Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 20, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

03:25:53

Tamara Lich Bail Hearing - Day 2: Live Commentary - Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Okay, are we live?
	Are we live?
	And I'm wearing the headphones because I am morbidly neurotic.
	I think everybody knows that.
	I'm going to make sure that we're live everywhere.
	I wanted to start with a video on Twitter as per the tradition, but I have not done so today.
	I am behind schedule.
	I'm going to blame the dog.
	I'm going to blame the dog in an Amber Heard way.
	Except in the exact opposite way.
	The dog refuses to poop.
	I'm sitting there like a dumb bum waiting for this dog to do his business.
	And he didn't do it, which leads me to believe that he's going to do it during this stream as he meanders.
	He's on the floor now, but as he meanders through the room.
	Are we live?
	Can you hear me?
	And I'll tell you why I'm wearing the headphones.
	First of all, I think I'm getting a new set of headphones, a headset, whatever these things are, earphones, for my birthday.
	Courtesy of someone who, when I get them, I will embarrass them with the gift because I think it's going to be beautiful.
	Okay, we're live.
	Good boy.
	He's not a good boy.
	The dog poops.
	He poops in the house.
	The only good thing about his poop, if we're going to start off talking about poop at 9.30 in the morning, he's on an all-beef diet like those beef patties, so his poop is very dry and very easy to clean up.
	So, you know, in theory, if you were totally unhygienic and had no Qualms with poop.
	You could pick it up with your bare hand.
	But it's so dry and so firm and so hard, you could pick it up with a Kleenex without having to worry about absorption issues or, you know, like, tearage or so on and so forth.
	Yeah, we'll call it Amber Turd.
	We'll call it Winnie Turd.
	Okay, so I'm wearing the headphones because today is Tamara Litch's re-hearing, bail hearing.
	There's been a motion to, I'm going to try to clean my glasses and I'm going to make them worse in so doing it.
	I didn't know it started yesterday, but I knew that there was an issue, that the Crown was trying to put Tamara Lich behind bars.
	Now, I don't want to run into the curse of too much knowledge, and not too much knowledge that I'm so smart, but too much knowledge that I'm going to take for granted what many people out there might not yet know.
	Okay, we're live.
	We're good.
	Let me just refresh and see if we're still green.
	You know, even before we get into this, I got a community guideline strike on Viva Clips for a video that's been up for over nine months, which was an interview with Russ Cooper, a Canadian retired veteran, retired colonel Russ Cooper.
	The video was an interview that I posted during my run for office.
	The video, I think it's 10 months old.
	It's over 9 months, under 10 months.
	I got a community guidelines strike yesterday.
	And then I tried to appeal it.
	And now they say appeal rejected.
	And there's no re-review.
	There's no further appeal now.
	As there was the last time YouTube did this to me, where upon further review, they said, yeah, it was obviously...
	An idiotic mistake.
	A video has been up for nine-plus months.
	And now they've decided, I don't know, maybe things have changed.
	Maybe the rules have changed.
	What was good nine months ago and what was good for nine months is now all of a sudden problematic.
	And it's an interview with a Canadian veteran, Russ Cooper.
	I'm not done appealing this yet.
	I'm going to take the appeal process to Twitter afterwards.
	Absolute rubbish.
	Good morning, Hard Tackle.
	Lionel de Grandpre.
	Oh, the mysteries of the canine intestinal tract.
	Yeah, so now you all know about it.
	Okay, I'm going to pull up just a few articles so that we can go through the learning curve.
	For those who don't know who Tamara Litch is, I have one person out there.
	Tamara Litch was the alleged organizer, one of the organizers of the Freedom Convoy that, not insurrection, they called this an occupation.
	Switch audio to boom mic.
	Thank you.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Is that better, people?
	Ooh, yeah.
	Thank you very much, salty tubers.
	That would have irritated the living heck out of me for the rest of the day.
	That's BS for Vet Canadian interview, but you know Trudy strikes his green shirts in YouTube.
	I don't want to think...
	I'm not thinking, you know, that...
	An interview with Russ Cooper about constitutional freedoms that has been on YouTube for 10...
	You know what, by the way, YouTube?
	That is tacit renunciation in my legal mind to ever invoking alleged community guidelines strike.
	Because if you let someone put a video up for 10 months, and then 10 months later...
	Purport that it violates community guidelines, you have tacitly accepted to the legitimacy of that content.
	You can't hold people responsible, allegedly, for community guidelines violations 10 months later because they might not even be the same community guidelines anymore.
	Oh, no, you let people govern themselves with 10 months of your behavior is okay to then say, hmm, no, actually, we now have gone back and determined that what was fine for the last 10 months, no longer fine.
	Okay, so Tamara Lich, by the way, the alleged organizer, one of them, of the Freedom Convoy, which was not an insurrection, but it was an occupation, because they sat on Parliament Hill for three weeks in what was arguably, but not arguably, objectively the most peaceful protest in the history of the world.
	I'll say the history of the world.
	Not so much as a broken window in the three weeks.
	Oh, let me back that up.
	There was a broken window.
	The cops indicated to me that there was a broken window.
	And I was like, oh, where?
	And he says, over there.
	But don't worry.
	It had nothing to do with the convoy.
	It had nothing to do with the protests.
	There was no assault.
	The homeless were fed.
	The streets were cleaned.
	The cenotaph, the war memorial, was salted and shoveled and cleared.
	There was no window breaking.
	No vandalism.
	There was one red, it looked like lipstick-ish, that said freedom, I think, on one of the pillars by the parliament.
	Three weeks of the most peaceful protest in the history of humanity.
	But they called it an occupation.
	They called it an insurrection.
	They called it a racist, xenophobe, extreme.
	It was so terrible that the Prime Minister of Canada, who was elected to represent Canadians, refused to talk to the Canadians until he came down and talked with the butt of rifles.
	Literally.
	He came down and talked with his militarized police, with his armored vehicles.
	After three weeks, he came down and talked with...
	Batons.
	Anyhow, so Tamara Lich was one of the, who, if it makes a difference for anybody's consideration out there, is a Metis woman from, she's from Alberta.
	Red Deer?
	I want to say Red Deer, Alberta.
	Alleged organizers, and let's just even take for granted she organized the protests.
	She organized the rally, the convoy, whatever you want to call it.
	They arrested her on February 18 on mischief charges.
	Mischief-related charges.
	Counseling to commit mischief.
	The mischief being, hold the line.
	Don't leave Ottawa.
	Stay here and protest.
	Medicine Hat.
	Thank you.
	It's Medicine Hat.
	She's from Medicine Hat.
	Anybody who doesn't know where that is, look it up.
	It's far away.
	They arrested her and Chris Barber and Pat King and a couple others on mischief-related charges.
	They had her in jail for two and a half weeks.
	She was initially denied bail.
	She was initially denied bail after two and a half weeks behind bars on pre-trial detention.
	Innocent until proven guilty, except in Canada, detained because the officer of the peace, whoever it was, I always forget this term.
	The peace officer?
	No, the justice of the peace.
	The judge.
	Who determined bail release or bail conditions said it would undermine the legal system to release Tamara Lich.
	Tamara Lich.
	Tamara Lich.
	I'm not trying to mispronounce her name.
	Whichever way you go.
	Tamara Lich.
	It would undermine the judicial system to release Tamara Lich.
	She was arrested on mischief charges because she was telling people to continue to protest.
	They actually literally said, in a Kafkaesque Orwellian spin on reality, spin on the law, spin on words, to release her, given her the alleged crimes that she's alleged to have committed, would undermine the judicial system.
	So, in order to reinforce the legitimacy, the judicial system itself, which is now more like a North Korean judicial system than a Canadian one, they had to continue to detain her in jail.
	To preserve...
	Faith in the legal system.
	That's literally what they said.
	I have not heard about Marcus Ray.
	I'll look into that.
	They actually said that.
	She was kept in jail for two and a half weeks.
	She had a bail rehearing before a judge who was brought in from Toronto who said, pre-trial detention does not make any sense.
	It cannot make sense.
	He didn't say it in so many words because the terms of her release themselves were exceedingly excessively Unconstitutionally, untenably ridiculous.
	She can't go on social media.
	She can't post to social media.
	She had to leave Ottawa.
	She can't support or participate in any protests across Canada.
	I mean, terms of release, which are themselves North Korean in spirit.
	Her terms of release were...
	I'm a lawyer.
	With respect to the...
	Utmost of respect to the judicial system, unconstitutional and untenably so.
	Everyone has to bear in mind that any form of conditional release will necessarily entail certain constitutional violations.
	House arrest, restrictions on travel, restrictions on who you can see, how close you can get to certain institutions, restrictions on what you can possess while you're on release.
	Pretty much any bail terms, unless it's just post $5,000 bond and then you're free to go and do whatever, which itself, someone took money from you.
	Someone took your property.
	So there's something of a constitutional violation to every term of release when it comes to bail.
	The only issue is it's justified normally.
	Okay, fine.
	We're forcing you to depart with some of your money.
	It's justified.
	We need to make sure you come back.
	We're taking away your passport because we need to make sure that you're accused of very serious crimes.
	You're not going to flee to a...
	What's it called when they remove you from a foreign country?
	Oh, geez louise.
	Not indictment.
	What is it?
	Oh, chat's going to get it before me.
	When you get forcibly removed from another country to be brought back to your country, extradition.
	Damn it!
	If they want to make sure you don't flee to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with Canada, they take your passport away.
	If you've been accused of stalking or harassing, they're going to say you can't go within 250 feet of the person.
	So all of these bail terms, as a rule, as a concept, they're going to infringe on your constitutional rights, but the theory is going to be rightfully so and in the most minimalist but necessary way possible.
	So Tamara Lich was released, and she had terms which were, I think she had to post $20,000 bond herself.
	She had to have certes guarantee her release, post certi, that if she breaches her bail terms, they seize her bond, they seize the certi, and they arrest her and bring her back to jail.
	She couldn't post, I think, anything.
	Full blackout from social media.
	Can't make any public statements in support of the convoy, which has not existed in Ottawa for three months.
	She can't attend any protest across Canada, and she can't go to Ottawa, among others, among others.
	She apparently made a motion to review those bail hearings because they think they're excessive and they want to reduce them.
	From what I understand, as a thank you for her exercising her legal and judicious rights to try to review those bail hearings, the Crown came in and said, no, no, now we think you've breached your bail terms and we want to haul you back to jail.
	We want to re-imprison you.
	And I didn't know that the hearing started yesterday, and apparently the hearing went off the rails from the prosecution.
	We'll get to that.
	But let's just get to the article.
	Because apparently, she says, I want to make a motion, a notice of application to review my bail hearings, because they're excessive, they're outrageous, they're unjustifiable, and we want them to be reduced.
	To which the Crown says, you do that, we're going to now go after you and try to get you back in jail.
	By alleging that you breached...
	Your bail conditions.
	And how does the Crown allege that she breached her bail terms?
	The JCCF, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, is giving her an award, the Freedom Award.
	And the Crown is arguing that her having indicated that she would attend the gala and accept the award is her promoting the convoy, breaching her bail terms, and now the Crown is going after her and trying to get her back in jail.
	Not on a breach that they allege she has already committed.
	For which she's been arrested and now brought to justify.
	For an anticipated breach that they think will happen, should she be given this award by a third party, the JCCF, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms?
	Canada.
	This is Canada, people.
	So what happened yesterday is they had the first day of a two-day hearing.
	I had no idea.
	And apparently it was wild.
	Prosecution.
	The prosecutor, out of control.
	So much so that the judge said, you'd better calm down, you'd better think about the way you're behaving, take a 15-minute break, and come back with cooler heads.
	Day two of the hearing is today, and where I'm compulsively neurotic about logistics, you're not allowed rebroadcasting any portion of the hearing.
	You're not allowed sharing it, live stream sharing.
	You can't reproduce audio, video, screen grabs, anything.
	We can view it.
	We can real-time commentate.
	We can real-time comment on it.
	We can tweet about it.
	People can log in because it's a webinar meeting.
	You can log in.
	You can view it.
	You can hear what's going on, but you can't cut, clip, rebroadcast, whatever.
	So I'm trying to figure out a way to make sure that I can do it.
	I'm going to hear it while we're streaming, and I'm going to live tweet with my mouth what's going on in the same way McGregor from CTV.
	There's another person who I just discovered who's live tweeting this.
	It's called, the Twitter feed is called Resistance Cats.
	At Resistance Cats on Twitter, Tamara Lich at Court, Jenny Citizen Reporter.
	So you can live tweet it.
	So I'm going to hear it.
	Let me just see.
	So can we get a link, Viva?
	Let me see if I can share the link.
	Here are the zoom coordinates.
	Yeah, you can call here.
	You know what?
	I'll just, I'm going to, the zoom coordinates and you can call in.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Here you go.
	Boom.
	So this is the link where you can call in, but do not rebroadcast any audio, any video, any screen grabs.
	What I'm going to do is I'm going to try to listen to it on my headphones and then just, you know, summarize what's going on to you.
	While we do that.
	Let me see.
	My brother asked if I'm in.
	I think I'm in, period.
	So that's the logistic things that I want to, you know, be absolutely on the up and up about everything because I am an up and up individual.
	Oh, I think I just...
	If I just close the window.
	Okay.
	Open and Zoom.
	Okay.
	Apparently, there's no limits.
	They figured out, like, when they did it by Zoom meeting, they were, like, you know, max of 500, and they were always getting maxed out.
	So this way, oh, okay, I can see it.
	And I'm going to make sure that nobody can see what I see.
	Let me see if I can hear.
	Okay, I think it's on mute.
	Let me see here.
	Okay, let me just make sure that absolutely nobody is seeing.
	I have not shared screen, so nobody can see what I see.
	People, I can see things you can't.
	I am going to pull up an article.
	Pin it.
	Okay, hold on a second.
	That's a good point.
	So bear with me while I figure out these logistics here.
	Live.
	This is me today.
	Okay, here we go.
	Boom shakalaka.
	The thumbnail is an artist rendering that is published in court, so not a screen grab.
	Do not post screen grabs, audio, or rebroadcast to video, people.
	Do not give anybody...
	Do not give a corrupt government any excuse.
	Not that they even need the excuse.
	Okay, so I think I've pinned it.
	Now let me share the article just so we can read this until things get going.
	Tamara Lich, share.
	This we now see together.
	Let me just go to StreamYard.
	Beautiful.
	Minimize.
	Okay, very nice.
	By the way, something I haven't mentioned that is a function that has been enabled on the channel are super thanks.
	Which is like Super Chats, except after the stream has ended.
	So anybody who misses the livestream and wants to support afterwards, there's a little button called Super Thanks for every livestream after the livestream has ended.
	Whereas if you want to support during the streams, you've got Super Chats.
	But bear in mind, disclaimers, YouTube takes 30% of those Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, we're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble takes 20% of their equivalent called Rumble Rants.
	So you can feel better, you know, supporting a platform that you like to support.
	Okay.
	Oh, listen to the CBC.
	Tamara Lich admits accepting award is related to Freedom Convoy in fiery day in court.
	CBC, Justin Trudeau's own fully subsidized state media.
	The propaganda arm.
	Tamarilich admits accepting award is related.
	She admits that a future event that has not yet happened, but is being phrased in an active present sense.
	She admits accepting an award, which she has not yet accepted because it has not yet been issued because it's an event that's going to happen in the future if it ever happens, is related to Freedom Convoy in fiery day at court.
	Crown brings up possible mistrial application.
	That's right.
	Asks judge to recuse himself, because apparently what ended up happening, the prosecutor went so nuts and got so belligerent and over-the-top aggressive with the judge.
	The judge said, you go take a break, and when you come back, think about what you've been saying and what you've been doing, and come back with a cooler head.
	And when I hear stories like that, I say, these are the most embarrassing, humiliating things that can happen to a lawyer.
	Never happened to me, ever.
	It's happened to me in the courtroom, where I see the judge say that to the other person, like, go take a break, think about what you just did, and come back.
