in order to justify an investigation.
	In my experience, the Ontario College is readily challenged on that legal standard.
	We are certainly challenging them on that basis.
	Assuming they've met that basis, they then move forward with an investigation, which is very wide-ranging, and then they will bring the results of that investigation to a complaints committee.
	And the complaints committee will then determine whether the investigation should result in some sort of order.
	So in this case, a decision was made that there should be a prohibition on Dr. Luchcu.
	Writing exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines and then they went beyond that and suspended her certificate to practice.
	So they can make that decision.
	It's another decision on top of that as to whether the matter should go to the disciplinary committee.
	So you might not have interim orders as we have in this case.
	The matter might go directly from investigation to the disciplinary committee.
	So it can arrive in different ways, but a lot of these things get stuck at the investigative level, and then they're dealt with in various ways.
	One way the college can proceed is just to make life very difficult for a physician who is not cooperating with the investigation, even if the doctor has a very good reason or good reasons for not cooperating.
	All right.
	And actually, first question I should have asked, Michael, tell everyone who you are, the name of your firm, the practice, what you practice in, and then we'll jump back into this.
	Okay.
	I'm a constitutional litigator with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is based in Calgary.
	I run an office out of Toronto.
	I'm a specialist in public law and constitutional law.
	I was trained in Canada and the United States, and I work to some extent in both jurisdictions.
	And I am right now representing doctors all across the country who are being attacked by colleges based on what I believe to be an overreach of authority.
	And so this is my beat at the moment.
	Right, everyone, we know, everyone on this channel has seen, we've seen John Carpe, he's been on a few times, and we talk at length about the Lord's work.
	Thank you.
	Okay, so I just want to make sure I understand the timeline.
	Crystal, Michael, you'll tell me what you're able to publicly disclose.
	You had the one complaint in the beginning.
	Is that the complaint that led to the suspension, or were there other complaints, anonymous, or other complaints?
	That ultimately led to this interim suspension.
	So that was not the complaint that led to this, but it's certainly important, I think, to kind of clarify that I cooperated because it was a reasonable approach that the college was taking at that time.
	And I submitted my response and all of the evidence to prove my points.
	And I was, you know, cleared and vindicated of any of that complaint process.
	And then following my resignation from our local hospital, there was a complaint that was made against me.
	May I ask, I told someone in the chat, I don't ask certain questions, they're none of my business.
	Why did you resign?
	Was that policy-related or was it an issue with the hospital?
	Well, I would say it's kind of both, but I don't agree with their policies.
	And there were some things happening in the hospital that I was directly experiencing professionally with my patients that were, from my perspective...
	Very challenging and unethical.
	And so I did a podcast with a pastor on Liberty Coalition talking about my experiences.
	And it's certainly drummed up a lot of conflict, I think.
	And so I resigned because I can't be associated with the organization, unfortunately.
	And that might explain the article, the Barry article that I read as the intro, which was, I believe you had certain complaints about staffing or why certain, what do they call them, portions of the hospital had more staff than needed.
	Now we can all, everyone in the chat who was reading that article said, I don't understand it.
	Now we understand it a little more.
	So you do a podcast, you're somewhat critical of hospital policy.
	Obviously at that point, it's time to part ways.
	So you resign and now you're on the radar.
	For two big reasons, one of which is you had the previous run-in and the government knows about you.
	And now you've publicly criticized policy and resigned.
	You might be on the radar a second time and, you know, a bigger target, so to speak, than what it is.
	So to be honest, I didn't really consider what was all going to transpire.
	But then there was a large complaint launched against me with the college.
	And that's what has led to this suspension effectively.
	And it was launched sometime near the end of, no, it must have been in November, anyways, of this year, or past year, sorry.
	And within a week, I had college investigators banging on my door to enter my office.
	And search and seize kind of whatever they wanted and making threats towards me that if I didn't cooperate that I would then lose my license.
	And what were they asking you to cooperate with?
	What was the purpose of their visit then?
	They didn't actually inform me.
	They didn't actually inform me.
	I wasn't even aware of an investigation at that time.
	They didn't inform me what they were coming in to get.
	They just said they could come and take whatever they wanted and speak to whoever they wanted.
	Michael, one legal question here.
