Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 30, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:04:47

Randy Hillier, Justin Trudeau, & Live with MY BROTHER! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Let me see if I see my brother.
	Oh, he's there.
	Okay, boom.
	Dan.
	I'm here.
	How do I get the camera?
	No, just move your face out of the way and hold it and point it in the general direction.
	I'll tell you if it looks like you're in the right direction.
	So what's going on?
	They're just clearing everybody off the street and I just told the officer that we have a protected right to walk on the sidewalk.
	We have committed no crime.
	We have committed no crime.
	I've shown them my law.
	We have done nothing wrong!
	Lost Society of Ontario!
	We have committed no crime!
	We are unarmed!
	We have no weapons!
	We have no weapons!
	Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly!
	We have the right to peaceful assembly!
	Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
	It is a Charter of Protection Rights.
	We have committed no crimes.
	What are we being arrested for?
	We have a right to know what we are being charged with.
	We have a right to know what we are being charged with.
	We have done nothing wrong.
	Law Society of Ontario called to the bar in 2004.
	2005?
	I had to get to the, not the punchline, but the funny part of that.
	It was comedic.
	If it were in a movie, it would have been like, I'm standing up to the police, I'm flashing my card, not standing up.
	Was documenting and explaining the charter.
	Couldn't remember what year Barr he was.
	That is my brother.
	That's one of my three brothers.
	I have a sister as well.
	He's going to be on today.
	I had to bring that video back just to remind everybody.
	My brother is not...
	Well, they're...
	Okay, let's back this up.
	Two of my brothers and my sister, lawyers.
	The oldest brother, not a lawyer.
	My brother, Daniel, is an attorney out of Ontario who is going to...
	Oh, he's involved in some of the cases now.
	That was Windsor.
	That was the Windsor barricade or the Windsor blockade where my brother drove down to see what was going on because we all quickly learned you can't trust a darn thing coming out of state-funded legacy media.
	He went down to Windsor just for the day to see what was going on.
	It was live-streamed, documenting in real time, and we witnessed what we witnessed.
	The police doing their...
	What they did times 10 in Ottawa.
	Shocking, jaw-dropping, depressing, revelatory for all Canadians.
	For all Canadians who thought that we lived in a free and democratic society.
	My brother's coming on today.
	Later on today.
	So before that, maybe towards 1 o 'clock, he's going to come on and talk to us about something that I am fairly certain most people, certainly most people, but...
	Many Canadians are not aware of.
	In the United States, you have your VAERS system, the adverse effect reporting system.
	It's a little known fact or a lesser known fact that in Canada, we actually have a fund, a government established fund for injuries resulting from certain medical interventions.
	There's an actual government fund that is set up where people can make claims.
	And this might come as a surprise to a lot of people because I think a lot of Canadians don't actually know that this system exists.
	My brother, who is a practicing attorney, has discovered this, looked into it, and is now developing, acquiring professional experience as relates to this injury fund, which is available to all Canadians who can submit a claim and submit the evidence.
	So we're going to get to that when my brother comes on, and we're going to see what happens.
	In terms of what he tells us and what has been his experience delving into a new aspect of his practice of law.
	So with that said, I wanted to start this vlog, this stream, with another video.
	But it wasn't long enough.
	I want to rant a little more about it.
	And it's jaw-dropping.
	We're going to talk about a few things today.
	CNN, fake news.
	CBC, fake news.
	Disney.
	I don't know if the expression is jumping the shark, but doing something, it's as though people are not asking the most obvious questions about what is becoming like an ideological tug of war to the point where some people are ready to pull themselves off a cliff.
	You don't realize, you just can't keep pulling back forever, like eventually there will be a cliff or a wall that you will hit or fall off of, and running there as fast as they can, pulling there as hard as they can.
	So we're going to talk about that.
	We're going to go over the BN Rafikian victory.
	The victory is that he's won himself the right to a new trial on the charges of having been an undeclared foreign agent to Turkey.
	And this is the Flynn judicial saga, which it's like this is now either the prequel or the sequel because Flynn is now no longer really in this picture, but it's still...
	Definitely related to the Flynn saga.
	What else?
	I've got my notes out there.
	Whatever.
	We're going to start.
	Share the link around.
	It was short notice.
	Oh, I didn't say good afternoon because it is afternoon now.
	Good afternoon, Tadeo.
	Two things, by the way.
	We have a sidebar tonight with George Gammon.
	We've got another amazing, what's going to be an amazing stream tomorrow with Dr. Harvey Risch.
	And for anybody who may not remember but it might sound familiar, Dr. Risch is a Yale epidemiologist who got into trouble early on because of his willingness to discuss and explore certain ideas in the context of certain...
	He was discussing things that you weren't apparently allowed to discuss at the time that has since become open for discussion about potential preventative treatments to...
	The Maesheron Osiris, as we called it at the time.
	He's coming on tomorrow.
	Because of the nature of that discussion, we're going to have it exclusively on Rumble, where I can actually ask the questions I want to ask, and he can provide the answers he thinks are appropriate, without the fear of being labeled whatever it is that the social medias who want to control the narrative seek to label things.
	I'm just going to go check monetization status.
	Yep, limited.
	Limited.
	It doesn't matter.
	Just going to say it every day.
	I'm double-checked because we haven't said anything.
	Every single one of these gets re-monetized afterwards.
	But that's how the YouTube cookie crumbles.
	Thoughts on Bill 67?
	I have to check which bill that is.
	I don't remember offhand.
	I saw what happened to Charlotte at the border.
	People have to appreciate that the border agents sometimes...
	There will be a political angle to that.
	For those who don't know, Charlotte is Zot's sister or girlfriend.
	I still don't know.
	She was in the States covering the convoy in the United States, doing the live streaming of the convoy in the United States that Zot, I, and others were doing in Canada for Ottawa.
	She did a live stream where she explained her experience coming back from the border.
	People don't appreciate it.
	There's always the politically motivated potential harassment side of that.
	Border agents get very suspicious when certain answers to their questions are provided or when certain answers are not provided.
	So I would say, look...
	I think there might be more that might explain a way not to justify anything.
	Border agents are gods.
	They get to do what they want.
	They don't really have to answer to anybody, and good luck appealing their decisions.
	But when they...
	They have profiles of people who are suspicious when crossing the borders.
	And, you know, I'd been pulled over once upon a time, and I understood why at the time.
	I'd really like to reach out to your brother, paramedic with...
	Okay, lost my job due to government mandates for...
	Okay.
	Because we've now discovered, by the way, that the...
	It was with Dr. Crystal Lushku, who said that apparently the only exemptions that they were offering...
	To the jab were for people who had an adverse reaction to the first jab.
	Not even to any jab.
	Not even to any previous vaccine.
	You only got a medical exemption if you had an adverse reaction documented to the first jab.
	So benevolent.
	So thoughtful.
	Chet Chisel, my brother will give out his email address, the professional one, at some point during the stream, so stick around for that.
	Alright, so that's it.
	Standard intro, standard disclaimer.
	Thank you all for the Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble, which I will go make sure is running smoothly as we speak.
	Rumble has something called Rumble Rants, which are the equivalent of Super Chats.
	Rumble takes 20%, so it's better for the creator.
	You can feel good supporting a platform.
	Best way to support me, Robert Barnes, if you are so inclined.
	I'm on Patreon and Subscribestar, but vivabarneslaw.locals.com for lots of good exclusive stuff.
	All right, let's start with the first video.
	We're going to go U.S., back to Canada, back to U.S., back to Canada.
	I don't know what the order is going to be.
	We're going to start with one.
	One of the fake news.
	And yes, I'm using the expression.
	Remorselessly, and I do believe accurately.
	Listen to this video, by the way.
	This is John J. Harwood.
	For anybody who doesn't know who John J. Harwood is, White House correspondent, or as Tom Elliott likes to say, who I've now started following.
	I've been seeing his post for a long time.
	He's great.
	White House spokesperson.
	Oh, no, no, not a spokesperson.
	Reporter.
	John J. Harwood, White House correspondent.
	You know him because he's been around forever.
	And can you imagine?
	Can you imagine?
	I was going to say defecating, but I meant desecrating, but I mean desecrating with defecating.
	Can you imagine desecrating your integrity, your entire reputation as a journalist to cover the butt of a corrupt administration?
	Can you imagine compromising your integrity and destroying everything that you've spent your life building just so you can carry water for people who are too lazy to carry their own water, too dishonest to even admit that they need to carry their own water?
	Listen to this.
	How significant is this, John?
	Well, look, it seems pretty clear how significant is this?
	They're talking about the Hunter Biden laptop and certain allegations of an individual having played a role in financing certain activities that aren't actually occurring in certain parts of the world.
	It's clear that Hunter Biden was trading on his father's name to make a lot of money.
	He's had a difficult life.
	Let's just back that up for one second, people.
	It's clear that Hunter Biden was trading on his father's name to make a lot of money.
	Do we all remember the 10% for the big guy?
	And it has now been confirmed, unless I'm mistaken, and if I am, correct me, that the big guy being referred to in those emails of that laptop, which was initially written off and tried to be...
	You know, pretended that it was Russian disinformation.
	The big guy in that email is now confirmed to have been Hunter Biden's dad, Joe Biden.
	So he's making a lot of money for himself.
	It's pretty clear that Hunter Biden was trading on his father's name to make a lot of money.
	Make a lot of money.
	And the more money that he made trading off his father's name, the bigger the 10% for the big guy was.
	Let's continue.
	He's had a difficult life.
	Let me pause that there.
	He has had a difficult life.
	They've had family tragedy.
	There's difficult life, and then there's two ways of breaking that down.
	Difficult life for factors beyond your control, born into poverty, born into disease, born into tragedy.
	And then there's having a difficult life because you've made life decisions that make your life difficult.
	And that happens to a lot of people.
	I would say that Hunter is probably a little bit of both.
	I think he was born into circumstances that were beyond him, and therefore suffered as a result of those circumstances.
	And whether or not that was a factor in him making certain life decisions, that certainly made his life much more difficult.
	Who knows?
	So I think we can agree with that statement, even though it might need to be attenuated, but let's carry on.
	But until you make, someone makes a nexus between what Hunter Biden has done and official activities of Vice President Biden or President Biden...
	I'm sorry, until you make a nexus?
	Yeah, that's your job, Harden, to go see if there is a nexus.
	Harden.
	Harwood.
	And do you notice the way he says official business?
	Well, necessarily, Vice President Biden or President Biden, it's an important word here.
	Vice President Biden or President Biden?
	Would 10% for the big guy ever be official activities?
	In fact, I would argue you need to go and see what it was for the unofficial activities of VP Biden or President Biden.
	But you throw in the word official and then you deprive the connection of any meaning whatsoever.
	You have to establish a connection between illicit, under-the-table stuff and official business.
	You won't find that connection.
	That's why it's called corruption.
	It's...
	A not pretty picture?
	Is this person a spokesman for the White?
	Is this Jen Psaki's replacement?
	Because apparently Jen Psaki wants to go into MSM.
	Is John Harwood going to be her replacement?
	It's not a pretty situation.
	But it's not really of much public import in terms of the policy of the United States or the administration of the government.
	And the fact that...
	Oh, really?
	It's not really of import?
	That Hunter Biden, the president's son, had financial dealings in the country that is now currently being invaded at war with Russia?
	That might be the catalyst for a potential larger war?
	It's not relevant?
	Let's just hear this gymnastics again.
	Much public import in terms of the policy of the United States or the administration of the government.
	And the fact that an investigation has been sustained during the Biden administration is an indication that the government is working.
	The government is working on this subject.
	They had the laptop.
	For how long?
	During an election season?
	And didn't do anything with it?
	Oh, they're working on it.
	And we'll see what the results are.
	But so far, there is zero evidence that Vice President Biden or President Biden has done anything wrong in connection with what Hunter Biden's done.
	There is zero evidence that Joe Biden has done anything wrong in connection with what Hunter Biden has done.
	Let me see if I understand that.
	So, zero evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong in Hunter Biden feloniously acquiring a firearm and then having his wife or girlfriend at the time feloniously dispose of that firearm?
	Or Hunter Biden, I'll say, feloniously ingesting certain substances that are...
	Felonious substances.
	Yeah, Joe Biden didn't really do any of that with him, but it's arguable as to whether or not his FBI tried to cover those things up, did not prosecute those things.
