Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 6, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:59:15

More Government Corruption; Another Project Win; Elon Musk Director of Twitter - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, Let's remove this.
	I'm going to remove it because I think it's going to depress too many people to continue watching.
	I'm going to get into that in a second.
	Pulling at my hair here.
	I have been told and now I recognize that when I come into the streams, there's a pop on the mic.
	It's very loud.
	I have consulted with my tech guru, Eric Hunley, who said, turn the mic 45 degrees and lower the gain.
	So people.
	Is this better?
	Give me a one if this is better and a two if it's not.
	Before I go in and explain how depressing is this, let's add it back and let's just watch it one more time.
	Other than the Muzak in the background, which itself is depressing, you got the most powerful person on earth in theory.
	And everyone is flocking around the former most powerful person on earth.
	And Joe in the back is like, hey, hey, hey, can I get some?
	You got to give Obama credit for one thing.
	He has maintained an energetic look in his eyes despite the world, despite what it means to be president, despite the pressure that goes along with being president.
	I always say the eyes are the window to the soul.
	It's not my expression.
	But you can tell when people are tired of doing what they're doing when they have this, I won't say dead-ish look in their eyes.
	The eyes do not look like they want to be there.
	And I always say this.
	If my eyes ever project that air of fatigue, that air of, you know, that air of lack of excitement to be doing what I'm doing, I want people to tell me.
	You can work on it.
	It's a skill.
	You'll notice good actors, good actresses.
	They do this thing.
	If you raise your eyebrows, you can look energized.
	You can look authentic.
	But then some people can't do it.
	And some people become unable to do it because they just become so darn cynical, depressed, and fatigued with what they're doing.
	They just don't want to be doing it anymore.
	And they just can't even bring themselves to pretend that they want to be doing it anymore.
	But Obama, to his credit, I think he hems and haws too much when he speaks, certainly when he goes off teleprompter, but he speaks well.
	But he has maintained that it's either authentic or well-rehearsed look of energy in his eyes, and it engages other people.
	And then you can watch other people who don't exude that energy from their eyes, and they don't exude that same energy.
	Audio looked good.
	Okay, good.
	I didn't see any twos.
	It's going to be fun today.
	And again, it's one of those days.
	It's one of those days.
	Never, sir.
	You want to know what happens if I comb my hair?
	It becomes even worse.
	There's just some funny parts.
	And my wife, Marion, I have it on video.
	Admitted yesterday she was wrong.
	I was right.
	The hair is still growing.
	It will grow until I can put it in a ponytail and then it'll be manageable.
	I'm close to a samurai bun.
	I could put the headphones on and be like, you know, the hip, middle-aged...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Middle-aged crisis dad.
	I might do that soon.
	Now, I'm just going to do one thing.
	We've been streaming for four minutes, having so much a set of peep of anything remotely potentially controversial.
	Going to refresh and see if we're still green.
	We're still green.
	Okay, good.
	Maybe the problem has been resolved.
	Yesterday's stream, for anybody who is concerned, it gets re-monetized right afterwards, after manual review.
	But I think I know it's happening, and I think we're going to try to look into it.
	Okay.
	Don't get a job, but get a haircut.
	No, no, no.
	This has become an iconic branding.
	It's very funny.
	Everything's, you know, funny accidents in life.
	Okay.
	On the menu for today.
	First of all, we have a live stream tonight.
	The sidebar.
	And it's going to be another good one.
	Let me just get Richard Hanania on tonight.
	Haven't created the link yet because I can't set up two live streams at the same time.
	And tomorrow, Brian Peckford.
	The Honorable Brian Peckford.
	So, back to back to back, amazing stuff.
	Someone in yesterday's chat or comment said, I don't...
	I move the mic way too often for no good reason.
	Correct.
	It's a nervous habit.
	It is to keep energy.
	It's to keep flow and not just to be sitting here with my hands on my lap talking like this.
	We've got Project Veritas has a great judgment.
	And I mean, this would have been a classic perfect car vlog.
	You know, I could do the quick editing, Philip DeFranco, 10-minute thing, breaking it down.
	I might still do that.
	But then I'd spend the whole day doing that.
	Wouldn't be able to get to the fact that Elon Musk has now been appointed to the board of directors of Twitter.
	And I'm going to explain what that means, at the very least, very superficially, but it's just very interesting, very encouraging, and awesome news.
	The other story, a study, what's it called?
	An investigation coming out of Quebec, revealing it's no longer incompetence, it's corruption.
	Revealing what authorities knew in the early stages of the pandemic.
	What the people making the decisions knew at the beginning of the pandemic, what they failed to respond to, what they failed to disclose, and I'm going to go on and on and then off on this article when we get there.
	One other interesting thing.
	I forget what it was, but good and interesting stuff today.
	Now, standard disclaimers, no legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	YouTube Super Chats, YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that, we're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%, so you feel better for the creator, feel better supporting a company you might appreciate.
	And let me just make sure that everything before we go is good.
	We're good.
	For everybody who wants to watch there, let me just close this up.
	I saw a super chat on that subject, and let's just see what it says here.
	Grow your hair while it's still legal.
	Soon we will have to have haircuts like Castro.
	Well, he did have facial hair at one point.
	He did have long flowing hair.
	It was beautiful.
	It was the source of distraction.
	He actually changed his image, his branding.
	In his second re-election, where he went from clean-cut shaven to growing the hair with that well-manicured facial hair, which always makes me a little uncomfortable.
	When hair is too manicured, like a well-kept lawn, I prefer the wild lawns for obvious reasons.
	But getting back to the opening, by the way, I'm not going to share the video again.
	I'm just going to go back to my comment.
	Because I had a thought, like, we haven't discussed something in a little while.
	Let me just bring this down, bring this up.
	If Hunter was able to leverage Joe's influence as VP, I wonder how much it would have been worth as president.
	Too bad there's too much media scrutiny for Hunter to fully exploit the current situation.
	At least it gives him some protection because he may not be able to leverage his influence for financial gain, but he can certainly now leverage his connections to avoid...
	To avoid potential prosecution.
	Until the media decides that that's over too.
	Because at one point, and I think that point might be coming very soon based on the turning of the tide, it may become politically expedient and it may become economically advantageous to do what the media should have done about the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020.
	Back then, it was politically and economically expedient to stifle the story, to write it off as Russia misinformation.
	Coming soon, it might be very politically expedient to exploit it and investigate it and prosecute it the way it should have been done in 2020.
	It might become from a media perspective.
	I was thinking of that.
	You know, Joe Biden's paintings are not selling for a half a million dollars anymore.
	Something about the world knowing about the laundering, the alleged laundering, the artistic...
	Alleged money laundering that makes it harder to do.
	Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant.
	Once people know that Hunter Biden's...
	I didn't find the piece of work to be all that bad, actually.
	Once people find out that that's going on, however, it makes it very difficult to continue to carry on with conduct that anyone with half a brain, half a functional brain that is not tainted by politics, politics ruins everything, would find offensive.
	So once that story broke, you know, The leverage goes down.
	The ability to buy off people goes down because it's public.
	Has anyone ever wondered what happened to the Clinton Foundation?
	It was just the thought that I had while thinking about this.
	Whatever happened to the Clinton Foundation?
	I just Googled it just to see.
	And, you know, it's one thing to know that the donations have plummeted year over year, 2022 to 2021.
	But then I found something that was just outrageously shocking.
	I mean, this is not even...
	And it's in Axios, by the way.
	So, you know, not some...
	I don't think Axios is right-wing.
	Not some theory website.
	This is like...
	I believe Axios is actually mainstream lefty news.
	If I'm not mistaken, one of the journalists at Axios was fired or hired or notwithstanding some very offensive tweets from the past.
	If I'm not mistaken, but that's not the object of this.
	Listen to this, peeps.
	I'm looking at a chat.
	North Paul says the Clinton Foundation is back up and running now.
	Funny how that happens.
	Well, it is, but look at this.
	Clinton Foundation donations plummet 75%.
	This is from an article.
	Where's the article?
	November 30, 2021.
	But it's not going to be the plummeting 75% year over year that's going to be shocking.
	Just wait until you see this.
	Donations to the Clinton Foundation plummeted to $16 million last year.
	That's 2020.
	Down nearly 75% from the organization's peak when former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was running for president.
	It's so interesting.
	I'm going to throw a pen, but I need this to keep notes.
	It's so fascinating that the donations to this charitable organization, the Clinton Foundation, which is out for world good.
	We'll double check what their mission statement is.
	Apparently people are only interested in it when Clinton is running for president.
	Why might that be?
	Who knows?
	Why it matters.
	The foundation was a financial juggernaut in the years after Bill Clinton served as president.
	And while his wife led her own political career, in the time since, COVID-19 shuttered the sort of public events that had driven millions to the go.
	Oh yeah, it was COVID.
	It was COVID.
	Nothing to do with Hillary losing the election and it plummeting 75%.
	It was COVID, which occurred in 2020.
	That explains nothing of what happened since 2016, but whatever.
	So even in their exposure, the fake news is going to fake spin.
	Although Clinton loyalists expect increased donations this year, while contributions have declined since Hillary Clinton's failed run in 2016, the foundation has built up a substantial endowment, which increased during the pandemic's equity boom.
	Okay, listen to this, forget this.
	By the numbers, the foundation received $16.3 million in contributions in 2020.
	16.3 in 2020.
	That was down from 20, let's just say 30 million the year before, so it's down half year over year, three years after she ran for office, pre-pandemic.
	Oh no, sorry, that 2020 would have been, I guess, I guess it would have been pandemic.
	Doesn't really matter.
	Some large donors of prior years continued giving in 2020, including the government of Norway, the Walton family, founders of Walmart, longtime Clinton supporters, Chaim and Cheryl Saban, according to disclosures.
	It also reported $11.6 million in capital gains and substantial investments.
	Okay, that's good for them.
	At least somebody's making money while the rest of the world burns.
	Or I should say the rest of middle America and middle Canada, working group people, working class people.
	But this is where it's just shocking.
	That was one of the $15 million it drew down from its endowment, which grew by more than $30 million per year in 2019 and 2020 and 2019.
	Fine.
	Where was the shocking statistic?
	Where was the shocking statistic?
	Hold on, people.
	What's my problem here?
	2016.
	When was the...
	Where was the...
	Oh, yeah, here we go.
	Sorry.
	By the numbers, the foundation received 16.3 million in 2020.
	The peak was $63 million when she ran for office.
	I'm looking at some of the chats.
	How much do they pay themselves?
	Who do they contract with?
	Who do they use to hold these fundraising events?
	It is down from $63 million the year she was running for president.
	And I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
	You would have to be a theorist.
	And I'm going to take back that word.
	We're just going to call them theorists now.
	You'd have to be a theorist.
	To think that there's something peculiar about it reaching its all-time high the year she was running for president and then plummeting 75% since.
	You'd have to be a theorist to think that the people donating to the organization of someone who might very well become the next president might expect something in return.
	That old quid pro quo that doesn't exist, that old...
	It's a gift, and I expect nothing in return.
	Unless, you know, I expect nothing in return if you should ever get elected president.
	And then if I were to get a favor, if I were to get preferential treatment, it would have nothing to do with the massive amounts I contributed to your foundation.
	It would just be because I deserve it.
	You know, like, oh, a hypothetical Aga Khan Foundation giving all-inclusive paid trips to Justin Trudeau, who's in government the year that the federal government grants tens of millions of dollars to the Aga Khan Foundation.
	Alec Baldwin gives a $5,000 donation and then thinks that he gets to control or condemn social media posts of the recipient of his donation.
	It is only a child and an irresponsible adult who thinks that there's such thing as a free lunch.
	There are no free gifts, really, and you know very quickly the people who give gifts, bona fide gifts with no expectation in return.
	But go look, by the way, because you can look this up.
	At the review, the rating, I think it's Charity Navigator, and as much as you can trust it, we'll give you the breakdown as to how much of an organization's funds go to the actual cause, how much go to fundraisers, how much go to administration, and then even within what goes to the funds, how does it get there?
	Who gets the contracts?
	Who charges a premium on these contracts?
	You know, in Quebec, who got the contract for the government-mandated mask?
	Who got that contract?
	Who gets the contract for the advertisements for COVID awareness that the government doles out?