	Michael, under the ordered laws, if it's anything like the barreau or the bar, do they have the right to do that?
	Can they basically announce, and they don't even have to tell you why, it's just a spot check inspection to make sure everything is compliant?
	Well, first of all, they should present the investigation order, which I know for a fact they would carry with them.
	So I don't understand why they did not provide proof of their authority.
	So that's one very big problem with the attempted raid on the office.
	Which luckily did not transpire because Dr. Luchcu called me when this happened.
	And the college personnel are quite familiar with me.
	So when my name was mentioned and I asked the investigator who I know to call me, they decided to withdraw.
	But the other problem I have with the order, which of course we have seen subsequently, is that it's overbroad.
	Their concern, based on their particulars, is that Dr. Luchko wrote some medical exemptions for some people.
	But their investigation order is not shaped or limited in relation to those factual concerns, which is required under the standard of reasonable and probable grounds.
	And so they, in their order, claim the right to investigate anything.
	Period.
	They've given themselves a grant of power to look into Dr. Luchko's conduct and her practice in any way they want to, in addition to looking at her practice from the standpoint of their concern that she wrote some medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines.
	So you see, writing an order like that is an error of law, which causes them to lose jurisdiction at the very moment they wrote the investigation.
	I mean, my position as a matter of law is that there never was an investigation.
	It's interesting.
	There's this conceptual overlap, actually, between the first half of the stream with Project Veritas and this, is that the government comes in with an order.
	We want your emails on a specific issue, but in the context of that specific issue, we want all of your emails, which is, in theory, unlawful overreach.
	Yes.
	The initial knock on your door, I won't use the word that people in the chat are using, but the initial police knocking on your door, proverbially speaking, they say, we just want to talk, but we want to inspect.
	They don't show you the reason, the order in virtue of which they're there, but allegedly it stems from exemptions that you provided to your patients.
	Did it specify how many exemptions were at issue?
	No.
	The order doesn't say anything about specific exemptions.
	Now, what I've instructed Dr. Lachku and my other clients who are facing this is that the college is only entitled to look at that portion of a particular file that deals with an exemption.
	So you may have a huge file with a patient that goes back years.
	The college wants to claim the right to look into anything there, so that's what's called a phishing expedition.
	So part of their modus operandi is to try to catch you on something else, some technicality.
	Where they could add to the charges against you, which is not allowed under the law in Ontario, as I understand it.
	So if your request, if they present you with one of these broad orders, I say give them the material relating to the exemptions and nothing else.
	May I ask the obvious question, or it might be obvious to others.
	How do they even know?
	How would they know that exemptions were issued in the first place?
	Do they have access to that on a database or that information?
	Or is it a patient who got the exemption that then has to take it to the order?
	Do they know by any way of verification without authorization of the client how many or if exemptions have ever been issued?
	That's an excellent question because it actually goes both ways.
	There could be a particular patient complaint and they will look into it.
	On that basis.
	But in this case, they are just aware, they have a suspicion that Dr. Luchcu wrote a medical exemption for a patient.
	And my position is that a suspicion is not sufficient.
	That's not an objective fact.
	So I would say also the order is faulty from the standpoint that they haven't...
	They haven't listed the particular patients they're concerned about.
	But another problem here is that they may have access to that information through OHIP, for instance, or by some other means.
	I can't exactly say how.
	They employ a very sophisticated and, I assume, expensive forensic digital consulting company.
	And they are tracking people like Dr. Luchku all across the internet, all communications, every Twitter post, everything they do.
	I cannot say for certain how far the college's surveillance goes, but I would like to find out because I suspect that it goes too far.
	That's interesting.
	So I'm not going to ask the question.
	I'm not going to ask any details on the exemptions.
	And you don't know.
	It's amazing.
	You don't know if they know it.
	Because of surreptitious means of having acquired that information?
	If it was someone who has no basis for saying it in the first place says, I don't like that doctor because she was hugging people during COVID, so go investigate her for an anonymous tip on exemptions?
	They'll act on something like that.
	Let me tell you, the factual foundation is often not a foundation at all.
	It's just somebody decides to make some trouble and they'll launch an investigation because they see MPA, which normally represents Doctors in this situation will not raise the fundamental issues regarding jurisdiction, principles of due process, and principles of constitutional law.
