Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 25, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

04:29:54

Tamara Lich Judgment on Bail Re-Hearing LIVE COMMENTARY - Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	That the world is changing rapidly and getting more dangerous in new ways than ever before.
	When we look at the prevalence of misinformation, of disinformation, the way social media has been weaponized both by foreign actors and by people within Canada pushing extremist views, trying to foment anger and discord, whether it's extremist ideology and right-wing terrorism on the rise in Canada.
	Or whether it's examples like the illegal protests we saw in the winter.
	There are a whole new set of challenges that we need to be responding to.
	And that's why we're working closely with our national security agencies, working closely with organizations like the Canadian Security Establishment Around Communications to make sure that we are able to respond to these new realities.
	We need to do it, however, in a way that continues to defend freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to legally protest, while at the same time we're taking on more tools to keep Canadians safe.
	Because increasingly we're seeing that things that start online end up having impacts on the real world.
	Yep.
	All right.
	It's definitely too early in the morning for that.
	Let me see something here.
	Get the angle right.
	Can you believe just the stuff that comes out in one stream of verbal diarrhea?
	That he's talking about misinformation and then at the same time talking about the rise in right-wing capital T. Okay, so apparently, it's not a public link today.
	And I cannot post it on social media.
	Now let me just see if I can get this.
	Give me two seconds, people, while I can try to set up not enough coffee in a life, in a life for that drivel.
	And by the way, people, Let me see what's going on here.
	open and zoom.
	Give me one second.
	I'm going to see if this is working here.
	Bear with me, people.
	I can't see the chat right now.
	Okay, this looks like it's working.
	I'm going to plug in the headphones so that nothing is reproduced or...
	So for anybody who doesn't know what's going on this morning, it's the judgment reading, I think.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Test speaker.
	External headphones.
	They're good.
	That's what it should be.
	That's the speaker, so that's where I should be hearing it.
	Test mic is working on this.
	Video.
	I don't want any video on this anyhow.
	Okay, so I think we should be good.
	I'm going to leave this on one ear so I hear when it goes live.
	Today's the reading of the decision, the judgment.
	Tamara Lich had a two-day hearing last week.
	So for anybody who doesn't know what's going on, I think we all should at this point.
	Not a public link.
	I don't know what the rules are today.
	So the one thing you have to make sure is that you don't give an arguably politicized, weaponized system an excuse.
	It does not seem that the link...
	I don't know how the link is obtained.
	If they want to, I don't know.
	Not taking any chances, not giving any excuses, people.
	So, for anybody who doesn't know what's going on, last week, Tamara Lich had a two-day hearing on a notice of application for bail...
	Rehearing, sorry.
	Review of bail conditions.
	Tamara Lich presented a notice of application.
	Arguing that the situation has evolved, the situation has changed, and she wants the initial bail terms that were adjudicated and ordered by the court to be reviewed and revised.
	Errors in law, I think they're arguing ambiguity of items 5 and 9 of the bail terms of her release, one of which was that she can't post anything on social media.
	See if I can find those again.
	Good morning, everybody.
	The item's five and I'll pull them up in a second.
	Let me just get the article.
	An article which will discuss it.
	Google.
	Let me see.
	I'll go back to the sharing screen.
	We won't see Justin Trudeau anymore.
	Move this screen out of the way.
	So she had a two-day hearing last week.
	She filed a notice of application.
	Okay, so I seem to be in a virtual courtroom, and I hear it in my ear.
	Okay, good.
	Take this off and make sure that nobody hears anything else.
	Okay, so I got the audio.
	Anybody who has the link, you're not allowed.
	Rebroadcasting, reproducing, screen grabs, audio, video, you're not allowed.
	Live tweeting is allowed.
	There's a number of people who are...
	There's a number of people who are live tweeting this.
	Greg McGregor, CTV, ResistanceCats on Twitter.
	So we have a hearing.
	We see the people are attending court.
	Let me just go to the Twitter world.
	Let me just go to the Twitter world.
	Okay.
	Sorry, people.
	This is going to be a little rough until we get to...
	Okay, so everything is hooked up.
	Now we're in Google.
	Just to get...
	I want to bring off...
	Okay, here we go.
	Let's go.
	Tamara Lich.
	Bail.
	CBC had a good one yesterday.
	Tamara Lich learns her fate.
	It's interesting what's in the news.
	Ottawa judge should decide, here, let's go, one hour ago, Globe and Mail.
	She had a two-day hearing.
	She made an application to revise, to review the bail hearings, the bail terms.
	To thank her for her efforts, the Crown then made a motion, a notice of application as well.
	Alleging that she violated the terms of her release and that she should be re-imprisoned.
	And for anybody who was listening at the time, the argument there was that, and I think it's a mistake, I think it gave an excuse, the argument was that she breached her bail conditions by directly or indirectly posting to social media support for anything related to the convoy.
	Because what she had done...
	She had received a silver pendant from someone in, I think it was Thailand, overseas.
	Allegedly, a Canadian stuck in Thailand for the last two years, couldn't return for whatever the reason, made a pendant.
	It looked to be a silver pendant.
	It was beautiful.
	In as much as jewelry is beautiful.
	That said, freedom on the top, Canada on the bottom, and it had a truck in the middle.
	This Facebook account from, I think it's Thailand, but someone in the chat can correct me.
	Sent this to Tamara.
	Said, we want to make you the ambassador of our movement, whatever it is.
	They're calling it another type of freedom convoy.
	Tamara says, it's beautiful.
	I'm never going to take it off.
	Took a picture of her wearing it.
	Sent it back to the person who she thought was a good faith actor just sending her something nice.
	The woman on the other end in Thailand says, can I post it to social media?
	Tamara says, yes.
	Do whatever you...
	Post the picture.
	The woman then posts the picture to a Facebook page, which I know people have been visiting now because there have been messages saying, take this down, you're getting her in trouble.
	She posts the picture of Tamara wearing this pendant.
	I think she quoted her saying, I'll never take it off, thank you so much.
	Posted with permission of Tamara.
	The Crown gets this picture and says, do you not think that this violates the terms of your release?
	You're making public statements, directly or indirectly, supporting the convoy.
	And they then made a notice of application to try and re-jail Tamara Litch, who already spent two and a half weeks in jail until she finally got released on the most onerous bail conditions you can possibly imagine.
	Court now seems to be in session.
	People are asked to rise.
	Globe and Mail says she's going to decide whether or not Tamara Litch should return to jail.
	Well, flip side is the court might also decide if...
	The onerous terms of her initial release should be revised and...
	Okay, so we have the judge...
	I'm getting nervous in my stomach when you hear judgment readings.
	So the judge is talking now, and I think the judge is simply going...
	They had a two-day hearing.
	The first day of the hearing apparently was so heated and so over-the-top, people who were there said they've never seen anything like it.
	Even a favorable media had to say...
	The prosecutor, Moise Clemji, kind of lost it.
	First day was over the top from what I've read.
	Second day was much more tempered.
	Moise Clemji, who the day before was told to take a break by the judge, take a break, think about your demeanor, and come back after the pause.
	And then after the pause, came back and accused the judge of improper conduct and asked the judge to recuse himself.
	He's going to read what he's written.
	So the judge says, before I read what I've written, he had time over the weekend to review the...
	Okay, so we can get a written...
	We can get a hard copy of the written decision after he reads it.
	This is the most...
	If you're a lawyer, people, this is the most gut-wrenching part of the practice.