	And normally, you know, normal people who are not megalomaniac narcissists, psychopaths potentially, will come back sheepish, bashful, and say, I'm sorry, Your Honor, I got caught up in the moment, mea culpa, all of my apologies to the court, and I'll govern myself accordingly going forward.
	Apparently, this prosecutor came back after that admonishment for improper conduct and told the judge it was inappropriate and told the judge that the judge is biased and should recuse himself and wants a mistrial.
	I'm not seeing much of the chat, guys, so sorry about that.
	I'm not going to be able to do that right now.
	Tamara Lich admitted in court Thursday that accepting an award for organizing the Freedom Convoy, quote, Listen to the gaslighting coming out of the CBC.
	They called it an occupation of Ottawa.
	They called it illegal.
	I'm sure they called it an insurrection at one point.
	They called it an illegal occupation of Ottawa.
	Racist, extremist, xenophobe, put children at risk.
	That's how they called it in real time.
	But now...
	They're going to slowly rewrite history in real time.
	Now they're saying it was a protest that occupied some downtown streets for weeks.
	Let me just get my shoes off.
	Talk about attenuating your reporting so as to cover your ass as to how it was reported at the time.
	We remember what the CBC was saying at the time.
	It was an occupation.
	Now it's just a little protest.
	It's a little protest that occupied some streets in downtown.
	Hey, by the way, CBC, had you reported it like this at the time, maybe people wouldn't have thought it was an insurrection.
	Maybe people wouldn't have thought it could possibly ever justify invoking the Emergencies Act.
	Hey, it was a little protest.
	Sorry, I won't add words.
	It was a protest that occupied some downtown streets for weeks.
	Invoke the Emergencies Act.
	Let's see anybody support or justify invoking the Emergencies Act if CBC had reported this then.
	Sorry, am I blasting up my mic?
	Karine Belanger says, Viva, there was a judge that said...
	Wait a minute.
	Why can't I see that?
	There was a judge that said it was legal.
	What the judge said in the conclusion to one of the injunctions...
	Was that to the extent that they respect the conclusions of this order, they are within their legal rights to protest lawfully in otherwise legal protest.
	There was certainly nothing that declared it illegal, except for Justin Trudeau.
	And, you know, political hacks, political liars, and Ottawa police unilaterally declaring things illegal in the absence of any court order to that effect.
	Um, yeah.
	She made the comments on the first day of her second bail review in Ottawa Superior Court, a court proceeding peppered with tense, dramatic exchanges between Crown Prosecutor Moise Karimji and Justice Kevin Phillips.
	Litch, who is charged jointly with fellow organizer Chris Barber, is accused of mischief.
	Counseling mischief.
	Obstructing police.
	By the way, this is not obstructing police in like a cocaine deal where you're flushing stuff down the toilet.
	Obstructing police, I believe, was telling people to hold the line, to stay there.
	Counseling to obstruct the police.
	This is word crime now.
	You told someone to go protest.
	You counseled them to obstruct them.
	Counseling intimidation.
	And intimidation by blocking and obstructing.
	One or more highways in relation to the protest.
	Intimidation by blocking and obstructing one or more highways of the protest.
	She's been out since March 7th.
	Listen to this.
	Bound by another Superior Court justice's order not to, quote, verbally, in writing, financially, or by any other means, support.
	How about if she has a dream about the protest?
	Is that another means of supporting?
	Anything related to the Freedom Court.
	They are punishing thought.
	They are outlawing thought.
	Nothing less.
	Maybe even a little more.
	She's not allowed to verbally, in writing, financially, or by any other means.
	How about by breathing?
	How about if I know that her, by continuing to breathe, is supporting something related to the Freedom Convoy?
	Every breath that she takes, I know is a breath in support of the Freedom Convoy.
	Contempt.
	This is Canada.
	This is Canada now.
	And to stay out of Ontario, among other conditions.
	Oh, please, CBC, tell us about those other conditions.
	She can't attend protests throughout Canada.
	During examination by defense lawyer Lawrence Greenspoon on Thursday, Litch testified via Zoom, video link, yada, yada, yada, because she can't go to Ottawa.
	I suspect she could have gone to Ottawa for the hearing.
	She wants her bail conditions changed to allow her to visit Ottawa.
	The reasons are subject to a court-ordered publication ban and cannot be disclosed.
	So, by the way, everybody listening, pay attention to the warning from the judge to make sure that there's a publication ban and you don't report on anything that you're not allowed reporting on.
	Why do I not seem to see this?
	Let me see.
	Okay, it hasn't started yet.
	It's supposed to start at 10 o 'clock.
	I'm just going to make sure my audio is working.
	I see video.
	Audio settings.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Okay, so I'm hearing the audio from my computer in my ears, so that's fine.
	Okay, so I'm just going to keep that window open.
	Go back to...
	Son of a beasting.
	Here, go back to the article.
	Sorry, guys.
	She also testified she would, quote, love to attend an event in Toronto in June to accept a Freedom Award.
	However, I won't be breaching my bail conditions in order to do so.
	Listen to this.
	The event hasn't happened yet.
	It's a third-party award offered to her or being granted to her, whether she is there or not, a Freedom Award by the JCCF called the George Jonas Freedom Award.
	But she specifically, if she hasn't gotten it yet, She hasn't gone to Ottawa or Toronto yet.
	She hasn't accepted the award.
	She hasn't made a speech in accepting the award.
	Hold up.
	Hold up.
	Hold on, people.
	Hold on, people.
	It's in my ears right now.
	Everybody, let me know that all you hear is my voice, please, right now.
	Thank you.
	I mean, there's no way, conceptually, that anybody can hear what I hear in my headphones.
	Okay, you can hear this, nothing else.
	It's just my beautiful, soothing voice.
	So...
	So they've started.
	I think they're going to take care of some intro matters.
	Thank you.
	Oh, my goodness.
	So we've got the prosecutor, we've got the defendant, and we've got someone who I hear speaking.
	I don't know who it is.
	Her cross-examination began yesterday.
	The prosecutor's wearing...
	If they're wearing their attire, even though this is out of court via Zoom...
	Let me just pull this up.
	So while they take care of some morning stuff, she hasn't accepted the award yet.
	It's the George Jonas Freedom Award.
	The email, which she read aloud...
	Said the honor was being given in recognition of your leadership role in the Freedom Convoy.
	Okay, let's just see when they...
	Asked whether by accepting the award she was supporting something related to the convoy.
	She said, I guess so.
	How did they say that she admitted it in the header?
	In the intro paragraph, she said it is related?
	In quotes?
	She said, I guess so.
	That's her actual quote.
	But don't let journalizing and editorializing get in the way, CBC.
	And if I look confused, it's because I'm actually hearing things while I'm talking to you and reading this article.
	I don't feel that this is a breach.
	I don't feel that that's what the recognition is for.
	I feel that the recognition is for inspiring Canadians to hold the government to account to the rule of law and to uphold their charter rights, she continued.
	I guess it is related because of what happened, she added.
	I guess it's related.
	Take out the guess.
	It's related.
	No, it might be.
	It might be related.
	Take out the it might be and just say related.
	Take out the it might be and just say related.
	Okay, but the prosecutor's speaking, and they're talking about an email.
	Just before a 15-minute late afternoon break, Phillips told court...
	Karimji's decorum surprised him and asked Karimji to contemplate that.
	Listen to this, people.
	When court reconvened, Karimji said he was just, quote, doing my job.
	Wow, where have we heard that before?
	And began to list some of his problems with the justices' remarks and rulings, including that Phillips had earlier refused to allow the email.
	Notifying Lich about her award to be submitted to court.
	Philip said, I'm not interested in an argument.
	Proceed with your cross-examination.
	No, I'm not arguing with you.
	Yes, you are.
	I'm not arguing with you.
	Is arguing with you.
	I don't want to engage in this.
	Proceed with your cross-examination.
	Okay, so they're saying that basically she's in the middle of cross-examination already.
	The prosecutor is now saying there's a rule that counsel's not allowed communicating with their client while she's being cross-examined.
	And that's true.
	They're not allowed discussing the witness testimony.
	We talked about that during Amber, during Rittenhouse.
	But by the way, who's George Jonas?
	Let's just, in the ultimate of ironies, who's George Jonas?
	This is the individual who inspired the award.
	George Jonas, Canadian-Hungarian writer, poet, and journalist, a self-described classical liberal.
	He authored 16 books, including the bestseller Vengeance, the story of an Israeli operation to kill the terrorist responsible for the 1972 Munich massacre.
	The book has been adapted, yada, yada, yada.
	Jonas was born in Budapest, Hungary, 1935.
	The son of a lawyer, composer, and former member of the Vienna State Opera.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Where does it say?
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	George Jonas is a man who escaped communist regime to promote freedom.
	And the award is named after him, being given to Tamara Lich, and she's now being prosecuted, persecuted to the fullest extent of an overzealous prosecutor who's just doing his job.
	They want to get her on alleged breach of her bail terms before she's even done it, to put her back in jail on non-violent mischief-related charges, effectively nothing less as a reprisal for her attempting to review her bail terms.
	Okay.
	Talking about case law.
	You might have to look at me, be silent as I try to understand what she's going with.
	Oh, we got Mike Bruno is judge, jury, and executioner.
	He's already come to the legal conclusion that she was obstructing justice.
	Guilty.
	Lock her up.
	Sorry, there is something called a trial to determine that.
	And if you think that you pre-trial detain people indefinitely until they get their trial on allegations of obstruction of justice...
	I'm sorry, you've already come to the conclusion that she has.
	Sorry.
	Pre-crime detention.
	It's what it is.
	Who is Moise Karimji?
	I think he's pulling up a case now, so we can go ahead and...
	Look at this.
	I'm going to flag a lot of the Super Chats that I won't be able to get to.
	Thanks, Viva, for snubbing my Super Chat on Legal Mindset this morning.
	He got so excited.
	He skipped it twice.
	I sent another and told him to watch your Wrecking Ball lip sync.
	I saw that, Johnny.
	He didn't snub.
	He skipped over mine as well.
	I think the problem with the Amber Heard trial coverage, there's so many Super Chats coming in, you can't even keep up with it.
	This ain't Russia, bub.
	All right, so let's go see who Moe is.
	He's pulling up.
	I think this prosecutor is trying to allege that counsel was discussing with clients who's under oath in the process of cross-examination and in so doing violated certain rules of law.
	Is it Moise Karimji?
	Moise Karimji.
	Okay, let's just see here.
	Is there a wiki?
	By the way, whoever didn't see last night's sidebar with Larry Sanger, it was very interesting.
	Okay, so Moise Karimji, prosecutor, assistant crown attorney.
	Who is he as a history?
	I have no idea who he is as a history, but everybody can, you know, you can go Google and...
	Who appointed him, actually?
	Who appointed Moise Kennedy?
	Okay.
	We'll come back to that later.
	Oh, my goodness.
	So, I don't think Runkle got taken down.
	Hold on.
	Let me go check that out.
	I have not heard Ian Runkle, Runkle of the Bailey, if you don't know who he is.
	Moe's right now is...
	No, Runkle the Bailey's channel's still up.
	So he's pulling up a case.
	Moe's, the prosecutor.
	He's going to email the case to Mr. Gandel.
	I don't know who that is.
	He's an author and assistant crown attorney for the government.
	Well, no, that much we know.
	The question is historically.
	What type of a prosecutor?
	What type of an attorney was he?
	I'm sure people are going to look for politically motivated bias or connections to the liberal campaign.
	Oh, his broadcast got taken down.
	Yeah, YouTube is definitely up to some chicanery.
	An over nine-month-old video interview that I did with Russ Cooper.
	Taken down.
	Taken down.
	Oh, that sucks.
	Taking down about 37,000 people.
	Okay, so the prosecutor is submitting a case to the judge or communicating it to opposing counsel, and I think it's related to allegations that Tamara's lawyer...
	Nobody's talking right now.
	I'm just trying to piece together what they might be suggesting.
	That Tamara Litch's lawyer communicated with Tamara Litch while she was under cross-examination, under oath, and so therefore could not discuss the content of her...
	Offered testimony.
	I'll tell you one thing, though.
	I did not see what Moise looked like yesterday, but he looks to be a little more tempered today.
	I mean, tempered down, not hot tempered.
	I mean, the only thing more boring than watching me, you know, mouth-tweet what's going on is watching this.
	Court is not always as exciting.
	It's tedious.
	It's procedural.
	There's a lot of silence.
	Him and Joe both had videos pulled last night.
	AH stuff.
	It's interesting.
	Were they swearing?
	You have to...
	What is that?
	It's a napkin with my...
	That's my notes.
	Notes from one of my previous streams this week.
	Oh, man.
	The CDC hearing.
	Well, unfortunately, there's only so many hours in the day and only so many...
	We should do, like, simulstream.
	But no, today I'm streaming a mouth-tweet version of Tamara Litch's Day 2. Now, some of the stuff, they did not give a warning as to what is subject to a publication ban.
	Oh, there's a cat in the background.
	Oh, there's a cat in the background.
	Okay, so we're sharing a decision, a case law decision.
	In Ontario, they refer to judges'colleagues as brothers.
	Thank you.
	Okay, so they're talking about information related to the surety.
	We'll come back to it.
	I'll keep listening.
	I'll keep listening.
	I'm going to go to Twitter.
	So they're talking about...
	This is tough.
	Talking about withholding disclosures as related to the certainty.
	Are there any updates on Pat King?
	Pat King's still in jail.
	I think his hearing is coming up on the 24th of May.
	This is really confusing.
	Okay, let me just go to Twitter and just show you something that's kind of funny.
	So this Twitter feed is covering it live as well, as is McGregor from CTV News.
	Yesterday, this is...
	You know, thread 119 of the thread covering all of this.
	He says, The Crown knows of my YouTube channel, as does the prosecutor.
	So they're arguing right now over some case law related to disclosures that I think the Crown was obligated to communicate to the defendant.
	In Ontario State, your brother rendered this decision, and I thought for a second the judges had lots of family members on court.
	Thank you.
	I'll say the entity that calls itself the government is corrupt.
	Viva is a trademark, not a person.
	Okay.
	So the feds watch your show or have been.
	I interviewed Keith Wilson, who's one of the lawyers for the JCCF.
	And I think they're trying to go after some like...
	I think they're trying to go after the JCCF to some extent to say they're representing Tamara Lich and they're also giving her this award.
	And so, you know, this is full lawfare, full warfare on everybody.
	You see, Pat King's a good man.
	He may be a schmuck.
	He may be a good man.
	You don't lock up schmucks in pretrial detention.
	Who in the chat's watching this now in real time?
	Ah.
	So he's...
	They're trying to basically, I think they're arguing right now that they do not need to disclose certain documents to Tamara Lich because they're not under any obligation to do so.
	Now the defense is speaking.
	They're talking about this decision.
	Non-disclosure.
	It's non-disclosure.
	Here we go.
	I can do a double...
	This is going to be double...
	I'm going to listen, and I'm going to follow, and this might be easier for me and more entertaining for you.
	As in, interesting, less silence.
	There's a case from the Ontario Court of Justice used in a decision from an Ontario...
	what's that decision?
	Oh, so they're trying to say basically that they could not discuss with their own client...
	One of the exhibits was a social media post that they filed yesterday.
	I'm not sure if that makes any sense.
	I'm not sure if that makes any sense.
	The Crown disclosed the document to defense and the defense was not aware of it.
	So I presume what happened is the Crown filed an exhibit that the defense did not have.
	Which was a social media post and is now saying that the defense and their client cannot discuss this document because she's under cross-examination.
	That's what I think is happening.
	Okay.
	That is what's happening.
	Okay.
	The Crown, in cross-examination, submitted a social media post which the defense is saying we didn't have.
	Now the Crown is saying, I think, unless I've misunderstood, that the defense counsel was not allowed discussing this document with Tamara Lich because she was under oath in cross-examination.
	Okay.
	Yeah, you see?
	And that's what they're saying.
	So they're saying, the Crown, playing very clean and playing very transparent, didn't communicate what they were going to invoke in cross-examination to the defense beforehand.
