Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 28, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:53:37

Canada's Police State: Randy Hillier Bail Hearing UPDATE - Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I believe that we're better organized and we have a plan that has been worked on for the last couple of weeks.
	We had more lead time knowing about this rally as opposed to the truckers' convoy.
	We heard from the chief the plan of action to protect both residents and business community in and around the downtown core as well as the Byward Market.
	And we have all hands on deck on this.
	This has been all-consuming.
	Emergency Operations Centre is up and running under the leadership of Steve Panalakis, Kim Ayotte, and our chief.
	We're all here with us today, along with other key players with the city personnel.
	So no one wants a repeat of what happened during the trucker's convoy, and that's why I believe that we are more proactive and better prepared to deal with the issue.
	And we have great support from our OPP colleagues as well as the RCMP and other municipal police forces working hand in hand with bylaw.
	And there's a zero tolerance policy.
	If you're parked illegally with your motorcycle, you're going to be ticketed and you're possibly going to be towed.
	So it's not worth your while coming all the way here to have your vehicle put in the impound because you were parked in the no stopping zone.
	So we're asking those individuals who have the right to freely Come into our city to be respectful of both our residents and our businesses and our infrastructure and not to provoke some of the kind of racist, sexist, homophobic nonsense that we saw with the truckers' convoy a few months ago.
	Not to provoke some of the kind of racist, sexist, homophobic nonsense that we saw with the truckers' convoy.
	And not to provoke some of the kind of racist, sexist, homophobic...
	Can you believe that?
	I think three times is enough.
	People, before I let loose, I've been in a car for four...
	Oh my gosh.
	How is the audio?
	Just let me know how the audio is doing before I go on.
	And yes, just me, Nicole.
	I think we all feel the same way.
	Audio is good.
	I saw a comment earlier which said, hold on, it was from a member.
	And it said, Viva, I wholeheartedly apologize, a wholehearted apology for last night's actions.
	Oh, I don't know.
	Took me a while.
	I don't know what you did in particular, Robbie.
	I don't think you did anything bad.
	The chat was, look, it's a phenomenon of the internet.
	There's a number of things.
	We don't need to go into it.
	But yeah, the chat was doing any one of three things.
	Simping, being, what's the word?
	Saucy, or, you know, being juvenile.
	It's the interwebs.
	Everybody's got thick skin.
	Everybody can deal with it.
	But no, last night, and then some people were expressing some legitimate grievances, legitimate dismay with the TikTok.
	Influencer realm on its own.
	For those of you who don't know, we had Ariadna Jacob on yesterday who had a talent agency called Influences and she was representing TikTok influencers.
	It's not my life.
	It's not my lifestyle.
	It's not what I'm into.
	But that doesn't mean that if you, you know, you may not be into something.
	She, I think, arguably still got defamed and had her The talent agency representing Taylor Lorenz is the one competing with influences and poached all of the TikTok talent from Ariadna Jacob as a result of that talent leaving.
	As a result of the hit piece that Taylor Lorenz wrote on Ariana Jacob.
	Okay, setting all that aside, we did not need to bring that up, Robbie.
	Today, I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	We're bringing it back again.
	Just, you know, everything Jim Watson, Jim Watson, the mayor of Ottawa, everything he set up until that last eight seconds, irritating, stupid.
	You know, I would say...
	Unnecessary.
	Overkill.
	But it wasn't egregiously dishonest and offensive right up until...
	And not to provoke some of the kind of racist, sexist, homophobic nonsense that we saw with the trucker's cart and the no stopping zone.
	So we're asking those individuals who have the right to freely come into our city to be respectful of both our residents and our businesses and our infrastructure.
	And not to provoke some of the kind of racist, sexist, homophobic nonsense that we saw with the trucker's convoy.
	You have the right to come and be respectful and do not provoke some of that racist, sexist, I forget what the last part of it was.
	First of all, what does that mean to provoke that behavior?
	Because if I'm thinking analytically, and I am because I always do.
	If he's saying don't provoke it, what he's basically saying is they wouldn't be guilty of it, but they would be guilty of someone else's expression of it because they have provoked that response in somebody else.
	It's not instigating it.
	It's provoking it.
	So he's saying that don't behave in a way that provokes that reaction from a third party.
	To behave that way oneself, you wouldn't say, you would say, don't behave that way.
	You wouldn't say, don't behave in a way to provoke racist, sexist, homophobic reactions.
	And first of all, probably more important than anything, when did that happen?
	During the three weeks of the protest?
	When was there one incident of trucker, protester, I won't say provoked, when was there one concrete, confirmed example of racist What was it?
	Sexist or homophobic acts.
	You want to talk about the only potentially sexist acts?
	It might arguably be detaining Tamara Lich for two and a half weeks.
	Detaining a woman for two and a half weeks on mischief charges.
	That might be a sexist act.
	What else in terms of homophobic?
	I mean, I was there.
	We saw it in real time.
	There were members of the LGBTQ community in the protest with their flags.
	I interviewed a trans individual during the protest who confided in me, although everyone saw it in real time, that the only hate this individual faced was when this individual crossed the lines from the counter-protest to the trucker protest and then the protesters who are there to oppose hate.
	And sexism and homophobia and all this stuff.
	They did that right up until they saw that trans individual cross the line and then they started issuing their slurs.
	Is that what Jim Watson means, by the way?
	Is that if you provoke the racist, sexist, homophobic actions from counter-protesters that it's your fault?
	It's pathological.
	It's pathological, in-your-face dishonesty.
	We've all seen it in real time.
	We've all seen it.
	We lived through it.
	We witnessed it together.
	We experienced it together.
	And yet they get up there and they lie like bald-faced, bold-faced, like pathological, shameless liars who don't ever think that there will be some cosmic justice.
	There will be some cosmic judgment.
	I'm not a religious person, people.
	I know some of you out there think I am.
	I'm not.
	I'm spiritual.
	I always conduct myself as though there's a big camera.
	Call it God.
	Call it just a perpetual camera recording everything that we do.
	Dog hair floating around.
	That guy, Jim Watson, other than being an incompetent nincompoop in that he can't run his own city properly, gets out and treats you like an idiot.
	We ask you to not provoke any...
	There was none.
	And Jim, you're a liar.
	You didn't go to the protest.
	You didn't talk with the protesters.
	You are just a liar.
	And you, sir, are there to sow discord.
	You are there to create the division.
	I don't share these things because I don't like sharing the hate private messages I get.
	I don't get all that many.
	But it's a funny one.
	I was going to tweet it out.
	I might still tweet it out and just redact it so that it doesn't matter who it came from.
	Someone wrote me and says, this is a private DM.
	Someone took the time out of their day.
	To write this to me.
	I really wish you would stop hating your country.
	I've never heard a good word come out of your mouth about Canada.
	I'm not sure if you know this, but Israel will take you if you don't like Canada.
	And I'm sure there's a conservative area there that you would be accepted.
	Why don't you just say goodbye to Canada?
	First of all, to whomever sent this to me, if you have never heard me say a good word about Canada, you're deaf.
	You're deaf or you're selectively blind.
	Or you might be selectively deaf.
	Or you might just be new to the channel and you haven't heard the amount of times I've said that Canada is the most beautiful country on earth.
	We have some of the most beautiful people in the world.
	Every country has beautiful people.
	Anybody who says their country has more beautiful people than another country, I'd argue that's a bit of some form of national supremacy.
	Americans are good.
	Canadians are good.
	Russian citizens are good.
	Ukrainian citizens are good.
	Israeli citizens are good.
	Uganda citizens are good.
	People are, generally speaking, good.
	And like I was discussing with someone just actually today, within any society, within any demographic, you're going to have the vast majority of people who are good.
	You're going to have roughly the same percentage of people who are bad.
	Canada, U.S. France, Germany, there's not a country that has more bad everyday citizens.
	And anybody who thinks that that's the case, we could have a discussion one day.
	But it's just ironic.
	This person says they've never heard me say a good word about a country.
	This is the most beautiful country in the world because it's my home.
	And everybody thinks their home is beautiful.
	Everything about this country is beautiful except for the politics and the politicians.
	You expect me to...
	Have good words for a country that locks people up on mischief charges?
	That locks people in their homes for five months?
	Oh no, sorry.
	And you know what?
	If I didn't love Canada, I wouldn't criticize it.
	If I didn't love my country, I wouldn't have run for office to try to make it better.
	But do you think I'm going to sit here and say things are hunky-dory, everything's beautiful?
	Because I don't want to be accused of hating my country.
	But that's not the funniest thing about this.
	What I love about this, and I'll read it again, because...
	There's three elements in this message.
	I really wish you would stop hating your country.
	I've never heard a good word come out of your mouth about Canada.
	I'm not sure if you know this, but Israel will take you.
	Straight to identity politics after telling me what I can and cannot say and basically telling me where I should go.
	They'll take you.
	And there's a conservative area there.
	You know, isn't it ironic that someone who, I guess by the tone of this, is liberal?
	Goes right to identity politics.
	Tells me to leave the country.
	Identity politics tells me what I can say and what I shouldn't say and where I should go and where I shouldn't go.
	Who's been doing that for the last two and a half years?
	Justin Trudeau?
	François Legault?
	Canadian politicians who see everything through identity politics blinders.
	Everyone is, hey, you're a Jew?
	Go to Israel.
	You're black?
	Apply for a job.
	Hey, you're a woman?
	Let's break it down.
	What type of woman are you?
	This is how Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party sees the world.
	And what do you think it does?
	It incites, it encourages this type of divisive, hateful, hateful stuff.
	Identity politics?
	Shut your mouth and leave.
	I mean, where do you learn it from?
	When we were kids, there was that old commercial where the kid was doing something illicit with some herb.
	And then, you know, the dad catches him and he says, who taught you how to do this, son?
	Where'd you learn this?
	And the kid goes, I learned it from you, dad.
	I learned it from watching you.
	When we have a prime minister who operates on identity politics, demonizes people who think differently, tells them what they can do with their bodies and where they can physically go, what do you think happens?
	Trickle-down effect.
	You know, good influences trickle down, bad influences trickle down.
	And we're seeing more divisiveness in this country.
	We're seeing more division in this country.
	We're seeing more hatred among Canadian groups within this country, specifically because of the rhetoric coming from the person right up at the top.
	Okay.
	Now, with that said, there was a couple of things.
	Another thing that we have to...
	And by the way, I don't like sharing these negative...
	Because first of all, it's...
	A radical minority of the DMs that I get.
	And the other thing is, I'm not a victim.
	You open your ideas up, I will get people who disagree with me.
	And the individual's entitled to their opinion.
	It's ironic that the individual doesn't identify the fact that they're displaying intolerance, identity politics, discrimination, in a sense, and a form of authoritarian...
	Dictatorship over other citizens, telling them what they can say publicly, where they should go if they say certain things, and just seeing them as political identity objects.
	I feel so objectified.
	I'm going to go back to Twitter for one second because I was going to start with another tweet.
	Because it's not even on a lighter note.
	It's on a sadder note.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	They're hard work.
	It's played a critical role in ensuring Putin's strategic failure in Ukraine, and they should know that we know it.
	In addition to this supplemental funding, I'm also sending to Congress a comprehensive package that will enhance our underlying effort to accommodate the Russian oligarchs and make sure we take their ill-begotten gains.