	After you've pleaded your heart out, you hear the judge reading the decision, and it's all in the hands of the judge.
	There's nothing you can do as an attorney anymore.
	He's reading the decision now.
	Says Tamara Leach is facing charges, criminal charges, from the convoy.
	It's alleged that she is an organizer of the highly disruptive event, already not starting off good.
	He says it's a bail review hearing under Section 520 of the Criminal Code.
	Two ways in which a judge can alter the status quo.
	He's going to go through case law.
	He says, I can do it on the one hand if there's an error of law or two, change of circumstances.
	Thank you.
	So he's going over the procedure now, saying, Tamara Leach was ordered jailed on February 2022.
	More procedures.
	She was released later on with Asserti on March 7. The re-hearing.
	The judge here says on the re-hearing because the original judge denied Tamara release.
	He says the second judge or justice of the peace Found that the original judge made an error in law and ordered her release.
	And then, you know, issued the proper terms after concluding the first justice of the peace, came to an incorrect decision in law.
	Okay, so now he's going over procedure again.
	Lich is saying...
	Lich is...
	Litch's team is saying that Johnson, the second judge who revised the first judge's decision, also made an error in law.
	Thank you.
	Yep, unsurprisingly.
	Oh, sorry, this is...
	Crown made an application to review, said the judge made a mistake.
	Defense disagrees.
	Now the defense is saying...
	The defense says social media ban is an unrestrained, over-extensive restriction, and it's a mistake.
	Both parties are suggesting that there's been a material change.
	Crown says even if the term survived the challenge, the situation has changed because...
	The situation has changed because Tamara Lich has apparently agreed to accept the George Jonas Award offered to her by the JCCF.
	Crown argues that by her accepting or indicating that she would accept the award offered to her by the JCCF, she is publicly supporting something related to the convoy and that she should therefore be returned to jail.
	Who else's stomach has butterflies here?
	Who else's stomach has butterflies here?
	Okay, and then the Crown says, not the Crown, the Defense says, the Convoy's over.
	It makes no sense to have these restrictions anymore.
	Thank you.
	Defense says Tamara has been in her community since March 7, March 7, March, April, May, almost three months without any breaches.
	So now they're saying she has not committed a breach in two and a half months.
	She should be allowed to go to Ottawa, because that was one of the restrictions, to see family, etc.
	And it says there's no reason to prevent her from accepting the JCCF Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom George Jonas Award.
	He does not accept the Crown submission that she breached.
	The judge started off by saying, I do not agree with the Crown's position that she breached her terms by accepting the award.
	This is not what is intended.
	What she accepted as the award is not intended to be what the Crown was trying to prevent by behavior.
	The judge gets it, it looks like.
	He says, the Johnson, the second judge, The second judge who revised the first judge's terms said that the purpose for his restrictions was to prevent recurring interference with Ottawa activities.
	He says even though they sought her, they wanted to prevent her from organizing or starting those activities up with the convoy, no one seeks to control her political views.
	I hope I'm clear enough, by the way, guys.
	I'm sorry.
	He says here the objective was to keep a highly problematic street protest from continuing or recurring.
	Good.
	He accepts Mrs. Leach's evidence that she saw no connection between her release terms and the acceptance of an award to celebrate her advocacy of constitutional freedoms as she and others understand them.
	He says, I believe she understood that she would have been restricted by the Johnson J order, which is the second one, from participating or organizing further street protests.
	He says, I can accept that, that she would have seen that as being different than accepting an award.
	This judge has got it, by the way.
	He says, He says, the relation between accepting an award and a protest that is long over is so indirect.
	I lost the second word there, but he said it's so indirect.
	Crown has failed to prove that the Crown has committed an offense under Section 145.
	I think that's the criminal code of breaching bail.
	I'm not sure.
	He believes Ms. Leach.
	When she explains that she doesn't see her acceptance of the award as any support for the Freedom Convoy because the convoy is over with.
	He's quoting Tamara Lich and what her testimony was.
	She says, I didn't see it as supporting a convoy.
	There's no convoy to support.
	It's three months gone.
	And now the judge is saying, the judge says there's been a significant change.
	He says, He says it's of significant importance that the convoy is over and has left town.
	He says it would be practically impossible to mount a comparable protest in Ottawa again.
	And he says Tamara can be shown, Tamara has shown, that she is capable of being trusted to respect bail conditions and cites the fact that she's been compliant since her release.
	He accepts that she's been off social media since her release.
	He says it's hard to conceive.
	Okay, he just used a very big word.
	The judge doesn't seem to like the protest.
	He says she's been off social media and has avoided the silo of the toxic groupthink that resulted in the protest.
	Fine.
	A judge that disagrees with the protest but gets it right is still good.
	He says there's no more mask mandates.
	Most of the restrictions have been lifted.
	So he says the situation has evolved.
	He sees it as good things.
	The judge did not like...
	It's quite clear the judge does not like the protest.
	Bottom line is this.
	Circumstances relevant to the assessment of her bail.
	What it would take to maintain confidence in justice, in the administration of justice, materially different now than they were back in February.
	He says, in my judgment, in my...
	He says...
	He says now my assessment is that it would have allowed the initial, the first judge, to come to a different conclusion than he did.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	He is citing the fact that at the time there was a risk of a recurrence of the protest.
	This judge really doesn't like the protest.
	He says, the analysis under The analysis then would be different now because of the change of circumstances.
	Now they're getting to the secondary and tertiary grounds of the bail.
	This is the part where...
	Okay, so the tertiary considerations of release have to take into consideration the benefits of the terms of the release.
	He says, now, given the circumstances that he's describing now, even the second judge would have come to a different conclusion in law based on the facts, based on the facts as they stand now.
	Thank you.
	Now he's saying he he he says it's worth repeating that the federal government considered the country to be in a very unique situation to warrant emergencies.
	Thank you.
	I think he's...
	He says, in light of this, he's doing a de novo assessment, a brand new assessment, given the change of circumstances.
	He need not consider...
	He need not consider the Crown's position that the second judge made a mistake.
	The Crown wanted to overturn the second judge's review of the bail, or terms of release.
	Now he's saying basically, de novo, the terms of release are subject to a new assessment, de novo, from scratch, brand new, given the new facts.
	He says the previous two orders are subject to replacement for the same reason.
	Now he's getting to the evidence.
	Release is appropriate.
	He says all the circumstances, quality of the surety, the success to respect the conditions, Along with Ms. Leach having had a taste of jail.
	Oh, she had more than a taste, Your Honor.
	She had the whole thing.
	He's impressed by the proposed certi.
	Reassuring.
	He finds it reassuring that the certi has taken her job as a certi so seriously that she...
	He says he finds it assuring that the certi...
	Takes her job so seriously that she's reviewing and revising and looking over Tamara's social media stuff.
	No evidence suggesting that Ms. Leach has breached her conditions.
	He specifically rejects the idea that she is responsible for what someone else did with the photo.
	Good.
	He also rejects the idea...
	that she's responsible for how the JCCF does their business and seeks to commemorate people who stand up for constitutional freedoms.
	Thank you.
	He says he's focusing on the charges, provided she continues to follow the law.
	So long as she continues to respect the law, she's allowed to continue to behave and perceive herself as an innocent person under the law.
	A trial is no sure thing for either side, he says.
	Warning.
	He says, warning.
	Nobody knows what happens in trial.
	He says, nobody's sure what happens at trial, so her behavior before trial is relevant, and that could result in a prejudicial perception of her.