	It's nice that it comes out of a charitable organization, but I'll tell you what, one of my earlier in my career experiences with charitable organizations left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth because people were living a life that people who are CEOs, presidents of charitable organizations, you question why they're living At those means, given the stated objectives of the charities which they run.
	So, yeah, that is, I was just thinking of this whole cycle.
	Hunter Biden probably will not be selling any artwork for half a million dollars anymore.
	And then you look at Joe Biden, who now is politically unpopular, on the outs, walking around like a dawdling, you know, lost soul.
	And Obama, who probably has more political influence than Joe Biden.
	To some extent.
	He's the one people want to be shaking hands with.
	So, I mean, that's it.
	Hey, whatever happened to the Clinton Foundation?
	Set aside whatever they did in Haiti, whatever they did or did not do with the funds that they had raised off that crisis.
	Setting aside all that, whatever happened?
	What happened?
	It went from $63 million when Hillary was running for office to $16 million now.
	Yep.
	And people don't think that there was, what do they call it?
	Pay to play?
	Anybody who doesn't think that that is hard evidence of pay to play works at CNN.
	I would tweet that out to Brian Stetler, but you blocked me on Twitter.
	Okay.
	So anyways, that was the intro of that story.
	I thought it was curious.
	I thought it was interesting.
	But let's, you know, while we're on the topic of offensive Corruption.
	I've got to bring this study up because people aren't going to hear about it.
	I luckily only...
	I saw a headline in a printed newspaper called the Montreal Gazette.
	If I hadn't seen it, it was called...
	Let me see what it was called.
	Judge dismisses...
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Where is the article?
	Judge dismisses...
	Oh, here we go.
	There was some commission that I wasn't aware of, you know, the government investigating its own incompetence, or independent third parties investigating government corruption and government incompetence.
	I've been talking about it from the beginning, or at least from the beginning when I became aware of it, where I was getting calls as an attorney, or I was getting calls from people saying, I need representation.
	On the one hand, I can't access my loved one who's at a long-term healthcare facility.
	On the other hand, these facilities are ill-equipped.
	Understaffed.
	Can't deal with this crisis.
	People are suffering.
	People are passing away.
	I talked at length about the study of...
	What did the government conclude?
	That one in three deaths that occurred at long-term healthcare facilities were not RONA-induced.
	They actually were neglect, dehydration.
	Just imagine that.
	And that's assuming that that number is...
	Accurate.
	And I suspect if I were a betting man, which I sometimes am, that's a gross underestimation.
	And I don't think that they were making the distinction at the time.
	One in three.
	For every two elderly people who succumb to COVID in long-term healthcare facilities, one in three succumb because of neglect, dehydration, malnourishment, lack of care.
	Let that sink in.
	At the time, by the way, and you all know this if you've been watching.
	Justin Trudeau was donating 16 tons of PPE, personal protective equipment, to China in February 2020.
	And then come March, April, May, when everybody knew what was here and many people knew what was coming, I'm getting calls because friends, family, strangers are calling me crying because their loved one is at a long-term healthcare facility where they don't have face masks.
	They don't have gloves.
	They didn't have the PPE that they needed.
	Because our benevolent government donated our PPE, leaving us high and dry.
	And then, when the numbers were skyrocketing, and they weren't distinguishing between neglect deaths and COVID deaths, and they weren't distinguishing between long-term healthcare facility deaths and the general population at large, they weren't distinguishing between demographics of age, you know, pre-existing comorbidities, they used that number to justify shredding and desecrating our Charter of Rights and our rights as citizens, locked us in our homes.
	Isolated us from friends and family, shut down schools, shut down businesses.
	They exploited the number that they exacerbated to justify their unconstitutional hammer on Canadian society.
	Well, then I sort of gotten ahead of myself in terms of getting to the conclusion, but let's just read this, because this is the latest study, now coming out of Quebec.
	See, it's coming out of Quebec, but if anybody thinks that this is unique to Quebec, you're wrong.
	And I don't think anybody thinks that, by the way.
	I don't think there's anybody who could be so naive to think that this is unique to Quebec.
	This right here, the study, now what was it called?
	The Hunt?
	It was called the Heron.
	The Heron.
	I think it's called the Heron Inquiry because that's the long-term care facility where this occurred.
	This occurred in Ontario.
	This occurred across Canada.
	This occurred in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York.
	We're not yet certain if what occurred in Canada is quite as egregious as what occurred in Cuomo's New York, Quitmers, Michigan, Wolfs, Pennsylvania, where they were sending COVID-positive patients back to long-term healthcare facilities, making it unlawful, compelling those facilities to take back those COVID-positive patients.
	And then, in Cuomo's case at least, immunizing long-term healthcare facilities from the consequences of this practice.
	I think they talked about doing that in Ontario as well, under Doug Ford.
	I think they talked about immunizing long-term healthcare facility executives.
	So I don't know if what happened in Quebec and Canada is quite as bad as what happened in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York.
	I think there's a few other states.
	But this is not unique to Quebec.
	This is just now, we had the military investigating Canada, and now we have a similar conclusion coming out of Quebec.
	And let's just read it.
	COVID-19 emails reveal Quebec ministers knew about Heron care home tragedy.
	Okay.
	By the way, incompetence turns into negligence.
	It turns into potentially criminal wrongdoing with knowledge.
	Criminal law, you have the actus reus, which is the act that is criminal, and the mens rea, which is the intention to have committed the criminal act.
	Not the intention to have broken the law, just the intention to have committed the act, which is itself illegal.
	You may not know that the act is illegal, but if you have the intention to commit it, and you in fact commit it, That you've got actus reus and mens rea, and therefore you've got criminal culpability.
	At large, 30,000 foot overview.
	Let's just go to the article.
	An email tabled at an inquest into pandemic deaths reveals Quebec cabinet ministers knew about the dire situation at the Heron long-term care home at least 10 days earlier than they had previously acknowledged.
	47 residents of the Montreal area private care home died during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
	Oh, by the way, and let's just see, 47 died.
	How many from COVID?
	Because I do think they mentioned it.
	Leading to several investigations, including one by the coroner's office.
	March 29. March.
	They locked us down.
	and I believe it was March 20. I believe it was two weeks to flatten the curve started March 20, 2020.
	First reported this week by Radio Canada is labeled urgent and warns the Chief of Staff to Seniors Minister Marguerite Blais that there were, quote, almost no more staff to care for Heron's 154 residents.
	And by the way, understaffed, and what they were doing at the time, they were circulating the understaffed staffers from one home to another, and the infected staffers were transmitting the virus from one home to the other.
	But let's just keep going.
	while the health minister at the time, Daniel McCann, received a briefing on the situation the next day.
	However, both Bley and McCann have stated publicly that they only learned about conditions at the Heron Care for Home from reading a news article on April 10, 2020.
	Premier Francois Legault told reporters Tuesday his government was reassured by the March 29, 2020 email because it stated that the local health authority was taking charge of the troubled long-term care.
	This is Orwellian.
	They're reassured now.
	We now know that our ministers at the time knew of something that they didn't disclose, and when it became clear that they knew of something, they then apparently forgot that they knew when they apparently now have evidence that they knew.
	Liberal opposition leader Dominique Anglade on Tuesday demanded the resignation of McHad.
	Oh, he still works.
	Nice.
	He probably never missed a paycheck.
	Kill one person, you're a murderer.
	Kill hundreds, thousands, it's a statistic, and you're a politician.
	Who is now the minister of higher education and bleh accusing them of lying to the public.
	I saw, I think the article in the Gazette was actually a little more, was a little more, um, Not lofty, but longer.
	Had more details.
	Just, you know, okay.
	So they knew.
	So they knew on March 29. So they knew that there was an outbreak.
	They were understaffed.
	Elderly people in long-term healthcare facilities were vulnerable, not just to the virus, but to the neglect as well.
	They were dying from both, but lumping them all together as COVID deaths.
	And why?
	What did they do with these increase in deaths?
	What did they do with this number that we now know results from their...
	Negligence, incompetence, corruption.
	What did they do with this number?
	They then take that number and say, look at all of the devastation.
	Lock everyone down.
	Look at how many people are becoming victims of our incompetence and neglect.
	There's a problem and we have to solve it now.
	There's a problem that we've created.
	We're going to lie about or...
	We're going to conceal the actual cause of the problem.
	We're going to lie and conceal about our knowledge of the problem.
	And then we're going to come to you, citizens, and say, we know the solution.
	We are the solution.
	And we're going to take away your rights to compensate for our incompetence, corruption, and knowledge of it.
	I mean, it's beyond shocking.
	And people just don't know about it.
	They just don't care.
	And at a certain point in time, people have a short memory span.
	And because people don't want to realize that they have been lied to, exploited, stolen from, spiritually, economically, constitutionally, because they don't want to admit that they were duped and that the government exploited them in their ignorance, they have to have an even shorter memory.
	So that they're like, okay, well, what can we do about it now?
	Just to quote Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make now?
	Let's go on with the government.
	Continuing to think that they should be in a position to be telling us what to do with our lives, that they know the answers to the problems that they're causing.
	And that they're not telling us that they're causing the problems until it becomes undeniable because people actually investigate.
	People actually look into it.
	And then they have to admit, okay, he knew.
	Slap on the wrist.
	Still minister of higher education.
	Didn't miss a paycheck.
	Probably vacationed.
	You know.
	St. Bart's Island, like that guy from Ontario.
	Probably went down to Barbados like many other politicians.
	All the while, the people suffered.
	The people suffer financially, spiritually, economically, constitutionally.
	My partner was in COVID isolation.
	I was not allowed to visit.
	Got him home after four days.
	No shower, no teeth brushing.
	And so dehydrated, he didn't urinate for the first 24 hours.
	He is 36 with MS. It's...
	Kaylee, it's...
	I can't use words that can be potentially defamatory.
	It is, in the estimation of some, potentially sanctionable behavior.
	And what was I just thinking about?
	I mean, look, I had an incident with my grandmother-in-law.
	It takes a lawyer's letter sometimes for people to do things.
	And you can't...
	It's the terrible thing about...
	Canada, Quebec, free healthcare.
	Everybody touts universal healthcare in Canada, but when you get stuck in the system, it's not quite as good as it is when you have connections, when you have people you can turn to, doctors, lawyers.
	It's universal, universally bad for everybody, unless you're connected, unless you have doctors in the family or lawyers in the family.
	So it's long-term healthcare facilities, even the ones that were private.
	People were paying for care that they weren't getting.
	And then every now and again, it just takes someone who knows a lawyer to get them on the lookout, but only for one patient because they can't do it for everybody.
	Yeah.
	Oh, there was a recent fine.
	Yeah, you're right.
	No, but that's it.
	So they've done an inquiry now.
	There's been an inquiry.
	They have determined that the government lied, misled, It led to tragedy.
	And now it's going to be the government to say, well, we've got to fix up healthcare.
	We've got to give ourselves a raise.
	Yeah, I think they did actually just give themselves raises.
	But that's the latest coming out of Quebec.
	And from what it seems, it seems that François Legault, if you believe the polls, which I don't in general, he still looks like he's going to get re-elected if elections were held today that are going to be held in November 2022.
	What year are we?
	2022.
	My friend has no doctor, no lawyer friend, was essential worker with contract, has burnt out last year, has been totally isolated since then, I am grateful.
	It's, it's, and I, you know, I just posted the clip from yesterday, breaking, you know, breaking down that article now.
	The government now, the government and the media now admit devastating psychological impact from the pandemic.
	It's from the pandemic.
	It's not from the government's response to the pandemic.
	It's from the pandemic.
	It's not from isolation of being locked in your two and a half apartment for two years.
	It's not from the isolation of not being able to celebrate Christmas.
	It's not from the isolation of not being able to have marriages, weddings.
	It's not from, you know, fathers or parents not being able to be in the delivery room when their spouse is giving birth.
	It's not from that.
	It's not from not being able to congregate to mourn the death of a loved one.
	It's from the pandemic.
	It has nothing to do with the government.
	It only has to do with what the government was fighting.
	It's beyond the pale and it's beyond the words.
	Hold on.
	What did this person just say here?
	Viva, check to see if you're still monetized.
	Let's see.
	Let's see.
	Still green.
	And I got to tell you people, it's not the monetization.
	It's the suppression in the algorithm that comes with demonetization.
	Because why would YouTube promote anything that they can't?