	We're going to accommodate them.
	We're going to seize their yachts, their luxury homes, and other ill-begotten gains.
	Of Putin's kleptocracy.
	The guys who are the kleptocracy.
	It's not even funny.
	It's not even funny.
	These are bad guys.
	This legislative pact has strengthened all law enforcement capabilities to seize property linked to Russia's kleptocracy.
	They're hard.
	I'm telling you this.
	Let me remember this.
	It's not funny.
	I'm not poking fun at him.
	I'm not making fun of Joe Biden.
	It's sad and it's devastating for a nation.
	People are laughing at the States and they're laughing at the Canadian...
	Let me rephrase.
	They're laughing at American politicians and they're laughing at Canadian politicians for different reasons.
	And I said in that tweet, I never in my life could have conceived...
	That one individual in politics could destroy or cause so much damage to a country.
	I never thought glorious nations could be single-handedly destroyed by any one individual.
	Then Justin Trudeau and POTUS came along.
	The damage currently being done to the West by these two individuals will take years to recover from.
	I never thought it was...
	It's a machine.
	There is the old expression, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
	There is the other thing that I've learned growing up through business.
	You can deal with the biggest, most impressive financial institution in the world or the biggest business institutions in the world.
	They are no better than the people working for them at that time.
	What the hell was he saying?
	Dude, I don't know.
	They're going to accommodate the Russians?
	No, that's not what I meant.
	I meant not accommodate them.
	I meant...
	Misappropriate their assets on the basis of executive orders and sanctions on individuals, not even on government.
	Oh, and then he has to come back on it.
	And garble.
	It's garble.
	But Joe, you imagine foreign entities, foreign countries looking at the American government right now and thinking anything other than absolute tragedy but opportunity for them?
	I mean, and the international community looking at Justin Trudeau, and you get lambasted by the European Union?
	I mean, these two individuals have caused years, if not decades, worth of damage to Canada and the US.
	And the US is a bigger problem, because they had international influence that Canada never had.
	You know, they had international power that Canada had, you know.
	We had prestige.
	At one point, we were something of a moral authority on the international scale, on the international scene.
	We were a moral authority for rights, freedoms.
	We were.
	Right up until Justin Trudeau turned Canada into something akin to the basic dictatorship that he's envied for so many years.
	It's sad.
	And the other thing is, it's sad because it is...
	I'm not saying this as the joke.
	Way of saying it.
	I'm saying it.
	It's elder abuse.
	Joe Biden, for anyone who's ever dealt with an elderly person who suffered from dementia, you can see it.
	You can see it and that he is being exploited by whatever powers that be just need that inept, incompetent figurehead so that they can do whatever they need to do behind the scenes.
	It's sad.
	It's abusive.
	And...
	My goodness.
	And Canada is a laughingstock of the international community.
	Not because we have a bumbling dude who can't finish his sentences.
	Although he goes, ugh.
	He can't finish a sentence, but for different reasons.
	Do I need to go into slower mode?
	Did I not put it into slower mode?
	Okay, and then hold on.
	I'm going to go into YouTube and put it in slower mode.
	I think I forgot to do that.
	Yeah, I got back just in time.
	What am I doing here?
	I'm going into slower mode.
	It was a long day.
	It was frazzled at the beginning.
	Okay, sorry.
	I'm going to put it into 15 seconds slower mode, people.
	I think we're still monetized.
	Small blessings, people.
	It's sad.
	And now Justin Trudeau is turning Canada into an international laughingstock and turning it into a national disgrace.
	Oh, Amber's in the house.
	I didn't even get into recapping what happened today.
	Okay.
	I'm not going to keep Amber waiting.
	He's an actual practicing attorney.
	I don't know how long he has, but we're going to...
	I'll get to the Super Chats afterwards.
	I'm flagging them or starring them so that I can see them afterwards.
	And I will be able to bring them up afterwards.
	We were in court today.
	Sorry.
	I'm not appropriating actual legal work.
	I drove to Ottawa to see Randy Hillier's bail.
	I don't know if it was a rehearing, an appeal, a contestation.
	It was before a judge.
	You know what?
	I'll get Amber, and I'm not going to misappropriate his knowledge.
	David, sir, how goes the battle?
	How are you doing, David?
	Going well.
	In the chat, tell us if the audio is totally out of whack.
	How does it feel coming home after you have your heart and soul ripped out of you in real time by a judge who says, I've heard what you have to say.
	I'm not even deliberating.
	Dismissed.
	Well, it can get worse.
	It can actually get worse.
	What's worse is after, this didn't happen today, but it will occasionally happen to every lawyer where you will argue a case.
	You'll put your heart and soul into it.
	And at the end of your arguments, the judge will say, thank you.
	I don't need to hear from the other side.
	I'm ready to render my decision.
	That's a big frustration right there.
	I'm going to tell you this, Amber.
	I'm not going to be hard on you.
	People might think I'm being hard on you.
	You never stood a chance today.
	And it was through no fault of your own.
	It's the circumstances.
	You made a valiant effort.
	But I thought the judge was going to say, no need to hear from the prosecution.
	You were mentioning before that, you know, is this an appeal or a bail hearing?
	What was today was called a bail review.
	And a bail review is like an appeal, only it's not quite an appeal.
	Basically, you can ask to change.
	The result of a bail court decision.
	So in some cases, the bail court will deny someone's release and you can go to the bail review court to try and get the person released.
	That's what happened with Tamara Leach.
	In some cases, a person gets released and the prosecution wants the person to be detained and they'll go to the bail court to suggest that the person be detained.
	And then in a case like Randy Hilliers, the person got released, but the conditions are what are at issue.
	And there's two ways that you can get the conditions changed.
	The first is if you can show that one or more of the conditions, there's been a material change of circumstance, that previously the condition or conditions were necessary, but now they are not.
	And the other way is if you show that the lower court judge made an error, and that's sort of the appeal component to it.
	And so we argued actually both of those things for the...
	One of the conditions for your viewers there was that Randy Hillier consented to the condition that has been basically applied to everybody who's been charged as part of the Freedom Convoy, that being not to attend the downtown core of Ottawa except for legal meetings with their lawyers or court.
	So that was something that Randy consented to.
	Like I said, it's a pretty standard condition in relation to these charges.
	But we argued that there's no longer the need for that condition.
	And so we sought to have that reviewed on the basis that there's no longer a need for it.
	And then the famous...
	Restrictions on his social media and on who he can support and what organizations he can support, that being he can't post and he can't support anything to do with anti-mandate, anti-vax, anti-mask causes.
	That was contested in the court below, wasn't agreed to, and the Justice of the Peace below granted that request by the prosecutor.
	So we went today to have the judge remove that.
	And as you've indicated, it did not go well for the defense.
	I mean, I always have to be careful about commenting on judges' decisions.
	I mean, on one hand, lawyers have a right and even a duty to criticize the judiciary.
	But on the other hand, we have to do so with dignified restraint, noting that they can't comment back, right?
	And so there's an element of fairness that's there.
	But certainly, I think the judge got it wrong.
	You know, every issue from the very beginning, right out of the gates, he was raising objections, and I addressed everything.
	I mean, from starters, he was saying, well, your client agreed to the condition, and I pointed out, well, yeah, that's true, but there's been a change of circumstance, and nothing was really getting through, unfortunately, to the judge throughout the hearing.
	Dave, people are going to think I'm giving you a hard time again, but I'm not.
	I'm just going to say, at this stage of the...
	The proceedings based on the facts that were before this particular judge.
	I don't think this judge got it wrong.
	I think this judge's decision was he could have found a way to go the other way, but it was totally justified in fact and in law at this point in time.
	For everyone out there, you were challenging two aspects of the bail.
	One was disputed before the peace officer, the justice of the peace.
	And the Justice of the Peace, it was a disputed drafting of what he can and cannot post on social media.
	There was a debate.
	The Justice of the Peace went with the drafting of the prosecution.
	On the geographic restrictions, you agreed to it, the parties, and you came and said, well, the circumstances have changed.
	I said, I understand exactly what the judge said.
	He said, on the one, the geographic limitations, you agreed to it.
	What's changed?
	Yeah.
	To modify an agreement would have to be pretty substantial, pretty material change, and not incidental, ancillary, or just mere passage of time, because necessarily time is going to change even when you agree to things.
	Well, just on that point, though, David, in some cases, the passage of time won't be that significant.
	In this particular case, when Randy Hilliard turned himself in, it was only a month out, and there was still uncertainty as to whether or not the convoy might come back, there might be future...
	Again, that's not our perspective, but that's the perspective of the prosecution, and they are entitled to pursue that perspective.
	But in this particular case, even looking at the rolling thunder protests that are coming through, we induced evidence on this bail review from the Ottawa Police, a press release from earlier this week, and from Mayor Jim Watson.
	A statement he made yesterday, both whom, from the political and enforcement sides, basically saying, we got this under control.
	There'll be zero tolerance.
	It's not going to be like the Freedom Convoy.
	You will be ticketed and towed.
	We have this under control.
	And so that is some pretty important evidence, which did not figure at all into the decision.
	Again, I'm just stating a fact.
	I did not figure anywhere into Justice McClain's decision, even though that was a highly relevant and important part Sorry, Viva.
	I'm not sure I can believe you anymore unless your info is first verified by our new Disinformation Governance Board.
	That's going on in the States.
	By the way, and it's not to strawman your argument.
	Your argument was, and it's legit, that the reason for which you agreed...
	That he shouldn't go back to Ottawa within a certain geographic location was because they thought at any moment this protest could start up again.
	Trucks would be parked on Wellington for another three weeks.
	And so you agreed to it for that reason.
	Now they've announced it's all under control, even for the rolling thunder.
	There's no risk of a recurrence.
	So therefore, the geographic restrictions that are currently limiting what a sitting member of provincial parliament can do, where he can go in his own city.
	That's no longer a concern.
	Therefore, you can lift the restriction.
	Right.
	Now, that wasn't actually the bigger point.
	The bigger point we were arguing, I mean, we wanted to get that changed, obviously, and we think it was appropriate to have gotten changed.
	But the real contentious issue that I am still baffled that two levels of court have concluded what appears to be contrary to common sense is that the conclusion of both levels of court was that In order to prevent a substantial likelihood of Randy Hillier committing further offenses,
	he needed to be prevented from speaking on social media in favor of or supporting anti-mandate causes or groups.
	In my view, and I maintain this to this point, you can't seriously say that his ability to speak about those things...
	Takes him from a situation of not being a substantial likelihood of committing further offenses to committing to a substantial likelihood.
	That just doesn't make any sense at all.
	It's absurd.
	We're going to get there because I think the implications of the second condition were even worse.
	But just to, you know, what is it, bookmark?
	Just to close the chapter on the book, to bookend this.
	You know, the judge says you agreed to it.
	And I'm listening to you and saying, okay, well, the change is the mere passage of time, the likelihood that the protest is not going to come back up.
	My issue was, and it's not my issue, a lot of people are saying, why even agree to these in the first place?
	And I understand the reason for which you came to an agreement, because to control your fate is better than to leave it into the hands of a highly politicized judge.
	And we're going to get to this because some of the statements the judge made today...