	But yeah, other than the 10% for the big guy of his son who's leveraging his dad's name and status as VP or president to make loads of money for himself, 10% of which goes to the big guy, there's no connection.
	I mean, there's no connection because we haven't looked.
	Important distinction.
	I want to ask you about something.
	President Trump, he still has rallies.
	He still says things.
	Some of them are out there.
	Can you believe this crap?
	And after all of that, after all of that, bearing that under the rug, we go back to Donald Trump.
	Yeah, let's go back to some of the out there things that Donald Trump has been saying in his rallies.
	He's not a president.
	He's not in office.
	It's not an election season.
	Let's just set aside all of that stuff about the Hunter Biden in drugs, felonious acquisition of firearms, felonious disposition of firearms, alleged involvement in procuring financing for alleged...
	Bio-research, safety research, I guess, in Ukraine.
	Forget all of that.
	Forget all of that.
	There's no connection.
	There's no connection to official duties.
	Now let's go back to Trump.
	I mean, it's not just fake news anymore.
	I mean, it's been overt propaganda for a while, but congratulations, John J. Harwood.
	You've destroyed everything you've spent your life building.
	I hope it was worth it, and I hope all the money that you're getting, because look, reality is people don't appreciate it.
	These MSM types get paid Millions.
	Millions from Tucker Carlson to Jake Tapper.
	Millions to Brian Stettler.
	And it's not to say that they do it for the money.
	But if anyone is going to say that this is conduct of integrity of a journalist, I will respectfully disagree.
	And the only reason people would do things that they find violate their principles of integrity is because they're dishonest, they're stupid, or it's just worth it.
	Who was it that wrote the book?
	James Comey.
	Or, you know, anyone who writes a tell-all book.
	Mary Trump.
	When you write a tell-all book and you burn all the bridges that you've ever had in your life and you violate the trust of the people who you held nearest and dearest or who held you nearest and dearest, it had better been worth it.
	Because if all that money is not going to make you happy for the rest of your life, well, your integrity and honor certainly won't either because you've sold both.
	I view any such desecration as a possible hostage video.
	For the potato files.
	I don't know what that is, Rambler.
	So that's how CNN is dealing with the Hunter Biden stuff.
	We haven't seen anything.
	There's no official connection to Joe Biden as president.
	Yeah, because that would be the dumbest form of corruption ever.
	You think Joe Biden is on Hunter Biden's payroll on the books?
	You think they sign contracts and explain why it is that Hunter Biden, the VP's son, with no meaningful experience in pretty much anything, with very, very bad lifestyle habits?
	Is getting paid $50,000 a month to be on the board of a Ukrainian energy firm?
	You think they're going to paper that thoroughly so that the public can scrutinize it?
	So that a journalist worth his weight, his or her weight in salt, will actually look into it?
	Call me cynical, I doubt it.
	Hunter is a tragedy.
	An orphan whose mother was not alive to stop Joe from letting their son endanger himself to the degree he did.
	That's why, I mean, that's why I won't, I'm not going to...
	Shrug the idea that he's had a hard life.
	Broken homes.
	It's like everyone thinks his daddy was wealthy.
	I don't know how wealthy they were before they became career politicians.
	But there's no doubt.
	There's tragedy that is beyond his control that is objectively hard.
	Objectively destructive.
	Objectively, all things being equal will make for a much harder life and will compromise one's ability to develop.
	Healthily.
	So whether or not you can attribute all of one's foibles, all of one's wrong, bad, terrible life decisions to tragedy beyond their control, that's where healing and overcoming comes in.
	And some people, for reasons beyond their control, have more healing and overcoming to do than others.
	Some can't do it.
	Some do do it.
	And others who have had all the luxuries in the world still fall into making very serious life-compromising mistakes.
	So that's the CNN part.
	Let's just see if I'm missing anything.
	Let's just see if I'm missing anything.
	Okay, I'm going to read some of the chat.
	Now I'm going to go to from fake news CNN to fake news CBC.
	It's just so glorious.
	The degree to which...
	I pulled it up.
	Where is...
	I'm going to have to go here and just find it.
	Rosemary Barton, for those of you who don't know, is a CBC journalist.
	CBC, for those of you who don't know, is the state-funded journalism in Canada.
	Canada Broadcasting Corporation, or the Canada Broadcast...
	It's one or the other.
	We've talked about them at length.
	Subsidize them in Radio Canada, subsidize to the tune of a billion dollars a year.
	With taxpayer dollars, Rosemary Barton is one of the journalists at the CBC.
	And this morning, put out a tweet, which I thought, I mean, it's just, it's comic.
	It's comical or comic if it weren't tragic.
	So this is, we're going to go follow the chronology here.
	That's the screenshot.
	Hold on, let me just see.
	Here we go.
	This is Rosemary Barton.
	Chief political correspondent, host, Rosemary Barton Live, at issue, feckled...
	Okay.
	Is she still with the CBC?
	Yeah, she is.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	She writes, criticize the LPC Liberal Party of Canada, NDP, New Democrat Party, deal all you want.
	Criticize it all you want.
	I will.
	But this is irresponsible rhetoric coming from someone who was duly elected six months ago.
	Let's just see what the irresponsible rhetoric was.
	Dictator.
	I just did a quick review in the dictionary.
	So according to the Oxford Dictionary, a dictator is a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
	There are many Canadians that would believe, that would hold the view, that this does apply to Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada.
	And it is up to...
	Outrage!
	Outrage in Parliament!
	To the Prime Minister of Canada.
	And it's actually up to the Canadian people to determine that.
	And they'll be determining that at the next election.
	It's so outrageous they have to heckle and shout on the other side.
	Both sides do it.
	Alright, so that's what she said.
	Then we got Stephen Chase, who's the reporter.
	Globe and Mail, Parliamentary Bureau.
	Globe and Mail, by the way, I believe is one of the 150 legacy media outlets that got part of the $600 million bailout from Justin Trudeau's Liberal government.
	He says, worth noting, Conservative MP Rachel Thomas, nay harder, I don't know why they say what her maiden name is, but on Monday in the House of Commons said, quote, many Canadians, end quote, hold the view that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fits the definition of a dictator.
	She did not cite a poll.
	Let me just, let me just come back here so you can.
	She did not cite a poll.
	This is the degree of journalism.
	Of this individual who wants to try to fact-check, purport that the statement is unsubstantiated.
	No evidence to support the claim that many Canadians believe that Justin Trudeau fits the definition of a dictator.
	Many Canadians is what she said.
	You don't need a poll to know that many Canadians feel that Justin Trudeau fits the definition of a dictator.
	You don't need it because it's not giving a specific number.
	It's not giving...
	Any number that needs to be fact-checked above and beyond many being, I guess, what, more than three?
	If it were one, you'd say one.
	If it were a couple, you'd say a couple.
	And you'd say a few if it were three.
	So many technically would be four or more.
	Here's what I can guarantee you, Stephen Chase.
	Many Canadians believe that Justin Trudeau fits the definition of a dictator.
	Many people.
	A dictator who orders private institutions to freeze and seize private assets.
	A dictator who orders a highly militarized police to come in and bust up a peaceful protest.
	A dictator who seeks to censor online discourse, imprison political adversaries, inflict excessive penalties on political adversaries, political prisoners, if you will.
	In fact, if you listen to Justin Trudeau's criticism of Putin, and I'm sure we all agree that Putin is something of an authoritarian dictator.
	Apply it mutandis mutandis and maybe scale it down or tone it down by degrees and everything that Justin Trudeau rightly criticizes of Putin is true of himself but obviously to a lesser degree.
	We currently have Pat King sitting in a jail cell for mischief charges.
	We currently have Tamara Lich let out on bail on bail conditions which obviously violate the most core fundamental values of human rights.
	You have a Prime Minister who invoked the Emergencies Act to suspend charter rights to authorize a violent militaristic police response to a non-violent protest, the freezing of private bank accounts in the absence of a court order, while authorizing or promising to immunize the banks that did that.
	Oh yeah, no, no, but she didn't cite a poll to substantiate her claim that many Canadians believe that Justin Trudeau fits the definition.
	Of a dictator.
	To which?
	To which I said, okay, well then let's just go back here.
	And I said, okay, let's do this then.
	Shall we, Rosie Barton?
	That's her name.
	It's not, I don't, I didn't shorten it to be disrespectful.
	Rosemary Barton's handle is Rosie Barton.
	Let's do this.
	Let's do the poll then.
	Shall we, Rosie Barton?
	Canadians, do you believe that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fits the definition of a dictator?
	Please retweet for the broadest sample field.
	Possible.
	Let's just see.
	We got 10,000 votes.
	Oh, is it going to tell me the...
	Well, let me just say no.
	Oops, I can't.
	Go check it out.
	I can tell you it was about 83% felt that Justin Trudeau fit the definition of a dictator.
	Now, I appreciate people.
	I don't need to be told that it's a highly unscientific poll because it's slanted based, obviously, on those who follow me on Twitter.
	There's no question about that.
	It's unscientific because there is no way of knowing.
	Who's answering the poll?
	Could be non-Canadians, which would falsify the vote.
	I'm just going to go see what the results are currently at, not in incognito.
	I know why it's highly unscientific, but if we're going to take the highly unscientific, if we're going to call this highly unscientific because we can't control who votes on it and it's a biased sample field, even though it's got over a thousand retweets, so I think it's spanning a field.
	When you compare that to how polls are typically done, it's 81.3% say yes, 11.5% say no, 7.2% no opinion, just show results.
	And I'm actually surprised that it's over 10% who say that he does not fit the definition of a dictator.
	But if you're going to say that this poll is unscientific because of those factors, and I agree those are factors, we are dealing with not a biased Sample base.
	You're just dealing with an ideologically oriented sample base.
	I have no doubt I have fewer people who consider themselves liberals who follow me than those who consider themselves not liberal.
	That being said, if you compare it to the methodology of typical polls, Leger, what's the other one though?
	Figure what it is.
	Leger?
	Whatever the other marketing firms are.
	When you compare 10,000 people on Twitter versus their sample field, I saw, it was a poll on Fox News yesterday while I'm jogging on the treadmill, listening to Fox News.
	When you saw the fine print of their poll, 803 people were polled.
	They ran a poll that said 63% of Americans, what did they say?
	Think that the Hunter Biden computer story is a big deal.
	63% of Americans.
	Their sample field was 803 people.
	And if you think that the 803 people who actually pick up the phone or respond to do an online poll is any less ideologically on one side or potentially ideologically biased than a Twitter sample, a Twitter feed that reaches 10,000, I've got news for you.
	So, but yeah, I don't know.
	She didn't cite any poll.
	Peter Tosh trained himself to say, shitty and shits them.
	For city and system.
	How about we train ourselves to...
	In as much as you have John J. Hardy sitting out there, you have John J. Hardy sitting out there literally acting as the spokesperson for the Joe Biden government.
	You have...
	What did I just do here?
	You have the CBC, Rosie Barton, Global News.
	Oddly enough, all of the media.
	Let me just see where I can get back to this.
	All of the media carrying water for Justin Trudeau.
	Criticize him all you want, but he was duly elected six months ago.
	Rosemary Barton, may I remind you that he was duly elected six months ago with a minority government.
	22%, I believe, of eligible voters voted for Justin Trudeau.
	Give or take.
	I get mixed up on the number of eligible versus Canadians, but he was re-elected a third time with, yet again, a minority government and a small one at that.
	So yeah, he was duly elected.
	And if I may also spoil the surprise, so were other dictators, historically speaking.
	The Big H was duly elected.
	I would also dare say the Big P, Putin, was also duly elected.
	You can go and question the elections as much as you want, but he was nonetheless Theoretically, on paper, duly elected.
	Being duly elected, especially with a minority government, is not mutually exclusive with being a dictator.
	In fact, some might even say it precedes becoming a dictator.
	But yeah, duly elected from six months ago.
	And why is it irresponsible rhetoric to express your opinion of the political leader?
	She's the opposition.
	Rachel Thomas, nay harder.
	She's the opposition.
	Are you now telling the opposition how they have to express their opposition to the current government?
	Is that how democracy works in a dictatorship?
	You're free to express yourself, Madam Opposition, but only in the manner that the dictator approves of.
	So don't call them names.
	Be easy on your critique.
	Otherwise, it's irresponsible.