	In fact, as a matter of policy, they will not raise those things.
	And so the CMPA actually disempowers doctors when they intervene because they collaborate with the system and try to work out a deal within the system, assuming essentially the college's mandate is solid or correct as a matter of law.
	And so that's how some of these things are going.
	In Dr. Luchko's case, we have the CEO of the hospital writing to the college saying, we think that a patient who came in here with a medical exemption, who did not want to be vaccinated by us, received his vaccination from Dr. Luchko because she is his family physician.
	But the patient refused to disclose who gave him the exemption.
	So they have no basis whatsoever.
	It's just a suspicion.
	That Dr. Luchcu wrote the exemption.
	That's not enough for reasonable, probable grounds, in my opinion.
	I'm still just thinking, like a doctor, even if it were true that Dr. Luchcu gave the exemption, I mean, is your response typically not, F off, it's my practice, I'll make my decisions as what I think is necessary for the client.
	When did issuing the exemption itself become the criminal offense, so to speak?
	Right.
	So they come and they say, we want to inspect, we just want to talk.
	You say no.
	Then what happens after that?
	Because I mean, I've got to understand how they suspended the license as an interim measure before even having a hearing.
	Well, you see, this goes to the core of what's wrong here.
	You see, the college made a statement.
	See, the college can establish policies through resolutions of college counsel.
	And those are provisionally binding.
	I mean, there are legal questions as to how binding.
	But those could be provisionally binding on a doctor or doctors throughout the province.
	But here we have a statement.
	A statement has no legal standing within the college or with any other body.
	And the college made a statement that doctors should not write medical exemptions unless two conditions are met.
	The patient had a verified allergic reaction to the first shot, or the patient suffered cardiac injury, say, in the form of myocarditis from the first shot.
	Can I stop you there for one second?
	Right.
	Specifically and only with respect to the first shot and not any vaccine previously whatsoever?
	That's correct.
	Let me just...
	My jaw didn't drop, but okay.
	Metaphorically, it did.
	So the only exemption was having had an overtly potentially fatal reaction to the first shot, not to any other shot at any point in your life.
	Yeah, they don't cover the situation where you die from the first shot.
	Well, but do they even cover the situation where you had a bad reaction to another vaccine?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Okay.
	It's very tight and limited.
	Now, what's interesting about this is that they cite as their authority A Health Ontario document about vaccinations, where Health Ontario lays this out as the two exceptions.
	However, that document is not a law.
	It's not a regulation.
	It is explicitly a set of recommendations only.
	And at the top of the document, it says, this document is no substitute for advice that you may take from your lawyer or your doctor.
	So the college has Has established a binding rule in the form of a prohibition.
	And in their own system, it's not legally binding.
	It's only a recommendation.
	You go behind it.
	They're creating a recommendation based on a recommendation.
	And yet they're saying, if you defy the recommendation, we'll take away your license.
	That's unlawful.
	Well, we didn't even get there.
	Let's just say that you even got to the hearing on the merits on that.
	That would be a separate issue.
	Right now they're saying, according to a lawyer.
	With experience and knowledge.
	This is a non-binding, non-legally binding resolution, recommendation, call it.
	Right.
	Even if it allows for this on the merits once you've had your trial before the order, they've now used that as the basis to say, we want to investigate you.
	When you say, no, you're not coming in, they then, on an interim basis, rely on that order to justify the temporary suspension of the license.
	That's right.
	They're relying on a recommendation.
	They've relied on a recommendation, which is based on a recommendation, to suspend Dr. Luchko's license and to cause all this harm to her patients.
	It is completely without foundation.
	We're going to get to the harm and the patients in a second, actually, but temporally, timeline-wise.
	The request for the visit is when, and then what is the actual lead-up to the actual suspension, and how do you find out about that?
	I don't know who answers better here.
	All right, so the college let us know that they were considering a suspension and gave us the opportunity to make written submissions.
	So I submitted 21 pages of written submissions going to legalities around this and all the problems with it and why the college has no jurisdiction to act on this.
	And so that is presented to the Complaints Committee.
	Which is made up of a doctor and two laypeople taken from a larger pool of individuals who serve the college in these matters.
	And then that panel of three makes a decision.
	Either we're persuaded by your submissions or we feel we can act to suspend the license of the doctor.