	We're infused with politics or infused with bias, in my humble opinion.
	Just in law, once you had already agreed to that condition, even as a supporter of the movement, of the freedom, of the charter, you agreed to it too bad.
	Not enough has changed.
	The protest isn't coming back.
	Well, when you agreed to it, the protest wasn't really coming back either, so you've got to live with it.
	Tough noogies.
	For people who are going to fault you for having come to that agreement, I say you're still better off controlling your fate than leaving it in the hands of the justice of the peace.
	Well, I gotta tell you two things.
	First of all, I'm not aware of a single person who has been released in regards to the charges.
	There have been dozens of charges stemming from the Freedom Convoy, and I'm not aware of a single person who was released either by the police or by the court who was not given that condition.
	So, I mean, you can criticize the Ontario bail system.
	I know that the Ontario bail system is very conservative when it comes to certain types of conditions, but that's a feature of everyone's bail who has been released.
	Secondly, you talked about bias, and again, I have to be very careful when speaking of the judiciary, but I do think that one fair criticism I can make, and this isn't necessarily directed at one judge, but...
	I have found in two years of looking at anything to do with COVID-19, all levels of the judiciary have been very uncomfortable with ruling in favor of anything that is against the government.
	And again, this is not a political party-stripe issue.
	There have been mandates by progressive conservative governments in Ontario.
	There have been mandates by liberal governments, federal governments.
	There have been governments of all political stripes across the country.
	And this isn't just Ontario either.
	But at every time I've seen a judge have an opportunity to restrain the government.
	Or to give effect to a criticism of the government as it pertains to responses to COVID-19.
	The judiciary, in my respectful opinion, has been very uncomfortable with doing so and has not done so.
	And so, for example, this idea that Randy Hillier would want to speak out against mandates, to me, that's something that normally, in the normal world, would be given a lot more...
	Consideration as a matter of free expression.
	But it was essentially lumped in with the allegations they've made about Randy Hillier opposing other government measures in some provincial offenses prosecutions that he's facing.
	And so there just isn't an appetite, I'm finding, and I find that quite disappointing, from the judiciary to give any effect to arguments which seem to criticize Government measures.
	And that, I think, is a fair criticism that can be made of the judiciary in Canada right now.
	Okay.
	And just so everyone also appreciates part of what you just said, everyone who got released, their bail conditions included, do not go back to the Ottawa Corps or certain geographic areas.
	So to contest that, it would have been a losing battle in the first place.
	My only thing is, once you agree to it...
	Right.
	A month and a half later, not a substantial amount has changed for that particular item.
	It was clear where the judge was going to go.
	And he said, you agreed to it.
	Not enough has changed.
	Now, going to the restriction on free speech, bearing in mind everyone watching, Randy Hillier, above and beyond being a citizen who benefits from charter rights, is an elected member of provincial parliament who is, as terms of his release, And I don't want anyone thinking that it's more offensive for Randy than it is for Tamara because she's just a lowly citizen and he's an MPP.
	It's shocking for both.
	But one interferes with individual charter rights.
	The other interferes with individual charter rights and the democratic process itself because Randy Hillier was elected.
	And they have tongue-tied him, restrained him to say, you can't make social media posts on...
	Vaccine mandate issues and face mask issues.
	And that is shocking to me.
	And so that was the contested element that you were trying to get the judge to review or revise or, you know, correct the justice of the peace's lower decision.
	And the judge noted, will Randy still benefits from, what was it called?
	Legislative privilege?
	What was already used?
	Yeah, I thought that that suggestion was a red herring and it didn't have any bearing on the legal issues.
	Justice McLean kept bringing up that he has, I think, parliamentary privilege.
	Parliamentary privilege, yes.
	He can debate and speak out on vaccine passport issues, mask mandate issues in Parliament.
	Part of the Justice of the Peace's ruling and the Crown's position, and I think this was tacitly given effect to by Justice McLean today, is if you look carefully at the conditions, Randy's not as encumbered as some other people.
	I think Tamara Leach has a full ban on social media writ large.
	Randy Hillier is still allowed to speak on social media.
	He theoretically could speak on lockdowns.
	He theoretically could still speak on school closings.
	He theoretically could speak on the right to protest, assuming he does not speak about the right to protest vaccine mandates or mask mandates.
	If he speaks on social media about the right to freedom of speech, all of these things are still permitted.
	So like I said, I can't get away from the point that it is rather absurd to say that He's allowed to do all those things and does not pose a substantial likelihood of re-offense.
	But if you allow him to speak about mask mandates, vaccine mandates, or masks or vaccines as policies, or if you allow him to support an organization that is involved in that, that that somehow moves the needle to make him a substantial likelihood.
	Give me a break.
	There's no merit to that suggestion.
	By the way, it's always easier sitting in the back and saying, oh, this is what I would have said as a comeback.
	At one point, the judge said, he asked you, he said, well, you said, it's not as though he's encouraging people to go violate the mask mandates or vaccine mandates.
	He's not encouraging people to do that.
	He just wants to be able to post freely on social media about these issues.
	And the judge says, well, wouldn't that be...
	Wouldn't that be illegal in the first place?
	Encouraging people to break the law.
	You had a good answer.
	I was making the hypothetical statement because the judge was saying, well, why would you agree to not be able to post about the Freedom Convoy or associate with the Freedom Convoy?
	And I was saying, look, I know how the bail system works in Ontario, okay?
	We by no means admit that the Freedom Convoy was an illegal occupation, but we...
	Except that the Crown has evidence that they intend to adduce that they plan on making that argument.
	And we know some of that evidence has already begun to fall apart when they were referring to the arsonists or the possibility of weapons.
	Bit by bit, pieces of evidence are not materializing as the Crown would want it to.
	But they are still given in our judicial system an opportunity to make that case.
	They're given an opportunity to make that case.
	The charges have been laid on what appears to be reasonable and probable grounds on dozens of people.
	And because of the evidence that was put before the court of the closures and the honking and how long everything took, no judge considering the bail context is going to deny the Crown the opportunity to prosecute that.
	So bearing that that's a viable argument for the Crown to make, one we don't think will be successful, but a viable one nonetheless that they're allowed to make.
	It's a normal bail condition to separate the accused person from that alleged illegality.
	To the extent that people were involved in...
	It would be appropriate to restrict Randy Hilliard from doing that.
	It would be appropriate to restrict him from encouraging people to participate in that.
	But there is nothing about the content of the expression.
	This is a point I made numerous times and respectfully the presiding judge did not engage me on it, did not ask me about it, did not reference it in his decision.
	The content of the protest It's not what was illegal.
	It was, in the opinion of the Crown, their case at its highest, it was the manner of protest.
	And so certainly there is no connection between...
	And to round that off, is the judge even acknowledging that Randy Hillier still could promote anti-vaccine or anti-mask or anti-mandate policies, just not on social media.
	It's not supporting a third party.
	Yeah, he said he could do it in print.
	He could do it on the news.
	He can do it on radio and television, just not social media.
	What I had the greatest difficulty, and it really is the cherry on this ridiculous, unconstitutional Sunday.
	He said, your point was that they were there.
	What was illegal was the method of protest.
	Incidental to the method of protest was the reason for which they were there protesting.
	The judge says, okay, well, they were there protesting to protest the mandates.
	So therefore, it's sufficiently connected that we should prevent this individual from being able to go to social media to post on the mandates that they were protesting because that was the reason for which they were there protesting allegedly unlawfully in the first place.
	So they're sufficiently connected.
	And what the judge said, which is where my jaw dropped in my spirit, was...
	It's illegal already to incite, you know, to tell someone to go break the law.
	You made a fair distinction that telling someone to go park illegally is not illegal.
	It's a statutory offense.
	I don't know.
	You may not even have a criminal offense to encouraging someone to park illegally.
	But the judge was going along that line.
	And he said, well, I don't need a restraining order for that.
	I don't need to restrain Randy's speech to tell people to go break the law because that's already illegal.
	So what he's implicitly saying is I've got to restrain Randy's speech.
	Because of what people might do with that information if he expresses that speech.
	And that is where, in my view, what you effectively have is stifling a free speech, not for any actual direct potentiality of encouraging criminality, but really only because how people might perceive certain information if they hear it.
	And that's just outright stifling free speech and not just of a citizen.
	But of an elected official who is there to represent his or her constituents.
	Right.
	It was more of a rant.
	I mean, it's, yeah.
	But you were losing on both of those requests regardless.
	One, the judge, by the way, he did say that Randy has a current pending, what was it?
	Not a statutory, but a provincial offense.
	He has provincial offenses, charges in a few different jurisdictions.
	I'm actually not representing him on those.
	I am representing some other individuals who are related to some of those charges, but not Randy himself in the provincial offenses.
	And what the judge said is, look, your behavior in the past shows your propensity to encouraging people to break the law.
	But by the judge's own logic, okay.
	So if he does that again, you don't even need to include that.
	If he does that again, that's already illegal.
	What the judge is basically saying is, we don't even want you influencing people on social media because...
	That's where people are reading their information.
	And even if you don't tell them to go break the law, because that's illegal already, just imparting your opinion might incite protest.
	And that is literally stifling free speech to prevent people from hearing it and protesting accordingly, not even protesting unlawfully.
	I still don't understand when they determined that this protest was unlawful.
	The judge said something today.
	It was potentially unlawful ab initio.
	Which means from the beginning.
	Yeah, which is somewhat inconsistent with what my understanding is of what he said in the civil matter.
	He's the judge that imposed the honking injunction.
	And my understanding, again, I didn't read the transcript.
	I'm basing it off of what credible people have told me about that hearing.
	My understanding is that he wasn't keen on finding that honking was a protected form of expression, but he did leave open and, in fact, seemed to be leaning that way, I'm told, that elements of this protest, at least at the time he had the hearing, that the ability to lawfully protest was still something very important and he should be very careful about...
	About trampling on that.
	So, I mean, I went into this hearing expecting to have a little bit more of an ear on this issue.
	Yeah.
	You get 10 on 10 for trying, but I think it was...
	I mean, you would have had to get a judge who was really, really willing to forget about the agreement and then really override the lower court's decision on what was the detail, but...
	So what's next in this?
	Because you got Operation Rolling Thunder.
	You got the rally Rolling Thunder coming in on the weekend.
	You got Jim Watson asking people not to provoke racist and homophobic responses because that's what defined the three weeks of protest.
	Randy is currently restricted.
	What's his geographic limitation in Ottawa?
	It's an area...
	It's an area that sort of coincides with what the Ottawa police sort of unilaterally on their own determined was a quote-unquote red zone.
	They came up with this during the Emergencies Act era.
	It was a geographic area that was considerably larger than...
	Am I able to share a screen here?
	Yeah, go for it.
	Let me see if you can.
	In case anybody's wondering...
	I cut my Adam's apple shaving.
	Why I was shaving my Adam's apple, don't ask, because I don't grow hair on it, but if anyone sees that...
	And it bled for a long time.
	Let me put something up on the screen here, Viva, just to give you...
	Yeah, go for it, and I'll see if I can...
	Let me stop, screen share, bring it up, and then I think I'll see it.
	And I'm going to get to...
	I'm starring all of the super chats while we're waiting.