	They wait until Tamara's under a cross.
	They then file a new exhibit, which, you know, they may or may not have been aware of, but had not been disclosed as what they were going to use in cross.
	And now Moise, the prosecutor, saying, you attorneys can't discuss that document with your client because she's under oath, and we didn't have to send it to you beforehand.
	I'm not going to say that's dirty law.
	That's just lawfare.
	Doesn't seem fair.
	Doesn't seem fair, and like anyone with kids will know, if something doesn't seem fair, chances are there's something unfair about it.
	Okay, so let's see what's going on now.
	Thank you.
	Good.
	The judge just decided in favor of the defendant.
	Okay.
	Very good.
	This is going to potentially put Moise into a rage.
	The judge said, I decide in favor of the defendant.
	They can pause.
	Go discuss.
	Only this exhibit.
	Nothing else related to her testimony.
	Come back.
	And he's saying now the Crown had an obligation to make disclosure for cross-examination.
	Thank you.
	So he says, here disclosure was made over lunchtime.
	I'm just going to mouth tweet.
	Thank you.
	So he's basically saying, you guys sent this a little late.
	You disclosed it during lunch.
	And by doing so, you basically said, we have no problem with you discussing with your clients.
	Thank you.
	He said, you guys communicated it.
	you had no indication that you would try to benefit from the, they call it confrontation benefits.
	Basically saying, you sent it to them.
	It was right before the cross.
	You would have had no problem with them discussing it anyhow.
	But timing worked out that it was...
	I think he's saying basically it was late.
	And it seems to be unfair to Ms. Leach.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	He says basically it would be unfair to Tamara Leach to be prejudiced in her ability to discuss this because...
	Council didn't see it in due time or because it was sent late, maybe during lunch before the cross.
	Thank you.
	He says the Crown must disclose all information before the bail hearing.
	They did, but it looks like it was untimely disclosure or at the very least the Council did not see it in time because it was communicated over lunch.
	Here was a timing issue.
	And the timing issue alone.
	CBC won't report this.
	The judge said it's unfair to the accused.
	It's unfair to the accused in that this benefits the crown.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Now, how do I follow this thread?
	I'm going to stay with this thread.
	Also, McGregor.
	We're going to pause.
	Not Conor McGregor.
	So now they're going to look over the social media post.
	Glenn McGregor.
	Let's see what he has to say.
	So they're pausing now.
	I can put this off.
	They're pausing now.
	Counsel for Tamara Lich has been authorized to discuss or discuss with Tamara only this particular social media post.
	I wish I could find what it was or what it is.
	Okay, Greenspoon says there's a huge difference in non-disclosure to a certee compared to the accused.
	Again, asked to be owed because the case law I think Moise filed was disclosure related to the certee, who is the person guaranteeing the release of the accused versus the accused themselves.
	Again, asked the judge to be able to discuss the contents of the email.
	In advance, Judge Phillips agrees.
	We are taking a break so Greenspoon can talk to Litch about this email.
	Now, what is the email?
	That's what I would love to find.
	Hmm.
	How can I find that email?
	Well, you know what I can do, actually?
	While we're on break, people, let me just come back to here and see.
	Tamara and good people everywhere deserve freedom!
	This is Canada country.
	No freedom here.
	I can't stand McGregor.
	He's horrible.
	Maybe.
	But you can still get real-time information from people who you consider to be horrible.
	And people you can't stand.
	Can't disagree with that.
	So, um, oh yeah, we got some, we got some, I won't call them bots.
	We've got some people who have strong, in my humble opinion, ill-founded opinions.
	Um, no, the, well, the judge, no, the, um, the prosecutor's the one who, where's my lip cell?
	I need some lip cell.
	It's in my pocket here.
	The judge, the prosecutor's the one who asked the judge to recuse himself.
	And as we know, You know who makes the decision on whether or not the judge recuses him or herself?
	The judge, him or herself.
	So...
	The judge makes that decision.
	So there was little chance that the judge was going to, you know, recuse himself.
	Especially because he admonished the prosecutor to tone it down a little bit.
	From what I understand, it was out of control.
	The prosecutor was...
	Out of control, to the point where nobody watching could believe it.
	I just wish I had seen it, and I didn't know.
	Oh, this is day two on a bail hearing.
	This is day two on a bail re-hearing of a...
	She's had five, six days of bail hearing?
	Mischief!
	The dude in Winnipeg who ran over or struck four protesters with his vehicle was let out on bail.
	Now let me see if I can't.
	I'm going to stop screen.
	See if I can pull up the...
	Hold on, I'm going to do it like this.
	If I can pull up the PDF of the notice from the Crown, which is an interesting thing to watch.
	Interesting thing to read.
	Okay, we got Tamara Lich.
	Here we go.
	This is the notice.
	I'm going to go like this here.
	And we're going to read through the Crown's notice of application bail reveal.
	Let me shrink here, people.
	Sorry about this.
	Shrink.
	Oh, damn it, if I shrink too much.
	I can't see it.
	Okay, share screen.
	And I think it's window.
	Oh, no, it's not going to let me do it.
	It's not showing me app.
	Oh, here we go.
	Okay, good.
	Here we go.
	Boom.
	Okay, we see this.
	Good.
	We all see this together, people.
	Let me know that you see it properly and nothing's cut off.
	Political science project.
	I need another coffee with dark chocolate.
	Okay, all right.
	Let me see.
	Viva was in the pool.
	What does that mean?
	Okay, we can see it.
	Okay, good.
	Thank you.
	So here, Ontario, this is the information.
	Now, bear in mind, people, I studied criminal law, never practiced it, but I can read.
	Ontario Superior Court of Justice for Majesty the Queen and Tamara Lich, notice of application.
	Listen to this.
	Take notice that pursuant...
	To Section 521 of the Criminal Code of Canada, an application will be brought on Tuesday, May 10. What's the date today?
	It's May 20 now, so I guess they had to put it off from the original date.
	Take notice of Pursuant to Section 523 of the Criminal Code.
	At the request of the Crown, the accused demonstration is required to present at the bail review.
	The grounds for this application are...
	Tamara Lich has continued her support of the convoy cause with the assistance of Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, the tax-exempt charity.
	Tell me that this is not the prosecutor going after a charity.
	Tell me that this is not the prosecutor and the Crown going after a political charity for politically ideologically motivated reasoning.
	Tell me that this is not the ideologically motivated violent extremism, but legal violence.
	Not actual, not political violence, legal violence, not actual violence.
	They want to go after the JCCF.
	They're probably going to try to have the JCCF's tax-exempt charity status revoked.
	Probably.
	I don't know.
	Maybe.
	We'll see.
	Tamara Litch has continued her support of the Convoy Cause with the assistance of Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, the tax-exempt charity, which previously hired a private eye to dig up dirt on the judge in a case the charity was involved in.
	Absolutely unrelated to this.
	This was related to another COVID case where someone hired a private eye to try to catch the judge in the file.
	It was objectively wrong.
	Full stop.
	Totally unrelated, but it will color the file.
	But someone, the JCCF, an individual who took responsibility for his actions, regretfully hired a private eye.
	To tail the judge to see if the judge was violating any of the COVID restrictions in a case where the COVID restrictions were at issue.
	Unrelated to this case, but, you know, interesting to dig up.
	And which supported the occupation of Ottawa.
	This is the prosecutor.
	Even the CBC, the propaganda arm of the government, some streets protest on some streets for a few weeks.
	It's an occupation.
	The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms has announced that in the future, Tamara Lich will be receiving the 2022 George Jonas Freedom Award, a man who escaped communist Hungary only to see it brew, ferment, and be born in Canada.
	The irony of this political persecution over an award that is named after an individual who fled...
	Communist hungry for freedom, which he found in Canada, which a freedom that Canadians today do not enjoy.
	Oh, look at this.
	Tamara Lich to receive the Justice Centre's 2022 George Jonas Freedom Award in Toronto on Thursday, June 16th.
	Hey, look at that.
	My goodness.
	They want to revoke her bail, put her back in jail for something that hasn't happened yet, even if it does happen.
	And even if it does happen, when it happens, might not constitute a violation of her bail terms.
	Thank you.
	Well, let's just see.
	Here we go.
	How do we know that Tamara Lich supported this?
	The collaborative and representative nature of the relationship between the parties cannot be denied.
	Of note, on April 20, 2022, even though the hearing on Zoom was not open to the public...
	You know what?
	We've read enough of the details.
	An order vacating the release of Order of Justice Johnson dated March 7. They just want to remove it.
	And then we've got the exhibits filed in support.
	Oh my goodness.
	I guess it was once upon a time a free country.
	There should be audio.
	Future, I mean, it's...
	You just...
	You talk about a chilling effect to discuss these things.
	You don't know what there's a publication ban on.
	You don't know what they're going to retroactively declare unlawful.
	They both retroactively declare things unlawful and in the future declare things to be unlawful that haven't happened yet.
	The process is the punishment.
	Create a chilling effect.
	Godspeed, Viva.
	Love the UK.
	Thank you very much.
	And I didn't even see your super chat when I brought up the chilling effect.
	Because I'm...
	It's 1,000%.
	That is the goal.
	It's the fringe benefits of malicious prosecution, even if it ever gets to be declared malicious prosecution.
	A lot of people are not going to donate to charities now.
	A lot of people are not going to go to protests now because you never know.
	When the cops come in and say, this is now an unlawful gathering, and even if you leave, we're going to take pictures of you, take pictures of your license plates, freeze your bank accounts, and try to ruin your life.
	Bing chilling.
	I thought you said bone chilling, but yes, bing chilling.
	All right, so that's...
	I'm going to stop screen.
	I'll go back to bounce between McGregor and Resistance Cats.
	I'll hear when they go live again.
	Yeah, you gotta bend over backwards.
	As you should, bend over backwards to make sure you're not breaking the rules, but...
	Wow, let me see this.
	Wow.
	YouTube is messing with you, Viva.
	Chats keep disappearing.
	I do not...
	Well, if I see something that's an overt threat and I recognize it, I'll flag it as an overt threat.
	But yeah, I do not delete comments and I don't block anybody except Russian sex bots.
	And recently I've been getting the Ingsock.
	What was it called?
	Ink Sock was English Socialism.
	It's from 1984.
	I'm getting a lot of, appear to be Chinese Ink Sock bots.
	First they were spamming in English, then they were spamming in Chinese.
	Or Mandarin, I should say.
	I don't actually know if it was Mandarin or Cantonese, but not Chinese.
	It's not a language in and of itself.
	Fry, did you take the children to...
	I did, and I was late as a result.
	But nothing had happened before then.
	Chat's okay, good.
	But just bear in mind, I don't delete...
	Offensive.
	You can insult me and you can say stupid things about me or you can even say truthfully stupid things about me.
	I don't block out of ego.
	I don't block, period.
	Sex bots, spamming.
	Yes.
	Okay, now.
	Oh, sorry.
	Hold on.
	I want to go back there.
	So let's see.
	Let us see.
	What?
	Glenn McGregor from CTV News.
	Okay, so Phillips says Lich shouldn't be disadvantaged by Greenspoon's preoccupation with having his lunch as opposed to keeping his nose to the grindstone.
	For the record, lunch break was only an hour.
	Okay, see?
	I'll give Glenn credit.
	Because what happened is, technically there was disclosure of documents that the prosecutor intended to use during the examination, but only during lunch, before they went back for cross-examination.
	So he says, look, you got it.
	It's not my fault if you didn't talk to Lich about it, prepare her beforehand.
	Now she's under oath and now she's in cross-examination and you can't discuss this document with her.
	And he's saying, you disclosed it to me during lunch before we go back.
	I didn't see it and my clients should not be prejudiced because of what might be tardy disclosure or strategically tardy disclosure.
	Okay, I just saw a super chat.
	Happiness?
	No!
	I thought that happiness is a warm puppy is what the expression is.
	Why doesn't Judge Ask Crown why the overzealous approach to what's ordinarily one of the lowest types of criminal offenses?
	Well, you don't want that, actually.
	I mean, you don't want the judge looking like he's picking a fight with the prosecutor.
	But from what I was understood of yesterday's hearing, Moise was out of control.
	Out of control.
	CBC, for them to even go describe it the way the CBC did, you have to know it was 100 times worse.
	So, yeah, it had to have been a hundred times worse.
	So you don't want the judge picking a personal fight with the prosecutor.
	He said, calm down.
	Go take a break.
	Come back.
	Let's start anew.
	To which Moise said, no, no, no.
	You impugned my dignity.
	You have to recuse yourself.
	I want this entire...
	I want a mistrial.
	I want to start this again with a new judge.
	You can find the superchats in the back end, Viva.
	Well, I flagged a couple of them from HeartTackle.
	Good morning, sir.
	Good morning, HeartTackle.
	Thank you, as always, for the support.
	And thanks, Viva, for snubbing my...
	Okay, I addressed this, but I did not snub it.
	Neither did IllegalMindset.
	Andrew, he just has too many superchats.
	Good problems.
	Can't hear you.
	Suspend trial.
	Sussman trial, I don't know what the latest is.
	I haven't...
	I have not...
	I didn't do the update yesterday.
	But they made a motion for mistrial.
	Did they make a motion for mistrial?
	Yes, they made a motion for mistrial, which the judge refused.
	They made a motion for mistrial, as far as I understand, because one of the witnesses, Mark Elias, who happens to be the lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign, Mark Elias made a reference to...
	Calling into question or raising the fifth that would be pleaded by the defendant Sussman.
	So one could think of, is this strategy between politically aligned individuals to cause a mistrial?
	But I'll talk with that with Barnes because I know that I don't know enough to know if that's a reasonable thought.
	We don't want the judge in the back pockets of psychopaths, but they are.
	Maybe not all but many.
	I didn't get the notification.
	That you were live.
	Well, in fairness, no.
	I sent out the email.
	I created this yesterday.
	So that's...
	I have a feeling YouTube has not been notifying or promoting, but it doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	I'm not going to complain when, you know...
	I'm just going to keep working harder.
	That's what it does.
	Okay, so now let's go back to...
	Not McGregor, but let's go back to Resistance Cats.
	Let's just see.
	Oh, no.
	The amazing thing is to see the differences in the responses based on this.
	So here's the response.
	So yesterday, the judge wouldn't allow the Crown to get a copy of the email that was being read by Litch.
	But now today, the judge allows the defense to pre-release a different email to Litch before the defense can bring it into evidence.
	Now, I think this individual has misunderstood what's going on.
	Okay, so never mind that.
	Let's just see McGregor.
	McGregor!
	Where are we, McGregor?
	Live tweeting of the coverage of the hearing.
	Okay, so it looks like there hasn't been any update there.
	Let's go to ResistanceCat.
	I still hear nothing in my ear.
	I may want to take an early break.
	ResistanceCat, here we go.
	If you could RT, QTRT, or comment on my thread about Tamarulich's bail hearing, that would be awesome.
	I will have to make my account private if I keep having lurkers on this thread or downvoting my tweets.
	Well, don't make it private.
	Everyone go check it out.
	Give me 30 seconds.
	I'm going to go do my little boys break before they come back.
	So enjoy reading a tweet.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Alright, people, I'm back.
	Oi!
	What did I miss?
	Nothing.
	Okay.
	Okay, let's just see.
	Okay, fine.
	We're not getting any new news there.
	No new news.
	Let me just open this up.
	Close this down.
	I'll bring it back up when there's stuff going on.
	Okay, let's see what the chat has to say about anything here.
	Did I miss anything?
	Anything?
	No.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Oh, I get the joke.
	You know what?
	While we're waiting, let me bring it up.
	Let's just go see what's in my Twitter feed just for downtime entertainment.
	This is what's going on in the world, people.
	This is a hearing, a re-hearing, a re-hearing on bail for mischief charges where they want to lock someone up.
	Tamara only spent two and a half weeks in jail.
	Forward slash.
	Camera Lips spent two and a half weeks in jail.
	And Pat King is still in jail.
	Three months.
	Actually, it was three months two days ago.
	Absolute outlandish preposterousness.
	By the way, this is funny.