	And so they chose in this case to suspend.
	They were not persuaded by my submissions.
	They provided a decision, a written decision.
	Which then allows us to go to judicial review in the Ontario court system.
	So they have provided a decision.
	Okay, we've looked into it.
	We believe it's necessary.
	Typically speaking, I have an idea.
	What is the threshold that is required, the burden of proof, the evidentiary burden that needs to be met for an interim suspension of a license?
	Right.
	The burden of proof.
	I presume you don't just do it willy-nilly for any innocuous violation.
	They have to say that her continued practice poses an immediate risk to public safety, to her clients.
	That's correct.
	So they can give a reasoned decision about that.
	It's not so much an evidentiary standard.
	Let me put it this way.
	Your question is absolutely on the mark.
	I can only get at it by saying the evidence is the evidence that we've just discussed, which is defective.
	Right?
	So actually, they're making a decision based on insufficient particulars.
	And so I think that's all they're acting on.
	So I don't think that's sufficient as a matter of law, because they didn't begin with an investigation that had the right objective facts attached to it.
	But in terms of their reasoning process, they just have to give reasons.
	As long as they give reasons, then you can appeal this into the court system.
	But once you get into the court system, the standard for review is correctness, which is to say they must make the right decision.
	There's no leeway.
	They aren't given the option.
	Well, you're the expert.
	You can make this decision three or four different ways.
	They have to make the right decision, and that's where they have a problem.
	Okay, so that's an interesting thing.
	You could not even go to court to get a provisional injunction until such time as the order has suspended the license, because otherwise...
	You could, in theory, maybe go and say...
	I don't know if it's a mandamus, but you can get an order saying, prevent them from suspending the license, but setting that aside.
	They've suspended it, and now you get to go to court and say, on an interlocutory provisional basis, reinstate the license because the damage caused is going to be irreparable, but...
	Actually, can you avail yourself for that court remedy now that this suspension has been issued?
	Yeah, there are two ways we can go.
	So first of all, we can go for an emergency injunction to have the license restored based on the patient harm that is obviously happening.
	And so we will be putting that in motion presently.
	And then the other thing is to ask for the Superior Court or the Divisional Court, which is part of the Superior Court, to review the decision.
	For its soundness based on the standard of correctness.
	So those would be two different actions that could be taken.
	Now let me ask the indiscreet question.
	I know how JCCF gets funding.
	It's entirely donor funded.
	That's right.
	Do you condone, suggest, I mean, with a case like this, you could go get some good crowdfunding above and beyond through the JCCF because an injunction is going to cost, I mean, I don't know, easily 20, 30,000 bucks just to get to a...
	A suspension of the suspension, a lifting of the suspension.
	That's right.
	Have you, I mean, do you do that or, Crystal, have you looked to crowdfunding or have you asked Michael whether or not it's a venue that you might want to look at to finance the lawsuit?
	Yeah, I'll turn that over to Crystal just by saying, yeah, the JCCF, we're supported by 15,000 donors across the country and we represent everybody on a pro bono basis.
	But if people want to make donations to the JCCF because they want to support, for instance, Dr. Luchku in this, or if Dr. Luchku has someone who wants to set up a, you know, go send me type of, go fund me rather type of...
	You know, we say give send go.
	We never say go fund me again.
	Yeah, right, right.
	Give, send, go.
	For instance, in this case, probably what we prefer.
	Then, sure, they can donate to it and to help her through this in other ways because, obviously, she's lost her income.
	We're going to get to your hardship, Crystal, before we get to the hardship of your patients, which people need to appreciate.
	What are you doing for income now?
	They suspend your license overnight.
	What notice did you get when they suspended it?
	So I'll give you a little bit of the timeline there.
	So November 29th is the day that they showed up at my office.
	And I have to tell you, it was an absolutely terrifying experience.
	I've never been through anything like that.
	I'm a highly respected, cooperative physician in my community.
	I went back and forth for a little while and then in February was when they actually put a restriction on my license for writing exemptions.
	And I hadn't written one actually since November 22nd of 2021 anyway.
	So I had stopped doing that anyway for other various reasons regardless.
	And then from February 23rd until March 8th.
	Was the timeframe for our response, which we spent the entire time preparing.
	And then March 8th to March 16th, when the decision was made, it was only just over a week.