	You know, run 15 ads on.
	The funny thing is also, I do notice that when it does become re-monetized, if I don't take care of the spacing of the ads, they're in wacky places.
	And they're in wacky proximity to one another.
	No, no, it's Ruth Elizabeth.
	Ruth was my grandmother's first name and my grandmother-in-law's first name, actually.
	I never even put that together.
	My grandmother, Chubby Cheek Edna, was Ruth Edna.
	And my grandmother was Ruth.
	Yeah, no, no, they...
	People were not allowed to...
	It is enough to make you very angry with the government when they're off holding protests, they're off traveling overseas, traveling down south, and they are preventing people from congregating for funerals.
	I mean, it's...
	My grandmother died November 2019 at 103.
	Other than having a wickedly, I guess, blessed life, except for the fact that my grandfather died when she was very young.
	My grandfather died when I was two.
	So she spent nearly 40 years living without her husband, which I always found to be something of a tragedy.
	She lived to 103.
	She passed away in November 2019.
	We had a proper funeral.
	We all mourned and celebrated her life properly.
	And that has been denied.
	To a generation, while these politicians imposing these rules were all breaking them themselves.
	I mean, I was going to make a list, but I could do it off the top of my head.
	You had Lightfoot.
	You had Schumer.
	You had Gretchen Whitschmer.
	You had Cuomo.
	You had Doug Ford.
	You had Justin Trudeau.
	You had, now I've lost the names, you had Jagmeet Singh.
	All of these people imposing, soul-crushing, inhumane...
	We're never subject to them in the first place.
	It's good to be king.
	Funny how you use the term two and a half, as though anyone outside Quebec would know.
	I lived in Montreal two years and still don't.
	Hold on, what's two and a half?
	Funny how you use the term two and a half.
	What am I supposed to say?
	2.5?
	Richard, anyhow, thank you very much.
	Now I'm curious.
	So that's that.
	That's the latest out of Quebec.
	And expect more of it.
	Collective memory being what it is.
	Collective ego.
	Individual ego being what it is.
	People are going to want to forget about how they had a meaningful segment, a meaningful era of their life stolen.
	They're going to want to forget how they had a meaningful era of their children's lives stolen.
	Oh, a two and a half.
	Okay, fine.
	Oh, nobody gets two and a half.
	So I think it means two bedrooms and a bathroom.
	I think the half is a bathroom.
	I was not able to be with my hubby when he had open-heart surgery in January.
	And I've heard stories, but I've also met people who I know who are not...
	If they're lying to me, they can lie to me.
	Questioned about whether or not they were actually going to be given surgery that they needed because of their medical status.
	And this makes sense to people.
	And a lot of people are just going to forget about the generational harm that we've caused.
	But I think, until a certain time.
	I am predicting, and I'm going to put it out on Twitterverse later because I meant to do it this morning.
	In two to three generations, in 20 to 40 years, we're going to have a government apologizing for what it did to civilians, to citizens, to the generation within the 2020 to whenever this ends period.
	And we're going to have a government paying out the largest settlement to Canadian citizens.
	In two to three generations, 20 to 40 years, for what they did.
	It's going to trump the largest settlement that the Canadian government just paid out because of what a previous generation of government did to a previous generation of Canadians, specifically Indigenous children.
	That's my prediction.
	May I live long enough to see it?
	Touch wood.
	And I now know what the touch wood...
	I had a daycare teacher who told me what touch wood meant, and it means knock wood as you're supposed to be for...
	Religious good luck.
	Touching the true wood of the cross.
	And the person in front of whom I said this was a religious, I guess she was a religious but Indian lady.
	And she said, no, you can't do that because it can be offensive to some, so you've got to do touch gold.
	So I can't touch gold.
	I'm just going to, I guess I'll touch my wedding band, which I think is, get it off my fat fingers.
	I don't know what metal this is.
	I think it's platinum.
	I forget.
	And so that's that.
	That's what's coming out of Quebec.
	I don't even know if there was a more lighthearted thing.
	Let me just see what we got here.
	Oh, okay.
	Let's go to something a little more lighthearted.
	We're going to...
	Oh, yes.
	It's on subject.
	It's on subject.
	Someone sent this to me.
	You'll know who you are.
	I don't remember who you are, but that's just because it came in on my David at Viva Fry account, which I don't have a social media manager.
	I don't think I want one.
	Because I need to take responsibility for everything that I do or do not do.
	Just everyone out there.
	Two things, actually.
	One thing that everybody should understand.
	I am not messaging anybody on Facebook saying, can you tell me more about yourself?
	Where do you live?
	I'm not messaging anybody on Facebook in my social media Viva Fry account.
	But I know that these messages are going out and I'm getting them too.
	Tell me more about yourself.
	Where are you from?
	Are you available to chat?
	I am not sending out any of these messages.
	And my understanding is that when someone responds to them, on the one hand, I get that message.
	But on the other hand, it inverts the message so that it looks like to me, they're saying, are you available to chat?
	So if you get those messages, don't respond to them.
	If you think that I've sent it and I don't respond to you, I didn't send that.
	And I oftentimes don't see your response.
	So don't have the expectation that I reached out and then I didn't follow up because I do not reach out to people that way.
	I always thought it was creepy to begin with.
	But it's not me.
	It's a hack.
	I don't know how to fix it.
	It's nothing in terms of a connected app thing.
	It's only on Facebook on my phone, I think.
	I mean, no, it's on Facebook.
	And it's not me.
	I do not do that.
	I do not ask, are you available to chat?
	I actually think it's an irritating thing to get as a message, but now I know that it's probably spam or a glitch or whatever, a hack.
	I do not ask, can you tell me more about yourself?
	I like people.
	I like talking to people, but I do not ask intrusive questions like that via DM anywhere.
	Just so you know, knocking on wood or touching wood is based on the Norse religion, where to knock on a tree was a prayer to Odin, who was supposed to live in a giant oak.
	I do wonder, Ghost of Recon, if I didn't know about that explanation, but I do wonder if that explanation is not itself.
	Who came first?
	Who came first?
	The Norse religion?
	Or Christian...
	When would the Norse...
	I don't know history of that.
	I don't know which one came first.
	All I know is what my daycare teacher told me once upon a time.
	Did you say Governor Whitcher?
	No, no, I said Governor Whitmer.
	Whitmer.
	Love it.
	Oh, I've got to do a follow-up on Whitmer and see what the deal...
	Oh, we're still waiting for deliberate...
	We're still waiting for a verdict in the alleged until conviction.
	Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot.
	So what was I saying?
	I was going to lighten the mood up a little bit with a study that someone sent me via my david at vivafry.com email.
	I saw it.
	I read it.
	I found it interesting.
	I don't know of this publication, so this may or may not actually have ever been a real study.
	I suspect it is.
	And even if it's not, even if it were a fable.
	I would derive the same meaning from the story.
	The five monkeys, people.
	And first, when I saw the email, I thought it was about a Bruce Willis reference.
	Twelve monkeys.
	The five monkey experiment and its lessons for your organization.
	It's very interesting.
	If you haven't heard about the five monkey experiment, it goes something like this.
	A researcher puts five monkeys in a cage, a bunch of bananas with a string, and a ladder, leading to the bananas.
	When the first monkey goes for the bananas, the researcher sprays all five monkeys.
	I don't know if they ever...
	They can't get away with these types of studies these days.
	Maybe they could.
	I don't know.
	Sometime later, when a second monkey inevitably tries to go for the bananas, the researcher once again sprays all five monkeys with the cold water.
	The researcher then puts away the hose and never touches it again.
	But when a third monkey tries to go for the bananas, the other four attack to prevent him from climbing the ladder.
	They're afraid of the punishment that may come.
	So you see where this is going.
	First monkey.
	Goes for it.
	The Pavlov spray of all five monkeys.
	So they all five get punished for the act of the one.
	Second monkey goes to do it.
	All five get punished again for the act of the one, which is the second one.
	Presumably the first one's not going to do it again.
	Put away the punishment.
	A third one goes, and all four other monkeys, including the two that got punished and the two that didn't, go to stop the third monkey from doing it because all of them don't want to get punished again.
	The reason why I question whether or not this is a real study is if the other four have learned this through conditioning, why didn't the third?
	But setting that aside.
	Then the researcher replaces one of the monkeys with a new monkey who wasn't part of the original experiment.
	And as soon as he touches the ladder, because the new monkey comes in, doesn't know about the punishment, goes for the ladder.
	As soon as he goes for the ladder, the other four monkeys attack him to keep him from doing so.
	If he tries again, they attack him again.
	Thus, the new monkey...
	Learns not to go after the bananas because he'll get attacked if he does.
	He doesn't get punished with the water.
	He gets punished with the behavior of those who have been conditioned because of the punishment with the water.
	Researcher replaces a second monkey with another monkey.
	Same story.
	Each time the newcomer goes for the bananas, they get attacked by the others.
	And thus, new monkeys who have never been sprayed...
	Oh, I think I missed the punchline.
	The researcher then continues to replace all of the monkeys one at a time with the same mechanism.
	And then the bottom line is, at some point in time, all five monkeys are reacting the same way the first five monkeys reacted to the punishment, even though they never got the punishment in the first place.
	Which is why the next generation basically just says, you know, this is the way it's always been.
	You know, that's not the conclusion I would have drawn from it.
	I would just say that they're all responding to different stimuli, different punishment.
	But the idea being that, at some point in time, the punishment, Becomes not the actual punishment, but the response to the fear of that punishment.
	And I think that's effectively what self-censorship on social media is about.
	It's effectively, you know, once upon a time, you know, the Alex Joneses got censored off the platforms for their free speech.
	But it's not really quite as analogous.
	But, you know, when people suppress their freedom of speech online, they're doing it.
	Not to avoid censorship from the actual power.
	Not to avoid the actual hose.
	Just to avoid the reaction from all the other monkeys.
	Those monkeys being humans.
	Military grade psyops.
	Yeah, that's it.
	And so it's interesting because they're being conditioned.
	It's how you carry over conditioning generationally and change.
	You get the same result, but in response to a different stimuli.
	Because they're...
	Agreed.
	They're not fearful of the hose.
	They're just fearful of the response.
	And then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	Don't climb the ladder.
	Don't speak your opinion on social media or the other monkeys will attack you for different reasons, for fear of different things, but then the fear itself becomes the fear itself.
	So it's a cool study.
	Did I cut the link?
	No, that's not the right link.
	That's the link to my Viva Barnes Law post from this morning, which was a good one, by the way.
	I was hesitating whether or not to discuss it today.
	I won't.
	Just checking to see.
	We're still green.
	I won't check it, but I broke down another fact check.
	Or at the very least, I heard what happened to Bob Odenkirk on the set of Better Call Saul.
	Didn't know, but we were just watching Breaking Bad and it came up.
	And then I just Googled it.
	And again, I come across a fact check.
	And the fact checks raise more questions than answers.
	And I had to go look into some certain facts.
	And I pieced together a chronology, which was very interesting.
	And I'm not making determination one way or the other.
	Correlation does not equal causation, but oftentimes, correlation correlates with causation, quite logically.
	So go check that out.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	The globe is dead.
	That's a good one.
	Pat King, Tamara Lich are the first group of monkeys.
	They have been punished by the government, but not quite, because people are not going to not do what Pat King and Tamara Lich did for fear of...
	Other monkeys, other humans going after them, they're just going to do it because of the government.
	That's just making an example or making a martyr to some or an example to others.
	What was I just about to say?
	Go check out that Locals.
	If you were following us on vivabarnslaw.locals.com, you would have already seen that.
	Viva, I wish you could do a live stream with Will Johnson.
	Unite America first.
	Screenshot.
	We've got a busy roster, but I don't think I've ever said no to a discussion.
	Oh, Carl Jung called it the Shadow Collective.
	Very interesting.
	It's great.
	It's just a great...
	It would be great even if it were never an actual study.
	I suspect they could have done it on other less evolved animals and avoided ethical considerations for the test, but yeah.
	Okay, so that was the lighter side of today's live stream.
	But now, let's just go.
	Look, okay.
	Elon Musk.
	Talked about it the other day.
	9.2% shareholder in Twitter.
	Oh, there was some funny, funny takes.
	Someone said, some journalist said, Elon Musk takes majority stake.
	In Twitter, but it was steak as in S-T-E-A-K and not S-T-A-K-E.