	And this is coming from journalists.
	Okay.
	I saw a chat.
	Let me see this here.
	Where are all the...
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Take that out.
	Don't do that, please.
	No joke.
	I don't...
	The threats jokes...
	I mean, it's the internet and people think words are funny.
	No.
	So, don't do that, please.
	And also, don't make jokes like that.
	I mean, this is where someone wants to say, like, okay, this is how you sabotage someone.
	Go make stupid jokes that other people can then take out of context and weaponize.
	So, full stop.
	Full stop on those types of insinuations.
	Full stop on those types of jokes because they're not going to be found to be jokes by anybody.
	And I have been exquisitely vocal about all of this.
	You do stupid things, you give the government an excuse.
	You act violent, you act out, you riot, you break windows, you give the government the excuse it always wanted.
	Now the problem is, even when you don't break windows, even when you don't act out, the government still seizes on it, that you don't win a fight that you can't win.
	You don't win by starting a fight that you can't possibly win.
	So that is it.
	Now, that was CBC.
	And share screen.
	So let's go now from CBC.
	And I'm going to bring this one up just because I have to attenuate.
	You know, Twitter doesn't always give you enough character to explain what you mean.
	I wrote, as much of an insult as I typically do, two morons.
	You have Justin Trudeau sitting with, what's this guy's name, Horgan.
	This is...
	They're tackling climate change now.
	And they're both wearing face masks.
	Today.
	Justin Trudeau, other than being...
	I don't know how many times he's gotten the jab and the boost.
	I don't know how many times.
	I believe it's at least three.
	Maybe even four now.
	Who knows?
	If you believe that he got it in the first place.
	And I know there's people who don't.
	We know that he is purported to be fully vaxxed.
	We also know that he contracted the Rona.
	He got COVID back in January 31st, if indeed he did get it because he used it as the pretext to leave Ottawa and not deal with the protesters because he was just tested positive.
	Let me see if I can bring that one up.
	I don't have it here.
	Oh, no, it's right there.
	Hold on.
	We know that he tested positive.
	As of at least, let me see here, share the screen.
	As of at least January 31st, this morning, I tested positive for COVID-19.
	I'm feeling fine and I'll continue to work remotely this week.
	Oh yeah, this was during the protests.
	Following public health guidelines.
	Everyone, please get vaccinated and boosted.
	Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
	But setting aside all of the discussion, he is fully vaxxed by his own public statements.
	He got tested positive for COVID in January 31st, which is a month and a half ago.
	And now, despite all of that, he's still wearing a face mask at a meeting, which it appears to be indoors, but they're quite far from each other in that meeting.
	So, let me just bring that back up.
	Let's just so we can appreciate the visual.
	Yep, two more.
	Let's look at this.
	Here.
	Let's just sit in there.
	Six feet from each other.
	They seem to be, I love it how they're always doing something interesting, like, interesting talking.
	But wearing face masks after all of that.
	And, you know, nobody wonders why you see people...
	Jogging alone outdoors at night, walking their dogs at night alone, wearing face masks.
	It's either a mix of trauma, social virtue, a bit of both, or a lot of either.
	What other word is there?
	There's theater, there is acting, there is being a good role model.
	Being a good role model, fully vaxxed, having recently contracted Lerona, if you believe him, and is now wearing a face mask to meet with someone else who is presumably also double vaxxed.
	And by the way, presumably they both feel fine.
	So double vaxxed, probably boosted, recently contracted COVID, feeling fine, which would make him at anything, at worst, an asymptomatic carrier.
	If that's even possible, a month and a half after having contracted it.
	But that's it.
	So now I'm going to read the chat before I bring it up so that I avoid a similar problem.
	Trudeau wears a mask to keep his...
	There's no logic to it.
	And then there was another image where he physically doesn't look well.
	And I said he looks horrible, not to make fun of his physical appearance.
	He physically looks unwell.
	And I can only imagine if he has human emotions, the stress that he must be under.
	I can only imagine the stress that any leader must be under.
	It's like you have to answer everybody's requests and everybody's demands.
	But he just physically does not look well.
	So that's it.
	You can come to your own conclusions or determinations as to why he doesn't look well.
	I don't know if they get to exercise.
	I don't know if they eat healthy.
	I don't know how much they sleep.
	And I mean leaders as in all leaders.
	He looks unwell.
	Swollen face.
	Tired.
	And now, I appreciate maybe I'm projecting because I do sometimes feel like I have a bit of a bloat and I do feel like I look tired and I look old.
	So maybe I'm projecting, but I don't think he is.
	And by the way, there's a joke to be had.
	There's an observation to be had that once you sell your soul, it becomes difficult to even appreciate and love yourself.
	So definitely possible.
	And then we got some other stuff.
	Well, I won't bring up the other stuff.
	Okay, now.
	What's the next story?
	Oh, yes.
	So we'll go from fake news to fake news.
	You all remember, we're going to talk about Randy Hillier.
	We're going to talk about Randy Hillier.
	I had David Anber, his attorney on.
	I don't know what day of the week it is anymore.
	Was it last night or the night before?
	It was the night before.
	Had David Anber on to discuss Randy Hillier's day in court on Monday to...
	Discuss his bail terms, his release terms, because for those of you who don't know, Randy Hillier, a sitting member of provincial parliament, was arrested on...
	There were eight or nine charges.
	The classic crap, inciting mischief, mischief itself, counseling people to disobey court orders and mischief, whatever.
	But there was a serious charge.
	Intimidation and assault on a police officer.
	And I...
	I said, like, all of the other charges, I can understand how it might have taken 30-plus days to navigate his social media posts, to see what other things he might have done, what crimes he may have committed based on his social media posts.
	We found the tweet that was the object of his alleged incitement to mischief, or incitement to commit an uncommitted, felonious act.
	That was when, allegedly, according to the media, he told people to flood emergency lines.
	To call in and flood emergency lines.
	We found that.
	We found that tweet.
	Arguably did not say what it should have said.
	It did not say what people purported it said.
	It was in response to an Ontario police tweet which said, don't call in emergency lines, don't call in structural lines.
	Something along those lines.
	It was bifurcated to...
	Don't call in emergency lines and don't call in lines which are not emergency lines.
	Randy's response to that tweet was, keep calling.
	In a democracy, you have the right to make your voices heard.
	Something along those lines.
	Missing the punctuation.
	The media ran with that to say he told people to call the emergency lines, to flood them.
	It's going to cause all sorts of problems.
	After that tweet, people did call it.
	Okay, fine.
	I can understand that charge.
	I can understand why it took some time to find the evidence for that charge.
	It'll be up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both the act, the actus reus, and the mental element, the mens rea, of committing that crime.
	Did Randy intend for people to call emergency lines or the non-emergency structural lines?
	We'll get there, but whatever.
	All that to say, the media coverage of that charge was inaccurate, to put it mildly.
	Where I had some great skepticism and a great deal of difficulty understanding how it took over 30 days to find these charges were the intimidation and assault of a police officer.
	That's the type of incident that if it occurs, you're in jail within a few minutes, if not the same day.
	You don't intimidate and or assault a police officer, and I think it's and, and then go home and then wait 40 days before the police realize, I was intimidated and assaulted.
	You go to jail pretty much the same day.
	So I said, as a joke, tongue in cheek, the only way that that charge makes sense is if the police decided they had to go fish through video, online video, to see if there was ever a place where Randy Hillier, assaulted by virtue of some behavior that we can misconstrue in the videos, a police officer.
	I said it as a joke, and then...
	Hearing the hearing before the peace officer that was issuing the bail terms, I heard her refer to a video in which Randy Hillier used a barricade in the alleged assault.
	Because during the hearing, when the parties, Amber and the prosecution, agreed on 14 of the 15 conditions of the release and they litigated one, which had to do with what he could post on social media, the judge...
	Out of the blue, Sue Esponte, of her own volition, said, oh, are we not adding on any weapons charges, any weapons conditions to the terms of release?
	And then someone said, well, you know, the only alleged weapon of the assault was the barricade.
	It's like, oh, holy cows.
	This sounds like what I jokingly said it might be.
	And I went to go find what could be the video.
	What could, you know.
	What could only be the video, unless there's another video out there that the Crown has that they will disclose in due time.
	But from what I understand, by the way, this is the video that serves as the basis for the assault charges.
	Wait until you see this.
	Let's not spoil the punchline here.
	My understanding, and if I am wrong, I will correct myself if the Crown discloses video evidence of the alleged assault and intimidation that is not this particular video.
	I will correct and make that loud and clear known for everybody so they can see firsthand the evidence that supports the claim that Randy Hillier allegedly intimidated and assaulted a police officer.
	But my understanding is that this is the video.
	Watch this.
	Let's go.
	Now, and just appreciate the reason why I think this is the video because they also made mention of Maxime Bernier being there at the time.
	And if you look behind Randy Hillier in the green jacket.
	Wait, no, not the green jacket.
	Where is Maxime Bernier?
	Maxine Bernier is right there, in the fluffy thing, behind the purple hat.
	That's Maxine Bernier.
	This is the video, people.
	From what we can see, let's just do it one more time, one more time, people, because it happened so quickly, as do all assaults.
	He moved the barrier, kid.
	I think the police officer is in front of him.
	He goes, moves it again.
	I'm not even sure what good it does to move it more to the other side, which already it was not blocking the stairs.
	And then you got Randy there.
	Okay, and that's it, apparently.
	That is, from what I understand, the video justifying or that the Crown is using to support the charges of assault on a police officer.
	It would be an interesting debate to start with your brother.
	Who is the greatest comedian who was born in Canada?
	Now I'm traumatized and I can't bring up a chat now without reading it first.
	Jagmeet is the big...
	And I'll tell you one thing.
	On this channel, you have freedom of speech with the exception of overt calls to violence, threats, and...
	I mean, that's pretty much it.
	Threats and violence and, you know, objective harassment.
	That's the video, by the way.
	You can write the defense yourself.
	The Crown has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
	But like I said on Monday, half of the punishment is the process.
	In the meantime, Randy Hillier is a sitting member of Parliament, of Provincial Parliament, who has his speech limited and restricted, who has his mobility...
	Yeah, he has his mobility restricted because there's a certain part of Ottawa that he can't go to.
	So yeah, that's great.
	Just trump up bogus charges, make his life hell, compromise his ability to do what he was elected to do, and if he's found innocent at the end of the day after having paid all the costs of an attorney, the system works, right?
	Verbal assault.
	No, I don't think that was it.
	I think it was...
	That was the incident.
	And, you know, the joke, the thought experiment, the how absurd can reality possibly be?
	It is just as absurd as I thought it was.
	They had to go fish around social media posts in the hopes of possibly finding one video that can be superficially misinterpreted so that they could So that they can trump up these bogus charges.
	Because the mischief is, no one takes it seriously on its face in terms of a serious criminal accusation.
	Yes, you can go to jail for 10 years for felonious mischief.
	And by the way, I believe, indictable in Canada.
	I believe they're proceeding by indictable offense and not summary conviction.
	So they're going hard on this.
	But you know, you get charged with mischief and everyone's like, okay, well mischief doesn't even sound like a serious crime.
	But you get charged with assaulting a police officer.
	People take that seriously.
	That's a serious accusation.
	Then you find out what the underlying video evidence is, apparently.
	There will be full disclosure of the evidence, as the Crown is obligated to do in any criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding.
	But thus far, I think that's it, and I don't think there's another video out there.
	So that's it.
	That is, yeah, they're silencing Randy for the Ontario election, because there's an election coming up in June, apparently.
	Yep.
	I slapped a cop...
	I slapped a cop like Will Smith.
	I got jailed in, but no charges on my case.
	Dude, don't slap police officers.
	There's never really a good excuse to slap someone for their words to begin with.
	But you slap a police officer.
	You physically assault.
	You touch a police officer.
	For right or wrong, you're asking for it.
	You are picking a fight you can't win, and you're starting a fight you don't want to start.
	I read Hillier's tweet as, keep calling it a democracy, expressing yourself as a fundamental freedom.
	No, see, I read it, it said keep calling in a democracy, expressing yourself as a fundamental freedom.
	So I read it as, keep calling the non-emergency lines, keep calling the infrastructure, keep calling your councilman, keep calling whomever, in a democracy, expressing yourself as a fundamental freedom.
	That's how I read it.