	And then I had 12 hours.
	So they made their decision around noon on March 16th.
	And by midnight, March 17th of this year, my license was suspended.
	And there was no guidance, none whatsoever, in terms of what happens next.
	As a family doctor, you know, that's really challenging because there's lag in medicine.
	There's tests that I've ordered previously.
	There's prescriptions always coming in.
	So effective midnight on March 17th, my CPSO number, which is my prescribing number essentially, was invalidated and my patients were then unable to have access to their medications and then I found out recently that my OHIP number is also invalidated and so that means there's also lag in doctors' billings
	as well and sometimes things have to be resubmitted a number of times and it takes a couple of months to do that.
	If they've been rejected site.
	But anyways, I know I have no opportunity to even do that.
	My income has been completely shut off.
	I'm not even sure if I'm going to get paid in April.
	We get paid once a month.
	I'm not sure if I'm going to get paid in April for the work that I've done in February to March because that OHIP number has been completely invalidated now.
	So right now I'm Kind of in shock, and I have lots of skills.
	I can do other things, but I'm trying really hard and focusing, trying to get back to my patients.
	So I don't have another source of income right now, but...
	March 17, it was suspended.
	They basically say, your livelihood, unless you had...
	Well, whatever you had on the side, your livelihood, your income is dried up.
	Another thing you said, which I hadn't even thought about...
	Pending results for, what's the word when you, requisitions or whatever, pending results which had gone out, hadn't yet come in, they're going to come in and who's going to receive them now?
	I mean, there might be people, I'm not saying that this isn't the case, I just can talk from personal medical malpractice experience, not my own, whatever.
	You know, a result comes in and it's a positive diagnosis of something that the individual doesn't get until it's too late.
	Because it slipped through the cracks.
	Oh, I'm sorry, you went out for a biopsy and we didn't get it back to you because we suspended Dr. Crystal's license and too bad, so sad for you.
	So there's results for tests coming back.
	Then there's medicine's prescription.
	When you go to the pharmacy and you show them the prescription, it's got the doctor's number on it.
	They're going to say, oh, sorry, this is no good anymore.
	Your heart medication, we can't give it to you because the doctor had her license suspended.
	Go get another doctor to re-prescribe this to you, and that's assuming you can go find a GP without having to go to the ER to get this.
	This is actually, it's enraging madness on the practical level, above and beyond the enraging madness on the personal level for you.
	And virtually out of the blue, I mean, you knew you were on the radar, but you had no forewarning that this was coming to take any sort of steps to attenuate the damage.
	No, not at all.
	You know, some people in the college themselves kind of pose, well, perhaps I should have been prepared for this.
	But that's absurd in my perspective, because I have practiced medicine the same way that I always have, and I've done nothing wrong.
	And so to have, you know, to prepare for a suspension when I would never imagine that that should be the outcome, Is a little bit challenging for me to have done.
	Plus, I didn't have any time.
	To me, I'm still practicing medicine and raising my family, all while trying to deal with the legal response to the college, which took up three weeks from February 23rd to March 8th.
	And so, you know, then to have one week in between there to say, oh, I wonder if I should try to sort that out.
	No, I was still practicing medicine.
	I was still caring for my patients and doing home visits and raising my family.
	So I couldn't have possibly been prepared for something like this.
	I presume you had a pretty close relationship with your clients.
	Were you allowed speaking to them after this, setting aside your license being suspended?
	Is there any preclusion from...
	Interacting with any of your clients?
	Because you might give them under the table medical service?
	Not that I'm aware of at all.
	And certainly Michael hasn't advised me of that because my doors are open.
	Obviously not for medical appointments at this time.
	But my patients are stopping by.
	And a lot of them are very distraught and distressed and upset and crying.
	And I take the time to explain to them what has happened and what I'm doing about it.
	And, you know, all the while my practice is being decimated because people are freaking out and trying to find someone else to provide their care for them.
	It's really been challenging.
	Can I add something here, David, which is that the college, I've never seen this before, but the college did, you know, notified the College of Pharmacists.
	That Dr. Luchcu had been suspended.
	Now, I don't know actually that they have the power to do that.
	It is obviously something that they do behind the scenes.
	But I don't see anything in the legislation or regulations that gives them the power to do that.