	The judge has just said, he who laughs last, laughs longest, is a post-trial consideration.
	Okay?
	So, he hasn't laid out the terms yet.
	He says, he says, she's entitled to the presumption of an infidence and a release from jail, and they can structure the terms appropriately that would ensure public confidence in the administration of justice.
	Now he says, what terms shall I release her on?
	I like this judge, even if he doesn't like the protest.
	He says, the terms of release have to be tailored and not stray into punishment before trial.
	This is beautiful.
	This is beautiful.
	He says, what release conditions in all the circumstances?
	I missed that thought there.
	He says basically the terms have to be intended to ensure administration of justice.
	He says he came to the same conclusions as Johnson, the second one.
	He says basically he's coming to the same terms.
	As the second judge, terms of release.
	So it looks like she's going to be out on the same terms.
	And he does not seem to feel that Judge Johnson, the second judge, made a mistake on the social media ban.
	He says, I independently find that the social media ban is warranted.
	So he's come to the same conclusion as Johnson.
	It's interesting.
	I'll get to this afterwards.
	He says social media is a silo where people get egged on, caught up in groupthink.
	He didn't say groupthink here, but...
	He says social media undoubtedly contributed to.
	Contributed to the conduct.
	And he thinks that her staying off of social media and avoiding getting whipped up in that is justified.
	Just write that down.
	Whipped up on social media.
	Because her sister said something to that.
	Whipped up social media.
	He says, I know that she's in her late 40s.
	Born in the early 70s.
	Okay, he's being funny now.
	He says, she's a high 40s.
	She'll figure out how to interact the way she did before social media.
	He says she can write a letter, go to a coffee shop, email, text, the way we used to before social media.
	I don't actually need this on my lips right now.
	He says she doesn't require social media for her work.
	So that's where I guess the secondary tertiary.
	He says the infringement under social media is minimal consideration in order to ensure compliance with the court order.
	He says Social media ban should still be imposed.
	So, Johnson, the second judge, did not make a mistake.
	Now, so, Johnson's social media ban, the second order of the terms of her release, affirmed, reaffirmed.
	De novo, but now he's getting to the not-traveling-to-Ottawa.
	And he's saying, it's unusual to ban anyone from a city.
	Especially a province.
	He says the geographic scope of the restriction was influenced by the protest, whether or not it would continue, recur.
	He says he imagines the concern of the time, it's quite poetic, was that she would be released from jail, blow on the ambers, and start that fire up again.
	He says the court...
	Was also motivated to remove her from the city.
	In the same way an accused shouldn't return to the scene of the crime.
	So he says, I accept the evidence that her child is attending post-secondary in Ottawa, post-secondary school in Ottawa.
	He says it's reasonable that a mother who wants to...
	Who wants to help her child move, visit them.
	He didn't say visit yet.
	So he says, if she goes to Ottawa to help her daughter go to, or I don't know if it was her daughter, her kid go to university, does it undermine the confidence in the administration of justice given what she did the last time she came to Ottawa?
	He says no.
	He says no.
	He says, I note it would be practically impossible for Ms. Leach to organize what had been previously organized.
	She's disconnected from social media.
	So basically he says she couldn't do it again if she wanted to.
	And so second related question.
	He says he agrees.
	He says it's contrary to the reputational interests of the administration of justice to allow Ms. Leach to walk around the very neighborhood she's alleged to have, I think he said, traumatized.
	So he says she can go to Ottawa, but she can't attend the downtown core.
	She's a 49-year-old grandmother.
	He's going through her credentials.
	Grandmother, no criminal record, full-time employment, Métis heritage.
	She is presumed to be innocent.
	She is presumed to be innocent.
	Given the nature of this case, there's a great degree of uncertainty as to how she will be held culpable for the accusations.
	It's relevant that the day before her arrest...
	She was already being told by the Ontario Superior Court that she may continue to protest.
	He's saying it's improbable that she's going to receive...
	I think he just said it's unlikely that she's going to...
	I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had that screen up the entire time.
	I think he just said it's unlikely that she's going to serve a lengthy period of time in jail, so it couldn't warrant holding her up beforehand.
	He says accused people are released all the time without controversy on serious accusations, including murder.
	He says he's confident that the terms of her release will reduce or eliminate The likelihood of...
	Oh, he's saying some of the release terms should be edited or deleted.
	Some of them are unworkable and ill-suited.
	He says it is ordered that she be released on the same order as Johnson from before, the second one, but they're going to change a few conditions to keep the peace and be of good behavior.
	I'm not saying where she's...
	She's being told where to reside.
	We don't need the address.
	Should not contact directly or indirectly a number of people.
	I won't name the names.
	So she can't contact directly or indirectly.
	And they're listing a bunch of people.
	I think these are alleged organizers of the convoy.
	Not to log on to social media or post any messages on social media.
	Allow her SIRTI reasonable access to her electronic devices.
	Not to allow anyone else to post social media on her behalf or indicate her approval for any future protests.
	Not to organize or aid or abet in the organization of any public protest, of any unlawful protest.
	Thank you.
	She's not to participate in any protest in respect of anything related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
	A successfully outlawed protest for her.
	She's not to attend Ottawa, the downtown core.
	They're delineating it.
	They're delineating it.
	Except for it may be necessary for attendance at court.
	So that's it.
	That's his decision.
	Okay.
	Let's hear some representations.
	So he finished reading his order.
	Okay, so the judge just read the order.
	That's the order.
	A written version will be available later today.
	And now the lawyer, I think it's the lawyer for defense.
	I'm only listening.
	I can't see anything.
	I'm not watching.
	I'm not watching.
	So basically he's saying, look, I'm restricting her from the downtown core because to allow her to walk the downtown core where citizens...
	Alleged or claimed to have been traumatized by the protest.
	It would be like letting an accused perpetrator return to the scene of the crime with the victims.
	So she can go to Ottawa.
	She can't go to the downtown core with the exception of attending court.
	And I believe that's it.
	I believe that is over now in the written judgment.
	When I get it, I will circulate it around.
	Let me just see when the audio breaks off.
	The meeting has been ended.
	All right.
	So that's it.
	There you have it.
	This is one of those situations where if I'm assessing it critically, it's a very small victory.
	And Bill Bradley, I'm going to get to this because this is the punchline.
	It's a very...
	Small victory in that she doesn't go back to jail.
	Thank you, Big Brother, for not bringing me back to jail, for taking a picture and sending it to a third party.
	Thank you, Big Brother, for letting me leave and not be in jail under these...
	I still think it's extremely onerous, and I say unconstitutional terms.
	But...
	Small victory for Tamara, but listening to the judges reading, I mean, basically, they prevented her from attending any protest.
	They have for Tamara Lich, as her bail terms, and it's worth repeating, and I've said it all the time, is that bail release terms necessarily violate your fundamental rights.
	Necessarily.
	They limit what would otherwise be your constitutional rights for freedom, life, liberty, and happiness, possession of property.
	Protection from abusive search and seizure.
	It necessarily does that.
	Because if they say you can't travel to certain areas, you can't possess weapons, you can't leave the country, you have to be in your house at night, curfew.
	It necessarily restricts what would otherwise be charter rights, fundamental freedoms.
	The reason, though, why it's justified is that they have to be Justified restrictions to prevent the likelihood of fleeing or recommitting, pending your trial.
	In this case, she's accused of mischief-related crimes.
	Perjury, if you want to add on the ones that were tacked on afterwards.