	And I am not one to pick on typos of anyone, full stop.
	But I have a sense of humor.
	And, you know, people were ripping into this individual.
	First of all, Elon did not take a majority interest, period.
	Second of all, that's not how you spell steak.
	And so the majority steak, like the big piece of meat, it was funny.
	And I said, unless Elon takes his majority steak, well done.
	With ketchup.
	I don't know if I put with ketchup in there.
	Unless he takes his majority stake, well done.
	If he takes his majority stake, well done, then he should be cancelled.
	Elon Musk took a 9.2% interest, common shareholding, in Twitter.
	$2.9 billion.
	Amazing.
	Fantastic.
	I don't think I would ever want that much money in life because, you know, be careful what you wish for.
	Whatever.
	But it's a tool, and Elon is using his assets like a tool.
	He acquires the interest in the common voting shares of Twitter.
	And I did a little, just a breakdown.
	It doesn't empower him to do anything.
	He doesn't have majority shareholding, so he doesn't control the company.
	I suspect he didn't want 10% or more shareholding, because that, I think, in law would have made him an insider.
	It would have limited his ability to dispose of the shares or to do certain...
	To do certain things, he would have been subject to more regulation, being a 10% shareholder in the company, so maybe he didn't want the paperwork.
	But now, he has been appointed to a director, not the sole director of Twitter, and that's a little different.
	Let me just see what this says here.
	The analogy is cute, but humans tend to get angry when punished, even when it is deserved.
	Humans' spite will forever be the strongest force in the world.
	Spite and Love.
	I mean, they're two sides of the same coin, I think, to some extent.
	So that's it.
	So now he has been appointed director of the company.
	And it's fun stuff.
	Look, go to the boring paperwork, which is not so boring.
	It's still kind of fun.
	Was it this?
	Twitter?
	Is this it?
	Oh, no, I just...
	Okay, we'll get there in a second.
	That was not the one I wanted to bring up.
	Remove.
	Add to stream.
	No, I'm not.
	Don't add to stream.
	Stop sharing.
	Go to share.
	Do I make the firing the producer joke?
	No.
	Okay.
	I'm going to get...
	Here we go.
	No!
	Wrong one.
	What is going on here?
	I can't find it.
	Oh, here.
	I want to get the...
	This is what I want.
	This is the resolution.
	Boring paperwork.
	Anybody who's ever...
	Owned a company, managed a company.
	You keep your minute books and you have to keep your minute books up to date.
	When you're a publicly traded company, you have to be, you know, a little bit more meticulous than when it's a private company.
	But minute books are just so that people can know who the shareholders of the company are, what resolutions have been passed, who the directors are.
	On the one hand, it's for liability.
	On the other hand, it's for responsibility.
	On the other hand, it's for, you know, if you want to sue the directors of a company, you need to be able to fine them.
	If you want to sue the shareholders of a company or the majority shareholders, you need to know who they are.
	If you want to make sure that a publicly traded company is complying with its terms, with its requirements under the law, you need to know.
	So just to bring this boring piece of paper up, April 4, 2022.
	Twitter, Inc., yada, yada, yada.
	Dear Mr. Musk, and the thing is this, you have to appoint someone and they have to accept the appointment.
	Twitter, Inc., the company, and Elon Musk hereby agree as follows.
	Appointment of Mr. Musk as a director.
	As soon as practically possible, following the execution of this letter of agreement, subject and contingent to the provision by Mr. Musk, to the provision of Mr. Musk of any information that the company reasonably requires to complete its customary onboarding procedures, including a customary background check and completion of the company's D&O, Oh, my goodness.
	Duties and obligations questionnaire.
	I forget what that stands for.
	Directors and officers.
	Sorry.
	For member of the board of directors of the company.
	The board.
	The company and the board will take action so that Mr. Musk will be appointed as a class two director of the term expiring 2024.
	I don't know what a class two is in the context of Twitter.
	Let's just see if it says here.
	I don't think it says anything more interesting.
	Mr. Musk for so long agrees that.
	So long as Mr. Musk is serving on the board, and for 90 days thereafter, Mr. Musk will not, either alone or as a group, become the beneficial owner of more than 14.9% of the company's common stock, including, for these purposes, economic exposure through derivative securities, swaps, and hedging trends.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	I'm curious as to why.
	There might be the paperwork reasons.
	There might be...
	They don't want Elon to partner up with other big shareholders to take a controlling interest of the voting shares.
	I don't know.
	If anybody in the chat knows, actually let me know.
	I'm not a corporate specialist.
	I just know how to make sense of the basic stuff.
	The terms group and beneficial, yada, yada, yada.
	Okay, so he's on.
	He's on the board of directors.
	And then the question is going to be for most people, good.
	Now what?
	Shareholders appoint the directors.
	What do the directors do?
	101, people.
	This is not legal advice.
	This is just understanding the role.
	This is under Canadian law, I think.
	Even if it's not, it's basically the same.
	Basically the same.
	Get on board.
	Let me see here.
	Just make sure that we're sharing the right screen.
	Booyah.
	CEOs run the business.
	Chief executive officers who, you know, okay, they run the day-to-day business.
	They're in the limelight.
	But there's another group of people you may not know about.
	Who have the ultimate authority, the board of directors.
	Chosen by shareholders, which I went over when Elon became a shareholder, I said, good, he gets to appoint directors.
	He gets to vote on directors.
	He doesn't get to appoint, but the directors are appointed by majority shareholder vote at the annual shareholder meeting.
	The primary job of a public company's board of directors is to look out for the shareholders' interests.
	In fact, directors are legally required to put shareholders' interests ahead of their own.
	The board plays a supervisory role overseeing corporate activities and assessing performance.
	Directors are responsible for hiring and firing top managers and for setting compensation.
	So if anybody wants to read this, that's basically it.
	All that to say, Musk is going to have a more active role.
	He's going to play a bigger role of influence in Twitter as a director than as a mere shareholder.
	Because as a shareholder, he only got to vote on the appointment of directors.
	Now he's a director.
	Doesn't control, doesn't make executive decisions on his own, but makes them as the board of directors, as member of the board of directors.
	Who else, you might ask, is on this board of directors?
	Well, you know the CEO is Parag, but who else?
	And I don't know who these people are, so if there's anything interesting here, you'll let me know, interwebs, the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs.
	Who else is on the board of directors?
	Brett Taylor.
	This is Board of Directors, Investor Relations, Twitter.
	Brett Taylor.
	Don't know who that is.
	Parag Agrawal is the CEO.
	We know who he is.
	Mimi Alamayehu, Senior Vice President, Private Partnership at MasterCard.
	Salesforce.
	Oh, look at this.
	We've got to scroll down.
	Interesting.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to cough.
	I'll put this in the chat so everybody can go read this as well.
	It's kind of interesting.
	Go on.
	Go on now.
	Investor.
	You got Parag Agarwal.
	Jack Dorsey is still on the board of directors.
	Don't know what his shareholding is anymore.
	Jack Dorsey, co-founder.
	Additionally, Jack co-founded Square.
	So you got Square.
	You got Salesforce.
	You got MasterCard.
	Silver Lake.
	Egon Durban.
	Egon Durban has been a member of the board of directors since March 2020.
	Private investment firm.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Martha Lane Fox.
	Omid Kordestani.
	I thought that said Dr. Fry Fry.
	Dr. Fai Fai Lee.
	Professor at Stanford.
	So that's it.
	You got these other people.
	CEO of First Dibs.
	Never heard of it, but that's just because I don't leave the house very often.
	And then we got Alliance Bernstein Holdings.
	So you got private investors, but now you have Elon Musk, the richest man on earth, I believe, with a 9.2% common shareholding in the company on the board of directors with not more power, but definitely more say.
	In the actual operations of Twitter.
	So I do say good news all around.
	So let's see what we got in the chat.
	So that's the latest there.
	The difference is he went from just being a shareholder to being a director.
	And I love it.
	It was Paraga the other day who says, you know, after many meetings and many discussions, we've determined that Elon would be value-added to Twitter on the board of directors.
	It's like, yeah.
	To quote Billy Madison, Oh no, is it Billy Madison?
	No, that's Wedding Singer.
	Things I could have told you yesterday.
	Okay.
	Let's see here.
	Viva.
	First of all, if that's your actual back, the big guy, well done.
	I would never want this to maintain it.
	It's too difficult.
	I just want to maintain a healthy heart.
	And even that, you know, I get tired of doing that.
	1,000 bikers headed to Ottawa to protest against mandates April 29, 30, calling Canadians in support of the Freedom Convoy.
	You think trucks were loud waiting until you have 1,000 bikes in town?
	Yeah, it's going to be an interesting question.
	Who's going to be reluctant to attend now that they've seen how the previous one has been absolutely targeted for what I believe is highly politicized persecution?
	Prosecution or persecution?
	Who's going to donate to a fundraiser for that, seeing what they did the last time?
	I may go down as a documentarian.
	I've gotten the invite, and I've gotten the information from other sources as well.
	But, talking about the monkeys, we've all been splashed with that cold water, even, you know, by ricochet.
	They did it once.
	And if anyone thinks that they're not going to do it again, if they don't like the protest, see what happens there.
	And yeah, they're not called Jacob Breaks on bikes, but yeah, bikes are loud.
	And yeah, that's it.
	Alviva, that was my next question.
	Will you go and cover it?
	Oh, I'll for sure go cover it.
	As a documentarian, as a lawyer trying to understand the legal impact of this, and as a lawyer who's concerned about the wholesale desecration of our charter rights.
	Very excited for the Honorable Brian Peck for tomorrow, but that's another story.
	So, vroom, vroom, instead of...
	Look, and I'll tell you, I would not recommend anybody vroom their engines on their hogs.
	I'm down with the lingo.
	I would recommend everyone don't do that.
	Because you saw what the government did when they didn't even get their excuse.
	Give them the excuse.
	See what they do.
	Law is a scam.
	It's not a scam.
	It's a racket.
	And the joke is that if laws were written in a manner for normal people to understand, Lawyers would be useless.
	So lawyers and politicians or lawyers and regulators have a vested interest in making sure the law is as incomprehensible as possible to the lowly citizenry so that lawyers can maintain their fabricated monopoly of the practice because there are ways to draft laws in a manner that everyone can understand and everyone can apply.
	But look...
	If everyone could read and understand the law and interpret it for themselves and apply it for themselves, you wouldn't need lawyers.
	And could you imagine a world without lawyers?
	Cue the Simpsons reference with Lionel Hutz picturing everybody singing around Kumbaya with a rainbow in the background.
	So are they setting up Elon?
	If he must look after his interests of Twitter ahead of his own personal interests, is he more liable to a lawsuit if it goes to the other board members?
	So that's the interesting question.
	No, because the director's interests have to respect and have to favor, have to prioritize shareholder interests over their own.
	So him being a shareholder...
	I mean, no, I don't see how there could be a conflict there in that they're going to accuse him as a director of having made a decision or voted on a decision that favored his interests as a shareholder.
	It goes the other way around where the directors make decisions that don't benefit the shareholders but benefit them.
	Shareholder remuneration is the number one.
	You imagine with director remuneration, executive remuneration, expenses of the company, contracts of the company.
	When the directors give themselves exorbitant salaries, vote on employment contracts involving friends and family, and pay them exorbitant salaries, that's good for them, but it's bad for the shareholders.
	That's when it becomes a problem.
	I don't think that Elon, by virtue of him being a shareholder, would put him in a conflict as a director, because as a director, his loyalty, his fiduciary obligations...
	Are owed to the shareholders in the first place, which include him.
	So as a director, he'll act in the best interest of all shareholders, which include him.
	It becomes a problem when the directors are not shareholders, or they don't give a sweet bugger all because if there's no dividend declared to shareholders, who cares?
	They've taken that money out by way of exorbitant salaries, fancy expenses, personal cars, and the like.
	That's when it becomes the conflict of interest.
	I just saw something.
	That was an email that came in.
	I don't know if you guys hear the beeping noise when I get an outlook, but at least now I know you don't see the little warning of the email.
	El Viva.
	Is that El Viva?
	Musk can form voting blocks to affect real change.
	A phone call to BlackRock and Vanguard asking, you guys want to make money?
	Change coming.
	Did the stock go back down?
	I can't do it.