	But it is, but look, it's also, it is a dangerous tweet.
	In that context.
	Don't listen to the police keep doing it, especially when they're looking for an excuse.
	So anyways, that's the Randy Hillier.
	I mean, we'll keep following it, but when I went out and looking, the tweet is arguably misinterpreted, but fine.
	It's a tenable interpretation of the tweet.
	Keep calling.
	When the police say, don't call in the emergency lines, it will be misconstrued.
	And it's probably not...
	It's not the most responsible thing to do at the time.
	Criminal?
	We'll see.
	Let me see here.
	Hold on.
	How do I bring this out?
	Cancel.
	Let's see this.
	Calling in the act of checking your peers and getting them to change problematic behavior by explaining their misstep with compassion and patience.
	I agree.
	You may not succeed in doing it, but that is better than the alternative.
	Was his terms of release that he should not use nor be found in possession of barricades?
	No, and the judge just, the parties had not discussed it, but the judge sua sponte, there's another word for it, of her own volition, brought up an element, like, an element that was not discussed and probably for a reason.
	It was not ignored by the parties.
	It was just not relevant to either of the parties.
	But the judge brings it up.
	On the one hand, it could throw off all of the discussions if a less than forthright prosecutor says, ooh, the window is open for me now.
	The judge just brought it up, and I can seize on this to say, yeah, let's throw that in there.
	I mean, I don't know if they hunt.
	I presume they do.
	It's hunting season coming up.
	You know, just throw in another charge that compromises one's ability to have the life that they want.
	So yeah, that was it.
	Punctuation is important.
	Yes, punctuation is important, but absence of punctuation should not be criminal.
	I just think that tweet can be misinterpreted.
	And that tweet can be interpreted to say, keep calling in the emergency lines.
	And if people did it, then it's going to be the question of, are you responsible for people acting like morons?
	Soon we'll be arrested for future bad thought, like in the movie Minority Report.
	Oh, well, you know what?
	Let's bring that up.
	Good segue.
	Sheriff, thank you.
	Good segue.
	Let me just bring this up here.
	Share screen.
	Yeah, here.
	Right on point.
	Let's just read this article out of the Global News.
	Make sure we can see this here.
	Yeah, we can.
	Okay, hold on.
	You joke.
	Not joke.
	Threats within.
	Canada's spy service boosts attention to ideological domestic extremism.
	Break down those three words.
	Ideological.
	We're not even in the realm of terrorism, which has a definition, which has a category, which has a subsection of groups identified as such for the purposes of application of the law.
	Now we're talking about ideological, which means thought, domestic, which means local, and extremism, which means nothing.
	So they want to boost attention to domestic thought.
	Which they qualify as extreme or extremism or extremist.
	The Canada Security Intelligence Service, and this is CSIS for anybody who doesn't know, CSIS, now devotes almost as much attention to ideological domestic extremism as they do to religiously motivated terrorism, marking a paradigm shift in the spy agency's priorities.
	Oh, it's marking a paradigm shift.
	And it's one that might have a little something to do with dictatorships.
	Using spy agencies to spy on domestic, local people for their ideologies, their thoughts, that they qualify as extreme, call it what you want, but at least let's just get clear that that is what's being done.
	Documents reviewed by the Global News suggest CSIS has gone from closing its right-wing extremism desk in 2016 to spending almost as much time and resources tracking ideological domestic extremism as much as...
	The objectively, you know, the stuff for which there are provisions of law and qualifications in law to deal with.
	And by the way, when Jacob Wells, CEO of Give, Send, Go, who I did an interview with, when he went on, he was invited to Parliament Hill or digitally to speak in the context of their IMVE.
	And wait until you read, ideologically motivated violent extremism.
	The services catch-all term, which includes far-right and white supremacist motivated violence, is, quote, fast approaching parity with the threat from religiously motivated Okay, fine.
	Let that sink in, people.
	Because this is how they tried to depict the protest.
	They got their one picture on day one of the Yahtzee flag.
	They got their one picture on day one of the Confederate flag, which allowed everyone in Parliament who was...
	Intellectually dishonest and the equally intellectually dishonest media to qualify that protest as extremist, ideologically far right.
	That's what they needed.
	That's what they wanted.
	And that's what you can now come to your own conclusions as to whether or not those were legitimate, bona fide individuals carrying those flags on day one, never to be seen again, or whether or not it might have been something, something, something of a setup so they could treat all of the protesters under this Caveat under this qualification of IMVE for the purposes of spying.
	The pandemic has been seized upon by extremists who are exploiting the situation to spread this information.
	Amplify anti-authority narratives.
	Listen to this and talk about dictatorships.
	Amplify anti-authority narratives.
	You must be quiet.
	You must bow to the authority.
	You cannot question them, and you cannot promote anything that goes against their authority, lest you now be qualified as ideologically motivated violent extremists.
	They're amplifying anti-authority narratives.
	I'm sorry, was Roderick Barton just saying that irresponsible to call Justin Trudeau a dictator suggests that he fits the description of a dictator?
	And promote acts of violence.
	Yes?
	Never violence, people.
	I don't care if you think I'm a beta male for saying it.
	Never violence.
	Because first of all, if you're in the position of power, you don't need to use violence.
	And if you're not in the position of power, it's not going to produce the results you want.
	And as I always say, and I'm borrowing it from Kafka, do not become the monster that you are battling.
	But I'm sorry.
	You're going to spread?
	You want to use this to...
	You want to spy on ideological domestics?
	You want to spy on citizens to prevent the spread of disinformation and to prevent the amplification of anti-authority narratives?
	Are they going to ban George Orwell's 1984?
	Because that's an anti-authoritarian...
	That's an anti-authority narrative.
	CSIS is actively investigating IMVE threats and, when appropriate, mitigating these threats through the use of threat reduction measures.
	Despite the renewed attention?
	Okay, I mean, that's it.
	It just goes on.
	CSIS has repeatedly asked the government to update its powers after a series of high-profile confrontations with the federal court and increasing public appeals from Vigneault himself.
	Oh, boy.
	Anyway, that's it.
	Talk about it.
	Old threats, new methods, whatever.
	Let's just expand the government's ability to spy on its own citizens.
	Give itself more power to govern its own citizens on the basis that it is ideologically motivated violent extremism.
	The only thing I can agree with is the violence part of it.
	You already have laws to deal with all of that.
	It's damn clear what the intention is here, although it's typically irrelevant to go at intentions.
	But when you have laws to already address the issue that you're raising, but you want to narrow it down in terms of ideology, Well, it's quite clear what the intent is here.
	And it's clear in light of past conduct.
	Could you and Rob discuss what you're willing for the religious and medical exemptions that are not being respected by the federal government?
	Oh yeah, absolutely.
	We'll talk about that.
	It's more an issue in the US.
	Here in Canada, we see what they do to doctors that issue religious exemptions or medical exemptions.
	Let me see here.
	There was another super chat that I want to get to.
	It was an orange one.
	Hold on, where is it?
	It might be down.
	Wow.
	Okay, here we go.
	Boom.
	Police, we pulled you over because it appears you have had a bit too much to think.
	Oh, we've pulled you over because you were spreading disinformation that is intended to amplify anti-authority narratives.
	Can you imagine?
	If you call on people to question the government and to investigate their corruption and to investigate potential unethical conduct, that fits the definition of...
	Amplifying anti-authority narratives.
	But, yep, let's dedicate as much resources to that as actual terrorism.
	It's just out of this world.
	But this is what the Canadian world is becoming.
	All right, before my brother gets in here, let me see.
	I had one more.
	Oh, you know what?
	Let's just quickly go over the Flynn before we forget to do it again.
	You all remember Michael Flynn from such judicial sagas as...
	Set up by the government.
	Okay.
	I've broken down the Flynn thing over the course of years.
	And that was, I think, my initial...
	Call it a red pill.
	That was my initial red pill where I thought I understood everything that everybody else understood.
	Michael Flynn lied to the FBI, was an undeclared foreign agent, didn't register, and then Trump pardoned him.
	We all know about that.
	But we saw the degree to which...
	There was corruption in the judicial system in terms of conflicts of interest of the judges.
	One had to recuse himself because of the conflict of interest, which made, in theory, in any event, any plea before that judge disappear.
	It invalidated it.
	And then we saw exactly what they called the lie to the FBI.
	I don't recall.
	They called Michael Flynn's equivocation of his memory, lying to the FBI, when Michael Flynn...
	By the FBI's account was lying to the FBI about information that Michael Flynn knew the FBI had in their hands.
	The FBI orchestrated a meeting with Michael Flynn in the absence of his counsel.
	Anyway, so the Michael Flynn saga we know.
	This is his business partner.
	You might recall this.
	Bian Rafikian was his business partner at their...
	I say lobbyist.
	I forget exactly what the company was, but we'll get to it in the article.
	He was accused of having not disclosed the fact that he was a foreign agent.
	And they went to a jury trial.
	And the jury found that B.N. Rafikian was in fact guilty of having lied or having concealed the fact that he was a foreign agent under FAR, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, something along those lines.
	A jury found this.
	The judge in that trial said, the jury came to a conclusion that is just absolutely untenable at law from the facts.
	It's untenable.
	And overrode the jury conviction and acquitted Rafikian.
	A higher court reinstated the conviction.
	And this is actually, this goes back all the way back to legal legal.
	One of the first times I realized that legal legal might be trying to pull the wool over his followers' eyes is in a video.
	He mentioned that Rafikian had been found guilty by a jury, but failed, omitted, neglected to mention that Rafikian had been subsequently acquitted by the judge, who came to the conclusion that no reasonable jury could have come to that conclusion at law based on the facts.
	And this had happened at the time that Legal Legal made the video.
	Well, subsequent to that, a higher court reinstated the conviction.
	And then a higher court still went back for another decision and...
	Flynn partner, you know, his win is he now gets a new trial yet again, but let's just read this.
	Flynn partner wins new trial in foreign agent case.
	Jury's guilty verdicts against BN Rafikian in 2019 went against great weight of the evidence.
	That's what the judge ruled at the time.
	Former business partner of Donald Trump's national security advisor, Michael Flynn, scored a major legal victory Friday as a federal judge ordered a new trial for the Iranian-born businessman on charges that he acted as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey.
	As Trump ran for president.
	Oh, by the way, we can go back to some of the conflict of interest that the attorneys that were representing Michael Flynn against these charges of having allegedly not disclosed that he was a foreign agent were the ones who prepared the filings, the FARA filings.
	So in theory, by the way, if the filings were done improperly and such disclosures were not properly made, it could be a question of professional liability of the law firm who prepared those filings.
	So you couldn't have that very same law firm who might be guilty of malpractice in theory defending the individual who was being accused of having violated the law that his attorneys were supposed to protect him from.
	That was one of the elements of some of the corruption in the Michael Flynn case which saw Sidney Powell come in as new counsel and change the direction of that file and save it because she came in and substituted for Flynn's counsel who was defending him on charges.
	That basically related to malpractice of the firm representing him.
	So who are they going to throw under the bus first?
	Flynn or themselves?
	The ruling from the U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga in Alexandria, Virginia, was the latest lurch in a legal rollercoaster ride for Bijan Rafikian, who was found guilty by a jury following 2019, had his two felony convictions thrown out by Trenga, only to see the guilty verdicts reinstated by an appeals court last month.
	So the decision from the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trenga's initial decision to toss out the jury verdicts, but left open a narrow path for Rafikian to win a new trial.
	It's interesting.
	I'm going to ask Barnes this because I don't understand how Trenga is now ruling on an issue that was adjudicated upon by the Fourth Circuit.
	I presume Fourth Circuit said, we're overturning your decision, Trenga.
	Take it back for reconsideration.
	And Trenga, in reconsidering it or in ruling again, Now says, okay, fine, look, I can't dismiss the charges outright, so go get a new trial.
	Trenga's ruling Friday sees that opening, finding that the jury's guilty verdicts were, quote, against the great weight of the evidence and should be set aside.
	Rafikian's convictions are based on weak inferences, many built upon one another, drawn from narrowly framed circumstantial evidence without regard to a broader context that substantially undercuts any inculpatory inferences.
	And you have to appreciate here...
	Let me just see if my brother's in the back screen.
	You have to appreciate here...
	I'm...
	Generally speaking, not a fan of overriding a jury's conviction, because what was the point of asking the jury to do their job if the judge says, I'm going to override your decision?