	She's accused of mischief-related crimes.
	And she hasn't been found guilty yet.
	And even if she's found guilty, mischief could be a 10-year sentence.
	I haven't done the case law research.
	I'll be shocked if anyone has ever gotten 10 years in Canada for mischief.
	So what's a reasonable restriction while she's still presumed innocent?
	I don't think these are, in my view, I don't think these are legally justifiable or factually justifiable conclusions.
	You've got to respect the court system.
	You've got to respect the courts.
	I don't think it's a reasonable restriction to keep her off social media.
	I mean, I don't think that's a reasonable constitutional infringement as a term of release.
	That she can't go to the downtown core of Ottawa?
	I mean, that she can't protest?
	That she can't encourage protest?
	I don't think any of these are as minimal as required to ensure compliance.
	How about don't organize any more protests and do whatever else?
	You think her being online, saying, let's go make another protest?
	First of all, why cannot someone say, I want to protest the terms of my release with a lawful, peaceful protest?
	Illegal protest is different than legal protest.
	She cannot legally protest.
	It says, protest or participate in any unlawful...
	I think they use the word unlawful to describe the second part.
	She can't even participate in...
	Any protest related to COVID-19.
	As a term of her release.
	And she's still innocent until proven guilty.
	Have her post $20,000 bond and agree to be a lawful citizen.
	And as she breaches that, then you sanction her.
	To me, this smacks of old-school British Empire squashing the rights of the small people.
	I hate that our rights are not sacrosanct.
	And what is the practical effect of this judge's order?
	At the very least, for Tamara Lich, fundamental rights and freedoms, social media, the right to protest, freedom of assembly, are restricted until she's either found innocent or guilty.
	And, you know, the judge basically prejudged this protest as an illegal...
	He didn't say occupation.
	I believe he said it was a nuisance.
	It interfered with...
	I don't know.
	He basically referred to it as unlawful.
	I forget the exact wording.
	I'll have to go back and listen to myself.
	So that's it.
	Anyway, that's it.
	So she does not go back to jail.
	The original terms of the second bail order from Judge Johnson, who reviewed and from whom the release were granted, those terms are...
	Reiterated.
	But de novo.
	So the judge says, look, I'm not reaffirming Judge Johnson's decision.
	I'm just coming to the same one.
	Even though I think Judge Johnson would have come to a different conclusion had the facts been what they are today, and then they struck a couple of the terms.
	But...
	That's it.
	Okay.
	So I guess a little quasi-good news, but I don't really think this is good news in the meaningful sense because this basically says, you know...
	The protest that was is basically can never occur again in Ottawa.
	That's not a good thing in the sense that what the judge basically says now is the government has effectively saw to it that one cannot protest in certain ways that the government does not approve of ever again.
	That's an odd way to view the concept of protest.
	You can protest in a way that does not cause any inconvenience to the government.
	So long as you comply with the manner in which the government says you can protest, when, where, when it has to end.
	So the government controls your right to protest the government.
	I'm not sure that that was the essence of the idea of freedom of assembly and the right to protest enshrined in our Charter of Rights.
	Thank you.
	Ron Lachance, thank you for your opinion.
	Rejected.
	Dismissed, Ron.
	Not good news.
	The premise to throw her back in jail was a red herring for the benefit of propaganda.
	No, I think it was just...
	Yeah, that's not a totally unreasonable take.
	I just think it was a threat to anyone else.
	We will try to do this to you.
	And I think at some point in the decision, the judge drew a distinction between Tamara Lich and Pat King, but I'm not sure.
	Oh boy.
	Okay.
	If anyone's not interested in that, don't do it.
	I'm not going live the entire day, but I think if Kate Moss is on the stand and I have missed the most important, not the most important, but the most interesting part, let's do it.
	Let me just see what's going on here.
	Get the headphones in.
	Alrighty.
	If Kate Moss is on the stand, we'll get to some more important stuff during a break.
	I'm not going all day.
	I've got a sidebar tonight.
	With Tom Woods, Robert Barnes, and it's going to be good.
	But now let's just see who is on the stand in the Johnny Depp trial live.
	Which one do I want to go with?
	Do I want to go with commercial?
	Let's wait for this to be skipped.
	Who's on the stand?
	Okay.
	Oh, it's Dr. Curry's on the stand.
	Let's do this.
	...of experiences a person may have gone through that are traumatic.
	Dr. Hughes also used that, and that's appropriate to use before...
	Apparently I can move it if I bring this here.
	Okay, I can move this.
	Here we go.
	No, I brought it too high up.
	There we go.
	That's going to be annoying.
	No, we don't want to block Dr. Curry.
	Okay, here we go.
	So for anybody who doesn't know, this is Dr. Curry.
	She is the one who was court-ordered to assess Amber Heard for PTSD.
	And in her assessment of Amber Heard's PTSD, came to the conclusion that Amber Heard actually does not suffer from PTSD and, in fact, suffers from BPD, Borderline Personality Disorder.
	This was developed to show high risk factors for dangerousness and pretty much to help a female who is in I'm not doing this all day, but I'll do it for a little bit.
	So I'll clip that Tamara Lich hearing and put it on my second channel ASAP.
	Kids have early dismissal today, so I can't.
	And then accept resources offered by the hospital and social work.
	Well, you know, it's funny.
	Hold on a second here.
	That was the purpose of the scale.
	It was never intended to be used as a retrospective measure to look back in time.
	Those are three ingredients in a delicious breakfast.
	Based on one person's report years later in a litigation.
	I am not that type of person.
	I missed Kate Moss, though.
	Okay, so Dr. Curry is the one who diagnosed Amber as a borderline personality disorder and concluded she had no PTSD.
	Okay, let's catch up a little bit.
	How is the audio, people?
	I'll talk a little softer, but how's the audio?
	And on that, there's 39 questions where the respondent indicates, essentially, certain abusive behaviors they may have engaged And then 39 where they indicate behaviors their partner might have engaged in.
	And obviously you can understand that in a forensic setting, the respondent is likely to put a very minimal amount of behaviors they engaged in and then extremely Increase the number of behaviors their partner might have.
	And then lastly, let's see.
	Oh, the Abusive Behaviors Observation Checklist was the third checklist she gave.
	This one has not, there's no known research even on its effectiveness for what it was developed.
	It's a theoretical, very brief checklist that was meant to be used for therapy where an individual who had experienced domestic violence Could essentially read through some of the behaviors that constitute violence that they might not have been aware of.
	And if those behaviors apply to them, or if some of those coping strategies were ones they utilize, they would check that off.
	Don't want to block her.
	Don't do that, David.
	Stop it.
	Talk about it because now it's been put to words.
	Again, this is similarly problematic.
	If you're in a civil litigation, the person's motivated.
	Don't forget to thumbs up and share the link around.
	Funky blue.
	And not only that, but checklists like this one specifically give a lot of nuanced information about what clinicians might be looking for when they're assessing.
	I'm going to leave it here.
	Yesterday was somewhat of a boring day of testimony.
	Okay.
	Can you talk specifically about Dr. Hughes's use of the, I think you called it the PCL-5?
	Yeah, I think the Tamara Lich judgment is not going to help Pat King because it's going to be easy to distinguish between the two characters.
	This is different, not to be confused with the CAPS-5, which I've talked about previously as being the gold standard.
	The PCL-5 was developed by the National Center of PTSD.
	It's intended for treatment.
	So if I were, for instance, working with a service member who I know had...