	Let me just go see what the Twitter stock, what the Twitter stock is at.
	Twitter stock price.
	Okay, well, it's at $50.
	It went from $38, and now it's settled at $50.
	Up 30% over the last five days.
	People, you don't want me buying the stock anyhow.
	I've got the Midas touch, the anti-Midas touch.
	Every stock I touch typically turns to poop.
	Sorry, poop.
	So I don't know.
	I saw Scott Campbell.
	John Campbell.
	Dr. John Campbell.
	I think I saw it, but I'm losing my mind, Argera.
	I'm going to go back and have a look.
	Viva, I need to know who's winning the hair contest.
	You or your son.
	He lost because he succumbed to the pressure and cut his hair.
	When I've got...
	It's so close to a ponytail.
	When I can get in a ponytail...
	It won't look crazy anymore, except from behind.
	But, yeah.
	Buy it.
	You know what?
	I'm going to have to add another disclaimer.
	No investment advice.
	I've always hated Twitter.
	I never understood how it made money.
	And I've always thought it was actually an intelligence gathering tool because it never made money.
	And the only purpose I could see it having is...
	Social conditioning, social manipulation, and information gathering for the purposes of other.
	That was my understanding.
	But I'm on that side of the graph there.
	I'm either on the far end of an idiot or on the far end of a genius with that theory.
	Here's a business idea.
	I saw it yesterday.
	I joked about it with Marion this morning, but we'll see.
	So that's the latest.
	Oh, have I interviewed Roman Baber?
	Ruth Elizabeth?
	Sorry, I forgot to mention who's making the question.
	Ruth Elizabeth?
	No, but I will.
	I know that I will unless he doesn't want to because he's angry with me, which I know he's not.
	Pierre Poilièvre, I wonder if he would come on.
	I would love to have him on.
	And this is not, you know, a conservative versus liberal thing.
	I would love to have Jagmeet Singh on.
	I would love to have Jagmeet Singh on.
	I know he would never come on because I've been very mean to him on social media.
	I would be very polite with him in person, but I would tell him exactly what I think.
	But I would love to have him on.
	I would love to have Justin Trudeau on.
	But my goodness, he would...
	I would love to have Justin Trudeau on.
	I would love to have any politician on.
	I would love to have Raquel Doncho on to find out if she was being sarcastic in her comment.
	Which I now think she was, and I still think I'm an idiot, which drives me crazy.
	But no, I would have Roman Bebron, and I think he will come on.
	I would have Pierre Poilievre on, but I'm not sure that he would come on.
	But I would have any politician on.
	Because I think, you know, one way or another, their voices need to be heard.
	All right, what do we got next?
	What do we got next?
	Let's go to Project Veritas, because it's a good one.
	The monkey experiment I got.
	Okay.
	Oh no, I needed the article.
	I needed the article.
	Okay, this is the article.
	So this story, Project Veritas, this was one of the first stories that I ever covered from Project Veritas.
	And you know what?
	I can actually, I know that I can show this one because I won't get a copy strike for playing my own content.
	Viva Fry Project Veritas Bird Dog.
	I think this should bring it up.
	Oh, you son of a gun.
	I'm not in the right...
	Give me two seconds, people.
	Going to go to the search engine.
	Going to put it in.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Oh, it has to be a very old video.
	I'm going to go filters and go upload date.
	Upload date.
	Sort by upload date.
	And I'll just put Viva Frye Project Veritas.
	It was one of their original...
	Oh, gosh.
	Do I want to go back to cringe?
	Content that I once upon a time produced.
	I'm looking for the original.
	It was directed verdict.
	Here we go.
	Two years ago, I think this is it.
	Yeah, directed verdict in the defamation lawsuit.
	So they were sued for defamation, unlawful trade practices, whatever.
	Oh my goodness, people.
	Get ready for cringe.
	And I'm already a little nervous.
	This was in our old kitchen, in our old house, and my goodness, do we see this?
	Okay.
	Let me know what you think of this.
	Does Putin have an active Twitter account?
	Help settle a bet.
	Thanks for the video.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I don't follow him if that was the underlying joke.
	People, this is me.
	One cannot be cringeful of what they are because that's who they are.
	The defamation lawsuit filed by one Shirley Teeter against Project Veritas and James O 'Keefe was recently dismissed.
	And it is impossible to understand what exactly is going on unless one understands what a directed verdict is.
	Can't do it.
	I can't do it.
	Oh, God.
	That's...
	Bring it out.
	Bring it out, people.
	That was what I looked like a long time ago.
	And I can look back.
	And my own content.
	And I can look into my eyes at the time and know when I was not fully comfortable and fully at ease sitting in a house talking to a camera.
	I can tell.
	And I remember roughly when I just got comfortable treating this camera like it's a human eye.
	Oh, God.
	Oh, yeah.
	Did I already put the link in?
	You can go.
	Here, I'll go.
	You can go watch that if you want.
	I'll put it in afterwards.
	Oh my god, yeah.
	Well, the question is, do I look...
	I don't care about cute.
	Do I look younger or older now?
	Has the last three years...
	And by the way, it says it was posted two years ago.
	That was June 10th, 2019.
	That's going to be three years ago, this June.
	Who would have thunk things could have become what they are?
	Life is absolutely bizarre.
	So this goes back to that.
	That vlog.
	Life being an amazingly coincidental, miraculous circle.
	Back in the day, this woman named Shirley Teeter was at a Trump event.
	And I'm going to stop sharing.
	And there was an incident where this woman alleged to have been assaulted by another individual named Campbell.
	And Project Veritas did an expose where they...
	They discovered, determined, obtained evidence that Shirley Teter, or Teter, Teter if it's in French, that she was what's called a bird dogger.
	I had no idea what the word meant.
	And that is apparently someone who goes to political rallies, is funded, financed, or motivated by activist groups.
	They go to political events to raise a poo-poo, to make a stink, so that it can then be weaponized by the media.
	To go, you know, to demonize the event, the politician, or whatever.
	Kind of like the wrap-up smear, but in person.
	So I'm just going to pull up an article which describes what it was, because we'll get the backdrop.
	Not the five-unkey experiment.
	Judge dismisses...
	Well, this will explain the story.
	ABC 13 News.
	Judge dismisses libel suit by Asheville woman following 2016 Trump rally.
	This is from May 22, 2019, before I covered it in a vlog.
	A federal judge has tossed a lawsuit by an Asheville woman who reported an assault outside a 2016 Donald Trump campaign rally.
	Shirley Teeter filed a lawsuit against conservative group Project Veritas.
	James O 'Keefe and affiliate Project Veritas action for defamation, claiming her betrayal in a Project Veritas video ruined her name.
	Remember what the ultimate defense to defamation is, at least in the States and in Canada, but not in Quebec.
	Truth is the ultimate defense.
	Teeter claimed the group portrayed her as a political activist sent to a 2016 Trump rally to cause chaos.
	Then we get into the incident.
	Shirley Teeter, who lived in a senior housing apartment a block from the cellular center, was among a group of protesters outside the rally.
	Teeter told to police that she was assaulted following the rally.
	A South Carolina man was arrested for the assault, but charges were later dropped.
	Soon after the incident, an online video was released by O 'Keefe.
	Gosh, John.
	If anybody is doing...
	The Lord's work of journalism.
	It's James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas.
	Soon after the incident, an online video was released by O 'Keefe and Project Veritas claiming to show Democratic operatives planning to incite disorder and violence at Trump rallies.
	We reported accurately what Scott Fovil, the politically affiliated operative, told us, says O 'Keefe.
	Fovil was the director at the time for a liberal political group called Americans Unite for Change.
	In the video, she says, in the video, Fovil says she was one of our activists.
	What had been trained up to bird dog?
	What's unclear is who Fovil referring to in the video.
	Teeter denied being a political operative.
	Teeter sued Project Veritas, James O 'Keefe in the National Court.
	They say they've defamed her, yada, yada, yada.
	O 'Keefe countered, saying the lawsuit was really an attempt to shut down his conservative voice.
	I believe this is an attack on the First Amendment and press in general by people who politically disagree with us.
	And then he won what was called a directed verdict.
	And let's do it while we're here.
	On Wednesday, May 22, 2019, U.S. District Judge Martin Redinger dismissed the lawsuit.
	A portion of it.
	A portion of it went to trial, which was dismissed by a jury.
	And that's what's going to get us here.
	The first event protected Brother Veritas.
	Is there anything relatively interesting here?
	No, no, no, no.
	That fine line has to be walked, yada, yada, yada.
	Okay, if Judge Reidinger ruled Teeter's lawsuit didn't present clear and convincing evidence that there was actual malice, O 'Keefe's attorneys contended.
	Teeter was required to prove actual malice because she became a public figure, there's the expression for a public figure for a specific incident, after speaking to news media about the assault.
	Special, what was it called?
	Hold on a second.
	There's an expression, public figure, special...
	Yeah, special figure.
	Special figure?
	Is that what it is?
	Special...
	Oh, what's the example?
	Chat, you're going to get it faster than I'll get it.
	What's the expression for someone who becomes a public figure for one specific incident because they decide to speak out or do something illegal and get arrested?
	Chat, let me do it before I go.
	I don't want to...
	Oh, let me see.
	While we're there.
	No, not special prominence.
	It's not special prominence.
	Limited purpose public figure.
	Sorry, I think that's it.
	So I think it's a limited purpose public figure.
	Someone who comes out, for example, to speak against an incident.
	Someone who gets arrested for DUI in a massive accident becomes a limited purpose public figure.
	I'm throwing $20 to get the afro shaped up.
	It's getting a little wild.
	I'm going to use that $20, at the very least the 70% that comes to the channel, to buy massage oils for my scalp that will help it.
	That will help it grow faster.
	But thank you very much.
	Limited purpose public figure.
	So Shirley Tita became a limited purpose public figure.
	They said a portion of your claim is dismissed outright by the judge.
	Doesn't even go to trial.
	The other portion of her claim went to trial.
	The verdict unanimously dismissed her lawsuit.
	Sorry, I almost knocked over the camera.
	Her lawsuit was dismissed and she was ordered to pay costs.
	And what ended up happening?
	Project Veritas files a...
	I think it's called a bill of costs in the United States.
	They file the bill of costs.
	It's like $22,000.
	And Shirley Teeter says, I can't pay it.
	I should be dispensed from paying it because I don't have the money.
	And it's undue hardships for me to pay the costs of the lawsuit that I filed.
	And the special clerk, I believe, granted the decision to...
	Dispense Shirley Teeter of having to pay the costs of her failed lawsuit.
	Project Veritas takes that decision.
	It's not to appeal.
	They take it to a judge, and we'll see in the lawsuit.
	But the decision is de novo.
	The judge who adjudicates on whether or not Shirley Teeter be condemned to pay the costs and legal fees, I think.
	I think it included legal fees.
	The judge adjudicating on whether or not Shirley Teeter be ordered to pay the costs, it's de novo.
	From scratch, no deference to the clerk's decision to not order it.
	The judge takes it de novo and says, yeah, no.
	You're paying these costs.
	Your statement under oath in your affidavit that you don't have the funds to pay this doesn't really make much sense because it doesn't make much sense based on your own testimony, based on your own financial situation.
	So let's just see.
	It's another great decision by Project Veritas.
	Where they get a lawsuit dismissed on a directed verdict.
	They then win the decision on the merits.
	They then get an order to pay costs, and I think it included legal fees.
	The plaintiff who filed the frivolous lawsuit, who was arguably, but maybe not so arguably, a political operative bird dog, as revealed by the secret recordings, gets ordered to pay costs, tries to get out of it, say, oh, poor me, poor me, I don't have the money to pay for my lawsuit.
	The clerk who, I guess, you know, gets inspired by pity, or just, you know...
	Got the wool pulled over his or her eyes.
	It goes to a judge and the judge says, no, you're going to pay.
	And here's why.
	If Hunter was able...
	No, that's it.
	Did I?
	Oh, no, I have to go to this.
	Okay, and hold on.
	I got to do this.
	Then I've got to bring up the PDF.
	And then I can see it.
	And I believe this is it.
	I believe I can share now.
	And I'm going to share the whole screen.
	There's a highlighted section, but we'll get there in a bit.
	I will not be able to see chat, people.
	I don't like that.
	I don't like that view.
	Hold on.
	Okay, I like this view better, and let me just make sure that...