	And I'm generally a fan of jury trials.
	Leave it to a jury of your peers if that is ever possible.
	But you expect a jury?
	I have full respect for the intelligence of every citizen out there.
	There are complicated legal terms like, what makes someone a foreign agent?
	Arguably, certain types of trials might not be left to jury consideration.
	Ones that operate on thorny legal questions, nuanced legal questions that really ought to be up for consideration by a judge, copyright issues.
	Issues of fact are one thing, but these thorny issues of law, how many jury members can do their own taxes, let alone come to the determination that someone is acting as a foreign agent to a foreign country?
	So anyways, that's it.
	The victory is that he's going to have another day in court.
	In the ruling Friday, Trenga emphasized that working in parallel with a foreign government and even coordinating some activities with that government does not make one an agent of that government under U.S. law.
	A person must do more than act in parallel with a foreign government's interests, pursue a mutual goal, or privately pledge personal alliance.
	All right, and that's it.
	I'll put the article in there so people can read it, and we're going to talk about it Sunday.
	With Barnes, but bottom line now, Rafikian, Flynn's business partner, goes back for a new trial.
	2019, jury trial, convicted, acquitted by the judge, reconvicted by a higher court, sent back down to Trengo, and now he's going to go right back to square one and go for a new trial on two of the accusations.
	Okay, people, I see my brother.
	Let's see what we've got here.
	I love your stuff.
	If we have WF members in parliament, is that not a government influenced and compromised by a foreign entity?
	Well, treason, no.
	I don't know.
	People throw treason out there.
	I think it's a conflict of interests.
	No national elected officials should have international allegiances or current active...
	They should divest themselves of interests that could be foreign interests.
	When they are supposed to be representing Canadian citizens.
	Okay.
	My brother is in the back screen.
	Dan, are you ready?
	Let's do this.
	Hey, what's going on?
	I just brought you in.
	Dan, how goes the battle?
	Battle is going wild, man.
	Wild.
	Good to see you.
	It's been a while.
	People in the chat, by the way, before we go on, let me know if the audio is good, and I think we're going to leave it like this so the framing is better.
	How is the audio?
	Dan, give us a mic check.
	Check, check.
	One, two, three.
	How is this?
	Audio levels are good?
	Good.
	Until I hear proof to the contrary.
	Dan, first of all, what is the latest with you?
	Well, the latest with me is things are very busy.
	Lawyers do well in times of conflict, so everything's busy.
	So on the business side, your viewers know I'm a corporate commercial lawyer and I've kind of dragged into this COVID stuff in the context of the workplace.
	So it's been very active and very exciting.
	Lots to share.
	Lots to share.
	So where do we start?
	Is there a high-profile case related to the convoy that you're involved in that you're allowed to disclose or discuss?
	Yes, there is.
	There's one that I'm assisting with, the Democracy Fund.
	And this is not the Rebel News Democracy Fund.
	I think there's two.
	That name is being used for both organizations.
	There's another Democracy Fund that was recently launched that we're working together on a gentleman who was...
	He was arrested at Coventry.
	I don't want to get too much into the details, but this was a gentleman who was doing, in normal times, nothing illegal.
	He was serving soup.
	But because of the chaos of the time being ordered to move or to relocate, he was arrested.
	And so the Democracy Fund and I are now helping this guy.
	Okay, I'm going to see if this fixes any echo.
	I'm being told there's echo.
	No, you're good if you have an earbud.
	Okay, I'm going to do this and see if it makes it better.
	And after this, I'm going to go play tennis.
	Okay, so that's interesting.
	What's been your interactions like with authorities or the courts on these issues?
	Have you been to court on any of them yet?
	I've negotiated with...
	On one matter, assisted in the negotiation.
	And the general consensus is...
	How's the echo now?
	Is it better?
	I'm just checking there.
	Echo better?
	We'll see.
	No echo.
	Okay, let's keep going.
	The consensus is that the Crown is coming down very hard, like very unusually hard.
	And I think you've seen that in your show and you've talked to your folks like David Amber.
	The Crown is out of control.
	Whether that's sustained over the next few months as things are, you know, as we get more information about what actually happened versus what the Crown is saying happened, that may change.
	But right now the Crown is just, you know, you'd think they're drunk on something.
	Well, I mean, people are talking about, I call it excessive bail conditions, but let me not use hyperbolic rhetoric.
	Bail conditions that typically you don't even see of...
	Hardened criminals.
	Violent accused criminals.
	I've heard it from a number of places.
	Is that your sentiment as well?
	The bail conditions are one issue.
	The other story I got from a guy who was arrested was the treatment in the actual jail.
	Have you talked to folks who've actually been in jail and what their experience has been like?
	These are not pleasant places in the first place.
	I don't know what the word is on jail experience.
	The story I heard sounded brutal.
	We're talking international level of human rights issues in terms of basic temperatures and jail sales, right to access counsel in a timely fashion.
	We're getting into some real problematic issues that is going to require independent oversight.
	I just don't think the government is equipped to handle it objectively.
	Looking at this from a purely business-minded point of view, how can you have when there's...
	How can you have an internal oversight when everyone seems to be on the same page and in agreement on violating some pretty important basic rights?
	So I've got a guy who was kept in a cell with, I'm not sure what the temperatures was, but he said he had sleeping issues because it was too cold.
	The blanket they gave him was too thin, and the mattress was also too thin.
	And this was a guy with an existing mental health issue being put in strict conditions because...
	For his own safety.
	Always for their own safety, right?
	And so there's the bail condition issues, but there's also just the treatment of prisoner issues, like, you know, for crying out loud, letting the guy talk to his lawyer at a reasonable opportunity.
	Like, I don't know.
	I think we need some, you know, international governance on some of these things because the system just is failing from the inside out.
	Well, you're making me depressed again then.
	I mean, I've been getting progressively more and more depressed as time goes on.
	You try to smile because otherwise you just cry.
	But like, what opposition is there?
	It seems now like, you know, you finally maybe have a glimmer of opposition from the Conservative government, but institutional.
	And not opposition, but institutional oversight, institutional holding yourself accountable.
	I mean, it doesn't happen.
	It's not happening.
	And nobody's doing it.
	This is the crisis, right?
	So the system is set up where you do have...
	Every lawyer will tell you, well, look, if you don't like it, go to court.
	So that's what we're doing.
	But everything's so, what do you call it, fragmented.
	So you've got law firms, you've got organizations in different parts of the country, all really on the same page.
	They haven't fully mobilized yet.
	So the convoy was kind of like a good opportunity for all those, you know, those voices to mobilize on the legal side.
	But because it got, you know, there's a lot of chaos at the time, those voices, you know, everyone didn't have the time to properly coordinate their response.
	But it's happening.
	And so the voices are coming together, and we're going to see some action.
	But yeah, the timeline to have things properly, you know, reviewed from the inside, it's just there's delays every time, right?
	So, you know, these will all...
	Hopefully, you know, the majority of them get, you know, substantive will get to the Supreme Court.
	And, you know, hopefully it won't be too long.
	But it's hard to get to really make that case for, you know, a rush decision or a rush hearing on some of these things.
	It'll get to the Supreme Court when it gets to the lower courts in one to two years.
	It'll get to the Supreme Court eventually.
	I mean, and in the meantime, you know, like, hey, Randy Hillier, he'll get his day in court and it'll be in months at best.
	And in the meantime.
	His political existence is compromised.
	His social life, his life is compromised.
	But yeah, just keep waiting.
	I'll bring this one up here.
	It's a big one and it's actually going to take up a lot of room.
	Viva, in a global economy, can anyone truly divest themselves of foreign interests?
	I would be happy with a public servant's putting their assets into double-blind trust so they do not know who is managing the assets and the asset manager does not know.
	You know what the funny thing is?
	It's not a financial interest, actually.
	At least that's predictable.
	Disclose it.
	I'll take disclosure, which they don't even have to do.
	It's political interests.
	Well, no, I think that tweet is on, or that post is on to something, and I think the doctor tomorrow will raise that, because he's like, it's all about the corporations.
	He thinks that the corporations are behind a lot of the influence here, and I guess we've all known that, but the extent to which it's escalated or it's made a bit more complicated because of the pandemic has to be re-evaluated.
	So what is the corporate influence, and how is that really distorting the politics right now?
	We've always known there has been some.
	Now more than ever, we need to understand it better.
	Silent Levity says, can you trust the Supreme Court?
	I've had my doubts as of late.
	They have been a severe disappointment in more ways than one lately.
	Hey, go to the Mike Ward decision.
	Is it a human rights violation to make a joke about a handicapped kid celebrity?
	A human rights violation?
	And that was 5-4.
	Have your doubts.
	It's a legitimate doubt to have.
	Well, in that regard, like, right, what if some of the judges are, first of all, what if there's a requirement that the Supreme Court judges get vaccinated?
	That's, look, I don't know the answer to that question.
	If they can only sit by being vaccinated, that can create some questions, you know, in terms of a fair, you know, fair hearing, or not that they're necessarily politically aligned with, you know, a mandate, but that's something that, you know, has to be evaluated.
	People asking, civil or corporate law?
	I mean, you do commercial litigation, civil, and now you're dabbing your experience.
	Yeah, I do corporate law, civil.
	I don't know what they mean by that.
	Oh, civil, like the Quebec civil.
	Oh, civil litigation.
	Yeah, I work in association with civil litigation lawyers.
	Okay, so Coventry Arrest, you're having your experience there.
	It's interesting.
	But that, look...
	I'm always reluctant to have lawyers talk too much in too great a detail about pending litigation.
	And as much as you want to bring the issues to the fore, I think you're doing that.
	But Dan, you opened my eyes to this system.
	In the States, you have the VAERS system.
	Vaccine adverse effect reaction.
	Wait, you can't say the word.
	What do you call it?
	You can say the word.
	Now, in Canada...
	We have the jab injury fund.
	What is it, Dan?
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	So, well, you got in with this program because it's the most under-marketed, but the most for someone who's been injured in the unlikely event anyone has been injured by the jab.
	And this particular jab, this is not a generic to all jabs.
	This is specifically set up for this one?
	So, that's a good question.
	Why didn't we have it before, right?
	Quebec did.
	Quebec had an insurance program for ages.
	And so finally, the federal government got around to putting one to place.
	And we're all asking, why?
	What's the timing?
	December 2020.
	What was happening in December 2020?
	Well, they were signing contracts.
	Okay?
	They were signing contracts with big vaccine manufacturers.
	And I don't know why.
	I haven't figured this one out yet.
	But it seems like the vaccine manufacturers themselves, they're the ones that wanted the federal government to have an insurance program in place.
	I don't think they're big proponents of human rights.
	That was their motive, you know, for wanting these insurance programs in place.
	But for whatever reason, there was pressure to have this program and put it to place.
	And it was launched in, I think, Trudy made the announcement in December 2020.
	Okay?
	That's when it started.
	Right in response to the COVID vaccines.
	I'm going to go post it in the chat and I'm going to pin it.
	People don't know about it.
	It's not marketed.
	Singapore had one.
	And I keep saying, you know, they've paid out 300 claims on their program.
	And that was as of, I think, at the end of last year.
	Whereas in that same time period, Canada's paid out five.
	So they have one-seventh, last check, according to my info, they have one-seventh the population of Canada, and they've paid out, what's five versus 300?
	And they've paid out significantly.
	Basically, I calculated if we were to pay out as generously as Singapore had paid out, and they're doing the same, by the way, the same distribution of vaccines as jab companies as we have here, I believe.
	Same, it's the Pfizer.
	Moderna mix they've been doing there.
	So it's not AstraZeneca.
	And they've paid out significantly more.
	And when Trudeau launched this program in December 2020, the whole pitch was, we want to take care of Canadians.
	We want to be there for Canadians that are stepping up and doing their part.
	And the one in a million chance, we want to be there for Canadians.
	And lo and behold, it's not quite one in a million.
	The stats are coming out now.
	It's more than that.
	What it exactly is, we don't know.
	The causation is a very complicated thing.
	You know, I work in association with personal injury lawyers and proving causation is tricky.
	It can be done.
	And it's going to be done.
	But there's a time limit.
	So people have to know it's three years, right?
	Three years from the jab.
	You've got to get your documents in.
	So it's going to be very interesting.
	It could be a nothing burger.