	I think that meant prediction, not erection.
	I would probably use this as a standard with my intake.
	Before we do the diagnostic interview...
	It's scary.
	It kind of gives me a reason how somebody who's there for treatment...
	Who we assume can be taken at their word because if they give us correct information, they're going to get an appropriate treatment.
	And if they give us incorrect, they might not get the treatment they need.
	So I would give this checklist to them.
	And then if they recognize some of those symptoms of PTSD, they could check it off.
	And that would probably indicate to me that I need to then do the next step if they're checking off more items than not.
	I would probably...
	Decide to administer the clinician-administered PTSD scale, that gold standard interview, to find out more about a diagnosis.
	You compare the demeanor of this expert to Dr. Spiegel?
	Yes, the CAPS-5.
	What about...
	Well, you talked about forensic use.
	What do you mean by that?
	So when I'm talking about forensic evaluation, that's an evaluation that isn't done for therapy or treatment.
	It's specifically to assist the fact finder.
	The judge or the jury in the court by providing information about the psychological status about an individual.
	And that's an important delineation, too.
	We are not psychologists.
	I wish we were mind readers.
	I wish we had a crystal ball and could find out whether intimate partner violence occurred and look back in the past.
	Amber is going down in this trial.
	It's a lot less interesting.
	We look at data.
	We have to control for those response biases.
	And then we also are looking at functioning, which is really the bottom line of the assessment.
	Did the person have a change in functioning from before the alleged trauma, or in this case, the alleged IPV, to after?
	Is there a decline in the way they're going about their lives?
	Your Honor, may we approach?
	All right.
	Okay, so back to the Johnny Depp trial.
	Sometimes, I'll even accept that this is a distraction.
	Sometimes you need a distraction from the awful things in the world that you can't change.
	The serenity prayer.
	I have never been one to actually be able to live by the serenity prayer, but for those of you who don't know what it is, let me just go find it here.
	Serenity prayer.
	Not the long version.
	God, grant me the serenity prayer.
	Seneca Creek Church.
	Where is it?
	Where is the...
	Dude, I need the words.
	I'm not signing up.
	Sorry.
	Not today.
	Not the full serenity prayer.
	The serenity prayer.
	God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
	Here's where I get hung up on the serenity change.
	The serenity prayer.
	God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
	I cannot accept that.
	The courage to change the things I can, I think I can do that.
	And the wisdom to know the difference, I have the wisdom.
	Now I just need, I just need the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
	But one of the things that I cannot change is that I cannot accept the things I cannot change.
	So how's that for a paradox of the serenity prayer?
	It's a good prayer.
	My mother has it on a mug somewhere.
	I cannot accept the things that I cannot change.
	I get frustrated about it.
	I will obsess about it.
	I will harp on it spiritually, psychologically.
	They will go around in my head over and over again.
	But at least I have the wisdom to know the difference.
	Now I just need the serenity.
	The other thing is I do believe there are very few things that you cannot actually change.
	I take that back.
	There are things that you can't change.
	I meant perception.
	Very embarrassing.
	My autocorrect is in French.
	Should have...
	Well, dude, you should have said it was autocorrect.
	That makes it even more suspicious.
	I just thought it meant...
	I'm joking, Suzanne, and I hope you didn't feel compelled to get another super chat to clarify that.
	Thank you very much, Suzanne.
	I think we all understood it was not a typo for erection.
	It would be totally out of context.
	Unless we were talking about buildings.
	The construction of downtown buildings and the erection of new buildings.
	Is Johnny Depp's lawyer questioning?
	Yes.
	So this is now Curry, was the original expert for Johnny, testified fantastically.
	And people are simping.
	I don't simp.
	I actually...
	Irrelevant.
	Her demeanor is very good.
	She was a phenomenal witness-in-chief.
	Now she's coming back as a rebuttal witness because Amber has made her testimony, had her experts.
	Dr. Spiegel, or some people are saying Dr. Smeagol, who, you know, setting aside physical appearance was not convincing.
	And now Amber is coming back as a rebuttal witness.
	They've got her in chief.
	They're going to cross.
	Who's this now?
	Let's look back.
	Okay, that's still Johnny Depp's attorney.
	Some of those domestic violence checklists that you were talking about.
	And now they're using...
	Dr. Curry, as a rebuttal expert witness, and she's good.
	Yes.
	What problems did you see?
	Well, doctor, first of all, they shouldn't be used.
	Thank you, W. Green.
	So we do have professional standards that require that we utilize instruments that are relevant and appropriate for the particular setting, and that we substantiate our opinions based on data that is reliable from tested, accurate, reliable tests for the purpose.
	So there's that.
	It's inconsistent with the ethics.
	And essentially, they just shouldn't be used.
	They don't provide us with the robust information that it would be expected.
	Yes, so...
	First of all, Dr. Hughes provided opinions based on these checklists, so she referenced especially the danger assessment scale several times throughout her testimony, stating that Ms. Hurt was in a very dangerous situation.
	We also have an ethical guideline and a professional standard that indicate that whenever there is question about the reliability and the validity, and in psychology, we use the term validity to talk about accuracy of any of the methods that we're using to collect data.
	we clearly communicate not only that there are limitations to our opinions, but we also need to provide the fact finder with information about what the potential implications or impact could actually be.
	Winston is here somewhere.
	For instance, if we use a scale that's idiosyncratic for the purpose, but we would first need to explain why we made that decision to not follow standard procedures.
	And then we would need to explain the use of this scale might influence.
	Introduce some potential exaggeration of this symptom.
	And so I'm trying to control for that that way, but that was one of the limitations of my opinion.
	You have to make it very clear.
	Transparency is really at the center of good science in general.
	Transparency?
	Did you say transparency is at the center of good science in general?
	We agree, Dr. Curry.
	What is response distortion?
	Response distortion is a term that speaks generally about an examinee approaching a test and providing answers that are either exaggerated or minimized, but in some way an inaccurate representation of their current mental status or their experience.
	What test do you believe that Dr. Hughes failed to acknowledge response distortion on?
	So, she administered the personality assessment inventory, which is similar to the test I gave the MMPI-2.
	It's that general broadband measure of psychopathology symptoms and personality traits.
	It includes several scales that are very good at detecting either exaggeration, minimization, or even trying to claim that you have unusually good qualities.
	On that test, There were clear indicators that Ms. Heard, very similar to the way she approached my MMPI, engaged in defensiveness.
	And in fact, there's a function that you can look at.
	We've got some good stuff to talk about during a break as well, so it won't be all depth all day.
	And then, because we want to make sure that somebody isn't elevating that scale just because they have such well-being, there are additional configurations.
	It's not ironic.
	It's accurate.
	Just need more of it.
	And so the casual discriminant function is sort of the name of one of these configurations, these equations that are done.
	And she was highly elevated on that.
	In fact, that elevation tells you that, no, this isn't accidental.
	This isn't because she's just doing so well in life that she has an extremely, extremely low amount of problems.
	No, this is an intentional over-reporting, or I'm sorry, an intentional Um, effort to minimize any, uh, appearance of having problems.
	Now you may have addressed this, but there was a reference to malingering.
	Yes.
	Malingering.
	So what's interesting about this herd's approach to different tests is that it seems to be influenced by what we call the face validity of questions on the test.
	So if a test looks like it's measuring PTSD, you see exaggeration on her validity scales.
	If the test has less face valid questions, For instance, the personality assessment with Dr. Hughes.
	I'm at work too, but people.