	Okay, we're seeing it.
	So, here we go.
	United States District Court, and this is Shirley Teeter Plaintiff versus Project Veritas, Memorandum and Decision of Order.
	Background, we don't need to go into it.
	Two lawsuits filed in light of that incident.
	She sued the other guy also for assault, and they settled that out of court.
	I don't know how that ended.
	We don't need to go over the facts yet again.
	In the companion case, plaintiff and Mr. Campbell, this is the assault case, entered into a confidential settlement and dismissed their respective claims and counterclaims.
	Each was accusing the other of assault.
	We don't know how that settled.
	It's a confidential settlement, but Shirley Teeter and the individual whom she accused of assault and the individual who claimed Shirley Teeter assaulted him, they settled their suit.
	In the present case, the court entered an order for granting summary judgments in favor of the defendants on the claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices, and the parties proceed to trial by jury on the remaining defamation, libel, and slander.
	I can't highlight this.
	Following the close of evidence, the court determined that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's claim for defamation, libel, and slander.
	Thus, the court entered the judgment.
	Wait a minute.
	When did she get to a...
	Oh, they didn't go to the jury.
	I'm an idiot.
	Following the close of evidence, the court determined that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's claim for defamation, libel, and slander.
	Thus, on June 7, 2019, the court entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action and including a provision that the defendants shall recover their costs of the action from the plaintiff.
	Ah, okay, well...
	Wrong case.
	No jury, then, I guess.
	Hold on a second.
	Okay, on July 2019, 2019, the defendants filed a bill of costs seeking $23,000 from plaintiff.
	Plaintiff objected to the bill of costs, arguing, first, that she's unable to pay the defendant's costs, and in the alternative, that some of the specifics sought are unrecoverable.
	So here, like, I'm operating on the basis that this is, let me just go back here and bring this out.
	Stop screen.
	I'm operating on the basis of this is similar to Quebec-Canadian law where you get your bill of costs and it's got everything broken down.
	It includes stenographer fees, transcripts, service fees, filing fees.
	And if someone gets it and they say, look, oh, I don't agree with this amount.
	You shouldn't have charged me for four copies of your transcript.
	You should have only charged me for one.
	Or I don't think you were entitled for whatever.
	So she says, no, they're claiming things that I don't have to pay.
	And therefore, it should be dismissed.
	And then the judge says, no, what happens is Project Veritas revises it and resends it, and they reduce it by a certain amount.
	Let me see if I can bring this back in here.
	And then if we go here, do we see it?
	We see it.
	So, in the companion case, no, we were already there.
	On August 16, 2019, defendants filed the revised bill.
	So they reduce it from...
	23,924 to 23,143.
	Plaintiff objected to the revised bill on the same grounds.
	Okay?
	And then the clerk of the court issued an order denying defendants costs because, quote, the financial circumstances set forth in the sworn affidavit are sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of awarding costs to defendants as the prevailing parties.
	Now, bear in mind, It was the judge.
	I don't know if there's a procedural mechanism that allows for recovery of costs, but the judge specified.
	When the judge dismissed the action, it said that the defendants shall recover their costs of the action from the plaintiff.
	Shall and not may.
	So I presume that the judge is not so happy with the clerk who seems to be overriding the judge's shall with their own determination.
	Standard of review, and then basically this is the...
	This is the legal criteria for standard review.
	I believe it says de novo somewhere here.
	Federal rule, yada, yada, yada.
	It says it was de novo.
	Where did it say de novo?
	Novo.
	I can't even find it here.
	Novo.
	Here we go.
	Cost de novo.
	The court's reviews of the clerks is denying consequences.
	It's de novo.
	There's no deference.
	There's no nothing.
	It's from scratch.
	And the judge decides it.
	Let's just get to some of the highlighted sections because it's quite funny.
	By the way, this is what she says in her affidavit.
	In support of her argument, plaintiffs submitted her bank records from January through December...
	And an affidavit signed by the plaintiff in August 2019 detailing her monthly income and expenses.
	In her affidavit, she states, I have no money to pay for defendant's litigation costs.
	I had or have no money to pay my lawyers.
	The costs and expenses they incurred on my behalf in representing me.
	My lawyers did not agree to pay the costs and expenses they incurred on my behalf, and they certainly did not agree to pay any award of costs incurred by the defendants.
	I guarantee you the lawyers did not agree to that.
	But unfortunately, when you file a suit and it's dismissed by the judge or a jury, sometimes you have to pay because you're the losing party.
	In Quebec, it's excessively difficult, barring a statutory provision to recover legal fees.
	It's exceptionally difficult in Quebec, but elsewhere, it's the rule.
	Losing party pays.
	But I love this.
	While the plaintiff attests in her affidavit to having no funds with which to pay the defendant's costs or the costs incurred by her own attorneys, upon questioning on the February 25, 2022 hearing, plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that the plaintiff had received a substantial payment from Mr. Campbell.
	She had received a substantial payment from Mr. Campbell in January of 2019 as settlement in the companion case.
	That's...
	It's always curious when people pay, but sometimes people just pay to avoid a trial.
	I mean, and in a case between...
	In a case of alleged assault between an elderly frail woman and Mr. Campbell, who I believe was not an elderly frail woman, but a man, you know, there might be risk factors in going to trial.
	There might have been facts that I don't...
	I mean, I'm not familiar with the assault incident itself.
	He might have been guilty.
	Paid her a substantial settlement of money.
	But she says, I have no money, but I got a substantial payment, or at least her lawyers say it, in the companion case.
	That's not going to fly too well with her candor before the court.
	Plaintiff's counsel further explained that half of these settlement funds were used to pay plaintiff's attorney's fees, some of whom represented the plaintiff both in this case and the companion case.
	Just bear this in mind, people.
	She says in an affidavit, I don't have the money.
	That's 2019.
	It turns out that she got a substantial settlement payment, and her lawyers, who can't lie to court, have to admit it, but that went to pay her lawyers.
	So, you know, she gets to sue someone frivolously, frivolously to the point where the judge dismisses it on a directed verdict.
	And then her lawyers say, well, that settlement went to me.
	She doesn't have money to pay them.
	And they're going to say, yeah, well, she had the money, and she decided where it went.
	One was a court order that she was ordered to pay because she lost her suit.
	The other was her contract with you.
	If she doesn't pay you, that's contractual.
	If she doesn't pay the court, that's not respecting the court order.
	Therefore, when the plaintiff submitted a sworn affidavit to the court saying that she had, quote, no money to pay my lawyers the cost, she was less than fully candid with the court.
	By the way, when the judge says you were less than fully candid, That is legalese respectful court talk to say you're a damn liar, we caught you, and you don't lie to the court and think you're going to get away with it if you get caught.
	The records in the present case present very unusual circumstances regarding the plaintiff's ability to pay the cost and her responsibility for such costs.
	Plaintiff's receipt of a substantial sum in the Campbell settlement also does not fully explain the plaintiff's financial arrangement with plaintiff's counsel.
	The plaintiff was represented by six attorneys in this matter.
	The plaintiff, who has no money, who's not a political operative, by her own affirmation, was represented by six attorneys in this matter, all of whom were from outside of this district, and one of whom was from out of state.
	That's curious.
	Four of these attorneys were present for the entire trial.
	This is a woman who claims to have no money to pay the cost she was ordered to pay, who has six attorneys.
	Four of whom are present for the entire trial, even if they were charging my ridiculously low hourly rate, assuming it's 10 hours a day of work and court time.
	That would be $2,500 a day.
	Times four, that would be $10,000 a day of lawyers, one of whom's from out of state, present for Shirley Teeter, who doesn't have money to pay $20,000, but has this money.
	You suspect.
	Shirley Teeter, to quote Ben Affleck from Good Will Hunting.
	Four of the attorneys were present in the entire trial.
	The plaintiff had the sort of representation not ordinarily available to litigants in her position.
	I wonder why.
	I wonder why.
	Could it be because these lawyers, I'd love to know, I don't know who they are.
	I'd be curious to know if they have any affiliations to any political organizations, any not-for-profit activist groups.
	In the court's experience, there are only a few scenarios where multiple out-of-town attorneys would be willing to become involved in representing a plaintiff who, by all accounts, is indigent and therefore cannot pay the costs of the litigation itself.
	What might people think those cases are?
	And yeah, so that's it.
	Thus, the involvement of so many geographically diverse attorneys is a matter that is puzzling to the court.
	By the way...
	Legalese, when a court says, it's puzzling.
	What they're basically saying is, you're a liar, you expect us to believe your lie, your lie makes no sense, and we don't believe your lie.
	It's puzzling.
	But the courts are more polite than viva.
	After all, the plaintiff's claim was so weak that it did not survive a motion to dismiss at the close of the evidence.
	Further, Mr. Sasser only raised more questions by his unsolicited statement, specifically disclaiming that the lawsuit was being funded by the Clinton campaign or the Democratic Party.
	Okay.
	That was not the question that the court asked.
	However, Mr. Sasser...
	What's the context on this again?
	Oh, yeah.
	Mr. Sasser did not, however...
	Did not explain, however, why six out-of-town attorneys would agree to take Ms. Teeter's case on a primarily pro bono basis.
	Moreover, Mr. Sasser did not explain why once the Campbell matter was settled, that these attorneys continued to represent the plaintiff on a contingent fee basis.
	After all, the plaintiff's claim was so weak, yada, yada, yada.
	And yeah, the court knows what's going on.
	The court knows exactly what's going on.
	And then, you know, bottom line, so these are the costs that go into it, but it doesn't matter.
	The bottom line, I'll have to post this.
	Find a way to convert this into a link.
	Here are the costs.
	These are the costs that go into what they're getting.
	Witness fees, fees of services.
	These are all things that typically, you know, they're court costs.
	But they do add up.
	And they add up quickly.
	You got all of these expert fees and so on and so forth.
	Okay, $15,000.
	Because the defendants seek costs for some items that clearly fall outside the scope of recoverable costs, yada, yada, yada.
	It's revised.
	It will be a total of 7,000.
	Oh, sorry.
	It will be revised.
	It will be reduced by 7,000 to 15,000.
	And so it is therefore ordered that the defendant's motion to review clerk's ordered line costs is granted in part.
	It's revised, vacated.
	The clerk of this court is instructed to assess the cost, yada, yada, yada.
	And they're ordered to pay 15,000 bucks.
	Delete, I guess, delete copy?
	Is that going to do anything?
	So, in summary, people, I missed all of the chat while that was going on.
	In summary, people, Shirley Teeter had such a frivolous case, it was dismissed.
	She entered into a settlement that was an undisclosed confidential amount with the individual she accused of assault.
	She attested to court that she didn't have the money to pay her attorneys when her attorneys were compelled to disclose to the court a substantial settlement.
	That was paid to her by the other individual while she was simultaneously claiming financial hardships so that she did not have to pay the costs incurred by Project Veritas AL, who she frivolously sued for a baseless accusation.
	The court then pontificates as to how this, what did they say?
	They didn't say insolvent, but they basically were implying that.
	The court then inquired how it is that six attorneys, some of whom are out of state, Would represent an individual who didn't have the money to pay them, four of whom attended every day at court, saying there's only very exceptional circumstances in which attorneys would agree to do this, pro bono.
	And then there was some offhand affirmation that there might be some political connections here.
	None of it made sense to the court.
	The court sniffed it out like it sometimes does properly.
	And now Shirley Teeter...
	I was going to have to pay $15,000 to Project Veritas down from what Project Veritas was asking for in their bill of costs.
	And knowing the way fake news media is going to spin it, they're going to probably try to spin this as though it was a defeat for Project Veritas and a victory for the plaintiff.
	Project Veritas asked for $23,000 and a court denied that request and only granted them $15,000.
	But when you read that, my goodness.
	Very interesting.
	Very interesting stuff and very fun stuff.
	So another W for Project Veritas.
	There was an L, at least a temporary L, with respect to their defamation lawsuit against CNN.
	But another W. So chalk it up to people who fight the good fight.
	They fight the good fights as plaintiffs and they defend the good fights as defendants.
	And, you know, the bird dog has left the nest, I guess.
	All right.
	That's that.
	That's disgusting.
	I thought I made good money at $140 an hour.
	Lawyers charge...
	Now, the thing is, they say, yeah, you charge $600 an hour, and that's what the going rate is for lawyers these days.