	Like they could just refuse every claim.
	I can't prove no causation, no causation, right?
	But maybe...
	Maybe they'll be more lenient and they'll pay out like they promised.
	I'm trying to find the website, the government website that has the latest stats.
	Health Canada.
	The latest stats.
	Well, they're always updated.
	They're always sending out the new updates.
	Yeah, I just want to get the...
	So we can quote the government, Dan, without problems.
	I'll find that in a second.
	What do you want to talk about?
	Five in 10,000 serious side effects that they recognize.
	It depends on the age group.
	It depends on gender.
	For the most part, it was a ballpark one in 10,000.
	Possibly more.
	They haven't been able to prove much of these as of yet.
	They're still reviewing.
	They have to review and review.
	The issue is that it's a private tribunal, meaning this was sourced to a company, a private company.
	You can go online.
	It's a regular company.
	You can search who the directors are.
	It's a regular private company in Ottawa.
	And we don't know what the terms of that contract was.
	You're basically outsourcing a judicial, almost like a quasi-judicial service to the private sector.
	And I've made a freedom of information request.
	I want to see what that contract looks like.
	A business lawyer?
	What are the terms there?
	How does the compensation work?
	Do they get paid more if there's less claims?
	I'm assuming the payment is steady, like you would pay a court, right?
	You don't vary the compensation based on the number of decisions it renders, right?
	It's hard to figure out what is the fairest way to make a contract like that because the volume of applications, you'd think they should get more money if they're dealing with more applications, right?
	They've got doctors up.
	They've got doctors.
	Yep.
	Captain Dan.
	Hold on.
	Can you see this?
	Yep.
	Okay.
	Reported side effects following COVID in Canada.
	This is Government of Canada.
	Updated.
	We update every Friday.
	Last updated March 25. And I read this periodically just so that you can't get in trouble for reading the government's own website.
	Dan, here.
	A total of 81 million vaccine doses administered.
	Adverse events.
	Have been reported in 42,000 people.
	That's about 5 out of 10,000.
	Okay, but that's just for an adverse event.
	Yeah, and then they say 33,000 were considered non-serious.
	8,000 were considered serious.
	Okay, there you go.
	Right.
	0.011%.
	So if you divide...
	Well, that's 0.011% of all doses administered, not of all people vaccinated, I think.
	To do that math, we'll figure that out.
	Okay.
	I think the Ontario Public Health also has their own website.
	The exact rate of injury.
	Look, it's higher for boys 12 to 19, right?
	We know the myocarditis risk is much higher in that age group.
	And this is going into our...
	The other thing I want to talk about, this whole thing, my investigative research into safe and effective.
	But before we move on, the Vaccine Injury Support Program was a federal program designed to stand by Canadians who were hurt.
	I'm hearing lots, I mean lots, because I feel these things, but there are cases of people getting seriously hurt.
	I just heard today another one, you know, it was a doctor I was speaking to, his patient died, it was an elderly patient that died after the second or third dose.
	And again, it hasn't been proven, but the temporal connection was there.
	It was an older patient.
	And I said, there's a vaccine program.
	And this doctor was not aware of it.
	So I posted the program is pinned there.
	You discover this.
	And now are you representing people in filing claims in this?
	I mean, so we're looking at that now.
	The issue, again, is going to be getting independent review of the medical decision.
	Because you're dealing with a tribunal that's very well educated on this.
	And they're experts.
	And so to challenge these experts.
	Who the government has retained or the private company, I guess, has retained to review these cases, that needs to be reviewed by an independent group.
	And usually you have, you know, in the court system, you have personal injury lawyers and you have their experts that they retain.
	So that's where it's at.
	So there are a couple that have, you know, shown interest.
	If there are, if people are watching and they want to discuss, you know, I'd encourage it.
	You can, you know, you can email, if you email me at lionlawatprotonmail.com.
	LionLaw@protonmail.com.
	Get ready for incoming emails, Dan.
	Look, I might put an auto-reply just so that they know that it can take a lot of time.
	That email account is more also secure, I believe, because I also have my general other ways to reach me.
	If you go on my website, you can find it.
	We're getting to a point now where because of the surveillance, and for these type of things, it's not so much of a concern, but surveillance now by the government is a concern.
	And so some people might not want, you know, they want more email security, right?
	So ProtonMail is generally pretty good.
	So that's that on the injuries.
	Have you had any responses from any claims filed?
	Have you had any interaction with anyone employed by or through the fund itself?
	So no, right now I'm at the stage of just trying to get more information on how...
	So personal injury lawyers know how much a claim is worth.
	So if someone dies, we know under the Ontario law, there's a standard statutory compensation scheme.
	So I think it's $250,000 is the general cost of a life.
	In Ontario, compare that to the United States.
	We Canadian citizens are cheap.
	By U.S. standards, the valuable...
	And by the way, don't get me started on that because I think the government right now, I think they're doing some kind of weird quant on...
	By the federal government keeping the ongoing mandates, man, I think they're doing some weird quant.
	The fact that the Treasury Board is now deciding when to remove the vaccine mandates, like it's not Dr. Tam.
	We're always told it's the science, right?
	The science is deciding.
	And now Dr. Tam's like, no, now the Treasury Board is deciding when to...
	I'm like, what?
	Treasury Board?
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	What's this?
	Why are they making health decisions now?
	Now the quant is like out there.
	This is like, you know, the Ford Pinto.
	It's like, okay, let's see, how much does it cost for all these people that have been wrongfully terminated or without, in my view, okay, without just cause, okay?
	They're unionized now because now the union's turned against the government, you know, PSAC, public, I forget what it's called now.
	Anyway, one of the federal unions is now like...
	Why are we doing mandates?
	Why are we forced the vaccine?
	They're not helping transmission.
	Dr. Tam, they're not helping.
	So the Treasury Board's now making the calls.
	They're like, well, let's do the cost-benefit analysis, including all the costs of settling these legal claims.
	Creepy, dude.
	$250,000 a life?
	Price has got to go up.
	You've got to increase that.
	I don't even know how you measure that.
	$250,000 is...
	I'm just reading a chat.
	25,000 over 10 years or 50,000 over five.
	That's just the...
	Don't quote me on this.
	It came up once in the context of some program we were learning about this.
	And again, I'm not the personal injury expert.
	But there's more damage for lost income and that kind of stuff that is a separate evaluation.
	I'm just saying the emotional value of life.
	The dog is chewing on my foot.
	Okay, so that's fascinating.
	You're exploring this program, discovering it, learning what it's about, but as of yet, no concrete filing and concrete interaction back and forth with any representative.
	Now I've just got one file that we're working on.
	It's very slow, so you have to put together the entire medical file.
	I was trying to say something.
	You compared it to the Philippines, right?
	To the amount of claims.
	Singapore.
	So what were you saying?
	Singapore, the population is...
	Check it out.
	Smaller than Canada.
	Let's see your whizzes in the chat.
	Let's see who gets it first, people.
	And while we do that, there's a rumble rant from Mad Pierre, which says, David, Fry TV now needs some help with YouTube terms of service and rumble streaming.
	He supports streamers in the U.S. Freedom Convoy.
	He pushed Charlotte's numbers.
	When he was in D.C., YouTube is kicking his butt.
	I've screenshotted that.
	And we've got another one.
	Fast Learner says, VAX mandate have always been linked to the rollout of the digital dollar, so it makes sense the Treasury is in charge.
	Interesting.
	What we're looking up.
	Singapore, people.
	What's the population of Singapore?
	It's small.
	I remember it being much smaller than I thought it was.
	Of course, I've been way off.
	I think even Thailand has some massive program.
	And again, I don't know what the vaccines they were rolling out there, but these are countries that really...
	I did the currency conversion, and they're paying out millions or billions, I think, in Thailand for vaccine injuries.
	So you have to look at other countries.
	The U.S. is terrible.
	The U.S., I don't think they're doing any whatsoever.
	So it's crazy the different standards in different jurisdictions, and then you deal with the different standards of causation.
	In my view, I would just automatically, anybody who has weird reaction within 14 days, boom.
	Let's just assume.
	Well, so 6 million and they have, it's not 100.
	I think you said they paid 300 to 5. So they've got people in the chat can do the math much quicker.
	That is 10, that is 50, that's about 60 times as many payouts for a population that is one-sixth that of Canada.
	I would just say shame on this federal government for pitching this program in December of 2020 on the basis that that was going to be there for people.
	Shame on them.
	I think I said that at the Windsor Bridge too.
	Shame on them for that because that's terrible.
	This is not like a theoretical thing.
	People actually have died.
	Again, not a lot, but whoever it is.
	If someone's injured because of a mandate...
	Just clarify, they set up the program for a reason.
	They set up the program for a reason and then they seemingly have kept it relatively quiet to fulfill their stated purpose of stepping up to get the backs of Canadians.
	Well, that's right.
	And they set it up for a reason and the reason is probably in that contract, okay?
	The contract that they have with Pfizer.
	So like, okay, freedom of information.
	Let's get the contract, okay?
	It's a good precedent.
	I'd like to see how it works.
	Well, they redacted the darn contract.
	Go look in June 2020.
	What was it?
	2021?
	When they finally disclosed that the government redacted 20 pages of, you know, un-illegible terms.
	Like, I think the comments of the, you know, the experts in this area who are looking at government disclosure, like, I've never seen this, like, this kind of redaction before.
	It's, like, useless.
	So, who redacted it?
	Why?
	And, you know, what's the process for now challenging the amount of redactions in that document?
	We have to go through Parliament now?
	Like, what parliamentary committee that's now corrupt by this government, this joint government of...
	Sing and Trudeau now that we can't even get an independent review.
	Anyhow, sorry.
	I don't mean to be a downer.
	Let me pull this up.
	There is a light at the end of the tunnel, okay?
	It's coming.
	Light at the end of the tunnel.
	I think they say stay away from the light at the end of the tunnel, Dan.
	Hold on.
	We're holding the light.
	We're holding the light.
	I think this article is going to cover it.
	Tell me that you can see this when it's up.
	Dan, you can see this?
	iPolitics?
	Thank you.
	Yes.
	Feds criticized for how they disclosed redacted vaccine contracts.
	Okay, I don't know if this is...
	Okay, yeah, go ahead.
	I'm just going to see if it's the right one.
	This is from June 2021.
	By sending redacted versions of Canada's COVID vaccine contracts directly...
	Oh, this might be the contracts, not the indemnification program.
	This is the contract with Pfizer, I believe, for the supply of all these vaccines, right?
	Okay, I'll find it.
	But that would answer potentially...
	Was there an injury support program required in this contract?
	We don't know.
	The timing is certainly suspicious.
	It's kind of like the vaccine injury itself.
	The timing usually is an indicator.
	Dan is married.
	Are you married, Dan?
	Yes, I am.
	All the freiheits are married.
	Oh, is it so hot in here?
	I'm glowing, and I'm getting red listening to you.
	Well, okay.
	I haven't even gotten to what I wanted to talk about.
	Okay, so we know about the system.
	You'll come back and, you know, you'll update us on your learning curve.
	They flooded in.
	Look, I don't think...
	And look, at the end of the day, and I've spoken to doctors, the vaccine, you know, very well have saved millions of lives.
	But you're putting...
	It's kind of like, what do you call it?
	What do you call people to war, right?
	The draft.
	It's like...
	Some people are going to have to be drafted to the slaughter and who it is and what their long-term consequences by forcing them to get, that we're asking you to step up.
	And that's kind of how a draft works.
	And so if you look at Canadian history, the draft in this country was a very politically dicey thing.
	So by requiring people to get vaccinated, be drafted.
	Is it his real brother?
	No mailman jokes.
	There's a family joke that Dan looks the least like everyone else, the family joke about the mailman, but we try to keep that joke in the family.
	Sorry.
	It's an interesting thing, but they set it up for a reason.
	At the time they set it up, it's like you could see how they spin it.
	It's so infinitesimal.
	It's so, you know, everything good.
	You'll never need to use it.
	One in a million, he said.
	It was one in a million.
	And then, two years down the line, it's not dead in the water.
	It's still there, but nobody's talking about it.
	Because what would it cost if people started filing, I don't want to say complaints, but claims?
	Well, that's it.
	The budget for this was also an issue.
	I don't think they clarified what the budget was going to be, which is good.
	They could just have a blank check.