	There was a video that Trudeau put up yesterday.
	Look at this video, by the way.
	Let's just watch this video.
	By the way, there's an amazing thing that's going on in this video.
	Just watch it once and then we're going to watch it again.
	music
	That's Justin Trudeau in that clip, and then they edit it, and it's whoever the Prince Charles.
	Now, what's interesting about that, put in beautiful lovey-dovey music, and it's beautiful.
	Show the same image, and put in the Star Wars.
	The bottom one is President Xi in China, being saluted by his military.
	Put in bad music for that, and it's evil.
	But you go look at Justin Trudeau standing on a red pedestal with his military saluting him.
	It's so disgusting.
	It's so disgusting.
	And I don't mean to be mean about this.
	I haven't served in the military.
	I have done things that I still think would make me more qualified to be prime minister than Justin Trudeau.
	Run a small business.
	Worked at a big law firm.
	You know, two degrees.
	Not that philosophy doesn't really count as a degree, but whatever.
	Philosophy, law.
	Worked at one of the biggest law firms in Canada.
	Started up my own litigation practice.
	I know what it's like to start up a small firm, a small business, to deal with the government paperwork, the garbage, to hire people, to fire people, to deal with employment issues, to deal with tax issues.
	I know that Justin Trudeau has none of this.
	And he thinks he's deserving of standing on a literal pedestal to have people literally...
	I don't know.
	What is that?
	Worship?
	Idolize?
	Salute?
	Commemorate?
	Like, look at this guy.
	Like he's an Oscar trophy.
	But no, when President Xi does it, the world would say, this is tyranny.
	Cue the Star Wars music.
	When Justin Trudeau does it, he's going to put in the fantasy music.
	Listen to the music.
	Let's go to the original.
	Let's go to the original.
	Sorry, this was the original.
	Listen to this.
	Such beautiful music.
	Royalty-free music.
	It's the...
	It's the royalty fluff music that you get.
	Oh, look at this.
	It's so beautiful.
	What's his name?
	Prince Charles.
	Wearing a mask.
	Nope.
	Makes no sense.
	Wearing a mask under his nose.
	Makes no sense.
	Oh, he's paying tribute.
	He's paying tribute.
	He's showing his respect to Indigenous Canadians.
	The same ones he skipped.
	He skipped the first National Indigenous Day in Canada to go to the beach.
	Oh, my God.
	But put in beautiful music.
	Look at him.
	No mask there.
	No mask there.
	Guy next to him.
	Mask.
	Back up to the mask.
	Oh, yeah.
	Picture instead of...
	You will worship me.
	Okay, sorry.
	It's just...
	It's over the top.
	Sorry.
	Those were my thoughts last night.
	But let's just go to...
	I still hear nothing.
	So there's nothing going on yet.
	See, I created this link yesterday, so if you didn't get notification...
	Oh, Elon Musk.
	Do we talk about this now?
	We're going to talk about this Sunday.
	Isn't it amazing that when someone becomes politically prominent, poses a threat to the institutional powers, declares that he's going to vote Republican next election, what happens?
	Sex scandal.
	Sex scandal.
	Latest news.
	Elon Musk.
	A SpaceX flight attendant said Elon Musk exposed himself and propositioned her for sex documents show.
	The company paid $250,000 for her sign.
	Oh!
	Oh, by the way, it's in Yahoo!
	It's in Yahoo!
	Who remembers where we saw the name of Yahoo in a politically motivated hit smear bullcrap piece?
	Who remembers?
	Little pee-pee dossier?
	A little Trump hit piece that the FBI then used the publication of that story to go get secret FISA warrants, and it was bogus from beginning?
	The same Yahoo.
	A SpaceX flight attendant said, we just read that header.
	If your time is short, just read the bullet points.
	Flight attendant for SpaceX said Elon asked her to do more during a massage documents show.
	The billionaire founder allegedly exposed his wee-wee, his schmeckle.
	Keep it in your pants, Elon.
	Don't you listen to my channel?
	Keep your schmeckle in your pants and you'll avoid all of these allegations in any event.
	Also, don't get massages.
	That's another Viva rule.
	Viva rule of life.
	Keep your schmeckle in your pants and don't get massages from strangers.
	The billionaire founder...
	After she reported the incident to SpaceX, Musk's company paid her $250,000 as part of the severance agreement.
	Apparently, there's more to the story.
	But isn't the timing just...
	I know I'm going to score some brownie points with people who like Archer.
	I mean, this is not, do you want to get a lawsuit?
	Because that's how you get a lawsuit.
	It's, oh, well, isn't that convenient?
	What was it, three days after he says he's going to vote for the Republican, vote Republican next election?
	One of the most politically, financially powerful individuals in the world says he's going to vote Republican.
	Three days later, sex scandal.
	Says he's not going to buy Twitter because there's some big problems with it.
	Sex scandal.
	I don't think Elon has ever had a sex scandal before.
	Just amazing how these things happen.
	Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas.
	Let's just go through the list, actually.
	Elon Musk, Donald Trump.
	They're never racists or perverts until they challenge those who statistically, for whatever the reason, politically seem to be...
	Racists and perverts.
	Okay, so that's the latest.
	So more to the story.
	I'm sure there is, but it's just the timing.
	It just always seems to happen this same way.
	I'm going to stop responding to people on the interwebs who say certain things.
	I have to discipline myself.
	Give attention to the people who...
	Give attention to the people who...
	If you pay attention only, if you respond only to the trolls, it rewards the behavior.
	And some things are just...
	Tony Depp is a distraction.
	I'm a shame on you, David, for covering it.
	I have to stop.
	Because there are people out there who want to participate, who want to be value-added.
	And when you focus on the negative, you ignore the people who actually appreciate you.
	No man, he had ties with Epstein.
	Someone was probably holding on to that information.
	At some point, if I find out that he flew to the private island multiple times, I will definitely know that I'll probably change my mind.
	But ties to Epstein, at some point in time, especially with someone who goes around taking pictures of celebrities for the sake of it, for whatever the reason, he may or may not have had ties to Epstein.
	I don't know the extent of those ties.
	I didn't see his name on any flight logs to the island.
	But the timing.
	And the accusation.
	It's always something sexual.
	It's weird.
	It's always like harassment and whatever.
	As a licensed massage therapist, I can't answer that remark about don't get massaged.
	I don't like people touching my body.
	Except for my wife.
	And even then, when I sleep, I don't want to feel the warmth.
	I want total...
	But no, I'll tell you, even as a licensed massage therapist, I appreciate it.
	People need it, but I have my phobias.
	I'm even reluctant to go to my osteopath because he gets up close and personal sometimes.
	Okay.
	Oh my goodness.
	I would be more skeptical of the Amber Heard connection.
	Okay, let me get rid of that so I can just pull this out.
	Okay, so...
	Oh yeah, this was the article talking about JCCF.
	We'll get back there, but are we still on break?
	Let me see something here.
	Zoom.
	Where's my screen?
	Oh, it's because I lowered it so far that I can't bring it up.
	Yeah, I see movement.
	Okay, so we're still there.
	What in the hot?
	Those are the kids that were in my shade.
	Where did I just put Twitter?
	Okay, here we go.
	Larry Sugar last night was great.
	Oh, let me.
	I know I talked about it yesterday, but I just...
	Jagmeet Singh talking about people being robbed at the pumps.
	Oh, and the Conservatives and Liberals, the Liberals with whom he's just teamed up for the next three years until he can, you know, meet his pension six years of service for whatever.
	You know, the people that he just teamed up with are screwing Canadians.
	I gotta tell you something, Jagmeet.
	You're screwing Canadians.
	But forget that for now.
	He accuses them of lining the pockets of big oil.
	And my goodness, thank goodness the internet is forever.
	Because Jagmeet gave an interview on, this was in 2016 or 2018.
	And the article...
	Oh, they're back.
	Jagmeet has a taste for luxuries that don't comport with the monkish minimalism of his party.
	He wears a bespoke suits in the slim British style.
	He owns two Rolexes, Oyster Perpetual.
	I now know what those things are.
	Drives a crimson BMW coupe and has six designer bicycles.
	More than any one person should have, even according to him.
	Okay, we're back live.
	I'm going to hear this and I'm going to pull up the Twitter.
	Thank you.
	We're going to go to resistance cats.
	Okay, now they're saying Zoom link keeps blacking out, apparently.
	Okay, so there's a request to leave the Zoom link and try to get back in.
	And now because I'm totally neurotic chat, just reassure me that nobody hears anything except for my...
	ASMR law in the morning.
	That's all ASMR, all the time, with Viva Frye.
	Back in court.
	Okay, yeah, they're back in court.
	Resistance.
	If resistance is futile, then resistance cats is futile.
	Yeah, okay, so this is amazing.
	We're going to have a live update in the chat.
	I'll just keep doing it like this.
	I only hear you, Michelle.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	So, just to be frank.
	It's irrational.
	I appreciate it's irrational, but I need the reassurance every now and again, even though I know it's irrational.
	Good?
	Oh, yeah.
	More of that voice.
	While Tamara Lich recharges, reboots, or exits Zoom to try to come back in to avoid technical issues, Viva will go back to Resistance Cat's tweets.
	Oh, yeah.
	Tamara Lich's defense counsels are walking back into court, which means that the court hearing for Tamara Lynch should resume soon.
	That is true.
	Okay.
	Oh, man.
	So now they're going to continue with the cross-examination, which is going to be Moise, the prosecutor, cross-examining because this was, I believe this was on its own, Tamara Lich's notice of application for bail rehearing to change some of the terms.
	Now the judge is asking if they can hear.
	Leach confirms they can hear.
	Are they in a position to proceed?
	And they are.
	Now, Mr. Crimson, the prosecutor is continuing with Cross.
	Prosecutor says good morning.
	No.
	He's asking her, when you testified on what the George Jonas Award was for, and he's quoting her.
	He's reading from the article they read.
	She says, I don't feel that it's a recognition for inspiring Canadians to hold the government to account, to the rule of law, and to uphold their charter rights.
	So he's quoting her from yesterday.
	We read that.
	Do you remember testifying to that?
	She does, obviously, because it was yesterday and it's in the news.
	In terms of your use of the word rule of law, does that include criminal law?
	He's asking a rhetorical question.
	When you say upholding the rule of law, does that include criminal law?
	And he's going to try to cross-examine her on aiding and abating mischief.
	Okay.
	Do you think it's okay to break the criminal law for your concept of freedom?
	Objection.
	What a legal question.
	lawyers objecting I don't well he's saying a Objection from the attorney saying we're getting into her motivations.
	For allegedly breaking the law.
	I don't even think that's where he's going.
	I think the objection on this should be he's asking for her opinion of law.
	Do we see this?
	Okay, we do.
	He's responding to the objection.
	I believe, Tobias, I answered this on Twitter.
	I'm going to refrain from answering.
	On YouTube.
	Does she believe right now?
	He's simply asking her, do you believe right now?
	Not in the past.
	Right now.
	Are you allowed to break the law?
	The criminal law of Canada for her concept of freedom.
	Do you think, Tamara Lich, do you think, Tamara Lich, that you think you can break the criminal law for your concept of justice?
	That's a stupid hypothetical question.
	Sorry.
	It is a baseless hypothetical question.
	She's a witness of fact.
	She's not there to testify as to what she might do, what she believes at large in general.
	Judge is going to maintain this objection because even Moise's explanation now makes no sense.
	And he's saying the reason for it is...
	The reason for...
	Thought crime, people.
	The reason why he thinks it's a relevant question is whether or not the court can have confidence in her undertaking to respect the law while out.
	This is...
	Oh, my...
	Oh.
	So he says with that restriction, defense says allow the question in terms of whether or not she will uphold the law while out on bail.
	Am I clear enough, by the way, people?
	If I'm not clear, let me know.
	I can't even really hear myself talking while I do this.
	Do you believe that it is okay to break the criminal law of Canada right now based on your concept of freedom?
	That's the question.
	She says, I don't believe it's ever okay to break the law.
	Quote for you, the CBC.
	I don't believe it's ever okay to break the law.
	End quote.
	No, and I mean clear as in coherent out of my mouth, not audibly clear from the microphone.
	Because I don't know what I'm taking for granted.
	You are understanding of what I'm saying.
	So now they're asking her as to whether or not she thinks the award was related to the Ottawa protests.
	She says it was the result of it.
	Interesting.
	That's an interesting distinction.
	Do you agree with me that you agreed it was related?
	And she says, yes, it was related because if it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't be up for the award.
	Okay.
	Causation...
	A question's confusing.
	He says, but you say it's not for the Freedom Convoy because the Freedom Convoy no longer exists.
	And she says, yeah, correct.
	It's not for it.
	It's not for it.
	He's asking her about what the award is for.
	She's saying the award is basically for the behaviors and actions.
	For what the Justice Center stands for, for what they're honoring her for.
	It's asking her to look at condition number nine.
	Good.
	Thank you.
	So, prosecutor suggests that she breached condition 9 by agreeing to receive the award.
	How did she agree to receive the award?
	I don't know how she agreed to receive the award.
	He is saying, she said...
	Prosecutor is saying, you said you couldn't have been a breach because the convoy is no longer there.
	And she's saying that's correct.
	So he's saying, I'm curious as to how she agreed to accept the award.
	And how does she manifest that statement?
	Is the link pinned in the stream here, people?
	Let me know if the pin is streamed.
	Let me know if the pin is streamed.
	Okay, so it's pinned.
	Thank you.
	Plug in my phone.
	He's asking her to not verbally in writing or in any manner whatsoever support anything related to the Freedom Convict, which no longer exists.
	Okay, so I see what he's saying.
	He's saying, when you agreed to not do anything verbally, financially, or whatever, to support the Freedom Convoy, when you agreed to that on March, whatever the date was, the convoy wasn't there either, was it?
	Okay, so he says, you clearly understood that it wasn't related to the convoy being there, because when you agreed to these terms, the convoy was no longer there.
	But my argument response would be, there was concern that it would come back.
	That was the whole issue.
	that's why they didn't want anyone returning to ottawa because there was a fear that would come back He just thanked her for asking him to repeat himself.
	What phony, baloney politeness.
	Thank you for asking me to repeat myself.
	Oh!
	Yeah, he says, if ever you need me to, just please let me know.
	Let me know if you want me to repeat myself.
	Condition number nine.
	Moise's, the prosecutor's point, and it's a fair one.
	When she agreed not to support anything related to the protest, the convoy didn't exist then in any event.
	Okay?
	Passive aggression.
	turn into aggression at some point if it goes anything like yesterday.
	Thank you.
	When you agreed to that, you clearly knew.
	Or maybe you didn't.
	I'm suggesting to you that you understood that that condition of not supporting anything related to the Freedom Convoy meant the concept of the Freedom Convoy and not the physical presence of the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.
	Clip that.
	They want to ban discussions about concepts.
	Unbelievable.
	The concept.
	How do you define what the concept of the Freedom Convoy is?
	She can't financially, verbally, or in any other way support the concept of the Freedom Convoy.
	Hey, Moise, if you're watching or if anybody's watching, if the judge wanted her to prevent her from talking about the concept of the Freedom Convoy, they would have put those words in.
	And she would have objected because it would have been ambiguous and constitutionally unacceptable.
	The concept of the Freedom Convoy.
	The concept of the Freedom Convoy.
	I'm not even sure that she accepted.
	She didn't accept the award yet.
	Being offered an award is not the same thing as supporting a convoy.
	But prosecutor is going after the concept of the convoy.
	Everybody should be watching this in real time so that it'll make this commentary maybe a little more sensible.
	Do not rebroadcast.
	Do not clip.
	Do not snip.
	Do not take screen grabs.
	Now he's going after what the proceeds of the tickets for the event for the JCCF, what they'd be going for, what they would be going to.
	Oh my goodness.
	Now she's responsible for what the JCCF does with the proceeds of the gala that they're throwing where they're offering her an award.
	He's asking her now.
	I'm asking you, Tamara.
	There was a $500 price for VIP.
	We saw that $500 per ticket for VIP.