	Mike Riendo, the judge's opinion nullifies the entire concept of protest, since protesting is...
	Intended to influence the opinion of the public.
	It nullifies democracy because Randy Hillier was elected to express opinions, not just in Parliament, to the people who elected him on matters of policy.
	Can you see the screen right now?
	I do.
	I'm not bringing up anything bad?
	No.
	I'm joking.
	Okay, here we go.
	Hold on a second.
	Hold on.
	I was trying to make a joke.
	Never mind.
	I'm just going to go.
	What did I do?
	No, that's not what we want.
	No.
	Yes.
	Okay, go for it.
	So, I want to make sure you're seeing what I'm seeing.
	What do you see on the screen right now?
	We see a red map, and it looks like we're looking at Elgin, I think.
	Oh, we see your law office right there.
	So, Elgin is over here.
	The Loblaws?
	Yeah, the blue dot is where my law office is.
	Elgin is the north-south street to the right of where I am.
	So, the red line.
	It represents where Randy Hillier, according to his bail hearing, bail documents, is restricted from attending.
	And the blue shaded area is what the Emergencies Act granted as an area that police may secure.
	Just to give you a little bit of perspective as to what Ottawa Police has unilaterally without any statutory authority to do so.
	What they've determined, it's...
	Roughly the same size.
	In fact, the Ottawa police red zone, I think, is slightly smaller than this, but it's approximately the same idea.
	And then the blue area is what the Emergencies Act conferred new powers on the police to actually enforce.
	So that really is all the police should have been able to enforce sort of arbitrarily, to use that word kind of in a colloquial sense.
	The police really could have secured that area with far fewer grounds than they would have normally needed to absent the Emergencies Act.
	But the red zone here is what Randy Hillier is precluded from attending.
	That's the 401 on the bottom.
	The 417.
	417, sorry, that's the highway.
	The blue part is Parliament, and then, my goodness, it goes...
	Oh, that's where I got my car towed, is right near Art...
	Is in Barrie.
	I parked right out of Chinatown and I got towed last time.
	Okay, that's big.
	And he can post to social media to the extent he doesn't post about two issues in particular, masks and vaccines.
	And if he does, or if he's accused of having done it, he loses his bail, he loses his bond.
	Gets taken back into custody and likely kept until his trial in a year or two, unless he can show cause why he'd be released again.
	Which would be obviously a very hotly contested bail hearing.
	And that was part of my argument as well.
	He's under great pressure.
	He's on bail for the first time ever, and he's under great pressure to make sure that he stays on whatever good side of a gray area exists.
	So again, suggesting that there is a substantial likelihood of re-offense or that somehow the...
	Perception of the justice system would be somehow affected if Randy Hilliard was allowed to speak out on mandates.
	Again, I hearken back to this idea that the judiciary in general over the last two years has been very uncomfortable with opposing government responses to COVID.
	There's no question about it.
	I saw someone in the early part of the chat saying, or it might have been on Twitter, whatever, saying that in the States, you have a better separation of power between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative.
	In Canada, it's a frat party.
	I'm not sure I agree.
	I've got to push back on that statement.
	I think one thing that the Canadian judiciary has well is that even though different political parties appoint...
	They don't have the same level of partisan decision-making that we see come down time and time again.
	And we don't elect our judges.
	The judges are independent.
	We have an excellent judiciary in Canada.
	And so my earlier criticism in general about how COVID-related measures have been dealt with across the country, I think that's sort of an exception to the rule.
	But I think our judiciary is actually, in ordinary circumstances, probably the best in the world when it comes to Taking politics out to the extent that that can be done.
	But I'll push back on that because I don't think it's not partisan in Canada.
	It's institutional in Canada.
	So in the States, yes, there's the partisan divide between Democrat and Republican.
	I mean, you can predict the judges based on that alone.
	Here, it's institutional.
	You know, conservative or liberal.
	The judiciary defers to the government.
	The government defers to their government-appointed experts.
	And the government-appointed experts advise the courts.
	And that's your trinity of institutionalized power.
	I mean, my experience is in the criminal arena.
	And look, judges are human beings, right?
	And they're going to come with different perceptions.
	And I mean, in a way, it's good that we get such a wealth of different experiences.
	And I think the traditional thing we see is some judges are a little bit more...
	Leaning towards holding the police and the state to account in ordinary criminal cases.
	And some lean more towards, you know, punishing crime and law and order.
	And what's actually interesting is I've seen situations where former defense lawyers become more law and order oriented and former prosecutors become more about holding the state to account.
	But there's a variety of...
	They're all fairly in a close range.
	And generally speaking, I think we always get a fair shake in front of judges in Ontario and in Quebec, where I appear as well.
	Plump Lettuce says, we grossly underestimate the power.
	And yeah, Red, by the way, I'll have a look, but no promises because not enough time in the day.
	And also I...
	I don't give legal advice.
	We grossly underestimate the powers behind the scenes to tear down Western democracies.
	Too many fear the label of a theorist.
	The sooner we admit how bad it is, the sooner we can affect change.
	Even the courts are compromised.
	When Amber's not here, I'm going to impart my notes that I took because I can be a little more critical but still always respectful.
	But the funny thing is, one of the first lines, above and beyond...
	I hate court.
	I never want to see the inside of a court again.
	Judges are human.
	Justice is human.
	You're getting humans interpreting letter.
	It's going to go by the individual judge's personal life experience, situation at any given point in time.
	You did good, Dave.
	You tried.
	The only reluctance I had, I noticed that there was only...
	I didn't know in Ontario you no longer have to have masks indoors.
	And I came in all frightened.
	And then I saw the cops weren't wearing masks.
	There was one person wearing a mask in that courtroom.
	It was a CBC reporter right behind me.
	My only issue, you know, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
	But you know damn well.
	And I knew.
	I heard that reporter behind me.
	He started taking notes when that judge gave him the sound bites that that reporter knew that he wanted.
	I took some of them down.
	I'll go over them.
	That judge gave some soundbites.
	You got the CBC reporter.
	He's going to run with certain things that that judge said about Randy, about the protest, about all of it.
	You were there, Viva.
	I'm going to go in a few minutes.
	You were an eyewitness as to how the hearing unfolded.
	Give your perspectives.
	I don't even know what you would say.
	You never had a chance.
	I would say you never had a chance.
	You never had a chance.
	In the substance of it, because the two arguments are almost, well, they're very difficult to overcome.
	One is you agree to it.
	The other is you got to show me a big, a relatively decent mistake in order for me to override the judge's adjudication.
	The issue which I raised, which I thought was clear, is that there was always a possibility, and this goes beyond Randy Hillier's case, there's always a possibility that a person may commit further offenses while out on bail.
	And the question is not, is there a possibility or a strong possibility, but is it a significant probability?
	And like I said, you know, to say that Randy Hillier is not a substantial likelihood of committing further offenses if he's allowed to speak about vaccine mandates or mask mandates, just not on social media and not support organizations that are opposed to that.
	But if he were to be allowed to do that, he is a substantial likelihood.
	They're just...
	To me, that's so far from reality that I don't really have much more I could say about it.
	And what his underlying charges would be.
	He's at risk of committing mischief again.
	I'm channeling Barnes, but it's very easy for me in the back to say what I would have done.
	CBC was looking for soundbites from the judge.
	I would have given this...
	The CBC, some soundbites of my own, but who knows?
	Maybe I would just be, I would be reluctant to do it because I don't want to be held in contempt.
	I don't want to be accused of disrespecting the judiciary.
	But when the judge referred to it, and not incidentally, but he used the word occupation.
	And, you know, I was like, I got a hair in my eye.
	I was like, that's a very, very prejudicial manner of describing the protest.
	And when the prosecutor said something along the lines of...
	As relates to the alleged assault on the officer, he said a show of force in the barricades.
	That's a very lofty way of describing walking up some stairs.
	But the problem is, you're in a system.
	It's like being in the youth protection system or the family law system.
	Once you're in it, someone said you're almost guilty until proven innocent.
	The bail system...
	is a a complicated system when you think about it because you got this presumption of innocence on one hand but like I said before put yourself in the shoes of the prosecutor for a second if there's information before you that can be cogently put together to make a case and we're at the very beginning right now We don't know what will happen a year from now, two years from now, when the matter goes to trial, you know, how pieces of evidence may ultimately play out at a preliminary inquiry or trial.
	But if you look at it objectively, there is an argument that can be made by the Crown.
	I don't think it's a good argument.
	I don't think it should be a successful argument.
	But I recognize there's an argument the Crown can make that this was an occupation.
	I think that argument will be defeated.
	But the point is, is they have enough evidence that they can...
	Take their swing at it.
	And because that's the way the bail system works is that that theory of the prosecution is given some consideration when managing the risk of releasing somebody.
	What do you have next?
	What else is there?
	Any other...
	Well, do you have anything more on this?
	I'm going to express some more of my thoughts when you leave and especially my thoughts on court.
	But do you have anything else you want to say before you go?
	Because you have...
	No, I mean, my cases are ongoing.
	I think the YouTuber Zot, I got his charge withdrawn earlier this or last week.
	So that's, I mean, most of the charges, like I said, are still underway.
	So his case was a little bit different.
	I persuaded the prosecutor to drop that one.
	Dropped entirely.
	Zot's a free man.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Phenomenal.
	That's great.
	Okay.
	Awesome.
	Well, Dave.
	I'm going to be in Ottawa documenting the protest.
	I'm not participating, organizing, speaking at.
	I'm going to be documenting.
	I'll go down Saturday, maybe tomorrow night, depending on family obligations.
	But you did good, Dave.
	You cannot win if you don't try.
	It was good.
	I'll give some of the highlights of your arguments afterwards with some of my own commentary.
	Dave, thank you very much.
	We talk sooner than later.
	Oh, are you still locked out of Twitter?
	You might want to let people know.
	Yeah, interesting.
	What's funny is that I got that email today that my account had been locked because of COVID misinformation as to a tweet I posted maybe a week and a half ago.
	I'm still able to tweet, though.
	The tweet in question has a...
	Don't mention it.
	Don't get me in trouble.
	It has three X's.
	Go follow Dave Anber.
	Don't retweet it either, Dave.
	Well, it's not able to be retweeted or engaged upon now, but I'm still able to tweet for some reason, so I don't know what I'm supposed to do here.
	Actually, and hold on, Dr. John Nichols says, what argument was made to get the Zot charge withdrawn?
	Do you just have to say you have no chance to let it go?
	Zot's case was a little bit different in the sense that as opposed to being sort of...
	He was directly involved in the protests, as many of the people were who were arrested.
	He was trying to get into the red zone for the purpose of engaging in journalism, essentially, as a YouTuber.
	Part of the argument I raised with the prosecutor here, and you never fully know what aspect of your argument, your informal arguments that you bring up in an email conversation, what part of that ruled the day with them.
	But part of my argument was that...
	This perimeter that the Ottawa police had created was not an actual authorized perimeter for them to create.
	They just chose to do that.
	And to the extent that they had no information that Zot was partaking in the protest other than to document it as a journalist, there would have been no reason to have charged him with obstructing the police, which is what he was charged with.
	So, again, I don't know if...
	Every aspect of my argument was accepted by the Crown, but ultimately, after considering what I had to say, they agreed to drop the charge.