	You charge $600 an hour, but you don't necessarily get paid for every hour that you work, and you don't necessarily bill for every hour that you work.
	So there's that.
	But yeah, so no, it was a directed verdict.
	If I had watched enough of the vlog, I would have got...
	Ugh, look at that face.
	If I had watched enough of the vlog, I would have recalled it didn't go to jury.
	It got dismissed prior to and ordered to pay costs.
	And three years later, we'll see if Project Veritas is able to collect.
	I suspect they will be.
	All right, what else is going on?
	Let's see in the chat here.
	What else did I have in the backdrop that I was going to share?
	We got the hunter, the monkey experiment.
	Oh, hold on just once.
	You know, let's go to the chat for a few seconds.
	Get some questions that I missed.
	Why would you not charge for every hour you work?
	Well, sometimes you can't charge a client for your learning curve in a file.
	You can't charge your client for learning curve of subject matter that you're going to need to know for the file.
	And then other times, you know, you go to court.
	Maybe I was just particularly conscientious about this, but you go to court and you spend...
	Eight hours in court because the court puts you on pause and tells you to go wait in the hall while they hear other cases.
	You can't charge a client $2,000 for a day at court on certain matters.
	Maybe it could.
	Maybe some people felt good doing it.
	I couldn't.
	Let's see what we've got here.
	Hold on.
	That's not what I wanted to bring up.
	You will not be able to protest in Ontario if Bill 100 Keeping Businesses Open Act.
	We'll see about that.
	Did I miss any important questions in the chat?
	I think every question is important, but let's...
	Learning curve probably overstates the case.
	Learning curve probably overstates the case in most cases.
	Do lawyers make up a number of hours worked?
	Yeah, some lawyers, you know, you have apps that keep track of how many hours you work.
	I once remember a lawyer on his website.
	It said per second billing.
	So, you know, typically people reduce their hours, you know, their entries to like a 0.2 of an hour and you have it in your retainer agreement.
	If you call me for 30 seconds, it's a 0.2, which translates into five minutes.
	I saw a lawyer on his website.
	It said per second billing, which is very interesting.
	It was so unique of a concept to me.
	I thought it said...
	Oh no, it said per minute.
	I'm sorry.
	It said per minute billing.
	Which was so foreign of a concept because I don't know how you do that.
	I thought it said per minute billing and I thought it had to do with something else.
	Pudge and Winston, I saw it in the chat, are good.
	They are good.
	I have not shown Winston.
	He's in here somewhere.
	I see his raggedy butt sticking up from behind the couch.
	You should have gone to law school even if you never end up practicing.
	It is...
	A good experience and a good knowledge stack to have.
	100 BS.
	Lawyer charged by the minute.
	That's what an egg timer for.
	WTF.
	Some lawyers have a very big increment for the minimal billing subdivision.
	It's a pain in the neck.
	You got to add a.2 into your billing sheet and then you got to say what you did for that.2.
	Okay, so that's that.
	I mean, that's the news.
	So a W for Project Veritas.
	I guess a W for Twitter, a W for free speech.
	We'll see where it goes.
	So DefiantLs are having some hilarious tweets about people freaking out over Elon Musk now being on the board of a private company or a shareholder in a private company.
	Once upon a time, private companies can do what they want, but if they start doing what I don't want them to do and they start having people who I don't like on their board of directors, regulate them.
	And I'll say one thing.
	Elon Musk, majority shareholder, controlling shelter or not, I think certain changes should be made.
	If nothing else, then a court declaration or a regulation stipulating that social media companies, once they've achieved a certain size, a certain monopoly, should be treated as common carriers and should be subject to the same provisions.
	Nobody can shut down my eye, who has a landline?
	Nobody can shut down a telephone line because they don't like what you say.
	They can snoop on it, and they can arrest you if you say illegal things or try to organize illegal activities, but they can't cut you for doing it, and nor should they be able to do that for Twitter.
	Break the law?
	Yes.
	Don't break the law.
	They should not be able to do it.
	Let me just see one thing here.
	Okay, so it looks good.
	I dare say we might still be in the green even after mentioning Project Veritas.
	Still in the green, people.
	I think we've resolved the problem.
	Viva, did you take the LSAT?
	No, I took the LSAT.
	I think it is required, unless they've changed in the last 25 years.
	Jesus.
	I did the LSAT in 96. That was when I got hit by a car on my bicycle.
	I was on my way to Kaplan's LSAT class, a taxi driver.
	Took a wide turn.
	I literally...
	It was right in front of Ogilvy's.
	If anybody knows where this is in Montreal, on Sherbrooke and Crescent or the street before De La Montagne.
	I went over the hood of the taxi.
	I was, you know...
	I was luckily uninjured.
	But an old lady who was standing there and witnessed the whole thing, she got so shocked, she tripped, fell back, and hit her head on the corner of the sidewalk on the Ogilvy's.
	And I remember it.
	I won't go into too much detail because this might make us go yellow.
	She was conscious.
	Just a cut.
	But cuts in your head tend to do something a lot.
	And then this is how you realize that eyewitness testimony is probably the worst testimony on earth.
	Everybody who gathered around after I had been struck by a vehicle, went over the hood, everyone on the ground said, I knocked over the old lady.
	But for the cab driver who was pooping out his breakfast, that would have been people's common...
	Perception.
	That would have been their witness testimony of what happened.
	I hit the old lady on my bike.
	So that's it.
	But so I did the LSATs.
	I didn't do particularly well.
	And I suspect that might be why I didn't get into McGill.
	I didn't do terribly.
	I just didn't do well enough to impress, to get back into McGill because they're a little harder on readmitting into law school people who went to their undergrad school.
	But, you know, going and studying in French in Quebec City at Université Laval was the best decision I made.
	Um, It's like, no, but no joke.
	There would have been a witness on the ground who would have said that, and they would have sworn to it.
	Viva was biking on the sidewalk, which I wasn't, struck an old lady, and she fell over.
	And I never, I think she was fine.
	She needed stitches, but she had very white hair, and that's why I remember the incident vividly.
	Mr. Wonderful.
	Love that avatar.
	Viva, the solicitor in my tax case closed with, quote, you can't handle the truth, end quote.
	Can you recommend a good ramen noodle place?
	You're in Australia, so I don't...
	The best...
	Wait, hold on, hold on.
	You can't handle the truth?
	Is this a joke that I'm taking too literally again?
	Look, if you're being serious about the word noodle place, Lanzau Noodles in Chinatown in Montreal.
	The best noodles.
	And get it with the egg.
	The egg is boiled and cured in tea, black tea.
	And it's the best thing on earth.
	My only problem is I don't feel good after I eat it.
	You all know my stomach issues.
	I don't feel good after I eat it.
	And then I also feel psychologically that I have to exercise more after I have that type of meal.
	But it's the best.
	Yeah, the black egg.
	I'm going to start making these at home because they're absolutely delicious.
	Okay, let's just go have a little fun with the Twitter world.
	Because there was some stuff out there that we've got to look at before we ended up for the day.
	Streamyard.
	Okay, good.
	We're good.
	Click on that ever-beautiful avatar designed by DSLR Dave, who is my thumbnail guy.
	Became a good friend in this YouTube journey.
	Go check out the locals post because it's just phenomenally interesting.
	The fact checkers are not fact checkers.
	They premise their fact check from the conclusion to which they want to arrive, and they spin it with that in mind.
	Motivated reasoning, arguing from a conclusion, not towards it, which means you ignore relevant facts, you strawman people's positions, and you just do whatever you need to do and use ambiguous language.
	You do whatever you need to do to get to your conclusion, your foregone conclusion that you want to get to.
	Oh, this was just glorious.
	I got this yesterday and it's just glorious.
	I can't put it on my car because I don't want people actually thinking I'm trying to falsify a New Hampshire license plate.
	So it's going to go behind me at some point in time.
	I've got to go pick it up again.
	Did this guy...
	Oh yeah, this is General Milley.
	I forget it.
	I forget it.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, that's it.
	The Twitter world is where...
	This is one of the defiant L's.
	Elon Musk has taken a 9.2...
	Oh, is this one?
	This is not one of the defiant L's.
	This was the majority stake.
	This was funny.
	Takes majority stake.
	He takes the big piece of the pie.
	It's wrong in fact, and it's wrong in grammar, but the grammar...
	I am in no position to pick on.
	Oh, and Stephen Sharp.
	Let's end it with this.
	Let's end it with this.
	And just to highlight, not the rift, I was going to say the grift, just to highlight the rift between the blue checkmark politicians and working class people.
	Someone asked Shannon Sharp, I don't know who this person is, so small, you know, do you still hate Shannon?
	Do you still hate Donald?
	To which Shannon Sharp, he's the sports announcer, former football player.
	I'd rather pay $20 a gallon than have Trump in office.
	Hope that answers your question.
	I read that with snark and sass.
	Not with a legitimate, bona fide, I hope that answers your question.
	Because I think it does, clearly.
	But the sarcasm is enough to make you a little bit more frustrated with the response.
	The arrogance, the pomposity.
	Talk about privilege.
	The privilege of being so wealthy that, hey, I would rather...
	Do something that has virtually no impact on my finances out of political spite, and I'm now wishing that on everyone else, and I now expect other people to suffer.
	You know, I expect other people to suffer in as much as I have that political desire.
	To which I just, you know...
	Celebrity net worth, I think, generally underestimates, because I don't believe that Shannon Sharp is only worth $14 million.
	I don't believe that George Takei is only worth $14 million.
	George Takei has got to be getting royalties, you know...
	Endless royalties.
	Shannon Sharp.
	I mean, unless they've lost their money or squandered it away, but whatever.
	I'll just operate on the basis that they're only worth $14 million.
	And, you know, George Takei took the same position.
	Americans, we can endure higher prices for food and gas if it means putting the screws to Putin.
	Yeah.
	Except it hasn't.
	And it doesn't look like it's really had that much of an impact on Russian citizens.
	See, they're the only people suffering these idiotic policies.
	Are the citizens of the politicians of the country implementing them?
	Imposing them?
	Whatever.
	Consider it a patriotic donation in the fight for freedom over tyranny.
	That was George Takei's take.
	They should call him George Bad Takei.
	Bad Take Takei.
	Okay.
	And I just wrote, we can endure higher prices for food and gas, but some can endure them more easily than others.
	And then you got Stephen Colbert saying, I don't mind paying $15 for gas.
	I drive a Tesla.
	These privileged, rich...
	Detached individuals telling everybody else that you should suffer in a way that is crippling for your business and for your life, where you have to make decisions as to where you drive your kids because of the cost of gas.
	These guys saying, I'm sitting in a lap of luxury with my armed security taking a position against Second Amendment rights, in my gated community taking a position against borders and enforcement of border rights, sitting on my piles and piles of money saying, yeah, I won't even notice it.
	I don't even do my own shopping.
	Telling everyday Americans they should just shut up and suck it up.
	It's a patriotic, it's a compelled patriotic donation.
	You know what that's called?
	Compelled donations?
	It's called theft.
	So I just wrote, would you look at that?
	Another filthy rich celebrity who lives in a financial and ideological bubble is prepared to make working class Americans suffer for his own political hatred.
	Shannon Sharp, do you often hang out with George Takei and Stephen at home?
	I have no doubt when they go to the French Laundry with, um, with, uh, what's her?
	With what's-his-face.
	Gavin Newsom.
	They should read some of the classics to find out why it is that California is banning To Kill a Mockingbird and 1984.
	Can you imagine in any realm of the world banning 1984?
	How do I get out of here?
	Can you imagine in any realm of a sane universe banning 1984?
	We no longer live in a sane universe.
	Embarrassing for Shannon Sharpe, especially that uninformed, especially with Biden epic failures.
	But they don't care.
	I have no doubt.
	You know what it means?
	Paying $20 for gas to have the person you want in office?
	That means they donate.
	That's their campaign donation.
	Here, we will pay for your screwing everything up.
	A patriotic donation to fight tyranny in Russia.
	Why?
	While we have tyranny here in Canada and the US.
	I don't care about the thumbs up, but if you're so inclined, I do enjoy seeing the number go up quickly.
	Let's see.
	If you don't mind, if you're so inclined.
	Beyond that, by the way, thumbs up.
	But more important than that, go subscribe to Viva Clips if you're not already there.