	Oh yes, she confirms there was.
	I think you already agreed with me yesterday.
	She was one of the VIPs.
	I don't think she paid for her ticket.
	She says, I would be a VIP if I were able to attend.
	I don't think she was paying for her ticket.
	He's asking her if she knew what the proceeds of that $500 ticket would be, where it would go.
	She's never had the discussion with the JCCF as to where the proceeds of the tickets go.
	George, I don't think she attended the event, Jack Jackerson.
	I don't think she attended it.
	Let me see her.
	He's suggesting that JCCF is funding her defense.
	There's an objection.
	Hold on, let me see.
	I don't believe that she...
	I don't believe.
	So he just asked her if she's, basically, is the JCCF funding her defense costs?
	And there's an objection.
	Thank you.
	No, the award is June 16, 2022.
	It's June 16, 2022.
	It hasn't happened yet.
	She did not get the award.
	She did not attend the event yet.
	And I doubt, by the way, that she paid for her or was going to pay for her ticket.
	Thank you.
	A prosecutor.
	So this...
	Oh, of course the prosecutor's trying to have her perjure herself.
	That's par for the course.
	If they get her to perjure herself, they'll press perjury charges against her like they did with Pat King.
	I just heard a bizarre noise there.
	Where is the...
	It's pinned...
	The link is pinned.
	So please just say yes in the chat.
	Is the link pinned?
	So everybody can click on this because it's a webinar.
	You can view it.
	Just do not rebroadcast any portion or any part of it.
	Is the pinned link to this stream the link?
	Okay.
	People say yes.
	Good.
	Boom.
	Thank you.
	Done.
	The event has not occurred yet.
	It's 11-11.
	Make a wish, people.
	Thursday, June 16, 2022.
	George Jonas Freedom Award.
	Tamara Lich 2022 Award winner.
	Rex Murphy keynote speaker.
	Hasn't happened yet.
	He's saying if JCCF is funding her defense, then by...
	Basically, if JCCF is funding her defense, then by attending this gala, it's for financially supporting the Freedom Convoy.
	Now you're thinking this is a decision for your honor.
	Your honor is going to dismiss this question.
	Maintain the objection.
	Who's funding her legal fees?
	By following his logic, if she were to fund her own legal fees, the objection is sustained.
	The question shall not be answered.
	He says, assuming the proposition is true, assuming it's true, he says, I do not know and I do not care to know.
	it says i draw a distinction between the lawyers being paid hasn't gotten me yet and basically and breaching your bail terms He says, asking this question, the prejudice far outweighs the probative value that this could ever have.
	Objection, sustain, move on.
	Just imagine that.
	If she funds her own defense, Moise, if she pays for her own legal fees, is she funding a convoy-related support activity?
	Ew, my goodness.
	A tyranny in progress.
	might be too late might be He's saying, yesterday, you're going to remember, there was a line of questioning where I suggested that you were...
	Yeah, he said, you remember yesterday I said your testimony was evasive and obstructionist?
	I remember you saying that.
	I remember you saying it yesterday.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And you remember Justice Bourgeois saying the same thing, that her testimony was evasive and obstructionist.
	She's lucky they haven't found more charges against her.
	Okay.
	He says, when I asked you about that...
	He says, when I asked you, how did you get here?
	I don't understand what that means.
	He says, how did you get here?
	This is one of the questions.
	And she says, I was transported here from the jail to the courthouse.
	I don't understand what's going on here.
	And now he says, the other question asks you about how much savings you had, how much money you had.
	And your answer was zero.
	Thank you.
	And then she said she had a balance of $1,300 and change.
	And now there's an objection.
	Okay, the lawyer's correcting.
	Says, the answer was not zero.
	Okay, he says, the question was not, how much money you...
	Her answer was not, I have zero.
	The question was, how much savings do you have?
	And her answer was, none.
	This prosecutor is going after perjury.
	This prosecutor is going after perjury?
	For prior stuff that has already been there for a while, above and beyond alleged breach of bail conditions on the basis of this award.
	He says, you agree.
	When I asked you about your savings, you had none.
	She's going to say, yes, correct.
	I have no savings.
	I have no savings.
	And then she says, and then he says, you indicated you had $1,300.
	$1,300 in her bank account.
	Is that not savings, Ms. Leach?
	That's not what Moe said.
	That's where he's going.
	He's trying to get her on perjury for having lied about savings.
	Because he says, when I asked you about savings, when I asked you about savings, you didn't understand it meant your bank account.
	She says, no, I didn't think it included my day-to-day living.
	$1,300 in my bank account.
	This is persecution.
	I asked you if you...
	This is not what he's saying now.
	This is me.
	I asked you if you had any savings and you said, I have none.
	But you had $1,342 in your bank account.
	You lied.
	That's perjury.
	Let's lock you up for that now.
	This is Canada.
	Just keep saying that.
	Meanwhile in Canada.
	Justin Trudeau's Canada.
	She got three daughters and two grandchildren and two grandchildren on the way.
	Oh my goodness.
	Pure political persecution.
	He's going to try to argue for perjury because when he said, how much savings do you have?
	And she said, none.
	She also admitted she had $1,340 in her bank account, in her checking account, which by definition is not a savings account.
	He's asking her if she took a leave of absence from work from Alberta to come to Ottawa.
	She says, I took vacation time.
	And she did not give her employer a fixed return date.
	She went, told her employer it would be a week-by-week thing.
	She'd let him or her know when she gets back to work.
	He's asking her if...
	Do you disagree with me?
	That you were being insincere when you said you wanted to go back to Alberta.
	This is terrible questioning.
	Okay, now we're back to the award.
	At least we're back to something relevant.
	He's asking her about the award.
	The country's not petty.
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	Thank you.
	So he's asking, he says, you were notified about that you were going to receive the George Jonas Award.
	March 28th.
	So he said, okay, so you're notified about this three weeks after you're released from custody.
	And she says, yeah, give or take.
	I'm adding some words.
	She did not say give or take.
	He says, my recollection is I think you spoke to your sister within a few days or a couple days.
	Am I right in my recollection?
	She says, yeah, I would have spoken with my sister within a couple of days of having been notified that I'd be receiving the award.
	When you texted your sister, are you...
	So he's like, when you texted your sister saying you're going to be awarded this award, what did your sister do?
	What steps did she take?
	And now Tamara asked him, what do you mean?
	What steps did she take for what?
	You're not being clear.
	I think...
	I don't know if there's a public...
	She says, I don't remember what my sister said.
	She said, congratulations.
	I don't remember what else she said.
	I don't think we have calls for speculation in Canada, but we say hypothetical question.
	Did sister have a copy of the release conditions?
	Not sure.
	Did you provide her with a copy of them?
	Hesitation.
	Tamara Lich does not know if she sends her sister a copy of her release conditions.
	He's assuming, so please correct me if he's wrong.
	Clearly he's not heard of the...
	Don't assume.
	It's safe to assume that your sister did not ask you.
	The lawyer is assuming.
	He says, I'm assuming.
	Tell me if I'm wrong.
	Did your sister not say this might not be permitted with strict item 9 of your release?
	I'm assuming that she never asked you that.
	Do you agree with that?
	I mean, this is presupposing that by being awarded this award, not even having accepted it or taken it in your hand, is a violation of section 9 of her bail.
	Bail reform.
	release.
	Okay, he's talking about the photo on the poster was the photo that she had approved.
	Well, hold on.
	So she says, it was the one you approved.
	And she says, yes, it was the one they pulled off the internet.
	And he says, you were okay with them using that photograph.
	It met your standards for publication.
	I would object to that formulation of that question myself.
	It met my standards.
	I don't like that she just answered that.
	It met your standards for publication.
	And she says, yes.
	Thank you.
	This is the photo that I presume I just showed it to you on my...
	That's not the photo that they used on the invitation.
	She doesn't think she had a discussion with her sister about this.
	ladies and gents Prosecutor says he's making an assumption again, so correct me if I'm wrong.
	Did your sister initiate any discussions about the award?
	Yeah, ask the question again because it's not clear.
	It says, your sister never raised the issue of, oh, is there going to be a photo of you?
	And she says, I don't believe so.
	This is the picture I think that they're talking about.
	I'm not going, but here.
	He's asking her now.
	You cannot ask other people to post messages on social media.
	yeah now he's asking to rephrase it because it's confusing The level of pseudo...
	Artificial politeness right here is nauseating.
	It'll give you cavities.
	So now they're asking her about whether or not her sister told her, your sister never told you, you're not allowed having third parties post on social media.
	And she says, no, because it wasn't being posted on my behalf.
	She said, my sister never had that discussion with me.
	The citizen never had that discussion with me because this image was not being posted on my behalf.
	How many people are watching this actually in real time?
	Let me put up a poll.
	I'm going to put up a poll here.
	Who is watching this on this?
	Who is watching this on this?
	He's asking if her sister has inspected her phone, her laptop, and her personal computer.
	Her phone, her iPad, and her personal computer.
	When did she inspect it last?
	She's got to have her sister inspect her computer.
	She says, I think it was a few days ago.
	Sunday, I think.
	Today's Friday.
	She says, no.
	Correction.
	Three days ago.
	Not Sunday, Mosey, so don't go after her for perjury.
	It wasn't Sunday.
	said it's possibly over the weekend when i saw her Yeah, cut to the chase.
	He says, I guess I'm really interested.
	I'll cut to the chase.
	Cut to the chase, Moise.
	March 28th is when you get the email notifying you of the award.
	That's what he says.
	Does your sister, after March 28th, did she inspect your phone immediately thereafter?
	What does immediately thereafter mean?
	Okay.
	He testified in April, is that correct?
	You wonder if he's just trying to get some aspect for perjury.
	He's asking if he inspected her internet equipments, if he can use that word.
	And I don't know what that word means'cause it doesn't mean much to me.
	He says her evidence is that she inspected her internet equipment a few times.
	So he says, in the times your sister inspected, did she raise any concerns about you accepting the award?
	An award which has not yet been given.
	He says, I assume you're a busy person.
	Pseudo-politeness makes me want to puke.
	And you're using the word, I don't recall.
	If she had raised it, you would have remembered it.
	She says, yeah, I think I would have remembered it, but I don't recall us having that conversation.
	You're almost certain, he says, that she did not raise that issue.
	And she's saying, I don't recall if she ever had that conversation with her sister.
	I understand what the prosecutor is saying.
	If you had had that conversation, surely...
	You would have remembered it.
	To which she's basically saying, I don't recall and don't call me Shirley.
	That never happened in this actual hearing.
	That's from Airplane.
	Classic comedy.
	Okay, so in...
	It says, in this bail review, you're indicating...
	It says, you want to access social media.
	So basically, you want to review that aspect of the bail hearing, of the bail restrictions.
	Have you spoken to your sister about that, is the question.
	About what, she says.
	Have you spoken to your sister about your desire to access social media?
	Yeah.
	She says yes.
	I guess yes.
	I guess we have discussed it.
	He's going to say now, what did you discuss?
	And?
	He's not trying to be difficult.
	I guess yes.
	I'm not trying to be difficult.
	Okay.
	So he says, I'm not trying to be difficult, but you say, I guess yes, and now Tamara's saying, she obviously knew because we were discussing the bail rehearing.
	My question is whether you or her had a discussion about broadening your social media.
	Yeah, that's right.
	He said he started with about broadening your social media, but he meant about having it.
	She says, I'm sure we discussed about me being blocked from social media and how to get back on.
	And what did she say to you about that?
	I don't remember, she says.
	She says, I don't remember what she said.
	We talked about it.
	What did you think she said, Moise?
	I want to get back on social media.
	I want to talk to people.
	I want to live in a free country.
	This is nothing that she said right now.
	This is what I might have said in her place.
	And what...
	I should not make fun because you won't know what is actually being said versus what isn't.
	I think Moise is identifying the sister as the Surti.
	He said, I just want to be sure.
	I'm sorry.
	He says, your evidence is that you don't know the position of your sister.
	You don't know the position of your sister on her support of your use of social media.
	Incomprehensible.
	You don't know your sister's position on your use of social media.
	This is madness.
	Tamara just said she doesn't care so long as she knows what she has to abide by.
	So Tamara asks hypothetically, would it matter to her if I'm on social media or not?
	It would because the certee might lose their certee.
	There you go.
	And now Moise says, I'm glad you raised that question about whether or not she would care.
	I'm glad you raised it because she might lose her...
	The court's indulgence, please.
	I'm glad you raised it.
	See, by the way, offer more information than you need to.
	And now Moise is going to say, I'm glad you raised that.
	He's not saying this now.
	This is me thinking out loud.
	Why would she care?
	Well, if she's the certee, she's got money to lose.
	If you break your bail conditions, you go back to jail and they seize her certee.
	So she does have an interest in making sure you respect your bail conditions.
	Does she know?
	Do you know what her position was, what her thoughts were of your position to want to get back on social media?
	Yeah, she knew damn well.
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	Okay, now we have a bit of a pause there.
	Viva, if I bought her a coffee and said it was thanks for her for efforts for the convoy and she accepted, is that it?
	Dude, I have no doubt that they would try to make it one.
	Oh, my God.
	I have to go see what he's sharing right now.
	He's looking for a document to share.
	Thus far, in my legal opinion, there has not been one meaningful question asked.
	It's been, oh, my God.
	When I asked you if you had savings and you said none, But you had $1,340.
	Do you not consider that savings?
	You found 10 cents on the street that day.
	You had at least 10 cents in savings.
	Okay.
	Okay, so now Moise is referring to the transcript of Justice Johnson's ruling.
	It's the hearing and not the ruling.
	So he's pulling up the transcript of what she said before Justice Johnson.
	He's referring to page 70 of the transcript.
	He's just waiting for that, Your Honor and my friend, Mr. Greenspoon, the defense attorney, my friend.
	He says, Ms. Leach, do you have a copy of the transcript?
	I do, sir.
	I'm going to go read it right now.
	Mr. Greenspoon says he's fine.
	He has a copy of it.
	He says the evidence today is that you don't think she would care.
	not what that's not what that's not what she said prosecutor binger oh wow so the court He's reading from the transcript.
	This is painful.
	She says, I can see the transcript.
	I have it.
	Moise says, page 70. The judge is asking this question.
	This is the judge asking it.
	He's asking the sister.
	The judge is asking her sister.
	My question to you is, you live 20 minutes away.
	How are you going to enforce that?
	Knowing that on the evidence before me.
	How are you going to enforce that knowing that the way Tamara communicates is through Facebook Messenger?
	How do you propose to handle that?
	And the answer given by her sister.
	Firstly, says the sister, I would commit.
	I would suggest that she stay off all social media.
	It's just a dangerous thing to go down.
	I agree with that, especially with a government that's looking for an excuse.
	Do you remember your sister saying that?
	I would recommend her staying off social media.
	Oh, there's an objection.
	Okay, objection.
	He says, read the full answer to the question, not a truncated version.
	He says, if Mr. Karinji...
	He says, if you're going to try to confront her on the evidence, read her the full question.
	And he says, Sister says,
	I'm aware that she wants to change those terms and I support the request.
	Okay, I like this.
	Greenspoon says, it's not fair to put half a question from earlier on without complementing it with the full evidence, which is...
	She specifically addresses the exact same question he's asking now, which is, do you know of her desire to change the bail terms to access social media and enter Ottawa?
	Karinji's turn to respond.
	Let's do first things first.
	That's always where to start.
	He says, I have no objection to putting as much of the answer that my friend wants me to.
	My friend.
	My friend.
	Again, he says, how much does my friend want me to read in?
	I'm not going to read everything that my friend wants three times in one minute.
	I'm not going to read all of it.
	Thank you.
	I'm not sure that they're trying to get the sister.
	I don't think they can get the sister unless the sister knowingly breached the court order.
	I just think they're trying to...
	They're trying to basically say that the sister didn't stop her from doing what she did, which was a breach.
	Or maybe the sister warned her not to do it, in which case they can argue that it's even more of a breach.
	She says she didn't think her sister would care one way or the other.
	It's relevant evidence because her sister under oath.