	That and video evidence of one cop saying, go, and then within five seconds, the other cop saying, you're under arrest.
	It's a pretty good mixed signal, good evidence of mixed signals.
	But yeah, it's quite clearly there.
	Journalism is an activity and not a vocation.
	So he was there being a journalist that day.
	Right.
	All right, man.
	Amber, thank you very much.
	We'll talk sooner than later.
	Any updates?
	We'll get back on.
	Take care.
	All right.
	See you soon.
	Now, now that the practicing lawyer is out of the room, I can vent a little bit.
	Let me go get my notes from the hearing today.
	I'm not going to go through all of them.
	I'm not going to screen share because some of them might not be screen shareable.
	The court says this is going to be actually not a rant against the system.
	It's just if you want to be a lawyer.
	Get ready for what the practice actually entails.
	Court is hurry up and wait.
	Get there at 2 o 'clock.
	You've got to give the file to the judge.
	So in any circumstance, you don't know when the judge gets the entire file.
	The judge might be called to adjudicate upon one to seven files in a day.
	And they've got to read through the file, see what's being asked of them.
	They've got to get familiar with the file.
	So you get to court.
	The judge, before the hearing, is going to take the file, read over the relevant proceedings, ask you to summarize, and then you get into it.
	So you've got to basically inform, bring up to date a new judge on an existing file on the issues before the judge that day.
	So we get in there, it's like 2 o 'clock.
	Nobody comes in until 2.17.
	My observations, and I say this without judgment, I just say this in terms of predicting where things are going to go, the judge came in with a mask.
	The judge is an elderly gentleman, came in with a mask, into court, where masks are no longer required.
	So you can already predict a little bit of where things are going to go ideologically or human...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Condition.
	Condition-wise.
	The judge might not be a liberal versus a Democrat, a liberal versus a conservative, but he might just be an elderly judge who's concerned, and that's going to...
	Give you a perspective of how he views the protest, the rally, or the occupation.
	But justice is human, and you know you're getting a judge.
	He could be old and cranky and really not put up with any guff that violates the charter, or he can be old and sensitive, scared, concerned, buying into the CBC talking points of occupation.
	And when a judge shows up in a mask, I mean, if you're the lawyer making these observations, this is where you want to, you know, this is how you want to interpret the information, the data you are being given in order to guide your conduct.
	But it was, I'll say, just as a practice, I've gotten older and maybe more impatient.
	The artificial politeness of the judicial system, the lawyers, it's Ontario, so we don't use the term brother.
	To refer to colleague in Quebec, we say colleague or confrère.
	So, you know, another judge who issues a decision, we would say, your colleague, justice, whomever.
	I didn't know it was called brother or I guess sister if they're women in Ontario.
	I thought they were reading from a decision of this judge's brother.
	I was like, dude, stop reminding this guy that he's got a brother judge.
	But it's just, they refer to other judges as brothers.
	They refer to their colleagues as friends.
	They refer to, you know, Anyone who came before them in a decision-making process has learned the artificial politeness to give the stature, the status of the system.
	I'm getting old.
	I'm getting jaded.
	It's frustrating where people look at it and say, this is how you know the system works.
	I mean, look how formal it is.
	Look at the veneer of authority that this system gives itself to justify doing what it does.
	And it was almost too frustrating for me to...
	I mean, I took my notes.
	I was sort of like writing a dear diary.
	But that was the first time where I heard Jim Watson talking about imploring whoever comes to rally.
	You're within your rights to do it, but don't provoke a racist, homophobic stuff we saw throughout the protest.
	Bullcrap!
	This is the politician saying it to the judge, the media saying it to the politicians, the media repeating it for the politicians so everybody can hear it.
	The judge clearly was balancing what I think the judge believes to be the social expectations, the social pressure, because if the judge is fearful of the RONA and all of this and believes that these measures are justified and feels the social pressure to enforce these government measures, I mean, that's the system.
	That's the infrastructure.
	It's not corruption.
	It's just the system.
	But no, Dave never had a chance.
	When they were parsing the difference between a possibility and a probability of recommitting offenses, the difference between probable and possible is just a matter of perspective.
	And when they were...
	Not harping, but rather when they were relying on and invoking Randy Hillier's history of incitement.
	When Randy says, I'm going to protest these measures, I'm going to get a ticket, and I'm going to take it to court.
	They take that, the court takes that to be evidence of proof of risk of reciditiveness, repeating the crime.
	They take...
	Political activism.
	And, you know, you can't disagree with it.
	The man says, I'm going to protest.
	Give me the ticket and I'll contest it.
	He said that two years ago.
	Got a ticket November 2020.
	Still hasn't had his day in court.
	And they're using that against him to say, you have a history of being defiant to rule of law.
	And as an elected member of office, that's even worse.
	So the delay in the system to either exonerate or inculpate.
	To either acquit or convict.
	He's nearing two years or a year and a half after this charge.
	They use that pending provincial violation to justify what is nothing other than charter violation terms of a bail release, except necessarily any terms of release are going to violate certain charter rights.
	If they restrict any of your charter rights, which they're necessarily going to, that's the terms of your release.
	Come on, man.
	That was the first one I pulled up and now I have to get made fun of?
	Ray K?
	Thank you for the super chat.
	But no, I sit in that courtroom.
	I can't tolerate it.
	It moves too slowly for me.
	I gave a little rundown to the Locals community at vivabarneslaw.locals.com where you should go check us out if you want to support the channel.
	That's probably the best place to do it.
	Barnes is destroying it with his Bourbon with Barnes episodes.
	The hush-hush.
	A lot of exclusive, whatever.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Keep fighting.
	Thank you very much.
	But the pace of court is...
	I know some people would accuse, you know, would jokingly say ADHD Viva.
	I can't stop.
	When you know what someone's going to say before they finish the sentence, you just want them to get to the end of it so that you can, not so that you can talk, just so you can advance the discussion quickly.
	But the pace is painfully slow for me, and it was always a weakness.
	I cannot slow down to that pace, and I cannot tolerate that pace without shaking my legs, tapping on the table.
	Thank you very much, Corgi.
	Now, hold on.
	I've been starring the Super Chats for a little while.
	Since I found this function, it's just phenomenal.
	Look at this.
	We still love you, Viva.
	That's why you all waited around for an hour this afternoon.
	Katie Campbell.
	Oh, I just bashed my elbow.
	I drove my dad's electric vehicle.
	And it said it had 220 miles on the charge.
	And Ottawa is only 190 kilometers from Montreal.
	I got there with 20 miles left on the tank.
	Knew I had to charge it.
	But, oh, couldn't find a station.
	Didn't have the app.
	Couldn't find the adapter.
	Found the charging station.
	Couldn't get it to work.
	And this was...
	I was late for the stream, but I was getting worried about getting stranded in Ottawa the same way I almost got stranded last time the car got towed.
	So thank you all for waiting around.
	My apologies for blowing the stream, but I'll make up for it when I go back to document Rolling Thunder.
	Sorry, we just saw that one, but I can never hear it enough.
	If the Freedom Convoy is a registered charity and or corporation, can they not sue for defamation?
	So here's an interesting question, plump lettuce.
	I looked into this very briefly.
	There's a difference between a charity and a not-for-profit.
	Charities have to go through a more stringent approval process with not the IRS, but the CRA, Canada Revenue Agency.
	But I've been saying this from the beginning.
	When they wanted to criminalize people who donated, To the Freedom Convoy?
	Not the legit one, but rather the entity itself.
	The federally incorporated not-for-profit.
	Can you imagine a government coming and saying retroactively, yeah, we've certified this entity as a federally incorporated not-for-profit.
	We saw their paperwork.
	It might be rubber stamping, but they filed, we acknowledged, and registered this company.
	Whatever it was called, the Freedom Convoy 2020.
	The government registered it.
	As a not-for-profit, people donated to it on the basis that this was a federally incorporated not-for-profit.
	And the government didn't just want to criminalize donations to that federally incorporated not-for-profit without stripping them of their federally incorporated not-for-profit status.
	They wanted to do it retroactively.
	I mean, it's over the top.
	It's over the top.
	And they actually, they did not freeze anybody's account solely by virtue of having donated to the charity, but they threatened it.
	And they threatened it retroactively, but even prospectively.
	As of now, we've declared this protest unlawful.
	So if you donate to what we have acknowledged and certify it as a federally incorporated not-for-profit, not a charity, we can potentially freeze your bank accounts.
	I mean, that's legislative entrapment as far as I'm concerned.
	Hey, let's ratify, let's certify all of these companies as federally incorporated not-for-profits.
	Let them go around saying, We're federally incorporated not-for-profits because that means something.
	I wouldn't have donated to it if it were a corporation because I don't want them profiting necessarily from the donation.
	I don't want them using it for commercial purposes.
	Let's just ratify and denote.
	Let's certify a bunch of corporations as federally incorporated not-for-profits, political ones, and then let's arbitrarily designate them as unlawful so that anyone who donates to them...
	We get to seize their bank accounts.
	We get to get their donor information.
	We get to go after the donors who donated to an entity that we, the government, ratified and accepted as a federally incorporated not-for-profit.
	Legislative entrapment.
	I'm creating a new term.
	Thank you, Plump Lettuce.
	We love you.
	And now we are not being paid.
	Insult to injury.
	Corgi, thank you very much.
	And I do apologize.
	I hate being late, but my goodness, I was...
	I recognize I have high levels of anxiety.
	And when I think that a car is going to stall on the street and you can't bring a canister of energy to that tank, I was frazzled.
	This is half for the hair, half for being a non-idiot fellow lawyer.
	Enlightened despot.
	Thank you very much.
	I'd like that.
	Unstar, and I'm going to get back to some more.
	Here we've got fringe Canadian ideas are bulletproof.
	Faith over fear, ladies and gents.
	Peacefully let them know their pieces.
	Of poop emojis.
	Peacefully, without exception.
	Without exception.
	And, you know, they were faulting Randy Hillier.
	This is like where neuroses comes back to support you.
	Everyone is like, Viva, you're a sissy.
	You wear your mask and you follow the rules.
	I was like, I'm going to do me and I'm not going to tell anybody out there to break the law.
	I'm not going to tell anyone to go.
	If you want to do it, You do it and you know what you're risking when you do it for yourself.
	I'm never going to tell anybody to do that.
	For one major reason, A, it's unethical for a lawyer.
	I think it's immoral as a human to tell someone else to go break the law.
	I think it's immoral.
	If you want to do it, go do it.
	I mean, that's your thing.
	You live with the consequences.
	To tell someone else to go do something that's going to get them into trouble and you get to sit back like the brave warrior.
	I told them to do that.
	It's immoral.
	But more importantly, it's counterproductive.
	They want it.
	They're looking for it.
	You know that they're looking for it.
	They know that you know they're looking for it.
	You know that they know that you know that they're looking for it.
	You don't give it to them.
	You don't give it to them because it's counterproductive.
	It doesn't do anything.
	Peaceful.
	And if you want to make a martyr of yourself, you want to make an example of yourself, fine.
	But they were faulting Randy Hillier for having...
	This is what pissed me off, by the way.
	The prosecutor says, Randy Hillier...