	But once they do it, then the College of Pharmacists have their own internal statements, which luckily we were able to get copies of.
	And the College of Pharmacists automatically instructs pharmacists to cancel.
	All refill prescriptions.
	However, it's in the discretion of individual pharmacists to honor the refill if it's in the best interest of the patient.
	And so some pharmacists have responded appropriately and continued with the refills.
	Others have not.
	But the college gives you no heads up.
	That they're going to do this.
	And so Dr. Luchcu and I were totally unprepared to deal with this situation.
	They should at least, given that patients' lives can be at stake with medication, that they should have given us a heads up to make preparations around this.
	But they gave no notice.
	I wrote them a letter about it.
	They have shown no concern in the reply for patient harm at all.
	So they have caused patients to suffer and have put patient lives at risk.
	Risk through what they have done, and they will take no responsibility for it.
	I would even say, even if there's no active interference in interruption, the psychological distress of people who are at a palliative stage of life, that in and of itself, I talked about dehumanizing the human being.
	Just that.
	I'm sorry, you've got three months to live.
	Find a new doctor.
	I don't want to say it's criminal.
	But I'm thinking it out loud at this point.
	Madness.
	So, I mean, look, you know, everyone will have their own strategy here.
	What is your strategy going forward?
	What can you tell us that you're in the process of doing?
	And, you know, what is the strategy to try and resolve this, if not permanently on a long-term basis, at the very least temporarily on a short-term basis?
	You mean in relation to the patients?
	Well, in relation to the license itself to appealing this decision, how quickly can you get yourself in front of a judge?
	I can probably get myself in front of a judge next week on an emergency injunction.
	What I can do is make an urgent application to be heard on judicial review.
	And then it'll be at the discretion of the court as to whether we have made out a case that, in fact, the facts indicate urgency.
	And I would hope in this case that the court...
	I would think that putting 1,700 patients at risk is an urgent situation.
	Beyond that, I've written to the college and I've made a series of counteroffers to them as to how all of us could get out of this.
	And one would be to recognize that the prohibition on writing medical exemptions on these restricted grounds is only a recommendation and that it doesn't have disciplinary force.
	And the college has not responded to me on that.
	Have you heard, I mean, do you have any concrete examples of patients who have actually suffered, let's just say not psychological damage, but I consider that to be tangible, but actual concrete examples of real human suffering, tangible, measurable human suffering that you might bring to the attention of the order?
	Any patients tell you that they basically, a son or a daughter, say my, you know.
	Unfortunately, my mother or father passed.
	Do you have any specific examples of the suffering that this has caused that you're going to bring to either the order or the court?
	As much as you can mention it.
	There's numerous.
	I think one of the ones that comes to mind is a patient of mine who couldn't access her Ventolin.
	And she's an asthmatic.
	So Ventolin is considered a life-saving medication.
	She did subsequently get it once she followed mine and Michael's advice to try to Get that forwarded to a pharmacy that would fill it, and they did then owner it.
	But it shouldn't ever take this kind of finagling to get your own medications that were prescribed previously by me.
	And then another really concrete example is a patient's mother came into my office, who's also my patient, and I took care of her husband.
	Last year in palliative care and their daughter is struggling with mental health and it's very serious.
	And she came in and reaching out to me and wondering how she can get her daughter help and is in tears.
	And I think, as you know, the pandemic has certainly worsened mental health issues to an astronomical degree.
	And so it is a really substantial concern that some patients aren't going to have access to the appropriate care that they need for that, and she's one of them.
	I have other elderly patients, for instance, who are trying to get into long-term care, and I couldn't even do a requisition for a chest x-ray that was needed.
	I had to ask a colleague from the Aging Well Clinic to help me with that.
	Another example is a palliative patient that I, you know, who's dear to my heart, his family.
	He had a very rapid decline, and it just happened to be right after my suspension started.
	And he just, he needed a Foley catheter, and he needed some subcutaneous pain medicines because he couldn't swallow anymore.
	And I could not.
	Get those for him in that timely manner.
	I did reach out to a colleague, fortunately, to take care of him and another palliative patient that I do have that are more imminent.
	But now I'm overstretching colleagues that are also burdened with extra work on their own time.