	At the bail review said that she would strongly suggest she just stay off social media.
	Under oath back then said she strongly recommended that she stay off all social media or that she would do that.
	That's fine.
	That has nothing to do with requesting a bail review.
	So now he's saying, her sister said, I would strongly recommend that she stay off all social media to comply with the terms.
	And then he says, well, that's irreconcilable with what she said today, that her sister wouldn't care.
	And Moise is mistaking what she cared about.
	One was complying with the court order, and the other was requesting a review.
	The question is not whether or not she was on social media and violated the terms, whether or not her sister cared, because she's not being accused of being on social media, I don't think.
	This is terrible.
	oh so tamar started answering He says, Tamara started answering the question and her lawyer was objecting.
	But she's saying, I don't think my client can see me objecting.
	And she started to answer before she answers.
	a question that I'm objecting to.
	Okay, so apparently...
	Wow, this is...
	Only minor concerns of fundamental justice when doing a Zoom hearing.
	Tamara Leach apparently can't see her lawyer objecting to the question.
	And so she started answering the question before...
	seeing or unable to see that her lawyer was objecting to it and that she should not answer until the objection has been adjudicated on.
	Thank you.
	Now he's just giving her the rundown.
	Just wait until the objection has been adjudicated upon before answering because if he maintains the objection, you don't answer the question.
	But she can't even see.
	Apparently she could not see her own counsel objecting.
	I hope you can hear him say it.
	She says, sometimes I can hear him, sometimes I can't.
	Yeah.
	Judge is basically saying, what I'm going to do is if he objects, I'm going to let you know he objected, and I'll make it clear.
	That's what I think is going to happen.
	Where am I going to throw this Kleenex?
	there.
	Yeah, there were...
	Technical difficulties.
	So apparently, because Tamara started answering the question, judge says he's going to intervene when Greenspoon...
	Is it Greenspoon or Greenspawn?
	I don't know if it's...
	When he objects.
	Okay.
	The judge is going to maintain this objection, I think.
	Okay.
	I want to make sure Karinji has completed his submissions on the objection.
	Thank you for that, says Karimji.
	So polite.
	Green poo.
	No, no, no, no.
	He thinks...
	He's made his notes.
	He's made his submissions.
	Okay, on to response.
	Greenspawn is her lawyer.
	Seems good.
	Very good.
	Second part of the objection is that there's an affidavit sworn by the same witness.
	So he says, Karimji has not addressed the second aspect of my question, which is fine.
	I'll read the relevant portion of the answer.
	But Greenspawn is saying he has to read it in conjunction with the sworn affidavit of the same witness.
	I see what Greenspawn's doing here is he is trying to...
	Let Tamara know a little bit of what the answer should be.
	Yes.
	At the first hearing, she said she would ensure and take interest in the fact that I comply with the court order.
	But she also supported the affidavit to change that court order, that bail hearing.
	BIRDS CHIRP I agree.
	This is a giant waste of time.
	The prosecutor could be focused on actual crime, like how auto thefts are on the rise.
	But instead of this, this is what he focuses on.
	Political persecution, ampersand, dollar sign.
	No, sorry.
	at dollar sign ampersand percentage Canada.
	Thank you.
	Okay, now Greenspan is saying she didn't say that she didn't care.
	She said she probably doesn't care.
	He's saying her sister's position is that Tamara should abide by the court bail hearing, which nobody contradicts.
	Even her sworn affidavit says, comply with the court order, but we want them changed.
	Hey, Viva, check out Rumble video with Dr. David Martin.
	It's a doozy.
	Yeah, so he says, if you're going to ask her a question, You have to put all of the evidence...
	They didn't...
	Okay.
	Probative value of this line of questioning is quite low, says the judge.
	The witness has been asked her views, and now the judge is going to say she's being asked the views of her sister who's not...
	You know what?
	Subpoena the sister, Moise, but you probably will because it's not your money that you're wasting.
	Not your money, not your time, and you're getting paid for this.
	Knowledge.
	He's saying she's effectively being queried about her impression of what her sister thinks.
	Good.
	The judge is good.
	He isn't buying this BS.
	Yes, I agree with you, Fringe Canadian.
	Thank you.
	That was a question of cross-examination fairness.
	Thank you.
	He's saying basically, if she's being pressed on her sister's opposing any stuff, he says, all of that stuff about the sister's iterations.
	questions.
	I'm not sure I understand what the judges...
	Basically, circumscribe your questions.
	Make it a little more specific.
	Make it a little more clear.
	Make it a little more relevant.
	To put it in my...
	To rephrase it my way.
	As opposed to the broad span of the evidence.
	He's like, oh, I just want to...
	Just look at some of the evidence.
	Thank you very much, Your Honest, says Karimji.
	Thank you.
	So thank you, Judge, for giving the clarity for me.
	This is...
	Obviously, my questions did not communicate.
	I wasn't asking you to guess what's in your sister's mind.
	But rather your knowledge of what she stated.
	Okay.
	I'm just asking about your knowledge of what she stated about your use of social media.
	So it says, you agree that on March 7th, 2022, your sister said this in court.
	It says, on March 22nd, your sister suggested you stay off all social media.
	Tamara Leach says yes.
	It's just, and she says, and he says, and she further added, it's just a dangerous path to go down.
	She says yes.
	She says yes.
	And now he's saying, and if I have to go over there every day and ask her for a phone, I will do that.
	Is that correct?
	Tamara says, yes, that's correct.
	She said that.
	She's already released, but they're trying to change the terms of her release.
	He's asking her again.
	Okay, she suggested it was a dangerous thing to go on social media.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yes.
	Yes, we got there.
	We got that.
	And by the way, it is a dangerous thing.
	That's why vague terms of release are very dangerous things.
	This is a...
	In terms of her communicated position, the sister, the Surti, to Tamara.
	Do you agree that her communicated position was accurately set out in that transcript of the hearing before the judge?
	She says yes, yes.
	And it's probably still true today.
	And now Tamara says, I thought you were referring to going forward if I'm allowed back onto social media.
	Because those are two very different things.
	Okay, now you've applied for a bail review, says Moise.
	Okay.
	During the bail review.
	Just give me a second.
	He's looking something up.
	Now you've applied for a bail review, which changes somewhat, you know, what might be...
	It wouldn't even change her sister's position.
	Nobody's talking right now.
	Her sister's position probably will always be dealing with this prosecutor and this government.
	If your bail release says, don't go on social media, don't go on social media.
	Don't even walk that line.
	Now you want to change it.
	And her sister signs an affidavit saying, I support her desire, her decision to try to...
	Move to the court to have these terms changed because they are excessive, unconstitutional, unjustified, illogical, and absolutely abusive.
	I don't know if they said that.
	That's how I would have described it.
	So...
	Thank you.
	Apparently there's a chat function on the Zoom link.
	Hold up.
	So now apparently the prosecutor just said, there's a question in the chat.
	Who sees this?
	I didn't see this.
	I don't have the screen up when this is with it.
	The judge says he sees no reason for there to be a chat function.
	In the Zoom webinar.
	And I think we can all agree with the judge.
	My goodness, that's kind of funny.
	Oh, so people are saying chat is disabled.
	Hacked?
	LOL.
	What chat?
	I don't see it.
	Nobody in this live stream who's watching this live sees it.
	I'm going to open the window.
	I don't see it.
	Let me see here.
	Chat?
	I don't see any chat.
	I don't see any hand raised.
	Okay.
	Oh.
	Okay, so maybe...
	Okay, so it might not have been actually there.
	Apparently, Moise just said he might have had a computer glitch.
	This is a public hearing.
	True, but...
	This is a public hearing, but even if you were in court, you would not be able to get up and ask the judge a question.
	Thank you.
	Okay, so now he's pulled up the affidavit of the sister.
	I gotta tell you, Resistance Cats is live tweeting this about as fast as I'm speak-tweeting it.
	Good work, Resistance Cats.
	So they're going over the sister's affidavit, or they've pulled it up now.
	Thank you.
	He's showing it to her.
	She agrees with the obvious that they're looking at her affidavit, I presume.
	Let's see what this affidavit says.
	Let's see what this affidavit says.
	He says, I'm aware.
	The affidavit from her sister says, I'm aware that she wants to change the terms.
	And to allow her to enter the province of Ontario.
	I am supportive of this request.
	That's what the affidavit says.
	His question to her is this.
	Oh, this is terrible questioning.
	He's now saying, this is her statement today.
	She supports your request.
	But her initial communicated position in open court...
	That it was a dangerous thing to do.
	Yes, Moise, because it was outlawed under the bail terms.
	She's asking for that to be changed so that it won't be dangerous to touch social media.
	This is terrible, illogical, and incoherent reasoning.
	He's saying now, in her affidavit, the sister says, I support her request to review the bail hearing, the bail terms.
	That contradicts what she said on May 7th, when she said I would tell her to stay off of it.
	This is terrible.
	He says, she's supportive now.
	She's supportive now.
	What is this?
	She's supportive now.
	But at the time said, I would be very weary.
	Stay off social media.
	It's dangerous.
	She says, I didn't read my sister's affidavit.
	I don't know what this, what does this, what does he think this proves?
	Right now, the sister approves supports changing the bail terms.
	Right now, the sister approves.
	He's saying, you know that what's in her communicated position is that it's...
	He's saying, her position now is she's supportive of the request to regain access to social media.
	Correct.
	Yes, that's what she knows.
	That's what she said in her affidavit.
	So, why did she say on March 7th that it would be dangerous?
	because it was prohibited under the terms of her release.
	Oh.
	Now he's asking her, why did her position go from social media is dangerous to I'm supportive of it?
	I hope she answers this question.
	This is a terrible question.
	It's such a terrible question.
	Why did she say stay off social media back then on March 7th and she would tell her to stay off?
	Because it would have been the terms of her release.
	She was going to say...
	I guess my question is this.
	Was there a discussion between you and your sister?
	Okay.
	This is it.
	Your sister advised you to abide by the bail terms.
	Yes.
	But now she says she supports you changing your bail terms.
	Yes.
	Gotcha.
	Well done, Fezzador.
	Why did your sister change her...
	When you use the word recall, she doesn't recall.
	When you use the word recall, she doesn't recall.
	This is ridiculous.
	As long as it's a bail condition.
	There's an objection.
	Objection.
	Now the lawyer is saying, the affidavit that she said she hadn't reviewed with her sister, and now he's pointed to a paragraph.
	The affidavit itself, which Tamara says she didn't review with her sister, paragraph three contains a reason.
	But Greenspoon now says, I'm on my feet because this cross-examination is going nowhere.
	He hasn't said it yet.
	Cross-examination of her sister and her sister's position.
	Cross-examination of her sister and her sister and her sister, her sister and her sister.
	Oh God, this is...
	Griezmann says, look, Kim Ji's cross-examination of Tamara on her sister's position.
	Her sister's coming to testify during this bail hearing.
	Put it to an end.
	Ask her.
	He says, continued cross-examination of your sister's motivations.
	Little value.
	Little probative value.
	Irrelevant.
	And now he's saying, Your Honor, this warrants some restriction.
	Tell him to stop.
	Tell him to call the sister.
	Is this about bail reform?
	Or is this about the award being...
	She made a motion to change her bail terms so that she could access social media and go to Ottawa?
	And as the government, not being punitive and whatever, came back and said, well, now we're going to prosecute you for alleged breach of your bail terms, and we want to put you back in jail.
	So it's both.
	Moise has not finished his question.
	He's objected before hearing the question.
	Hasn't finished his question.
	What's number two?
	Your honor said, and I appreciate what your honor said.
	I wasn't looking to see what was in the mind of her sister.
	I'm not, I wasn't doing that.
	I'm referring to what the sister communicated to the accused.
	Thank you.
	So this is the bail review.
	Peersay evidence is admissible.
	No, I'm...
	It's basically saying hearsay is allowed, and how could it not be relevant?
	That on the very issue that's the subject of the bail review, her sister said that it's dangerous on the bail review, when those were the terms of her release, that it would be dangerous.
	And she's changed her mind now.
	And I want to know if her sister ever told her why.
	Thank you.
	How her sister went from thinking it's dangerous to supporting it.
	He's requesting the court to control the process.
	My friend is now suggesting the answer to the witness.
	Now Moise is accusing Greenspoon of improper conduct by saying he's suggesting the answer by saying the answer could be found at paragraph 3 of the affidavit.
	Clown prosecuted.
	Oh, this is, he says, this is cross-examination.
	I have leeway.
	It's relevant information, he says.
	How could it not be relevant?
	I can tell you how it's not relevant.
	Thank you, sir.
	Hillslayer.
	How could it not be relevant?
	It's, it's, it's...
	Oh, sorry, dog.
	Sorry.
	This circus is going nowhere, Your Honor.
	Oh, now they're talking about the suitability of the Surtee?
	Oh, let him keep talking.
	He's just going on.
	He says the Surtee is going to go along with whatever Leach wants on March 7th.
	It's dangerous.
	Stay off social media.
	March 21, whatever.
	On May 13, I support it.
	This guy, this is such a significant change of position.
	This guy doesn't understand that we're dealing with two different objects here.
	One is respecting the court order while you're out.
	The other one is changing the court order because you think it's time to change it.
	Thank you.
	His objections are improper, unnecessary.
	What else?
	No reasons in law.
	Well, if the judge disagrees with you, Moise, you've just dug your own grave here.
	What happens if the judge agrees with your friend here, Moise?
	Then basically you've just...
	And your honor, that's my answer.
	This is...
	Oh my goodness.
	Yep.
	Judge says, so that they can properly assess the objection, because it's not clear what it is.
	Thank you.
	Okay, the judge is saying now, I know that this was set for one and a half days, and we're already halfway through day two.
	How far into your cross are you, Mr. Moeys, the judge is asking.
	He's almost at the end.
	He's not yet at the end.
	Almost at the end could be about halfway through.
	And he literally just said, but as lawyers go, almost at the end can sometimes be half an hour to 45 minutes.
	So the judge is saying, I'm going to give you some latitude, but I'm going to also give you a timeline, I hope.
	Judge is saying, I find the probative value of this line of questioning quite low.
	The judge understands it.
	He says, the change in the state of mind of the sister.
	It's probably best investigated with her sister.
	This witnesses impressions of her sister's change of mind, if there ever was one, which I don't think there even was in the first place.
	This is 30 to 45 minutes left of what he's already...
	This cross-examination started yesterday.
	Thank you.
	The judge seems to get it.
	Oh, yeah, and what happens if they don't finish it?
	What do you think happens?
	She's in jail for the rest?
	Oh, no, she's not.
	She's out.
	Forget it.
	Sorry.
	She's out.
	He says, now, with that said, continue, Mr. Krimji.
	So he says, Krimji Moise, same person.
	I think I've made my submissions.
	I think we can leave it to you now.
	Now we're moving on, I guess.
	On to social media use.
	Oh, your use of social media.
	It doesn't prohibit you from using your cell phone.
	You agree?
	She can use her phone.
	Thank goodness.
	It doesn't prohibit you from using your cell phone to text.
	Correct, she says.
	Freedom.
	Freedom.
	We're free.
	How dare you could say that Canada's not free?
	She can use her cell phone.
	She can text.
	you I understand you have a beautiful granddaughter, correct?
	What an absolutely inappropriate thing to say.
	Nothing prevents you from sharing the photograph of your beautiful granddaughter with your mom.
	What an absolutely inappropriate thing to say.
	Thank you.
	There's nothing stopping you from texting with your friends, correct?
	Correct.
	So there's basically no restriction on you texting your friends and family.
	Freedom!
	Canada is free, fools.
	And if you thought otherwise, come on.
	She can text her grandmother pictures of her kid.
	The social media aspect.
	Yeah, give him a second.
	Is it common for Canadian lawyers to take 30 minutes to ask a question?
	Not if you're asking the question properly.
	One idea per question.
	Not compound questions.
	Not run-on sentence questions.
	Not questions that are so confusing nobody knows what the question was.
	So he says, I guess your concern is that basically you're not able to log on to social media.