	Told people to go flood the lines of the emergency lines and the non-emergency lines.
	It's like, that's a true statement.
	That's a technically true statement.
	He told them to go flood the emergency lines and the non-emergency lines.
	And.
	Because so long as it's one of the...
	Well, actually, no.
	Technically, it would have to be both of them.
	I don't remember if he said and or or now.
	Bottom line, it was misleading.
	Randy Hillier did put out a tweet that said, no, keep calling.
	Randy Hillier said that.
	Did he mean keep calling 911?
	Or did he mean keep calling the non-essential lines?
	He didn't specify.
	But this prosecutor took the liberty to say he specified, and he said, emergency services and not.
	And, you know, appealing to the judge who came in with a face mask, who's an elderly judge, who's very sensitive to these things, presumably, says he put Autonians at risk.
	By doing that.
	Because if they flooded the lines, and I have no doubt that some people did because they misinterpreted what I suspect Randy's message was, which is the risk of it.
	The judge seized on it.
	He said, when they flooded the lines, that caused problems.
	We love and want our Canada.
	That's the issue at hand.
	And I agree with you.
	I never thought Canada could ever turn into this.
	Anyone accusing me of not saying beautiful things about Canada?
	I have driven every...
	I love this country.
	I love everything about this country except the government and except what the government's doing to this country right now.
	Every summer for 15 years, even after we had kids, I was going to say until we had kids, when I met my wife the first summer, we took a Ford Tempo and we drove out to New Brunswick.
	We drove out to Shediac.
	The river.
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	I think it was the first time I've seen Northern Lights in Quebec.
	We went to the gas bay.
	Metis sur la fleuve, I think, where we saw the Northern Lights.
	Shadiac.
	What's the river, people, in the chat?
	We flew out to Vancouver, drove the West Coast.
	We drove from Montreal to Winnipeg.
	We drove to Newfoundland.
	I love this country more than anything.
	But when a government makes it inhospitable, It could be the most beautiful place on earth, geographically, human-wise, but it becomes inhospitable and it becomes a place where it is an unhealthy environment to raise kids.
	What do you want me to do?
	Compliment them for what they're doing?
	Haven't heard anything about PPC on Canadian MSM and independent media.
	Do you know anything we might not?
	Well, because there's no federal election right now, so you wouldn't really hear much from the PPC.
	The reason why you're hearing about the Conservative Party is because there's a leadership race, and so that's in the news.
	You're not really hearing much about the NDP either, except for Jagmeet Singh with his big mouth saying stupid things on Twitter.
	But no, that's right.
	There's no federal issues.
	There's no federal party issue, no election.
	Unfortunately, given Jagmeet's coalition with the man himself, he might not have a federal election for a little while.
	Maxime has been vocal.
	He's been putting out content on his channel.
	But no, right now the story is...
	The race for conservative leadership, which is only a conservative party issue.
	I'm sure the person saying that is still wearing a mask.
	Good vibes.
	Teddy Boucher, I don't know what that was for, but hold on.
	Use Tesla waypoints to navigate.
	Well, this is everything.
	I couldn't figure out how to use the app on the...
	I'm an idiot.
	I was using...
	And then...
	It doesn't matter.
	I learned a lesson.
	At least I know where the charging station is in Ottawa now.
	Of course, I have to pay $17 for parking to get into the parking lot to charge the car.
	Still cheaper than gas, but my goodness.
	You and Barnes should have on half-Asian lawyer.
	We could do that.
	Hold on, screenshot that.
	Side note, I fear for the future of our country.
	Blame Canada.
	Yep, I'll reach out, actually.
	Kevin Watson, help us with the help of gas money.
	Thank you very much.
	Yeah, I'm going to go down for that.
	There's no question.
	I'm not going to be living in that level of fear that I have to fear.
	I'm not going to drive my car in there.
	I'm not going to break the law, and I'm going to do exactly what I did the last time.
	Make sure I ask every police officer on the way, can I do this?
	I'll bet the event happening in Ottawa this Saturday, Twitter handle is...
	Oh, I'll be at the event happening in Ottawa this Saturday.
	Twitter handle is lowercase of my username.
	So I guess that's Anthony Otherman.
	Should be fun.
	Mostly photos, though.
	Don't do anything illegal.
	Don't do anything illegal, full stop.
	Okay, back to the chat, and I think I've missed a bunch.
	I do have an article that I'll bring up in a second.
	Oh, I missed a ton here.
	Hey, Viva, my four is better than yours.
	My first thank Nick, Motley Crue of Funny Brilliant Lawyers, shut up, I can cook.
	That looks like you might have a channel, so it looks like you put in good effort into that avatar.
	$2 for getting a real car, a hybrid.
	Yeah, you know what?
	I'm sticking with the Subaru.
	Our Subaru had a flat, which is why I couldn't take it.
	Rise like lions after slumbering unequivocally.
	Let me make sure I'm not going to get in trouble.
	Number, shake your chains to earth like dew, which in sleep had fallen on ye...
	Well, it sounds beautiful, real lamb.
	Bear lamb.
	I know I've seen you before.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay.
	I think I missed some there, so I do apologize for missing some.
	Best Viva line ever.
	I'm slightly neurotic.
	I don't eat between meals.
	Slightly.
	I don't eat between breakfast and dinner.
	I haven't eaten since breakfast, which was a good one, but it was a long time ago.
	When conservatives shaft Polyevre for the leadership, do you think he could join the PPC?
	He is going to get shafted.
	I mean, politics is so freaking dirty.
	No, I don't know.
	There's a lot of ego in politics.
	Which is another reason why I don't think I could be very good at it.
	I went to BC in 1984.
	I was enthralled with the Canadian people.
	Peaceful nature was new to me.
	I'm American.
	But, you know, I'm enthralled by the peaceful nature of Americans.
	So I think it's just a question of our perception.
	But Canada is just beautiful, as is America.
	Métis sur mer.
	That's where it is.
	And it is beautiful sunsets.
	Keep up the great work, Viva.
	Hope to see you in Ottawa.
	Sylvain Mignon, thank you very much.
	It was Métis sur mer.
	And we were looking in the sky because we pitched a tent right on this falaise, a cliff that went right into the ocean.
	Not in the ocean, it was St. Lawrence lowlands.
	And we're like, it wasn't colorful.
	It was just streaks of light across the sky.
	And we thought there was a light show coming from across the North Shore.
	And there was.
	God's night show.
	Viva!
	Can a company who's demanding the Fauci juice to offer a job to an Ontario?
	If you get it.
	So this is the legal question.
	I don't know the answer.
	If you have...
	What's his face?
	The guy that I don't like.
	In Ontario, Kieran Moore.
	If he's saying it's not a mandate, that would mean that it's an employer policy.
	If it's an employer policy, I think they're going to have less of a leg to stand on in terms of saying the government made us do it.
	Because the government is saying we're not making you do it.
	So if you do it...
	It's your own policy and you might have to live by the consequences of that policy.
	But then it becomes a question of causation.
	How do you even causally attribute any adverse reaction given how VAERS systems has not yet made, you know, finds ways to distinguish two events from any form of causation?
	It's been a long day.
	My goodness.
	And I've left the kids upstairs.
	I've left one babysitting the two.
	I haven't heard any screaming or bad news.
	There was one article I wanted to bring up.
	There's two articles.
	Let's do this.
	You know, I rag on the police.
	I rag on the RCMP.
	But there are still good people behind the system.
	It's just that the machine becomes an entity of its own.
	It develops its own energy.
	It develops its own momentum.
	And it effectively develops its own...
	It develops its own...
	Not mind, but...
	The system creates its own system.
	And so, you know, there's a lot of badness coming from the RCMP in terms of, you know, deciding not to prosecute or press charges against Justin Trudeau for fraud, because it's not in the best interest, in the public's best interest, because we don't know if he'd get convicted.
	But it might also just have to do with not wanting to investigate ourselves, because lo and behold, we were hand in hand, quite literally, with Justin Trudeau on that potentially fraudulent...
	Aga Khan trip.
	So there's that level of insidious corruption.
	But every now and again, there's people with dignity and there's people with dignity and decency within the system.
	It's an interesting story.
	My brother sent it to me.
	RCMP officers quit after being asked to arrest national security target with no details, report says.
	When you're having an argument as to whether or not Canada has become a police state, when they're...
	When basically the Secret Service of Canada is asking the RCMP to arrest people and not telling them why.
	What is it?
	What is it other than a police state?
	What is it other than secret arrests, secret detainments, in some cases secret trials?
	What else is it?
	Information sharing between intelligence officers and police needs an overhaul.
	And it could start with informing the police.
	Of the reasons behind national security arrests, says newly obtained internal report looking at the often fraught relationship between Canada's spy agency and the RCMP.
	What is the...
	And they go into some...
	The bottom line, democracy dies in darkness and tyranny is born in darkness.
	And when you have a government that is operating under the cloak of darkness...
	I'll post the article if anyone's interested in reading it.
	When you have a government that is operating under the cloak of darkness, when you have a government that is redacting information that it releases to the public, when you have a government that even when it calls the legally required inquiry into its own invocation of the Emergencies Act and then wants to, on the one hand, limit and redirect the scope of that inquiry and also redact the information.
	That the public is going to have access to?
	That defeats the purpose of the transparency inquiry that was imbued in the law in order to ensure that the law was not abused.
	Tyranny doesn't fear your words or finger-wagging.
	Tyranny fears...
	You know, I actually disagree.
	Tyranny does fear our words.
	That's exactly why they try to suppress them.
	Tyranny does...
	The finger-wagging, not so much...
	Finger-wagging is like...
	An old, you know, what my mother does.
	Eh, shame on you.
	Tyranny does fear our words.
	They do fear the communication of ideas.
	They do fear.
	It does fear.
	It does fear the democratizing of information.
	And that is the only reason why they want to suppress it and compromise our ability to freely convey it.
	So, respectfully disagree, but thank you for the comment.
	And I'm not trying to be sassy.
	I disagree.
	And I hope I've just convinced you, actually.
	If they didn't fear our words, they would not try to suppress them.
	If tyranny did not fear the free exchange of ideas, they wouldn't be building their...
	whatever the heck they're building in the States.
	What do they call it?
	I don't know.
	What do we got here?
	When does name-calling from politicians go from rhetoric to slander defamation?
	Could this mayor be sued by protesters in a class-action lawsuit?
	I doubt it.
	I mean, it's not...
	What's going on?
	It's not...
	It's not specific.
	Who's he talking about?
	Who has interest?
	I don't know that the case is totally analogous, but in the United States, there was the identifiable group, and they made some slanderous comments about a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant or franchise, and they didn't mention which one, so nobody knew.
	Who's he talking about?
	The problem is, he's talking about nobody.
	So, what is it?
	The entity itself is going to have the entity of the protest?
	No.
	And by the way, I wouldn't even rely on the court system even if there were a remote cause of action.
	I don't think there is.
	You know what you rely on?
	Public shaming.
	Jim Watson.
	I tweeted that out.
	Let's just go see, actually.
	Hold on.
	I tweeted that out.
	I tweeted that out.
	Very Canadian, eh?
	Let's just see.
	The only thing that cures stupid speech...
	Is more speech.
	And so it's got 93 retweets.