	Where she can't quite figure out what the questions are asking.
	They seem really banal in general.
	On those, you see extreme defensiveness, minimization of any potential pathology.
	And this is corroborated by the audio.
	I didn't hit you, Johnny.
	I slapped you.
	Minimizing.
	That was the one that I previously indicated for ease of explanation when the test results come out for how the person approaches the test.
	That test itself prints it as a percentage.
	And there's a really excellent scale.
	She's doing that face again.
	It's the fake calm.
	Exaggerating their symptoms of PTSD.
	It's called the atypical response scale.
	Oh, I like this.
	Go on, doctor.
	And the TSI2 is the revised version of this test.
	And that scale was improved this time around to really...
	Try to be a clean indication of, is this person exaggerating?
	And it puts questions in the test that are so unusual.
	They might sound like PTSD, but even the most severe cases of PTSD don't have these symptoms.
	And so somebody who's intentionally trying to exaggerate PTSD, or possibly unintentionally, but nonetheless who's exaggerating it, is likely to endorse These items, even though they're not real PTSD symptoms.
	Interesting.
	Tricks.
	Although Dr. Hughes correctly said there tends to be a negative skew when people have the high levels of distress that's associated with PTSD.
	So sometimes people score higher on this even when they do have PTSD.
	She scored so high.
	She's a liar.
	She's a liar, basically, is what she's saying.
	She's scored so high.
	It's like someone with borderline personality disorder trying to pretend they have PTSD for the manipulation side of it.
	Okay, yes.
	So, Dr. Hughes had diagnosed Ms. Hurd with PTSD back in 2019 when she began testing her.
	It wasn't until two years later, more than two years later.
	Ten days after I administered the CAPS-5 with Ms. Hurd, that Dr. Hughes held an impromptu evaluation session remotely with Ms. Hurd and administered the CAPS-5.
	Oh, really?
	She had previously diagnosed PTSD without using what we consider to be the gold standard PTSD diagnostic interview.
	Preparation.
	And confidence.
	And confidence.
	And again, when we're doing a forensic evaluation, it is an important responsibility and part of our ethics and professional standards are that we document everything to allow for transparency and full judicial scrutiny.
	And Dr. Hughes administered it correctly.
	She left huge sections, very relevant sections blank.
	There's no way to understand why she scored it as high as she did based on the information I haven't had breakfast yet, but I'll find time to eat at some point today.
	To explain your reasoning and implying their scoring procedure.
	It's a standardized test.
	And if you don't follow those standard procedures, it's completely invalid.
	Not only that, but it looks as though Dr. Hughes further invalidated it by trying to show that she had assessed for the childhood trauma impact.
	And she had said that she went back and asked the childhood We missed Kate Moss.
	Dealing with the important things.
	Canada constitutional abuses from malicious prosecution.
	Hyperbolic, on purpose.
	Okay.
	Oy!
	Viva Frye, live free shirt today.
	Oh, my battery's running.
	Oh, okay.
	So on the personality assessment inventory, so first she failed to mention that there were clear indications of response distortion.
	She also failed to mention...
	First liar, liar reference of the day.
	...heard scored in her score profile against their main scores.
	She did elevate a score.
	For the borderline personality disorder sort of section, but that in and of itself would not indicate a diagnosis.
	However, the configuration of her scores overall is consistent with that.
	And in fact, it's one of the diagnostic suggestions given by the test itself.
	And then also there's a configuration around Ms. Hurts trauma responses on that particular test.
	Which demonstrates that it is more likely that those symptoms were reported in relation to something in the distant childhood.
	It's more consistent with childhood chronic abuse than present circumstances or recent circumstances.
	Okay.
	I think you said in addition to the issues with her own testing, Dr. Hughes misrepresented your results.
	She did.
	Can you tell us how?
	Okay, let's hear this.
	I would say the main issue was that she said that Ms. Heard obtained a normal profile on my MMPI-2.
	You know, maybe we'll back up to Kate Moss during a break.
	Okay, so the profile was not normal.
	So Ms. Heard already had subtle elevations just by the test by itself as it came out.
	There were subtle elevations, but they were elevations that If the validity scales hadn't been as elevated as they were, you might have said this person has some traits, but this isn't necessarily at the level of a true pathology.
	However, Ms. Hurd elevated a scale that essentially is a defensiveness scale on this test.
	And when you're giving this test, you always are mindful of different norms or groups who may have similar profiles.
	And there are certain groups of litigants who tend to elevate this scale as well.
	So I had that in mind.
	However, Ms. Hurd elevated this so much that it was far beyond the mean for the litigants that are known to have the highest levels of this scale.
	This defensiveness scale.
	And when this scale is elevated to the level that it is, you automatically understand that it is very likely that those clinical scales...
	I keep doing this because I'm seeing it in my head.
	It looks like sort of an ECT.
	It's sort of these peaks you see on a graph.
	And when you see these peaks...
	And you have this huge peak over here for the defensiveness scale.
	What you know is that these peaks are artificially, they've been lowered or suppressed based on the respondent being so defensive.
	They still detected what's likely there for her, but it's not as high as it should be.
	So you make an adjustment.
	And the recommendation is that anything at 60 or above, we call it a T-score of 60. Or above is considered significant.
	Ms. Heard's were already over 60. Some were quite higher than that.
	And then you see a very clear profile.
	And that was how I got that.
	I had mentioned a 3-6 code type.
	Now, the test does its own correction also for some of the scores, but not the ones that are her main code type.
	With the test correction, she had a 1-3-6 code type, which is very similar.
	What is a 3-6 code type?
	A 3-6 code type is something that is researched and found to be highly correlated or probabilistic of certain behavioral tendencies and personality traits.
	And the traits with a 3-6 code type tend to be marked by a lot of externalization.
	Corn pop in the house.
	A lot of denial about one's own personal faults.
	Intentional or not intentional, but just extreme denial.
	Hostility that is strongly controlled and suppressed.
	The person may not even realize how hostile they are, but family members, those closest to them, are very likely to report that they lose their temper, and when they lose their temper, it explodes.
	We have sort of what we call a cookbook for these code types, which will...
	Provide you with all the information that's been researched to be associated with them.
	And our cookbook actually states that that 3-6 profile specifically tends to be associated with cruel and ruthless behavior, particularly to those who they perceive as less powerful than them and as coordinates.
	I get that joke.
	That's a good one.
	I conducted a very methodical analysis of the scores.
	I do this for every test, and I also did it when I was reviewing Dr. Hughes' scores.
	Yeah, so I don't know what antisocial personality is versus borderline personality.
	I created a 25-page outline just of her scores, and it's sort of a table.
	So I'll put the score.
	I'll do it in sections so that I can...
	Understand different groupings, different research studies, and I start with looking at all the validity scales.
	So I put in the score.
	I put, and I'll even color the table to show me if it's kind of in the high zone, moderate zone, or low.
	And then if it's low, is it a significant low score, or is it just low so it doesn't mean anything?
	And then I...
	In the right side, I put all the research data that I found on this particular scale score.
	And so I start with the validity scales, the way the person approached the test.
	Then I go down to essentially, we call these the first factor.
	So their overall sense of well-being and how well they cope.
	On this, actually, Ms. Heard's...
	She endorsed scores or endorsed items that were the opposite of PTSD.
	So really saying that she feels free of distress and that she views herself very well.
	So then I go down to control, self-control, loss of control, coping abilities, and I put in the scores that are associated with that and the research and the test development.