	Correct?
	I would have elaborated.
	No, I can't.
	Such as Instagram?
	Instagram.
	Thank you.
	Oh, hold on.
	That shouldn't be.
	Thank you.
	Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
	End poll.
	Okay.
	Sorry, guys.
	The pinned link should be up now.
	Thank you.
	Now she's talking about her social media accounts that she doesn't use because of the bail terms.
	Please explain to me, he says.
	Please explain to me.
	How is it a personal difficulty for you?
	When you can communicate by text and telephone.
	Can you explain to me how it's a personal difficulty?
	You have phone and text.
	How is it a problem not to use Twitter?
	She's saying, I have a lot of friends.
	I have a lot of friends that I don't have their number.
	She communicates with them.
	She has friends that she doesn't have text numbers for.
	Thank you.
	So she's giving a story about...
	Yeah, her daughter posted something about her grandkids' baseball game on Facebook and then said, oh, I guess he didn't see it.
	She says things like that specifically.
	This is so unbelievably patronizing.
	Now he's saying, yes, but your daughter knows that you have a cell phone.
	Does she send you pictures by cell phone?
	Your daughter could text you.
	Did you ask her to send pictures?
	This is going to piss a judge off.
	This should piss a judge off.
	Sad is not the word.
	Enraged.
	This judge is saying, this judge, this prosecutor is saying, being cut off of social media and access to communicating with the world, you have your phone, you can call your daughter, you can text her.
	I mean, you're in jail.
	You can still call people from behind a bar.
	She says she does some messaging over Twitter.
	She says, I get a lot of news by liking pages and following pages.
	I would be scared to say that to a prosecutor.
	Now the prosecutor is picking up on it.
	He says, there was some messaging by Twitter.
	And he says, again, nothing...
	I wonder if an overly zealous prosecutor would say liking something is a form of communicating.
	please come back if i'm wrong he says He says, the prosecutor is going to say, you can go ask for their numbers.
	And then she says, well, I can't because if I go on social media and ask for their numbers, it would be a breach.
	You could ask your sister to ask for their cell phone?
	No, you couldn't.
	Moise?
	No, you couldn't, because that would be indirectly doing, not directly or indirectly.
	So I don't think she could do that.
	Now, prosecutor, I think you're suggesting to her that she could do something that would get her in trouble.
	This prosecutor, I believe, just recommended, suggested that Tamara Lich could do something that she couldn't do under the bail terms.
	She could ask her sister to go do what she was not allowed to do.
	Wrong.
	That would be indirectly doing what she is not allowed to do directly, and that's what item 9, I think, encompasses.
	Directly or indirectly.
	This prosecutor, if I had to think malicious intentions, seems to be suggesting that Tamerlich could do something indirectly that she's not allowed to do directly, which would violate the terms of her bail.
	Now he's saying, she can get the telephone number of your friends.
	Your sister can go get the telephone numbers of your friends.
	Zoom is social media, yes, but I believe there's exceptions for her accessing social media related to the court.
	She's saying her husband and her play in a local band.
	She's saying her husband and her play in a local band.
	She says she plays in a band with her husband.
	And she handled in choirs about the concert.
	I hope if she sings a song, if she sings a song that the prosecutor thinks is political, is that violating the terms of her bail?
	Thank you.
	He says, I think you sing country, or is it rock?
	She says, we do everything.
	Talking about her.
	Talking about her band.
	Your husband has access to social media.
	He does, yes, she says.
	Oh, and he can take care of it.
	He can take care of it.
	Oh, yeah, he can, she says.
	Are we talking about what's for dinner?
	I feel like chicken tonight.
	I mean, if I'm the judge, I'm losing it.
	So what do you need social media for?
	I'm sorry, that's not the question.
	Not what do I need social media for.
	What do you need to block me from social media for?
	They're trying to Roger Stone her, no question about that.
	Thank you.
	She says her biggest concern is we live in a social media world, and she's a social media girl.
	She didn't say that.
	Thank you.
	She says, I don't see any reason why I can't consume my own social media and log into it.
	You can do things.
	You can text your mother.
	You can get your sister to get numbers of friends.
	You need to prove why these bail conditions are necessary.
	Prosecutor.
	Judge.
	He's going back to the fact that she can use her cell phone to telephone.
	He says, you can use your cell phone to connect by text.
	I think he just sneezed.
	Thank you very much.
	The politeness makes me want to retch.
	Now he's talking about the human touch.
	There's nothing preventing you by Justice Johnson from gathering with your friends and family.
	And celebrating the good old time kind of family and friends fun.
	She says, with those that live close to me, yes.
	She has a daughter in Manitoba, she says.
	This is beyond Kafkaesque.
	This is atrocious.
	You can still touch people, right?
	You can still touch people.
	Under the terms, you're not prohibited from touching your granddaughter.
	So how dare you think that you should have these bail terms reviewed?
	She doesn't have time to phone everybody.
	The Crown asked her if she still had access to social media followed by...
	He says, your preference is that you don't have to go through the process of telephone.
	You'd rather use the other social media.
	That's your preference, says the prosecutor.
	They've forgotten.
	This is how you talk when you think rights are privileges.
	So your preference is to speak freely and not in the manner that we've delimited for you.
	That's your preference.
	My goodness, you spoiled, spoiled child.
	You actually want to use social media.
	When we've allowed you...
	She needs to use the washroom, as do I kind of, actually.
	Judge says, let's take a break.
	I haven't taken one.
	Apparently the chat's still open.
	Eight questions.
	I don't know.
	Is the chat enabled or not?
	Thank you.
	Chat is disabled.
	Okay, I don't know.
	All right, they're going to break and come back at one, it looks like.
	All right.
	Okay.
	I can take this off now.
	Oh, you know what?
	Hold on.
	I'm actually going to audio settings.
	Oh, you know, I'll leave it plugged in.
	That way there'll be no risk of accidental audio leakage.
	Unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	So let's just see here, if we go back to the Twitterverse.
	You can still touch your friends and family.
	You could have in-person gatherings, correct?
	The government has allowed you to do that?
	Tamara Lich then asked that she could go to the washroom, to which Justice Phillips...
	Yeah, take a 50-minute break.
	No, I think they're breaking until 1 o 'clock, actually.
	Oh my goodness.
	Let's just go see what McGregor has to say for himself.
	Is his name Greg McGregor?
	Did I just realize that?
	Greg McGregor?
	Okay, it's not Greg McGregor.
	What's his name?
	CTV McGregor.
	Glenn McGregor.
	Let's see what he has to say with what's going on.
	I guess it's more of a matter of being able to stay up to date with family and friends on a day-to-day basis, Lich says.
	I want to ask McGregor what he thinks of all of this.
	Well, let's pull...
	Oh, that's already down.
	That chat is still up.
	All right, who's got questions in the chat?
	Oh my gosh.
	So we've been listening all morning and haven't heard anything of relevance, anything of any import, other than the fact that...
	They are arguing that her announcing that she would accept the award would constitute a breach of bail.
	And they also suggested, maybe they are going to come back in 15 minutes and then break at one.
	And then suggested that, by virtue of the fact, this is Moise, the prosecutor.
	Suggesting that by virtue of the fact that the proceeds of the tickets would finance her legal fees, that that constitutes a breach in the financial sense of supporting the convoy.
	Outrage Outrageous.
	Okay, back in 15, then go until 1. Okay, give me one second.
	Let me just go put something up that you can read while I go relieve myself.
	Yeah, this is outrageous.
	It seems like at least 1,000 people are watching based on the poll.
	Oh, no, sorry.
	About 600 people are actually watching this.
	Okay.
	The biggest issue here, you can read this while I go to the little boy's room.
	I'll be back.
	All righty.
	What have I missed?
	What have I missed, people?
	I went back to the fridge to look for that darn Red Bull or some Yerba Mate.
	Can't find any.
	Someone stole the Red Bull.
	Next time lie, say there's something in the oven.
	No, no, I'm not embarrassed about my body movements, but I went to the fridge to see if my Red Bull was to find something.
	Was the Canadian law system different when you all had freedoms?
	Where can I watch this?
	It's in the pinned comment.
	And I think I'm going to break this at lunch.
	When they break for lunch, because this is not going to finish by the time I have to go do afternoon pickup.
	You all have the link.
	Let me just make sure it's still there.
	Please check the link.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Okay, it's pinned.
	It's pinned.
	Where can you watch this?
	The pinned comment to this live chat has the links.
	Do not rebroadcast.
	Do not screen grab.
	Do not screen share.
	Do not reproduce the video, the audio, or any still image of this hearing.
	I do not believe it's allowed.
	Video's blurry?
	Hold on a second.
	Refresh browser if the pinned is gone.
	Let me refresh the browser here.
	Let me see if it's there.
	It's beyond frustrating to have to listen to this.
	I mean, this is...
	Are videos blurry?
	No, I don't know.
	I can read this.
	Who, what, when, why, where?
	Let me see what they got.
	People are forgetting.
	What happened in Ottawa was not illegal, so why is Tamari in court?
	How long are restrictions for?
	Until she's convicted or acquitted.
	And then if there's an appeal upon acquittal, I'm not even sure.
	But no, these restrictions are in effect imposed normally until she has stood trial and is either convicted or acquitted.
	But at least she's not in prison, right?
	At least you can, Ms. Leach, you can see your family, correct?
	We've allowed you Let me see if I can't find...
	Don't forget the protest was illegal.
	The protest was legal.
	Ottawa injunction PDF leave.
	Was this it?
	Let me see if this is the one.
	Why is that?
	Why is that?
	That's not the lawful.
	Here we go.
	This is paragraph six of the conclusions.
	Let's just make sure we know what we're looking at here.
	This is the Ontario Court of Justice, City of Ottawa, injunction against persons unknown, Attorney General, yada, yada.
	Application made by the City of Ottawa was heard this day at the courthouse on hearing the submissions, yada.
	It orders an interlocutory injunction as granted pursuant to Section 440 of the Municipal Act.
	Yeah, whatever.
	And then we got the area, but let's just go to the...
	This court orders that the terms of this order shall remain in force until varied or discharged by a further order.
	This court orders that provided the terms of this order are complied with, the respondents and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful, and safe protest.
	This court order enjoined...
	The protesters from any person having notice of this order are hereby restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever.
	Breaching auto bylaws by open air fireworks, yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	Anyone who breaks it?
	Contempt.
	Shall not set or maintain open fire without first having obtained the necessary permit.
	Okay.
	Shall not discharge any fireworks or firecrackers.
	Okay.
	None of this declares the protest illegal, but rather anybody who does this at the protest has breached this court order.
	They shall not cause any noise likely to disturb the inhabitants of the city, including but not only two, causing noise by honking air horns, car horns, train horns, in real time or playing pre-recorded horns.
	So bear in mind, it says what they shall not do.
	Anybody who does it would be guilty of violating this court order, but nothing says that the protest in and of itself is illegal.
	On the contrary.
	To the extent that people respect this court order, they remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful and lawful and safe protest.
	Let's get this on my head here.
	There was no court order that declared this protest illegal.
	The protest in and of itself.
	The protest qua protest or per protest?
	You know what I'm getting at.
	Let's just go back to the Twitterverse.
	There we go, resistance.
	Is the prosecutor confused about his own profession and thinks he is a fisherman?
	The bail conditions he asked for are the only reason her being on social media is dangerous.
	Absolutely.
	That's the right way to view it.
	The only reason it's dangerous for her to go on social media is because this prosecutor would argue that she violated the bail conditions that he imposed and that the court...
	Ratified.
	So...
	Yeah, this sounds like pre-crime.
	Because the question is this.
	How did she announce her indication?
	How did she indicate her willingness to accept the award?
	If she says...
	I mean, she didn't post it on social media.
	If she confirms in an email, I will accept this award.
	If she tells friends and family, I will accept this award.
	Is that directly or indirectly supporting the convoy?
	The only one good point that the prosecutor made is that he said, you know, her excuse is, the convoy's gone, so accepting this award is unrelated to the convoy because the convoy's been gone for three months, whatever.
	His argument was that when you agreed to these terms and conditions in March, the convoy had also been gone, but only for two weeks.
	So you agreed to these terms at a time when the convoy was gone already, so you can't now say, The terms are moot because the convoy is no longer there because you agreed to them when the convoy was no longer there.
	Fair enough.
	Except at that time, there was the risk that it was going to come back.
	There was the fear that, in fact, the reason why they imposed those conditions on her was so that she would not publicly encourage people to reconvene, to encourage the convoy to come back.
	That's what they were there for.
	We don't want her telling people to stay, come back, or continue protesting.
	We're three months out of this.
	They've declared the Emergencies Act.
	It's over.
	There is no convoy.
	Now, she can't voice support for a convoy that was.
	It's interesting.
	Let's see who we got in the chat here.
	They cannot prove their suspicions because their suspicions stem from illegal surveillance of the Canadian people.
	Well, they got some information from the illegal hack.
	And the question is, oh yeah, if you're saying this, by the way.
	This is, by the way, is what I understand some of the charges of encouraging or counseling others to commit mischief are because apparently they were told, hold the line, which was deemed to be encouraging or advising committing mischief.
	Ah.
	Sorry, hold on.
	Here we go.
	Basically, stop doing anything that supports the protest or is effective in gaining the attention of the people and government of the Trudeau regime.
	Accepting award is promoting of award and what it stands for.
	Well, the whole thing is even the award itself is not to support the convoy.
	The award itself has nothing to do with the convoy, but rather to recognize the freedom-loving pursuit of freedom.
	If I can say it that way.
	Of a woman, of a person, who was in prison for two and a half weeks, had constitutional rights revoked in the pursuit of freedom.
	It's actually only tangentially related to the convoy because it stemmed from it, but is not to promote or, you know, otherwise encourage that protest.
	So, who's the judge?
	Phillips?
	Where is the link?
	Pinned?
	To the thing?
	Is that it?
	No, that's not it.
	That's McGregor's Twitter feed.
	Oh, I think I hear noise.
	Oh, they're back.
	Is that possible that they're actually back?
	Okay, they're back.
	They're back.
	It says, go ahead, counsel.
	Thank you very much, Honor.
	The politeness.
	It's so polite, so it can't possibly be a problematic process.
	Pat Kigg is not yet out of jail.
	He's got another hearing on the 24th, on Tuesday, because Monday's a holiday here for some.
	He says, you're happy at work.
	She says, I have a great job.
	Notwithstanding the restrictions, you're happy with your band patronizing.
	You're happy with your band?
	Yes.
	You're happy at work?
	Yes.
	He says, you enjoy a good and loving relationship with your friends and family.
	She says.
	This is like listening to Big Brother in 1984.
	He says, because of your happiness, you're a happy person right now.
	And there's a pause.
	Notwithstanding your conditions, you're satisfied with your life, he just said.
	You're satisfied with your life.
	This is the most insulting line of questioning I can imagine.
	You're satisfied with your life, Ms. Leach.
	What are you complaining about?
	You're satisfied with your life.
	You're happy.
	Despite the conditions we have unreasonably imposed on you, say it.
	Say it, Tamara.
	You love Big Brother.
	Thank Justin Trudeau for being happy with your life.
	Thank you.
	My goodness.
	Insulting as F. How dare you aspire for freedom?
	But this guy is serious about it.
	Your life's not so bad.
	You can't go to Ottawa.
	You can't attend protests.
	You can't speak on social media.
	You can't speak freely.
	But you have a good job.
	And you're happy with your job.
	And you like your band, your little band.
	You happy with that?
	We didn't take that from you until we think that you're singing about something that you shouldn't be singing about.
	Canada has double jeopardy, but I don't see double jeopardy applying here.
	But yeah, we have the same principle of double jeopardy.
	Thank you.
	There are rumors.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So he's talking about something that says there's an organization called Ottawa Convoy Restart.
	There's something called Convoy to Ottawa 2022 Restart.
	And he's asking if she knows the person who's apparently organizing this or hosting this Facebook page, Convoy to Ottawa Restart.
	Okay, so now he's reading from a social media post from a page called 2022 Freedom Convoy Restart.