	I have to reach out and say, "Hey, can you drop everything you're doing so that my patient can have a fully catheter inserted?" Me writing that order would have been a lot more benefit than there could have ever been any harm of me being able to write that order.
	David, can I say here too that one has to be clear about what the college is doing?
	It is punishing Dr. Luchko's patients, holding them hostage.
	In the hope that she will just simply give up.
	And this is obviously a tactic.
	I mean, they're sacrificing the patients to their interest in their own power.
	And that gives you an idea of the kind of people that they are.
	I'm going to bring this chat up.
	I'm pretty sure this is my brother, actually.
	Our last name is Fryhead.
	He's the lawyer that went to Windsor and stood up with those police.
	People saw that live stream.
	The CPSO has now jeopardized the health of 1,800 patients.
	It would seem that the medical authorities within the CPSO who authorized this health crisis are now arguably also at risk of professional misconduct.
	It's an interesting lawyer game, this tit-for-tat of filing ethical complaints.
	If someone wants to say that you're issuing exemptions, allegedly issuing exemptions, was so egregious that you have to put 1,800 lives at risk now by suspending your license, well, if this decision itself is abusive, whoever authorized it, Put more people at risk than you could have ever done by issuing individual exemptions to individual patients on an individual basis.
	This is shocking.
	Let me ask a stupid question.
	Has the CBC, CTV, Global News, Radio Canada, has any legacy Canadian mainstream media outlet reached out to you to allow you to tell your story?
	None to me.
	Our local paper reached out A few days ago, and I didn't really know how to respond.
	I don't want to respond, actually.
	Michael's going to be responding to most of the reporter and kind of media questions if there are any.
	But no, there's been no questions or interest or concern from any of the legacy media establishments.
	Well, open invitation.
	We're like 5,000 here.
	I think we're a couple thousand on Rumble.
	That one portion, Dr. Crystal, where you're talking about the patients who are now not getting the urgent need that they need, clip it, Twitter it, and maybe tag some of the legacy media outlets so they can actually see when we're talking about a dysfunctional system that is dysfunctional because of a dysfunctional and incompetent government and governing bodies.
	And now you have these incompetent, some might say corrupt governing bodies.
	Messing things up even worse for under a directive that was not rule of law that in theory should have been left to your sole professional medical discretion in the first place.
	So I would, but I was unfortunately kicked off of Twitter.
	Dare I ask why?
	Well, it was funny.
	There was a post that came up as an old...
	Post refreshed from the old CEO, Jack Dorsey, talking about how Twitter would never censor freedom of speech.
	Or, you know, whatever.
	And I just said this didn't age well.
	So was it medical misinformation or was it harassment or inciting violence?
	They wouldn't even let me know and I've tried to make another account since.
	Social media to me is...
	Super challenging.
	So I try to avoid it most times anyway these days.
	Wow.
	All right.
	So, Dr. Crystal, where can people...
	Well, let's see.
	Setting aside, we'll talk after this is over.
	Maybe you set up a give-send-go on your end.
	And if not only for the...
	Well, I guess you don't pay the legal fees.
	That comes to the JCCF.
	But maybe people would willingly, I imagine, help you through this hard time.
	But where can people find you if they want to find you?
	I mean, not Twitter, Facebook.
	So I am on Instagram.
	I think I'm just under CLutchQ.
	And I am on Facebook, but I don't check it very often.
	And by and large, you know, I haven't got the give send go up, but I'm going to.
	And I really would like to raise money because my legal costs are going to be large.
	I'd be able to have something to contribute for sure to JCCF because they've been absolutely incredible.
	And Michael has been incredible.
	And I want to make sure that everyone is kind of covered for the work that they're doing during this because it's enormous.
	Tag Tucker Carlson.
	The world thought that they saw Canada at its worst during the Tucker convoy.
	It's not even like when people say, won't someone think of the children?
	It's like, won't someone think of the palliative care patients who are setting aside...
	I mean, I don't know what you would...
	I can think of things that you would have had to have done in order to justify, even in my mind, an interim suspension.
	This is for allegedly writing exemptions to the Fauci juice that they are now saying palliative care patients who have been with you for a few years now, and you seem like you have the demeanor.
	of someone who might be better off dealing with palliative care patients than some doctors I've dealt with.