	Then I go down to clinical and personality pathology, and I look at all the scores that are significant there, first with the top-level main scores, then with all of the different sub-scores, again, citing the research, the meaning, the level of elevation, and what that means.
	And then I do comparison with different research groups.
	So for Ms. Heard...
	I did a section that looked at all sorts of different scores that have been implicated with a PTSD presentation to see if any of those were consistent.
	I can't remember how many there were.
	I think I put 13 on there, but I could be wrong.
	But I believe that there was only one that could even be.
	In some research is sometimes associated with it, but it was general anxiety, which turned out to be more trait specific.
	I looked at the scores that are typical of women with IPV.
	Hers were not consistent at all with those.
	I looked at the scores that were consistent with people who are frequently in litigation.
	Hers actually were very highly correlated with those.
	That tends to be...
	Also consistent with the 3-6 code type.
	And the reason for that is believed to be that they tend to perceive themselves often as victims who need to avenge wrongs.
	Were there other results...
	Elaine doesn't look happy.
	...to have misrepresented?
	The TSI-2.
	Yes.
	So, Dr. Hughes...
	Generally said that testing supported PTSD and that there was an etiology for her trauma of intimate partner violence.
	She did reference that essentially, I can't remember if she said that the trauma symptom inventory indicated PTSD, but she did say that the elevation on that validity scale is consistent with PTSD, And that's simply not true.
	That scale was designed and has been tested and shown to be there to show Absolutely.
	are not consistent with PTSD.
	Also Elaine.
	And even though when some people are experiencing PTSD, their distress level is so high that they'll engage in what we call a pride for help.
	And they may sometimes exaggerate distress.
	Again, when you're looking at scores as high as Ms. Hurd's, And then you're not seeing indications of PTSD.
	This doctor has to know the internet loves her.
	Where she doesn't know what she's endorsing, it's good evidence that her over-endorsement on that one test is because of the reason the scale was made, to detect exaggeration and feigning of symptoms.
	Is this a test that resulted in the 98 percentile score?
	Yes, on that atypical response scale.
	And what does that 98th percentile score represent?
	So that 98th percentile score just represents that 98% of people who take that test would not have endorsed.
	She scored more of those unusual items than 98% of the people.
	Top 2%.
	What did I just do here?
	My screen just got messed up.
	What is feigning again?
	Well, feigning is essentially exaggerating symptoms of a disorder.
	Yeah, absolutely Heather Locklear.
	Top 2 percentile.
	Self-report.
	If it were a good thing, it would be a good thing.
	What are you talking about there?
	So in any science and in psychology specifically, it's really important that we use precise language.
	Her testimony is fantastic.
	Well-prepared.
	...opinions as facts because when you are in the role of an expert witness...
	Or an expert in any setting.
	Essentially, a layperson may not be able to detect the difference between something that is a personal opinion that you're giving versus something that is substantiated by research data, test data, reliable test methods.
	So our ethics talk about, especially the specialty guidelines of forensic psychology, the responsibility we have to distinguish between data Basically, summarizing this, she's destroying Amber's expert test money, saying they didn't do a good job.
	They ignored certain tests.
	They only did certain tests after she did them.
	Do not cloak personal opinions or the self-report of an examinee.
	As an expert fact or somehow scientifically based, it is just a personal opinion or self-report of an examinee.
	Terry Firth, good observation.
	The self-report is essentially what the examinee tells you during the interview.
	Okay.
	When did Dr. Hughes do this most?
	She did this most when describing instances of alleged IPV.
	And there's also an issue there because one of our ethics also discusses the importance of relevance and withholding, essentially constraining our testimony to the data and not including private information, personal information that unnecessarily compromises the dignity of any of the litigants.
	She provided a lot of what was Ms. Hurd's report to her, the allegations of abuse when describing Mr. Depp, who she had not examined, when describing Mr. Depp's behavior, his motivation, There's no point objecting now.
	They're just going to look terrible.
	They look defensive even more so than normal.
	The good ones who justify their opinions and allow for questioning.
	Not whether or not IPB has occurred.
	And we certainly shouldn't go into explicit details about sexual encounters or other things that are highly prejudicial, shocking, and hard to forget.
	Dr. Hughes says that Miss Hurt has PTSD.
	Do you agree?
	I do not.
	Why not?
	The results of my multi-method comprehensive evaluation based on carefully selected, researched...
	Relevant test test instruments based on comparing those instruments to Ms. Hurd's self-report, observing Ms. Hurd's behavior over 12 direct hours of assessment, reviewing copious notes from prior therapists who indicated symptoms in their notes, reviewing the notes of Nurse Filotti, previously Nurse Orem, who spent, I believe, at one point almost two months with Ms. Hurd daily.
	And she met with her in person, Dr. Spiegel.
	there was no evidence of PTSD.
	She'll have it now.
	How is evidence of PTSD generally exhibited?
	Nightmares.
	Anxiety.
	Flashbacks.
	A change in functioning.
	That's what we're looking for.
	Again, I said we don't have a crystal ball.
	We're not wizards.
	We can't get into somebody's head.
	What we're looking for were their identifiable changes in the way the person engaged in their world.
	Were they able to keep a job?
	PTSD is an extremely disabling diagnosis.
	When a person has true PTSD, it is difficult for them to work.
	You'll see unemployment, job loss.
	It causes extreme levels of distress and impairment.
	There's divorce.
	There's isolation and estrangement from children, from family members.
	Extreme alcohol abuse, often a string of sudden DUIs when the person never had any before.
	They become homebound.
	They can't go to the store.
	They're certainly not going to events.
	They're not having success in their film career usually.
	They're not exercising every day, pursuing their hobbies, being avid readers, obtaining level 3 sommelier training, having dinner parties with friends, speaking to public groups.
	Those are just indications of very high functioning.
	I'd like to hire her to assess me.
	...for a decrease in functioning over time.
	That is inconsistent with that decrease.
	Checkmate.
	Hello, Viva.
	I finally caught you live from work.
	How wrong is your opinion of ownership of home?
	Oh, finally, we have an objection.
	So, the absence of objections is not a sign of giving up, or it's not a sign that they acknowledge that Dr. Curry's destroying their witnesses, which they don't have to acknowledge.
	We know it.
	It just means, basically, this witness has not veered too far out of scope.
	Or beyond the scope.
	She's not testifying on hearsay of what other people said as far as this judge has been applying that rule.
	And she's just in line.
	In line and thoroughly well-delivered, well-prepared expert testimony.
	PTSD is...
	People throw the term around?
	Like, who is that journalist who said he has PTSD?
	From firing, from testing a firearm?
	Who is that?
	The journalist?
	I know his last...
	Kuntz.
	Kuntz.
	Tom Kuntz.
	PTSD.
	It was back in the day.
	Yeah.
	It was Gersh Kuntzman.
	A journalist who said he fired an AR-15 and then claimed that he suffered from a form of PTSD afterwards.
	That was way back in the day.
	My goodness, that is six years old already, that meme.
	Watch this guy completely humiliate reporter who claims PTSD after firing AR-15.
	So yeah, PTSD is thrown around a lot.
	People suggest that they have it.
	It's a debilitating disorder.
	Not a disorder.
	It's a debilitating condition brought on by trauma.
	Ms. Hurd's PTSD was somehow triggered.
	What's your view on that?
	I would say that it can't be triggered if PTSD isn't present.
	Thank you very much, Doctor.
	We have no further questions, Your Honor.
	Look at this.