	And there was another thing I was about to say.
	Subscribe to Viva Clips just so I can get...
	That channel is now where all of the shorter clips are going.
	Yeah.
	But thumbs up and comment if you're so inclined.
	Let's just see.
	We were at 1700 a few seconds ago.
	We're at 1900.
	Okay.
	Doesn't really matter, though, anyhow, but thank you all.
	Let's just see if we can get any more questions before school.
	Okay, so this is an interesting one.
	School band Maus.
	That's an Israeli flag or a magen devi for anybody who doesn't know.
	Maus is a story, depiction of animals, an animal depiction of humans living through the Second World War.
	So I bought for my household, we need to educate our kids even if they go to public school.
	We were brought up with a copy of Maus in the house.
	It sounds ridiculous when I say it like that.
	My father had a copy of Mouse in our house.
	Damn it, I still sound...
	And I admit that I have a much higher threshold for what I find offensive, and even if I find something offensive, I'm not going to prevent my kids from looking at it or watching it.
	I recognize that, but I can't imagine what was in Mouse that is ban-worthy.
	Viva, don't take this the wrong way, but your hair is an entity of its own.
	I'm hearing it a lot these days.
	I mean, even, you know...
	Yeah, I'm reading one of the chats, what Mr. Wonderful says.
	Yeah, I know what...
	Okay, even still, I mean, look, even if it was done maliciously, even if it was done to propagate the rodent comparisons that were historically done.
	Okay.
	Maybe not make it mandatory teaching.
	There is other stuff out there which I would say not arguably, but it's objectively more appropriate for obligatory.
	But then again, I'm more of a proponent of free speech where there are certain banned books that I would say should not be banned, period.
	When you cut out a man's tongue, you do not...
	You know what the expression is.
	You know the thing.
	Come on, man.
	Okay, let's see what we got here.
	Pat Allen, thank you all for being here.
	This is turning out to be a great daily ritual.
	I love it.
	It gives me an excuse to read up on the things that I want to read up on and then to talk about them.
	It's like gossip, except it's about things that actually matter and not just about, you know, people.
	If you want to know more about the Clinton Foundation, irregularities, look up Charles Ortel.
	Let's see what we got here.
	I just got a computer and internet today to get a remote job.
	Wish me luck because policy, yep, I can't get over the fact that they're actually, it's become a condition of employment.
	I'm still on LinkedIn, even though it irritates me every time.
	Thank you very much.
	It irritates me every time I see that requirement for employment.
	Let me just see.
	Let me just see what is going on on the Rumbles.
	See if I forgot anything there or missed anybody.
	2,000 people on Rumble.
	It's amazing.
	It's amazing.
	Rumble is really, really turning into something special.
	Yes, they need to work on certain interfaces in the app, but growing pains.
	Thank you very much.
	So everyone knows my neuroses.
	I misconstrue a lot of things as veiled threats, but one thing I love hearing is, God bless you, and when people call me brother.
	I love it.
	I don't know why.
	It's a bizarre thing, but I love it.
	When people say, be safe, that makes me stay safe, stay healthy.
	I know how they mean it.
	There's that neurotic part of my head that says, is that a veiled threat?
	But God bless, and when people call me brother, I just love it.
	Remember, Viva, people are working during the week.
	Well, hopefully this can be like something of daytime radio.
	The question is, should I be posting all of these streams just by rule onto podcasts?
	I think the answer is going to be yes, even though some of the stuff is going to be visual and won't translate into a podcast.
	Okay.
	Do I do a quick poll?
	No.
	Does anyone have any questions?
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, everybody.
	Okay.
	No, you know what?
	I better actually start doing some homework for tonight's stream.
	I have to set it up because it doesn't work out.
	I'm going to set up.
	It's Richard Hanania.
	No, see, I didn't want to mistake his name, and then I just did.
	Richard Hanania.
	And it's only going to be one hour because I think Richard has...
	Not everybody can stay for marathon streams, but Robert and I will stick around and talk about interesting stuff afterwards because I would like to discuss my analysis of certain things with Robert's insight.
	I may not always agree with Robert, but I always respect his insight.
	So we'll probably do that.
	Did you go over the billboard thing in South Florida?
	Did I go over the billboard?
	What's the billboard thing?
	Post a link so I can see what that is.
	Yeah, the virtue signaling on LinkedIn, it's very interesting because I'm definitely, I don't consider myself to the right.
	I just do consider myself, at this point, I'm, I don't know, eccentric?
	I don't think that's the right word, but...
	At this point, I am discussing stories, discussing things, taking political positions, which are not, don't seem to be the prevailing theme on LinkedIn.
	And I've got, you know, I don't know how many, I don't care about whatever followers are there.
	It's just, I know that, let me screenshot that, from the Bumblebee man, no less.
	Oh no, it's came here.
	Yeah, LinkedIn definitely is like, it's business Facebook.
	By and large, it's the business version of Facebook.
	David Lankford said, we got a bullseye here, but what did David Lankford say?
	Let me just scroll up.
	Let me see where David...
	Oh, here we go.
	Here we go.
	Being a lawyer in a half-broken system is an extremely difficult chore to fix by an honest lawyer.
	I will not say it's impossible.
	I think systems exist beyond the individuals within them.
	And then once that happens...
	Yeah.
	It's got to be...
	I don't know.
	I don't know how you fix it.
	But the legal system, for anybody who knows and has had experience with it, is somewhat broken in a great many respects.
	And in the context of COVID, we're seeing the incestuous nature of...
	In the States, elected members of the judiciary carry with them certain risks, certain risks of...
	Don't call it corruption, but an elected official...
	It has certain interests that that elected individual needs to serve, needs to cater to.
	But being appointed politically for life also has its own risks and perils.
	I still think, I don't know, if there's a beautiful middle ground where elected, but you can be removed from your seat with, I don't know, a public petition or a public hearing.
	I don't know.
	No systems will ever be perfect.
	To quote Thomas Sowell, There's no right answer.
	There's only trade-offs.
	Okay, let's see.
	We need to protest against mask mandates.
	They're coming down, the mask mandates.
	And is protest illegal in Canada?
	Certainly, protest in Canada, if it's not illegal, it's certainly been criminalized.
	It may not be criminal, but it's been criminalized.
	And that's a very, very dangerous world in which we're living in.
	It doesn't seem to be getting any better.
	I think I may have a great subject matter for Friday.
	Tomorrow, the daytime stream is going to be Brian Peckford.
	It's going to be at 1 p.m., 1 in the afternoon, Montreal time, 10 in the morning, British Columbia time, Pacific time.
	Now, I saw BlackRock, and I don't know if that's actually BlackRock, as in the investment firm that's allegedly, purportedly, seemingly buying up a lot of real estate.
	You should see the Intel community on LinkedIn right now.
	Half can't function because a proper analysis wouldn't virtue signal the right message.
	Very dangerous.
	Our sense makers are broken.
	It's the monkeys with the hose, people.
	It's the monkeys with the hose.
	And the H-O-S-E, not the H-O-E-S.
	Because one of those would be fun and hilarious.
	The other one is social conditioning.
	Please do legal quick takes on freedom issues.
	Do you mean on the TikToks or just one minute thingy things?
	Okay, people.
	I think that's good.
	I think we've done good today.
	Black pill.
	Not yet.
	Not yet.
	Still red pill.
	Still red pill.
	There's still hope.
	But even if I got black pill, I think I would feel morally compelled not to share my black pill.
	Not to impart that black pill aura on the world.
	My wife says that I'm the...
	Sometimes I'm the...
	This is not a question of any arrogance, but she says, I'm the energy center of the family, and when I'm, you know, when I have negative energy, when I'm not happy, or when I'm depressed, or when I'm blackpilled, it reverberates to the family, so I don't want, and I try to, you know, remain optimistic even when I feel pessimistic, so I would not want to reverb that blackpill on the world.
	I think blackpill is useless.
	No relation, okay, everybody?
	Do not come down on BlackRock Beacon with any hate for BlackRock.
	Oh, we speak moistly.
	Moistly, God.
	Oh, I put up a nice montage of Trudeau on Viva Clips for the stuff that doesn't have a place on this channel.
	Okay, people, we'll keep it to under two hours.
	I know Eric Hunley, who assists me in converting all of these to audio files.
	It helps greatly if it stays under two hours.
	I'm going to do that.
	But what if the black pill is simply reality?
	Well, then the black pill has become the red pill.
	And if it's reality, how do you make it better?
	Because, I mean, the fact is that life is cycles.
	There are ups and there are downs, you know, on a short time frame, on a long time frame, on the historical time frame.
	Naval on Twitter, and this is another one where I don't know if I missed the literal nature of the tweet, said, tomorrow will be no better than today.
	What do you do now?
	I think it was, what do you do now?
	And I said, well, if tomorrow is going to be no better than today, you better work on today.
	You better work on making today better so that tomorrow may not be better than today, but if you made today better, tomorrow is going to be better by extension.
	Now, I don't know if that was the actual point of his tweet or its tweet.
	I don't know what Naval is.
	I don't know what the Naval account is.
	I don't know if it's an individual, a group, an entity, a corporation.
	But yeah, so I don't know if that was the purpose of Naval's tweet.
	Tomorrow will be no better than today.
	So I don't know if I had an insightful response or I just missed the obvious punchline yet again because literal Viva is an idiot.
	But yeah.
	Anything left of that Charter of Rights?
	Canadians, weigh in.
	One for no, two for yes.
	No, one for no, three for yes, two for very little.
	She is a very lucky woman.
	God bless.
	I think she is, but I think I'm the lucky man.
	In that.
	I know that I am harder to deal with, I think.
	I'm more unique to deal with in maybe ways that...
	Idiosyncrasies that only a wife could love.
	We got one.
	We got lots of twos.
	Very little.
	I think the obvious answer is there's very little left of our charter.
	It would take an amendment to the charter to reinforce what ought to have always been guaranteed rights and not just capricious privileges.
	And I think...
	And we're going to find out tomorrow.
	If that's what Brian Peckford and the other signatories of the Charter had in mind when they signed it, I think they did.
	I think they did.
	And I think when Kian Bextie tweeted out, I fear that Justin Trudeau is going to do something that's going to shred the very fabric of Canadian society.
	I think Kian Bextie knew what Trudeau was going to do, and I didn't appreciate that Kian Bextie was right in that when Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act...
	Suspended our civil rights, even though he said he didn't.
	Froze bank accounts.
	Persecuted participants in that protest.
	I think he shredded something of the very fabric of Canadian society.
	And from what I understand was the Honorable Brian Peckford's response to that.
	It was, dear God.
	Diana Tyson, thank you very much.
	And now with that said, people, I think that's a good place to end off.
	If you need a little white pilling...
	Drone bass fishing.
	That'll be it.
	The other one, poutine.
	Let me leave you with an actual Viva Frye poutine.
	This is the one that I've always loved.
	One of my favorite videos.
	Stop it.
	I don't want to hear the music because I don't want anybody.
	This has been always one of my favorite videos.
	How to make Quebec poutine.
	All right.
	Go check out the white pill is in the comment section there.
	I'll go pin it.
	How to make Quebec poutine.
	One of my favorite videos ever.
	And it was the best poutine I've ever tasted.
	And I made it with my uncle-in-law, whom I love very much.
	I love all my family.
	Okay.
	Winston for president.
	You know what the funny thing is?
	Where is that?
	Where's the Winston for president?
	I was told when I was running for office that I could have put Winston on a liberal billboard.
	And he would have gotten elected in my writing.
	And I think that's right.
	I definitely believe that to be the case.
	Maybe without a picture.
	Maybe just Winston for MP of Westbound Notre Dame running with the Liberals.
	He would have gotten elected.
	Okay, people.
	Go.
	I will see you at 7 o 'clock tonight.
	I will see you at 1 o 'clock tomorrow.
	And in the interwebs, in the interim, I will be on the interwebs.
	Viva Fry Twitter.
	Viva Clips, the second channel.
	Viva Family, the third channel.
	The Viva Fry here.
	If you haven't subscribed, do it.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Viva Fry on Rumble.
	And by the way, I believe I've actually trademarked Viva Fry.
	I forgot that I did it in 2019.
	Trademarked Viva Fry pending for vlog.
	We'll see where that goes.
	People, enjoy the day.
	See you tonight.

▲