	But that's of my retweet.
	You go to the original Efron Monsanto.
	He works at...
	I believe he's at...
	He's Rebel News.
	Yeah, Rebel News.
	That video's got 10,700 views.
	It's not bad.
	It's not bad for an Ottawa politician spouting stupidities.
	But share.
	Sharing is caring.
	They...
	Tyranny does fear our words.
	So make sure people hear them.
	And what was I saying about Son of a Beast thing?
	It was about sharing your words and not allowing them to discredit you as a human.
	And the whole thing about, you know, if you do something that allows the system to brandish you and tarnish you, they get to discredit you as a human.
	And that's how the system wins.
	They're going to try to do it with Randy Hillier.
	They're going to try to turn him into a criminal.
	Through the process or the system itself so that they can then say, don't listen to what this convicted criminal has to say.
	That's how they do it.
	Randy Hillier, he's made his own life decisions in terms of what Hill he's willing to be arrested on.
	But when you do certain things, you give them the excuse, you allow them to do that, that's how they discredit you.
	Peace and love, Eva.
	See you in Ottawa for...
	Rolling Thunder.
	The Resonator.
	Good avatar, man.
	I thought that was an RT retweet.
	Previous Super Chat, Typo Viva.
	Hello, my fro is more beautiful.
	But your fro is more beautiful?
	Sir, I'm presuming you're a sir based on the fro.
	We're going to have to see that.
	What I just love is it blows in the wind now.
	It blows in the wind.
	And another, just on the RCMP article, there's good people in the system.
	I saw people in the system today who they're living in a certain...
	Some are living in less fear than others, but...
	They're living a certain degree of fear.
	You can't be too public.
	But I met supporters.
	I met fans within the system.
	That's when I feel like I think I'm doing something right.
	It's when there's people within the system that I've been complaining about for a long time who say, we follow you, we love you, and you're right.
	But please don't say it publicly.
	And I don't blame them.
	It has to become popular before people can feel comfortable saying it.
	And that's going to take a lot of pushing from the bottom up.
	Basil the Pumpkin Seagull.
	If one got something like...
	Okay.
	Or something.
	And there is no...
	No medical advice.
	No legal advice.
	Would that be enough to take a company to court?
	As a lawyer, let me say this.
	As a lawyer, I'm not giving legal advice or medical advice.
	As a lawyer, that would be...
	I would say that that's...
	That would be enough for me to seriously look into the case.
	The only problem in Canada is that this type of injury, we don't have the American system, and I think in this case, for a flaw.
	But that would be sufficiently prima facie, decent argument to warrant a lawsuit that would not be frivolous in my mind, if I may put it judiciously like that.
	The only problem is it's the...
	The thought process, and we've talked about it when they debunk certain, when the fact checkers debunk something as false, and they say, look, and now they're writing articles that you can get some things within 12 months of other things, but if you get some things within two weeks of other things, no causation.
	Long COVID.
	Anything that happens to you within a year of getting COVID could be attributed to COVID, but if you get other things within two weeks to a month of other things, no causation.
	And tell me that there's no motivated reasoning happening there.
	The tree...
	Ooh.
	The tree that would grow to heaven must send its roots to hell.
	Nietzsche.
	But I believe there's a reason why I actually oftentimes...
	I don't always agree with Nietzsche.
	On the one hand, it presupposes a relatively stereotypical positioning of hell that it has to be under the ground.
	But the roots don't need to go to hell.
	In order to give you the foundation you need to go to heaven.
	In fact, some might even say that they would need to be sufficiently spaced out and spread out without actually descending into hell in order to give you the base of support that you need to reach for the heavens.
	Anybody who's been into rock climbing, you would know this.
	Coniferous trees have, generally speaking, a wide spread out root structure.
	Deciduous trees, the leaf trees, typically have a deeper root base and then some...
	But it's beautiful.
	I'm going to screenshot it.
	I'm not sure I agree with it, however.
	There was one more article, which we're going to end on a good note.
	I mean, in as much as it's a good note, I wanted to do it earlier today from the car, but it got started late.
	Is it above the imagination to conceive that the actions taken by police and politicians during the Freedom Convoy will incur judicial reckoning?
	Judicial reckoning for the politicians, it will be above the imagination.
	Judicial reckoning for some of the police action, not above the imagination.
	The horse trampling, some of the excessive, what I think is excessive abuse in the arrests, not above the imagination, just probably less likely than more likely.
	Although there might be good civil suits, especially, you know, Alex Alavoie, rebel news reporter, shot in the leg point blank with a tear gun canister.
	I think she's got a great civil case.
	For the politicians, nil.
	For the politicians, it's got to be political, and that's it.
	Because none of them are going to stand.
	If Justin Trudeau, if the RCMP did not press fraud charges against Justin Trudeau for a conviction on the ethics breach, he didn't even come anywhere close to anything here, other than just being totally politically reprehensible.
	So no, I would say no court judicial remedy against the politicians, maybe against the police, political remedy against the politicians, and maybe judicial in the sense that they're going to strike down these mandates as being totally unconstitutional and history will judge these teapot, what do they call them, teacup tyrants for what they've done to our country and our rule of law.
	What chances would a charter case have against the CBC comment section censorship?
	None.
	It strains incredulity what they deactivate.
	None whatsoever.
	They're government-funded.
	They're not technically a government entity, but even if they were, shutting off the comment section is not state-sanctioned censorship.
	I think nil.
	But again, I know this is not my specialty.
	I know a little bit about constitutional law.
	I would say none whatsoever.
	And it's a joke.
	But you want to know what fake news is?
	Fake news turns off comment sections.
	I am a chick from birth.
	Why do you think I am a dude?
	Because of the fro!
	My fro is more beautiful than yours.
	Mine blows in the wind also.
	Well, I think that's...
	Okay, well now I feel bad.
	One day...
	Oh, you're in the States, so we might not meet up.
	Anytime soon.
	But I'd like to see the fro that you think beats my fro.
	Competition is on.
	Larry McDonald, super sticker.
	Thank you very much.
	Trucker Convoy, favorite song.
	Yeah, you know what the funny thing is?
	Hallelujah.
	I know you intend that as a troll, but you're actually proving the exact problem here.
	They fought the law and the law won because the law, to quote what's-his-face, is an ass.
	And when the law...
	Is actually an abuse of the law?
	You're proving the point that you think you're rubbing in people's faces.
	We had an abuse of the legislative process.
	And yes, they've taken that abuse to further abuse participants in...
	I don't know how you declare the protest unlawful, but ordinarily I think it takes an order of the court.
	But I do thank you for proving the point that you don't actually understand, or maybe you do appreciate it.
	You didn't prove the point you thought you proved.
	But thank you for the contribution nonetheless.
	Katie Campbell, Viva.
	You're doing lots right.
	Your little Viva babies here in the chat.
	Adore you.
	Babies in a complimentary sense.
	Thank you very much.
	Let's see here.
	I want to get some that are not super chats.
	The roots to hell are experience.
	I don't agree with it.
	I don't agree with it.
	You do not have to puncture.
	The ceiling of hell in order to establish the roots necessary to get to heaven.
	This is getting very spiritual.
	Okay.
	Let's see here.
	Jack and the Beanstalk.
	Okay.
	Thanks, Viva.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay.
	I'm going to bring up one more article just before we...
	By the way, for anyone with kids out there, sometimes more of a signal of a problem than noise is absence of noise.
	I'm going to go upstairs.
	My kid's going to be watching...
	The one who's not old enough to be watching Breaking Bad.
	I'm going to have a five-year-old watching Breaking Bad, which might even be less bad than if the five-year-old was watching Colin Keys.
	Thanks for everything you do, and thanks for having Ian Runkle on before.
	I freaking love that live stream.
	Ian is a great guy, and he's been...
	It's great.
	The law community has been the epitome of a rising tide lifting all ships.
	It's been great for everybody, and there's all different personalities within this law YouTube universe.
	You got Alita.
	Legal Bites, Legal Mindset, Hoag Law, Ian Runkle, Nick Ricada, Nate Brody.
	You got the non-lawyer, Eric Hunley, who's mingled his way in.
	You got Robert Barnes.
	You got Kurt on Civil Law.
	You got Emily D. Baker.
	You even have Legal Eagle because you still need to broaden your political horizons every now and again.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Maybe you should have interpreted Tree literally instead of a possibility of something else.
	I agree 100% with you, Viva.
	Watching Joe is getting harder and harder.
	Joe needs to be protected from his failing brain.
	He does, but the country needs to be protected from his vulnerable status.
	What they're doing to Joe, by the way, is no different than what they tried to do to my grandmother.
	When they call her up...
	And they say, your son's...
	Oh, no, it was someone pretending to be her grandson.
	I got arrested, Grandma.
	I need bail.
	And she was on the verge of doing it.
	Not because she's stupid, because she's easily exploitable, because she was actually in the later stages of early-onset dementia.
	People are exploiting Joe Biden's incompetence right now.
	People, institutions.
	Without consequences to authorities overstepping their bounds, when does a citizen push back or force?
	Never.
	Because you'll never win that pushback.
	You will never win that pushback.
	All that you're going to do is give the...
	You're going to give the authorities retroactive justification for suppressing your rights.
	It's got to be grassroots, it's got to be public opinion, and it's got to be political.
	Because you're not going to win that war.
	And you're not only not going to win that war, you're going to lose it.
	You're going to undo your own existence because you're going to not allow them just to demonize you and others going forward.
	They're going to do it retroactively.
	So call me a sissy.
	Call me a useless pacifist.
	That's my take.
	Check your phone for goose feathers.
	No, I don't think I have any.
	Hold on.
	Did I miss anything on Rumble while we're there?
	What was I going to do?
	Oh, I might be on Eric Hundley tomorrow, so I might not actually be able to do a stream tomorrow because I've got a doctor's appointment in the afternoon that I just can't miss.
	You missed your doctor's appointment in Quebec, you might not get another one.
	Okay, let's see.
	I dislike Trudeau, as do I. I actually think he's...
	I dislike him, but I also feel tremendously bad for him.
	I cannot imagine what it feels like to be as loathed as him.
	And I think maybe I'm projecting, maybe I'm overstepping.
	I think he's loathed politically and personally.
	There's not enough money in the world that can buy that type of loneliness, spiritual and human loneliness.
	And I think he knows it.
	And it's not like you know it.
	I feel bad for him even if he doesn't know it.
	Even if he thinks he's the most morally virtuous, politically sanctimonious politician on earth, I feel bad for him.
	I also loathe him because he's single-handedly Destroying the very fabric of Canadian society.
	Not to be missed, Lieutenant Stephen Rogers of CampaignForAmerica.com interviews H. Catherine Anderson and speaks of Canada.
	Not to be missed, people.
	Watch it.
	We need some Winston.
	Winston is not downstairs, unfortunately, so I'm not going to get him now.
	I was so late.
	I'm upstairs.
	Got it to us at 7.04, give or take.
	Squeeze the pee-pee out of pudge.
	Wash my hands.
	Tear the chicken off the carcass that my wife had put in the oven for the kids.
	Make a wacky mac.
	It's like mac and cheese, but crappy.
	Although they like it more than mac and mac, whatever.
	My kids are watching the stream.