	I see that as going two ways.
	But yeah.
	Okay, what's the other one you want to discuss that's going to get people more enraged?
	Did you tell me about it?
	Yeah, this is the whole safe and effective business, okay?
	Oh, your exchange in order to get clarification on what safe and effective means.
	All I want to do.
	Everyone says, you know, you need to make an informed decision.
	So I'm like, okay, safe and effective.
	All the schools are saying it's safe and effective.
	And they're not saying this in the name of Toronto Public Health.
	They are saying the vaccines are safe and effective.
	I would not tell that to anybody.
	It's for your doctor.
	There's no medical advice here.
	Go ask your doctor and listen to what your doctor says.
	And if your doctor says it...
	And then you say, okay, thanks.
	What does that mean and how is that determined?
	So, well, okay.
	So, first of all, yes.
	Why would anyone say that or say that to me?
	Because what they do is they host vaccine clinics.
	So, the school board says the vaccines are safe and effective.
	I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait.
	Where'd you get that from?
	They say, we're just repeating Toronto Public Health.
	I'm like, okay, well, you didn't say it in the name of Toronto Public Health.
	They're like, call Toronto Public Health.
	I call it Toronto Public Health.
	How do we say that the vaccines are safe and effective?
	So they send me to, SickKids has a Q&A hotline, which is great, that the provincial, or I thought it was the provincial government that was doing this, or I thought it was even the municipal, like Toronto, public health, right?
	But they send me to the SickKids, and they have a program there that answers any parents' questions, anyone resident in Canada who has questions about, what do you call it, What vaccine they're going to answer?
	And I thought it's great.
	And so speaking to a nurse practitioner there, you know, my questions got a bit pointed because I'm like, what does safe mean, for example?
	And so the answer to that is clinical trials.
	It's been proven safe in clinical trials.
	I'm like, well, hold on a second.
	I don't know the status of the clinical trials for the kids.
	I know for the adults, there had clinical trials.
	And there, I was told by the SickKids vaccine team that what they do is...
	In the clinical trials, they compare a trial group of adults with a control group.
	And there was a whole issue there, I recall.
	The British Medical Journal had an issue with the whistleblower saying that they unblinded the control group.
	So that way to measure safety is not reliable because the trial group and the control group were not really...
	You can't compare groups because they unblinded the study.
	So that's not really the good way to say that the vaccine is safe.
	So they escalated my question because it's a valid question.
	So the other way they measure safety is just by seeing how people react to the vaccine.
	So after four months of vaccinating kids, we think it's safe now because we have a record, especially in the United States.
	Who gave you this answer?
	So you keep going from one entity to the next.
	They say, oh, go ask them, go ask them.
	Who gives you this final answer?
	So this is the vaccine.
	They have nurse practitioners and doctors available at SickKids, which, like I say, it's a fantastic program.
	They're there to help you make an informed decision.
	And they're loyal to their oath as doctors and medical practitioners to explain everything.
	You just have to be respectful and open-minded, and they will talk, and you can talk, and I think it's great.
	What I didn't know is that it's funded by the federal government, which raised some flags to me because the federal government still has the mandates, whereas most provinces, I think, have dropped them.
	So that made me a bit concerned.
	I'm like, okay, well, funding aside, what do they make you...
	Sick kids still can discuss medical information on their own.
	Which is good.
	But what I didn't know also is that they do have a habit of repeating what NACI says.
	So in some respects, they parrot NACI's recommendations at the end of the day.
	And that's the federal advisory group on vaccine policy.
	So that's the next kind of agency that has to be examined.
	National Advisory Committee on Immunization.
	Yep.
	That's a very, very unfortunate acronym that they chose there.
	I know, right?
	You have to carefully pronounce that because the people at NACI...
	Hold on, hold on.
	Let me bring it up so that everyone gets the...
	Yeah, I did NACI, that coming.
	The National Advisory...
	And then we say statements and publications.
	Makes recommendations for the use of vaccines currently or newly approved for use in humans in Canada, including the identification of groups at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases for whom...
	Okay.
	So what I've learned is that the buck, everybody parroting, everybody else really parroting NACI is what I've kind of discovered with my conversation from the school to the Toronto Public Health to sick kids up to NACI.
	I'm still in discussions.
	I still want to understand what safe means because, again, then you have the other question.
	You know, different age groups is, different age groups, safe means different things.
	So for the 12 to 19-year-old boys, when you say it's safe for them, well, that's different because they're at risk of myocarditis, like 1 in 7,000 or something.
	When you say it's safe for that group, you just blanket safe and effective.
	But what about, okay, so for the 5 and 11s, it's safe, yes.
	There's been no myocarditis, I don't think, for 5 to 11. So yes, compared to that, 5 to 11 is safe compared to 12 to 19 boys.
	But you can't just say blanket across the board, safe and effective, and keep parroting that.
	And every agency is parroting it.
	And then if you question it, you're like, well, stay in your lane.
	You're not an expert.
	I'm like, okay, well, as a lawyer, we have an obligation to question the experts.
	And again, that's kind of where as a parent, I was like, some of the kids now can't do Frisbee.
	They can't do hockey because they can't show a passport.
	I'm like, But why?
	And they're like, because the vaccines are safe and effective, and Toronto Public Health is recommending them.
	Like, no, they're not.
	Did you ever call?
	I called Toronto Public Health, and I did the runaround, and that's what you're saying is not true.
	So, man, the battle continues.
	Where it's at now, so then there's the effect of part two, because like I said, Omicron.
	Not effective against Omicron.
	Well, you have the CEO of Pfizer making his own public statements that they then try to walk back and whatever.
	But no, it's an interesting thing where it's sort of like it's the way the news cycle works is you just have people parroting things and everybody says it, but then you try to get to the ultimate source and you find out, fine.
	It's the government.
	The issue then becomes freedom of choice and whatever, but that's for a different day.
	Go look at the NASI website.
	They will tell you that there's some disclaimers even in the NASI website.
	If you look it through carefully, can't get to it now, but yes, even they say.
	Anyhow, sorry I'd interrupt you.
	No, no, that's it.
	So that's it.
	I mean, it's interesting.
	This is what's keeping you busy these days.
	Yeah, in addition to all the corporate commercial work, which is, you know, we've got to plug on.
	People got to, you know, all this stuff's making everybody crazy, but we're trying to, you know, to do business too.
	So it's happening.
	It's busy and just, you know, got to think clearly and rationally.
	Just following some of the chat, but...
	What are they saying?
	Oh, you'll go read it afterwards.
	Some of it can't be repeated.
	Some of it can.
	Oh, well, no.
	You're getting some calls from some of the Ottawa stuff, but that now is sort of setting aside the lingering charges that are just going to come out of the blue after 30-plus days of examining social media posts.
	Did anything occur out of Windsor or Toronto itself?
	I'd like to go down to Toronto.
	I might head out to BC or to Calgary.
	I know there's a lot of action out there.
	Yeah, Windsor.
	I got a couple of calls after the arrest.
	I think they dropped one.
	Another one may still be going through the system.
	But you've got all the video footage.
	By the way, and that's really the value of a live stream.
	I don't think people appreciate this.
	And it came up with Project Veritas when they couldn't get their video.
	There was no reason to take their phones, right?
	But that's what they do when they arrest people is they take all their stuff.
	And so if you're taking videos of the event and they take your stuff, you lose the video for an indeterminate period of time.
	The value of your live streams, and to anybody live streaming is that, you know, you're recording stuff that is, you know, perfectly legal to record and to store it wherever you want.
	And if they then, it's harder to enforce, you know, to destroy evidence, let's say.
	No, it's a double-edged sword if you're live streaming yourself.
	Not that anybody would destroy it, but yes.
	No, if YouTube takes it down and then it's gone, it's in the ether.
	But it's a double-edged sword, live streaming.
	Your own lawful behavior versus live streaming your own potentially unlawful behavior or posting your own videos.
	They're out there forever, even if people try to take them down.
	I just think the live streaming of this event, similar to Rittenhouse, I think, but for the continual footage, people would be able to get away with a lot bigger lies, especially now that...
	The full force of the prosecution has come down on so many people.
	But for the video evidence that I think will be ultimately more exonerating than inculpating.
	No, exonerating than incriminating.
	It's out there.
	Whoever did anything inappropriate, you're right.
	Just look at the video.
	We'll see who did what.
	If that Hillier, what he did was what...
	I saw what you posted there.
	Do you have additional evidence to suggest that was the crime?
	I don't have additional evidence that there's any other video that's out there that possibly satisfies what was being described.
	And we'll see.
	Everybody knows there's full disclosure in a quasi-criminal proceeding.
	So they'll communicate all of their evidence.
	And if it's another video and Randy Hillier is intimidating or assaulting a police officer, we'll see.
	But the amazing thing is this was so well documented in real time.
	But for that, it would be a lot easier for people to get away with lies.
	The malicious prosecutors, if we want to call it that.
	That's where I'm hoping this will go for a lot of this.
	I think the truth will come out, you know, eventually with a lot of these live streams and, you know, just that a judge, jury, whatever it is, even Crown will see what they're actually dealing with.
	You know, a lot of the time, the Crown lawyers, by the way, because I dealt with a civil, what do you call it?
	A civil crown back in the day.
	And you've got to keep in mind, they have one client, right?
	And that client is the federal government.
	And so their ability to push back is challenged sometimes.
	So a lot of these crowned attorneys, they might not want to take on the file and they might want to argue and press the way that the government is telling them.
	And I spoke to once a lawyer about this.
	I'm like...
	He keeps talking about his client.
	You're confused me.
	Your client is the government, the federal government.
	He's like, yes.
	I'm like, okay, well, sometimes you've got to push back on your client.
	If they're doing something that is illegal, you've got to tell the client that.
	And the government's a very unique character in that regard, right?
	Because when you push back against someone who can make the law or change the law, it's a real challenge for a crown attorney.
	You know, I tried to join.
	I'm trying to get this discussion going among the Crown Attorneys in Canada.
	Like, you guys gotta, you know, don't be scared, man.
	Join together.
	But they won't let me into their circle because I think the Association of Crown Attorneys is very, you know.
	Exclusive.
	You would not want to be a member of a club.
	Period.
	I was going to say that would have you as a member, but I was going to try to make a joke about it.
	Your contact info, Dan, in as much as you're going to get bombarded because people are going to have questions.
	Yeah, just a disclaimer.
	I don't know if I can get to everything, but who I want to hear from, really.
	I need to hear from doctors, man.
	Doctors that are independent thinkers that don't feel that...
	So lionlawatprotonmail.com is more secure, but basically doctors who...
	Need to communicate injuries to their, you know, how the program works to their patients.
	I think most general, like, family doctors are aware of the program.
	I was shocked that some of the more senior specialists were not aware of the program.
	But I want to hear from those doctors and people who have been injured.
	I would like to process more of those.
	I just, I know people attribute any injury, however remote, to the vaccine, like, you know.
	The Foo Fighters drummer, you know, dying.
	And it's the reflex now is because it's on everybody's mind and everyone's going to be looking to make that connection.
	You know, even if there might be more, at least apparently from toxicology reports, more...
	Plausible explanations for some people.
	So my quick and dirty answer to that is anyone who's within 14 days, because that's the general rule of thumb that the government had used for right after your vaccine.
	So anyone who had it documented, because you would have had to have documented any injury post-vaccine, has a documented injury within 14 days, I think is a good case right off the cuff.
	And then the second criteria is that it has to be serious.
	It has to be resulted in hospitalization of some sort.
	It can't just be, you know, I had a sore arm and needed to take a nap type thing.
	Right.
	So anyway, it's been hospitalized and within 14 days, right off the cuff.
	And then you get into the, okay, what are the damages?
	So a lot of the damages are unknown at this point, right?
	And even what's going to be the evidentiary process once you submit a claim?
	As to how they're going to assess it, is it going to operate similarly to the VAERS program in the United States?
	Well, they'll investigate and say, look, we can't draw a connection, therefore claim denied.
	It's interesting.
	I'd love to hear the evolution as your claims make their way through the process.
	We'll keep you posted.
	That'll be our next.
	Again, I work in association with personal injury lawyers who know to a T, they can tell you exactly what an injury is worth.
	And they're great advisors in this regard.
	So we'll know very quickly, does it make sense to pursue it or not?
	That's it.
	I'm going to bring this one up here.