	And now this person, Fazio Rizui, who has this Facebook page, posted a picture of Tamara Leach.
	Says, we've posted a photo of Tamara with her permission.
	Guys, I hope you're watching this.
	Let me see if I can find...
	Let me see if I can find this.
	Someone used her picture on social media.
	It says, used with permission of Tamara Lich.
	People don't appreciate this.
	Thank you.
	Okay, there's an objection.
	Because Greenspawn is objecting and saying, Tamara Lich just said she sent the photo to me, but I think she meant the pamphlet.
	Tamara Lich just said that the woman behind this Facebook page sent her some...
	A pendant.
	So, apparently, this person behind the Facebook page sent her a pendant.
	And now Greenspan is saying, look, she meant to say pendant and not picture.
	We know it's...
	Okay, now the judge basically says...
	The judge says, save your objections for questions and not answers.
	But we know what's going on here.
	She apparently misspoke and said that...
	The woman behind this Facebook page sent her a picture, but she meant the pendant.
	The woman behind this Facebook page posted a picture of Tamara Lich and said, posted with permission of Tamara Lich.
	And now the cross-examiner, the prosecutor, is saying, you gave her permission to post this picture of you?
	That's what she says.
	Fozia Rizwi.
	I want to see if I...
	Fozia Rizwi.
	Rizwi.
	Facebook.
	She sent her a pendant.
	And then it says on this post that she's going to donate the proceeds to the Freedom Convoy.
	People who are thinking of doing things like this, you have to bear this in mind, that a third party can get Tamara Lich in trouble for posting stuff on social media.
	People don't appreciate this.
	Get people in trouble, even through no fault of their own?
	Fauzia Rizwi.
	Let me see if I can find the Facebook page.
	convoy restart.
	I'm going to see if I can find this Facebook page to share.
	Ottawa Convoy.
	Restart Facebook.
	Let's see this.
	Oh, I don't want to log in.
	Oh, I don't want to log in.
	This Facebook post says that proceeds are going to be donated to the convoy.
	He's saying, For those who aren't watching, this might be confusing.
	The picture's cut off.
	There's a picture of Tamara Lich on this Facebook page that is referring to...
	Tamara Lich sent a picture of her holding the pendant on her neck that this person from the Facebook page sent her.
	The woman on the Facebook page posted the picture.
	Said, I have posted with the authorization of Tamara Lich.
	The pendant has a truck in the middle of it.
	So you'll agree with me.
	And I think the prosecutor is going to make a point here.
	By wearing this pendant, by photographing yourself with the pendant, sending it to Fazia Rizwi, you were breaching condition number nine.
	His question is, by taking a photograph, she took the picture, sent it to Fazia Rizvi.
	She said she's never going to take it off.
	She said that.
	She says, you're never going to take it off.
	And he's going to go be accurate and use her words.
	Truckers for Freedom 2022.
	Tamara Litch is confirming that she gave her permission to use the photograph.
	By doing that, says the prosecutor, I'm suggesting to you that you breached item number nine of your bail.
	Thank you.
	Where she's not supposed to do anything, directly or indirectly.
	In support of anything related to the Freedom Convoy.
	He's suggesting it.
	Do you agree?
	She doesn't see how it was a breach.
	Piece of jewelry that was gifted to her.
	Took a picture of it.
	I don't like where this is going because I see problems for Tamara.
	She didn't see the harm in it.
	You didn't really see the harm in it, repeats Moise.
	And that was the basis of you deciding I'm going to do it.
	He says.
	I did it.
	I took the picture because I was appreciated that she had sent me such a beautiful gift.
	Give me a second, he says.
	That's not the right picture.
	Man, if anybody in the chat can find me this picture.
	Nope, that's not it.
	Nope.
	Oh, maybe.
	He says, you agree with me?
	Item 9 prohibits you by any means supporting anything related to the Freedom Convoy.
	That's what it says, yes, she says.
	Thank you.
	It doesn't refer to harm.
	Amar Lich is repeating, like I said, She sent me a picture.
	She sent me the gift.
	I sent the picture.
	Now he says the pendant specific.
	There's a truck.
	Middle of it.
	He says, thank you for those details.
	But there's a truck in it.
	You agree with me there's a truck in this pendant.
	And it says Freedom Canada or Freedom in Canada.
	And you'll agree with me that this supports Freedom Convoy.
	How does wearing a pendant support the Freedom Convoy, she says.
	He says, your evidence is that you're not supporting anything.
	Thank you.
	He says, you don't think sending that picture, telling her that you can use the photograph, that you're not supporting anything related to the convoy?
	Get your evidence.
	He says, I didn't see that that was supporting the convoy.
	Just trying to thank someone.
	Be nice.
	The road to hell is paved in good intentions.
	In terms of anything related, he says, that's my question.
	Thank you.
	He says, do you agree that by having done that, you were supporting something related?
	She says, I don't think so.
	There's no convoy to support, she says.
	She's hesitating.
	There's no convoy to support.
	He says, so there's no point for condition number five because the Freedom Convoy is not there.
	You might have just raised the best argument as to why these conditions should be changed.
	Thank you.
	He says, so let me get this straight.
	In your opinion, there's no possible reason for condition number nine because there's no more convoy.
	And I think he's right.
	Heh.
	The judge just said, It strikes me that this is more a question for me.
	Now, I've just asked on Twitter if anybody can find the link to that Facebook page so I can show you the picture without streaming the court.
	He says, condition number five, you can't have anyone else post for you, and you can't...
	...
	Thank you.
	I'm just, I'm now tweeting with, tweeting with resistance cats.
	Okay, let's see if anybody has...
	By giving permission to Fazia Rezwi to use your photo with the freedom pendant.
	Do you agree with me that you're basically, I mean, he's going to say supporting it.
	You were basically giving her approval to post your photo on social media.
	She says, I guess a lot of people have posted my picture on social media.
	That's not my question, Ms. Leach.
	You were giving her your approval, he says, that she could post it for you.
	Not for you, but rather, that she could post it on social media.
	And Tamara just said yes.
	Thank you.
	Do you not see that as a clear breach of condition number five?
	Do you not see that as a clear breach of condition number five?
	Oh, there's an objection.
	I thought I heard a noise of an objection, but...
	Or indicate your approval, he says.
	It's a legitimate point.
	How on earth am I supposed to tell her to take it down if I can't post on social?
	But she could have emailed her.
	But.
	And.
	Thank you.
	For an overly zealous, untrustworthy, malicious prosecution, this is getting very close to giving them good reason.
	You authorize her to post this picture on whatever, on social media.
	Thank you.
	You knew that she was on...
	Oh, she says, I did not know that she was about the...
	Apparently she's a woman who's stuck in Thailand for the last two years.
	A Canadian stuck in Thailand.
	You're the brand ambassador for the Freedom Pendant.
	Did she ask you for your permission to be the brand ambassador for this convoy restart?
	And now the prosecutor is saying, and you said, sure, go ahead.
	Here's my photograph.
	And she says, yes.
	And now prosecutor just ended because I think he appreciates he just scored a point.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Oh, there we go.
	So this is the picture in Twitter.
	Thank you.
	Oh, here.
	Okay, here we go.
	Now the lawyer is saying, I think there was one of the questions that got cut off.
	Here we go.
	I don't want to run over the dog.
	Now, Greenspawn is trying to do some damage control on the way that she just answered that last question.
	This is the picture.
	Now, Greenspawn is asking her, what is your understanding of what you did with the lady that sent you the pendant?
	as to how that relates to condition number five.
	Thank you.
	He says, I don't want to ask the question in a leading fashion because I think Greenspawn appreciates that Tamara might have misunderstood a question, answered it incorrectly to the glee of the prosecutor, or she answered it honestly to the glee of the prosecutor.
	You can see the picture of people in the chat.
	is directly from the facebook page and not from the court hearing Remove the pop-up.
	I can't remove the pop-up because I'm not logged into a Facebook account.
	So she's explaining why she sent the picture of her holding the pendant.
	Tamara Litch, Freedom Convoy 2022, hold the line.
	Proud to have our Canadian hero, Tamara, our brand ambassador for the Freedom Pendant.
	Truckers for Freedom 2022.
	Permission given by Tamara to use her photo.
	She will never take this off, she said.
	Message me for details.
	Portions of the sale will be donated to the trucker's convoy.
	This is when you have people who could get third parties in trouble based on their social media posts.
	There's So Pauly says there's nothing wrong with that.
	There's nothing wrong with the post because ordinarily she'd have nothing to do with the post.
	Even if she just sent her a picture privately and said thank you.
	That's it.
	They're breaking until lunch until 2pm.
	Then they're going to have one more witness.
	The next witness is going to be I think Tamara Leach's sister.
	I don't like what just happened there.
	I think the answer she gave was quite clearly to the glee of the prosecutor.
	This is when people have to appreciate that even posting on social media for other people can get them in trouble.
	Or not even for other people.
	Of other people can get them in trouble.
	What happened there is that this woman from...
	Apparently she's stuck in Indonesia or can't come back to Canada.
	A Canadian stuck in Thailand, Indonesia, I think.
	Or Indonesia.
	I'm not saying they're the same country.
	Can't get back to Canada.
	Involved in whatever.
	Sent her this beautiful pendant.
	Let me just go get the picture back.
	Sent her this beautiful pendant.
	With...
	There it is right here.
	Sent her this beautiful pendant.
	With this truck.
	And it says...
	Freedom Canada.
	With a truck in it.
	Tamara Lich took a picture, sent it back to the woman, said, thank you very much.
	I'll never take it off.
	The woman then posted the picture to her own Facebook, Gems and Jewels.
	May 13, 859.
	So this woman, not impugning any intentions, posted to her Facebook page to show that she makes beautiful jewelry, says, proud to have the Canadian hero Tamara, our brand ambassador for the Freedom Pendant.
	Permission given by Tamara to use her photo.
	Now she's indicating that she spoke with Tamara, allegedly, and Tamara allegedly said, sure, you can post my picture on social media, whether or not that's asking a third party to do something that she's not allowed to do, or just approving of it.
	Whereas even if she said, no, you don't have my permission, but she does it anyhow.
	Legal question as to whether or not this is indirectly asking someone to do what she's not allowed to do.
	She will never take this off, she said.
	Message me for details.
	Selling the product, unisex.
	So I guess if you want one for men, there's one as well.
	Portions of the sale will be donated to the trucker's convoy.
	Don't know how that's going to happen since you can't do it.
	Also, since they can't disperse the funds, give, send, go, reimburse them, go fund me, return them.
	But now you've got Tamara saying, I knew that she was doing it for that.
	I was sufficiently familiar with the post, you know, to some extent.
	Whether or not that's going to be sufficient for an argument for breach of terms.
	The whole thing is absolutely idiotic on its face.
	The only question is whether or not there's any basis of a legal argument in there.
	And at this point now, unfortunately, if I'm a malicious prosecutor looking for an excuse, I think I just found it.
	If I'm looking for that gotcha admission, I think I just found it.
	Thank you.
	there you go So that's what's going to happen.
	I'm not going to wait here until 1 o 'clock.
	I'm going to go walk the dogs.
	And I think I'll tweet the rest of this.
	I don't think it's going to get more important, more interesting than that.
	They're going to question the certee.
	And the question is going to be whether or not there's going to be a decision on the bench.
	Thank you.
	Let's see if we've got some questions here.
	Oh, no.
	So Tamara knew the lady was going to say Tamara agreed to being the ambassador for Convoy 2022.
	Oh, I don't know if that's a sarcastic oh, no.
	It's unclear.
	She seems to, you know, it's outlandish that this would be a fun exercise, a thought exercise, a thought experiment, if we were in North Korea.
	Can you imagine this?
	The prosecutor is going to seek to have Tamara re-jailed on the basis of that Facebook post by a third-party woman from Indonesia or Thailand.
	Yep, Caligula, I think you got it right.
	And thus we have the fundamental problem with today's government prosecutors seeking victory rather than justice.
	And I can see this.
	That's why I think Tamara was being set up.
	I mean, I can understand it.
	Crazier things have happened.
	Person also, you know, use that photograph to sell their personal wares.
	Set up or not set up, it's just, you know, people don't appreciate the potential consequences of their actions in the political climate in which we live.
	Prosecution is playing a game with an actual person's life.
	No reason.
	Except to win.
	And not just that, Splendiferous.
	He knows that she has beautiful grandchildren.
	He knows that she has a daughter, a good job, likes her band, and he wants to put her in jail.
	He wants to destroy an actual human's life as a political game for his political leader.
	I've known of Moise Karimji as a far-left activist and writer for years.
	How is he a bloody crown prosecutor now?
	Or am I thinking of another Moise Karimji from Canada?
	No, I know that he was an author.
	I don't know what his history was.
	I don't know what his history was.
	Yep.
	So he gets a pat on the back.
	All children are beautiful.
	All children are beautiful to their parents.
	I'm joking.
	This was a weak point on the prosecution.
	I disagree.
	I think this is the only strong point the prosecution got out of all of that.
	All right.
	I'm going to end it now, actually.
	I'm not going to try to go through lunch so we can get back to this.
	You all have the link.
	So you can go watch it at 2 o 'clock when it resumes.
	I'll listen to it and tweet live.
	My actual tweeting is probably going to be like my mouth tweeting, except it's going to be dictated.
	So there's going to be a lot of typos in it.
	Yeah.
	Understood, ambassador for the pendant.
	You appreciate, Louis.
	It's just all dangerous.
	This is what they wanted.
	This is why the terms were so ambiguous and they should have been...
	I want to get item 9. Item 9 of the bail conditions.
	Let me see if I can't find that real quick lack.
	Real quick lack.
	Let me see if I can't find this.
	I know Tamara Lich is...
	Camera, glitch, bail, release, turns.
	Let me see if I can't find this.
	PDF.
	Maybe this is it.
	Can we see this?
	No, it's only me.
	That's why you can't see it.
	Add to stream.
	Okay.
	I know that's affidavit.
	I won't be able to find it, but we saw.
	The news quoted it.
	Directly or indirectly.
	It's so ambiguous and it's so vague.
	That you know that they could exploit this and interpret it that way.
	She indirectly, argument can and will be made, authorized this person to post her picture on social media because she couldn't do it herself.
	That picture quite clearly indirectly supports the concept of the convoy.
	It's just atrocious.
	It's just atrocious.
	All right, so go, everyone.
	Get out there.
	Get some fresh air.
	Maybe I come back live later.
	We'll see.
	I don't see another way of viewing this as Canada's not going back to any semblance of a free society anytime soon.
	And this is just evidence that everything is being weaponized in Canada for egregious, offensive, unconstitutional political purposes.
	You authorized someone to post a picture on their social media page when you weren't allowed to?
	You go back to jail.
	You mother.
	You grandmother.
	You daughter.
	You have loving, beautiful grandkids.
	And we're going to put you in jail.
	Because you said someone could post a picture of you on social media.
	And because we banned you from discussing anything directly or indirectly related to showing support for the concept of the convoy.
	This is Canada.
	Canada.
	So, that's it.
	It's horrible.
	Nothing else to it.
	Go.
	I'll go get some fresh air.
	Maybe that'll make me feel better.
	I'm going to go get a...
	I'm going to binge.
	I'm going to get a Red Bull.
	Or maybe I'll get a bubble tea.
	Nah, it'll be a Red Bull.
	Okay, go.
	Enjoy the day.
	Your Brutal Bale Syndrome.
	Yes, Brutal Bale Syndrome.
	Okay, I don't want to blackpill anybody.
	Maybe the judge gets it right on the bench.
	So let me be momentarily blackpilled because what this prosecutor is doing, in my humble opinion, it's a perversion of justice and not a pursuit of it.
	Maybe the judge will get it right.
	Fingers crossed, people.
	If I can't get back live this afternoon, I'll definitely tweet out some updates and I'll be listening to it.
	But you have the links.
	I'll pin it in the pinned comment when this processes.
	And see you soon enough.
	Go get some fresh air, sunlight, exercise.
	Pat a dog.

▲