	Well, that wouldn't be terrible, but they're not even doing that.
	I told my oldest, make...
	Oh, no, never mind.
	Make highlights.
	Nobody likes TikTok, but make highlights for TikTok because I do have an account that I just don't use.
	Quick recap of Randy for the late comers, please, Vivo.
	Never stood a chance.
	His motion to reconsider or appeal two of the terms of his bail release, one of which was geographic limitations on where he can go in Ottawa.
	That was rejected because they agreed to that term and therefore they can't revisit their agreement.
	The other one, what he can post on social media relating to COVID mandates and vaccine mandates.
	The judge said, I'm not revisiting what the lower court...
	Justice of the peace determined based on the whole context.
	Not in my position.
	Not in my purview.
	They didn't get it sufficiently wrong for me to revisit.
	So those are the two conditions being appealed and they both got tossed.
	Randy's free in that he's out of court but he's not free in that he's geographically limited and speech-wise limited.
	Thank you.
	I think you're right.
	You do not have to puncture the ceiling of hell.
	Thank you.
	Mount Royal.
	I don't know if that's M. Royal.
	Let's end with a little bit of silver lining.
	Viva, you're in one of those music videos.
	And Ottawa hosting Poutine Festival.
	Well then, if that's the case, I will not eat breakfast and I will get a poutine.
	When the government fights the law, the law loses.
	Unfortunately, the problem is when the government...
	When the government makes the law based on Emergencies Act declarations, without going through the legislative process, we all lose.
	Sold.
	Okay, now, I'll bring up the article.
	It's Tamara Lich being given an award by the JCCF.
	I now know who the individual was.
	RCMP officers quit.
	Tamara Lich, here we go.
	I mean, awards are unique things in that...
	They really only mean something to the people in those communities.
	This award is not going to impress the CBC.
	This award might actually be like evidence to further discredit the JCCF and evidence to further show what an unlawful rebel Tamara Litch is.
	I didn't realize she's from Medicine Hat.
	Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Litch to get award from the Toronto Sun.
	Accused Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich is retaining the services of high-powered auto lawyer Lawrence.
	Okay, fine.
	Where is it?
	And here we go.
	It's Medicine Hats Tamara Lich.
	One of the organizers, and I believe she is one of the bona fide organizers.
	When they refer to Pat King as an organizer, I don't think it's accurate, but it doesn't matter.
	One of the organizers of the Freedom Convoy Truckers protest that occupied...
	What is the definition of occupied?
	Ah, forget it.
	Taking too long.
	Get out of here.
	Ottawa's downtown for three weeks in February has been awarded the George Jonas Freedom Award by the Calgary-based Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom.
	Litch will receive the award on June 16 at a ceremony in Toronto.
	My question is, I don't think she can even go to the award ceremony to receive it.
	I'm not sure that she can under her terms of her bail conditions.
	Ms. Litch inspired Canadians to exercise their charter rights and freedoms by participating actively in the democratic process and took the initiative to help organize a peaceful protest and serve as one of its leaders, said JCCF President John Carpe, who I've interviewed at least three or four times now, in a statement to the Toronto Sun.
	And do you know how the CBC hears this?
	The JCCF, activist law organization, Gives an award to Tamara Lich, who occupied downtown Ottawa for three weeks, terrorized its citizens with an unlawful protest, and thus the JCCF is discredited as an organization, and Tamara Lich is a criminal nonetheless.
	I mean, it's like, it's two screens, one film.
	I tend to see it more along the lines of the JCCF's perspective.
	But you know damn well, first of all, this is making CBC journalists ears bleed.
	This is, there are people looking at this thing, they're giving an award to a criminal?
	She's accused of seven crimes now.
	Eight crimes.
	And they give her an award.
	And then meanwhile, I'm not going to compare it.
	The resulting peaceful protest in Ottawa awakened many Canadians to the injustice of charter-violating lockdowns and mandatory vaccination policies.
	Ms. Litch has suffered for the cause of freedom by spending 18 days unjustly jailed and exemplifies courage, determination, and perseverance.
	I agree.
	Now, someone had told me earlier today who George Jonas was, but I want to bring it up because George Jonas.
	Because it's an interesting story of an individual who came from a communist regime and might have something to teach us.
	George Jonas.
	George Jonas, born 1935, died 1916, which made him 65, 75, 81. Am I doing math wrong?
	No, 80. Okay, good.
	Was a Hungarian-born Canadian writer, poet, and journalist.
	A self-described classical liberal.
	He authored 16 books, including the bestseller Vengeance, 1984.
	Good year for a book.
	The story of an Israeli operation to kill the terrorists responsible for the 1972 Munich Massacre.
	The book has been adapted for film twice.
	First is Sword of Gideon and Munich.
	He was born...
	Jonas was married, his first wife.
	Anyway, so you're dealing with a guy who fled communist Hungary, came to Canada, probably knew a little bit more about what communism smells like, what it looks like as it brews, as it transforms a nation.
	He probably knew more about that than a lot of people in Canada saying, how dare you compare it to communism?
	You don't know communism.
	Yeah, the same people.
	Okay.
	Anyhow.
	So that's the good news, I guess.
	Tamara Lifts is going to get an award.
	It will not make up for what has been done to her.
	She was in jail for 18 days.
	And the conditions were bad, by the way.
	Like, my brother is dealing with...
	Dan is dealing with some of these cases in Toronto, in Ontario.
	Some of these people, like, they didn't get to...
	They didn't get the right to call their counsel in due time.
	They were...
	They didn't get proper sheets.
	They were sleeping in cold, ill-heated rooms.
	And detained.
	Some of them were detained in solitary confinement.
	I mean, this is well before this.
	James Coates, the pastor James Coates who was arrested, was in solitary confinement for COVID.
	You know, these people...
	And Pat King is still in jail.
	I mean, I don't care what you think of the guy.
	This is not how you treat...
	This is not how you treat anybody.
	Candice Magnus became a YouTuber.
	I thought you were a member before, Candice.
	Either way, welcome back or welcome to the membership club.
	It has minor privileges.
	Sneak peeks and some exclusive posts on the Twitter community, but...
	Viva.
	Last minute survey.
	Ask peeps if they think you are sassy or not.
	Let's see if I can do this.
	I realized last time, if I cut off the poll too quickly, it looks like it was a...
	Well, let's do this here.
	No, I'm not going to say that.
	Okay.
	Am I sassy?
	And do you like Viva Sass?
	Yes and yes.
	Let's see if this works.
	No.
	Well, it can only be yes and no.
	And then it can only be no.
	And just show results.
	Yeah, if you don't think I'm sassy, you can't like it.
	So, ask my community.
	Let's do this.
	Thank you for the recommendation.
	It will increase engagement in the chat.
	Hell yes, in a good way.
	Yes, oh boy.
	Okay, well, yeah, I was going to put turtles in there, Jack Jackson, but the turtles will get all the votes, and unjustifiably so.
	Okay, so I'm going to see if I can get down to Ottawa tomorrow night.
	I have to see about family obligations and what time I can get out of here.
	And my goodness, we have our Subaru back.
	Gas is reliable.
	Gas, first of all, and you know the good thing is, okay, good.
	Today I didn't make any emissions.
	Today I saved on gas.
	Today.
	That energy had to get somewhere.
	And I didn't even save.
	I saved a little bit on money, but I still got screwed because I put $25 on a newly created flow account.
	Then I have to pay $17 for the parking so I can get a free charge of electricity, which is not free.
	But I'm going to take the Subaru down next time.
	It's reliable.
	I know I can get to Ottawa on one tank of gas.
	Easy.
	Sass, sass, and more sass.
	I came for an oil-fired power station.
	I came from an oil-fired power station.
	Okay, I think I get it now.
	Yeah, the hair is...
	I love it now.
	It's not going anywhere.
	But I was in court and I wanted to get up...
	Oh, that's what I was going to...
	I wanted to get up and pull a Barnes and I wanted to drop soundbite bombs for the CBC.
	Your Honor, I object to your...
	Just do it!
	I'd love to think in an alternate universe I would do it.
	Your Honor, I object to your highly politicized qualification of this protest as an occupation.
	You, Your Honor...
	Respectfully submitted or presupposing illegality, you are assuming and you are professing prejudicial qualifications of what is at issue itself.
	And I apologize, Your Honor, to be upfront, but this is important because what's going to happen, and you know it, CBC is going to run with you, Your Honor, calling this an occupation.
	And people are going to now believe, on the one hand, that it was unlawful before a day in court, and others are going to believe that the system is...
	Is irreparably compromised by judges who have already adopted foregone conclusions on the merits.
	I'd like to think I would have said that.
	You know what I probably would have done?
	Not that.
	And if I did that, looking like this, you know where I would have ended up?
	You know they can arrest people for contempt.
	Okay.
	That's what I would like to think I would have done.
	Maybe I'm just going to clip that, tag the CBC.
	The judge did not refer to this as an insurrection.
	But the judge...
	He said certain things.
	Let me just go back to my notes.
	Because he said certain things.
	These presupposed conclusions.
	Where is my outlook?
	Forefully speaking.
	Okay, now, where did I say?
	I put what the judge said.
	The judge said, it may have been illegal from the beginning.
	And I know that that's always a possibility.
	But, like, there's expression.
	The judge said, expression on social media has incited others to attend protests.
	Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
	If you are not afraid of losing your bar license, if you're not afraid of spending a night in jail, you go and you say, I'm sorry, Your Honor.
	Does this court not respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
	You want to detain or otherwise restrict Randy Hilliard's charter rights on the fear, on the supposition that him expressing himself might incite others to exercise their God-given charter rights?
	Because lest we forget that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is...
	Supremacy of God and the rule of law.
	And I say this as a relatively...
	What's the word?
	Not atheist, but agnostic.
	That's what I would have said.
	That's what I like to think I would have said.
	Okay, people, with that said, it's 9.30.
	My wife gets back and the kids are up.
	I'm in big, big freaking trouble.
	Okay, because the wife is out for dinner.
	I have delegated to my oldest babysitting.
	Now, if she has sub-delegated to my second babysitting, do you know what that's called, people?
	Delegatum non potes delegar.
	That to whom we have delegated cannot subdelegate.
	So, I gotta go.
	I better go.
	I better go and put those kids to bed.
	People, thank you very much for always being here.
	Thank you for everything.
	I don't think I missed any Rumble rants, but thank you all for watching on Rumble.
	And, you know, one day, one day maybe, we'll be next year on Rumble.
	maybe sooner on Rumble.
	Let's just do this.
	Okay, good.
	Let's do it.
	People, enjoy the night.
	See you tomorrow.
	I might go live.
	I might not.
	I might be in auto tomorrow night.
	I might not, but I'm there Saturday for sure.
	Because...
	Yeah, good night.
	Good night.
	Okay, thank you.
	Someone said good show.
	I like hearing this.
	It's still a total foreign concept to me that these things are shows.
	Like, it's weird.
	They're shows.
	People, we will get the word out there.
	We will make freedom cool again.
	Make freedom cool again.
	Make freedom of speech cool again.
	Hooray for freedom of speech to pull a Billy Madison.
	Okay, now I'm just delaying it for no reason.
	Go, enjoy the night.
	See you all tomorrow or the day after.

▲