	I just saw one.
	Hold on one second.
	It's so cathartic talking to you, by the way.
	It's like, you know, you could just...
	These channels, it's like you could just talk about it, right?
	No, and I'm leaving it up.
	I just want to hear...
	I'm not going to read these.
	I just want to bring up a few.
	Right.
	How can the government use leave without pay to force...
	Oh, so how can the government use leave without pay?
	Well, they're not forcing anyone to do anything.
	Okay.
	Honestly, I just looked at this yesterday.
	Leave without pay.
	Right.
	So here's the question.
	How long can the average person survive without an income?
	Okay?
	Go look for a job.
	Go find other work.
	How long will it take you to find a job?
	It shouldn't take you long, right?
	Depending on your skills.
	That's what the government's banking on.
	That's why the Treasury Board is involved in vaccine mandates now.
	Well, most people can find jobs pretty quickly now, right?
	Unless every employer has a vaccine mandate, making it impossible to get a job unless you're vaxxed.
	They shouldn't.
	I can't believe, I mean, the stories I've been hearing, And Dan, I mean, I still get notifications on, is it LinkedIn job notifications?
	I, for some reason, haven't turned it off in the last 10 years.
	Every single job application takes the ballsy step of saying it's needed.
	How dare anybody, anywhere, ever think it's within their rights to ask me that question?
	Remote workers, you need to be vaccinated.
	Just the remote, staring at the screen, it's just too dangerous.
	You never know some strains of the vaccine.
	You get called into the office and you have to show up and then it's like, my goodness, forget a test.
	That takes too long.
	It's an emergency to come in and fix the whatever.
	We got a case like that, right?
	The guy was working successfully.
	I don't want to get into names.
	I have authority to discuss this case publicly, but the company, you know, this is the non-judicial remedy that's going to have to happen, meaning...
	I think whether people want to boycott or, you know, do some other social justice, you know, outreach.
	But this guy was working remotely for two years.
	Perfect.
	Like, amazing results for the company.
	Come January, hey, get into the office now, get the job.
	But I was working remotely for two years, and it was, like, amazing.
	And I don't want to get the job.
	Like, sorry, you're done.
	No notice.
	Good luck.
	No reasonable accommodation, which they had been living with and under for the last two years.
	You didn't pass the religious audit, the religious trial.
	We've determined that your claim is not justified.
	You don't qualify for any of the medical exemptions that had previously been issued.
	Pure tyranny.
	I can't call it that.
	It doesn't make sense.
	And we're not coming out of this madness.
	We're only getting further into it to the point where you have Justin Trudeau, however many times vaxxed, recently recovered from COVID, sitting with another guy wearing face masks.
	And by the way, to bring that picture up again, Trudeau's not even wearing it properly.
	I don't believe it's a proper mask.
	And I see his nostrils again.
	If we want to get technical.
	All right, man.
	That's cool.
	I'm going to stick.
	I forgot to cover one story, the Disney story.
	I'm going to cover that.
	Dan, ordinarily I would end it and we'll say our proper goodbyes, but you and I talk multiple times a day.
	We do.
	And we shall.
	Dan, let me know what's going on.
	Do you have a public Twitter handle?
	I do.
	It's not active yet.
	I'm going to try to get my Lion Law PC Professional Corporation YouTube channel up and going so I can get 1,000 subs because I want to be able to stream live.
	I know someone who can help you with that.
	Oh yeah, okay.
	Maybe I'll put a link to that on my website or whatever.
	Okay, awesome.
	I appreciate this.
	You'll come back and you'll give us the updates on what you can give us updates on and follow up on that reporting.
	Awesome.
	I'll call you afterwards.
	Everyone in the chat, one more story before we go.
	Remove my brother.
	One more story I almost forgot, but it was talking about asking you questions.
	That no one has any business or right to ask you.
	I still see my brother on the back screen watching me.
	Alright, this is the Disney.
	I'm not going to get into the don't say bill.
	I discussed Ron Perlman's deranged response yesterday to Governor Ron DeSantis.
	I didn't know that it was not Ron Perlman's only deranged response.
	I went into his Twitter feed.
	of deranged responses to a variety of politicians.
	The one to Tom Cotton, if you can believe it, was even worse than his Twitter video to Ron DeSantis.
	Not going to get into that guy again.
	I think he's gotten as much attention as he deserves.
	He was in Fox News, wrote an article about his unhinged, deranged response in which he referred to Ron DeSantis as an effing Yahtzee and an effing pig.
	Okay.
	But Disney today, Tim Kass put out a story about this, and it's funny, when the news hits, the people who are paying attention see it.
	I have only one commentary on this.
	Disney executive who is the mother of a transgender and pansexual child.
	First of all, her kids are between the ages of, I looked this up, 14 and 25. I was thrown off by child because that sort of suggests maybe that the kids are not of an age where they can make certain decisions for themselves.
	Her children are between the ages of 14 and 25, and she has five of them, according to the interwebs.
	Says she wants at least half of all future characters to be LGBTQIA, or racial minorities.
	Theme parks are now banned from saying, hello, boys and girls.
	And this is in response to Governor Ron DeSantis' bill.
	This was a video, by the way, that was...
	I won't play the whole thing.
	Is this it?
	I'm here as a mother of two queer children, actually.
	One transgender child and one pansexual child and also as a leader.
	And that was the thing that really got me because I have heard so much from so many of my colleagues over the course of the last couple weeks in open forums and through emails and phone conversations.
	I feel a responsibility to speak, not just for myself, but for them, to all of us.
	All right.
	I think we've had enough of that.
	Now, just to highlight a bit of the absurdity of the story, is that...
	Carrie Burke said at an all-hands meeting that she spoke as a mother, we heard that, her comments came after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signing the Don't Say Gay bill into law.
	Nowhere in the bill does it say Don't Say Gay, and the bill itself is not even specifically targeting homosexuals or any, it targets all discussion of sexual orientation, including heterosexuality, for kindergartners to grade three.
	But I talked about that yesterday.
	I won't get back into it.
	But it's this.
	I want to get to the part.
	A Disney executive in charge of content vowed to up the ante on gender politics during an all-hands meeting, promising that at least half of the characters in its productions will be LGBTQIA or from racial minorities by the end of the year.
	I'll cut the article.
	That's all I really want to get to on that.
	I mean, people should understand, or at the very least appreciate, how is that going to be implemented?
	You know, I was thinking, analogizing it to the jab, you're applying for a job, and someone starts asking you questions that in ordinary sane times, nobody would ever have the right to ask you.
	Have you had your flu shot?
	Have you had your tetanus shot?
	We have to compare it with communicable viruses, so the flu would be one.
	A condition of employment, it was never, except for certain specific fields, for certain logical, connected reasons.
	The idea that they get to ask you this question now, and that people think other people's medical status is their business, it's unique.
	But you have this Disney exec, whomever she is, saying that we're now going to make sure that at least 50% of cast members are LGBTQIA and racial minorities.
	What does that mean exactly?
	Does that mean that they're going to ask someone their sexual orientation or gender identification in an interview?
	Does that mean people are going to elect that information, and if they elect that information, they're going to get preferential treatment over people who don't?
	If that's the case, what's going to prevent people from electing that information just to be considered fairly when applying for a job, when applying for a position?
	And if people are going to start doing it potentially solely to be considered for certain positions, what's next?
	Are they going to start testing?
	Are they going to start asking for evidence of one's sexual orientation, one's gender identity?
	Are they going to ask for physical proof?
	Are they going to ask for real-time proof?
	And the irony in all of this is that from the very beginning, on the one side of the political spectrum, Republicans or people who support the Florida bill, which has nothing to do with not saying gay, they're passing it off as an anti-grooming bill.
	And they're saying, you don't indoctrinate kindergartners to grade three on issues of sexual orientation, sexuality, period.
	Heterosexual or other.
	You don't do it, period, because they're kids, it's inappropriate, and it's for their parents to do.
	One side is calling it an anti-grooming bill, while the other side is branding it as a don't say gay bill.
	And one side is saying, what do you guys have against gays?
	And the other side is saying, what do you guys have against not grooming children?
	Well, this actually now is pushing the discussion.
	Because if you're going to do what this Disney exec is announcing that she's going to do, which is ensure that 50% of the people...
	Racial, ethnic minorities, I mean, I guess you can see that with your own eyes.
	You can identify that more easily.
	But sexual orientation and gender identity, you're going to ask people that?
	Or they're going to elect that information, knowing that if they elect that information, they're going to get preferential consideration for positions?
	And then if that's the case, there's going to be an incentive to maybe exaggerate, maybe lie about it, so that you can just get considered equally for a position?
	And then what's next?
	Do you have to make proof of your sexual orientation or gender identity?
	Because if you do, and it's a very logical sequence of events to imagine, how do I really know that you're trans?
	How do I really know that you're gay, homosexual, bi, two-spirit?
	How do I really know?
	Show me.
	Prove it.
	Because you're getting there.
	You're getting there by simple deduction as to what is going to happen if people start to do the things that they're announcing that they're doing.
	And if Disney wants to implement this and go down that path, well, then it starts to look a lot like exactly what DeSantis is doing with that bill, which is to prevent grooming of any kind.
	You're saying, prove to me that you're trans.
	How do you do that?
	Prove to me that you're gay, that you're bisexual, that you're...
	Prove to me.
	How do you do that?
	Hollywood is a degenerate industry in the first place.
	So anybody who thinks...
	That this suggestion, this realistic concern for where this goes, if they start implementing these invasive, highly personal policies, I'm not exaggerating.
	I don't think I'm being hyperbolic.
	I think I'm actually being very realistic and illustrating exactly why these discussions are private, personal discussions.
	They're not business considerations or hiring qualifications.
	They should not be one way or the other.
	You shouldn't be given a job because.
	You should not be denied a job because.
	But now they're going to say, we're going to insist that a certain amount be of this way, which means that we're going to ask.
	We're going to expect honest answers.
	You're going to incentivize dishonest answers.
	And you're going to basically make necessary proof, verification, and with all of that.
	That's it.
	That is it.
	Let's end it on that, people.
	Tonight we have George Gammon coming on at 7 o 'clock.
	Tomorrow, 12.30, Dr. Harvey Risch, who, very funny how life comes full circle.
	Back in 2020, when I was having a heated debate with a friend of mine, who may no longer consider me to be his friend, and I was discussing issues.
	I was discussing how there are very intelligent people out there who are asking certain questions.
	And one of the articles I sent to this individual at the time was, I think it was Newsweek or Newsmax, an article by Dr. Harvey Risch.
	And the debate at the time was that this doctor, this epidemiologist, who is a professor at Yale, credentials up the wazoo.
	He's forgotten more than most people have ever known.
	Oh, his Yale brethren signed a letter denouncing his article.
	The dean of Yale supported his right to free speech, but this Dr. Harvey Reich got, I won't say reprimanded, but castigated, I think, from his field, from his brethren.
	He's coming on tomorrow.
	And when we made the arrangement, I was like, oh God, I remember that.
	I go back to some messages two years ago, and I was fighting and citing.
	Dr. Harvey Risch at the time.
	So he's coming on tomorrow at 12.30 and it's going to be a hard out at 2 o 'clock.
	So I might go live 15 minutes early just to let everyone trickle in because I did say 1 o 'clock.
	It's going to be 12.30.
	I'm going to create that link after tonight's stream.
	Tonight's stream, George Gammon is going to be amazing with Barnes.
	So that is it.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you as always.
	Thank you for being here.
	Keep your comments peaceful, people.
	And I say that...
	Without reservation, anybody who's been here long enough knows that to the point where I might say that anybody who makes a deliberately nasty or comment that I have issue with is doing it not to make a point, but is doing it to sabotage or an attempt to sabotage.
	And I'm going to operate on that basis because I know the crowd.
	I know the chat.
	I know the avatars.
	I know Ponton21 has been around for a long time.
	Don't even need to look at that.
	I know his comment is not going to be one that a reasonable person would think could get me into trouble.
	And everyone knows my take on violence.
	And it's, although some people criticize me for it, unequivocally, never, unless it's absolutely in self-defense.
	You're somewhat over the target.
	What has to happen is the broken collation of lifestyles has to define boundaries to membership to weed out the posers.
	So that's it.
	People, see you in...
	Four hours and 55 minutes.
	Thank you all.

▲