	Now they're saying, sorry guys, I know things are tough and you're on the verge of the end of your life, but go find another doctor which takes 12 months even in the best of circumstances.
	It's inhuman.
	It's absolutely inhuman.
	And if Canada and if the international community thought that the trucker convoy and Trudeau's response to that was the summit of stupidity...
	This is a very close second.
	I think this is worse, personally.
	I just think the implications of this are people need to be really aware of because as much as the college might think that I'm potentially causing harm, I have seen Real-time proof, and it's emerging, and there's more that's coming, and I have no idea what's going to happen next in terms of the harm that my patients are going through.
	Their access to care in our community was, you know, it's already very limited, but now to remove me from that circle for them limits that even more, and our walk-in clinics and such have already expressed that they're very...
	I'm overstretched in terms of what they can handle and have asked me not to send my patients there.
	You know, so it's really becoming this kind of hole of, you know, only a few options for my patients.
	And many of them have mobility issues and are elderly.
	It is inhuman.
	It's inhuman.
	And I don't say deserve to be on Tucker.
	The world deserves to see you on Tucker because this is, you know, like if you watch with Robert Barnes and Barnes talks about, you know, you have to sometimes fight in social media because you might not actually, you're not going to be able to fight fairly or equally in the court system and it'll take time regardless.
	This is something that people need to understand in real time.
	Even, let's just, worst case scenario, I'm the prosecuting attorney or the other lawyer, even if it were known that you were freely giving Unwarranted exemptions to individuals who wanted them, even if that were the case, and that's the worst case scenario that you can possibly imagine after a hearing on the merits,
	I'm not even sure that that, which is still a question between doctor and what the patient wants in today's environment, to put the 1,800 patients that you're dealing with through this type of hell, some of whom are in, are the most vulnerable of the most vulnerable of Canadian society.
	I mean, you have to be a special level of evil to do that.
	And just say, just wash your hands.
	Oh, she was issuing exemptions and we don't like that because, you know, we think everybody needs this.
	And David, could I add there too that Dr. Lachku hasn't written an exemption since November 22, 2021.
	She's already under a February order not to write medical exemptions.
	They have no evidence whatsoever that she's tried to defy the order.
	So suspending her license is total overkill in this situation.
	There's no ground for it.
	They're just throwing their weight around at the expense of the patients.
	And I'm sure, doctor, I could say on behalf of the doctor that I'm sure she would agree to abide by the current order preventing her from writing exemptions.
	We haven't said anything to the contrary.
	We've said it's unlawful.
	But we haven't said that Dr. Luchko is going to defy the order.
	And so they just have no basis for proceeding in this way.
	No, it's punishment.
	It's making an example.
	It's demoralizing not just you, Dr. Lushku.
	Other doctors, set the example.
	What did you learn?
	Even if you are righted to the extent you can ever be righted from this, other people will have learned.
	People in the chat are saying as a joke, well, if I donate to a give, send, go for Dr. Lushku, will they freeze my bank accounts?
	Because now prospective donors have learned that lesson from the last round of absolute government abuse.
	But there are still brave, stubborn people out there who will take that chance, as will I, if and when you set it up, but we'll make sure that happens.
	I will let you know.
	Okay, Michael, let's do a follow-up on this.
	Everyone out there, if you have a little bit of homework, just tag some media outlets, because this is good here, but this is the beginning of what has to be the megaphone to the public, not the end.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	Everyone in the chat, Rumble.
	Let me just see it before we leave on Rumble if I missed anything there.
	Come on, come on.
	Refresh it.
	What's going on?
	The internet's slow.
	Oh, no.
	That's good.
	No, there's 2,000.
	We were over 2,000 people on Rumble.
	So this...
	Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant, people.
	And get this out there because Tucker Carlson would definitely have an interest in seeing this.
	Steve Bannon and I have my own...
	My own list of people now that I think I might reach out to and see if they'll have both of you on.
	Dr. Crystal, have your lawyer with you at all times so that he intervenes.
	You don't say anything that might prejudice your position in the courts.
	Thank you both very much for the short notice, for coming here, for enlightening the chat.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for being here.
	Thank you for the support.
	I'll probably be live tomorrow.
	We'll see what happens between now and the end of the day.
	So, Dr. Crystal, we'll stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else out there, have a good rest of the day.
	See you later.

▲