	Stare down.
	Come, bring your questions on.
	Cross-examination.
	Dr. Curry, I just want to make sure that we all remember, you're not board certified, correct?
	No, I'm not.
	And you've been licensed for how long?
	I've been licensed for 10 years.
	10 years, good.
	And you are being paid by Mr. Depp's legal team to be here, correct?
	Yes.
	A thousand bucks an hour.
	I actually don't know.
	Over a hundred thousand?
	I truly don't know.
	I don't do my own books.
	Over two hundred thousand?
	I don't know.
	Over $300,000?
	That would be way too much, but I do not know.
	It's possible.
	And I'm worth every penny of it.
	Just so we all remember, you had dinner at Mr. Depp's house for three to four hours with Mr. Depp, Mr. Waltman, Mr. Chu, and Ms. Vasquez, correct?
	When?
	I was interviewed.
	I asked if there was anything I could eat because at about three hours I started to get hungry.
	Mr. Depp then offered to order takeout for the entire team.
	You met with your team?
	You met with your legal team?
	Mr. Waldman, Mr. Chu, Vasquez, and Mr. Depp, correct?
	Yeah.
	And you had drinks as well.
	I actually don't know.
	I do remember that there were drinks.
	Do you recall testifying?
	Earlier that you did have a drink, a mule something?
	No, I remember testifying that there might have been a mule.
	A Moscow mule.
	No, it can't, Tech, no.
	We didn't have animals.
	No, it can't.
	She's meeting with the legal team that she's preparing an expertise for.
	It's totally normal.
	And you talked about transparency.
	I just want to make sure you had several designations, expert designations and reports in this case, correct?
	Yes.
	And in not one of them...
	Did you disclose that you had dinner and drinks at Mr. Depp's house?
	Elaine, it's her team.
	I don't like her answer.
	Of course I had.
	You're mischaracterizing what occurred.
	Dr. Curry, please answer the question.
	Not once did you disclose this in any of your reports.
	I did not disclose that I was interviewed as that standard procedure.
	I know.
	There you go.
	Checkmate, Elaine.
	But it's true that you have never gone to a client's house to be interviewed for an expert witness position.
	Oh, that's not true.
	Yes, because I never had a client that was essentially homebound because of their celebrity status.
	Oh, that's a good answer.
	And you talked to Mr. Depp for three to four hours before taking on the role of assessing Ms. Yeah, Elaine.
	It's called gathering information.
	She was suffering from any distress.
	I did not talk to Mr. Depp.
	I was talking to his legal team and he was there to observe.
	This proves nothing.
	just stayed silent and said nothing all day.
	Thank you very much, Lizzie.
	I don't recall what he didn't or didn't do.
	I was answering questions.
	Okay, now your expertise here is limited to whether Amber Heard ...suffers from PTSD currently.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, I was tasked with conducting an evaluation to determine Ms. Reed's mental status.
	Maybe you shouldn't have wasted so much time with Dr. Spiegel.
	Thank you very much.
	Now, after you had the dinner, you then provided a designation in February of 2021, in which you said, and this is long before you ever saw Amber Heard, correct?
	You said that Amber Heard, quote, "exhibits patterns of behavior that are consistent with co-occurring cluster B personality disorder traits, especially borderline personality disorder," end of quote, correct?
	And you didn't understand it then.
	I told you last time that I did not write that.
	Okay.
	And you don't know who did on the legal team, correct?
	No.
	Okay.
	And then I also asked you, if you may recall, whether you listened to the audio recording in which Mr. Depp taunted Amber Heard that she had a borderline personality disorder.
	Do you recall that?
	I recall you asking me that, yes.
	Did you recall listening to that audio tape?
	I don't recall Mr. Depp taunting Ms. Heard.
	I do recall...
	That he, at some point, suggested she might have that diagnosis.
	Okay.
	And that was back in these audio tapes back when they were together, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, you've never before been asked to testify or serve as an expert with respect to someone who has bipolar disorder, correct?
	No, as I previously stated, that's not true.
	All right.
	You had dinner with the team that you were going to work with?
	Not up here anymore.
	Shocking.
	Elaine, this doesn't establish a prior existing relationship.
	Alright.
	It seems, wow, they are the copyright trolls on anything related to Johnny Depp is quite interesting.
	The amount of copyright people Claiming copyright on live coverage commentary of this trial.
	I don't know what that is.
	Let me just get this here.
	Curry, are we frozen?
	No, we're not.
	Okay, geez.
	Dr. Curry could have responded to that question a little better, but she's not a very adversarial type.
	You had dinner with him for three to four hours?
	Yeah.
	It's called meeting with the team that I'm going to work with to see if I want to take the file.
	I'm not just for higher nonsense.
	He hires me and I have no say in this.
	I want to be with them.
	See what I'm getting involved with.
	I've got to go contest another one as well.
	There's an interesting phenomenon going on with the Johnny Depp trial.
	She's exacerbated with Elaine.
	Things she's answered before.
	You recall testifying in your deposition on March 21, 2022, correct?
	Yes.
	And you were under...
	Yes.
	And the question I just showed you on page 207, line five, have you ever been asked to testify or serve as an expert with respect to whether someone has bipolar disorder?
	And your answer at that time was no, correct?
	Thanks for allowing her to clarify, Elaine.
	Conduct.
	I can't.
	Yeah, I may have.
	It's difficult.
	After about 250 cases, it's difficult to remember specifically.
	All right.
	And have you ever been qualified as an expert in the area of IPV?
	No.
	And have you ever been qualified to testify as an expert in domestic abuse or violence?
	That's about to change.
	She's going to add one to her resume.
	Abuse or violence?
	Yes, that's been a component of testimony.
	Add one to the list.
	She now gets to say that she's testified as an expert in BPD.
	And the thing about what's juvenile about this line of questioning is every expert testifies for the first time at some point in their career.
	Their testimony is not invalid because it's their first time on any given issue.
	Line 16 of page 207.
	Have you ever been qualified as an expert in the area of IPV?
	Your answer on line 20 was no, under oath, correct?
	Then the next question, have you ever been qualified to testify as an expert in domestic abuse or violence?
	That goes into page 208, line 4. The answer then under oath was no.
	Okay.
	I forgot.
	You would agree that the literature is quite clear that trauma-based symptoms such as PTSD are complex.
	PTSD have symptoms that overlap with borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder.
	Oh, yeah.
	I agree.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And you would agree that it's important to use valid and reliable measures for an accurate diagnosis, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You chose, however, not to administer the structured clinical interview for DSM-5 personality disorders, the SCID.
	Is that correct?
	I did.
	Okay.
	And would you agree that that is a state-of-the-art structured clinical interview?
	Not for a forensic evaluation with a sophisticated examinee.
	But to determine if a personality disorder is present?
	No, not in this setting.
	You don't agree with that?
	I do not.
	And you don't agree that that is the gold standard assessment?
	She just answered it, lady.
	Do you want to let her say it again?
	It's a good one, but for treatment settings especially.
	Now, did Ms. Hurd, you said you talked about, you read all of the treatment records, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you recall reading the treatment records for the psychologist Bonnie Jacobs, who saw Amber Hurd over five years?
	I do.
	And did you see anything in Bonnie Jacobs' notes over five years in which she diagnosed Ms. Hurd with borderline personality or histrionic personality disorder?
	No.
	Now, you also saw the notes of Dr. Connell Cohen, correct?
	And you even attended his deposition, correct?
	Yes.
	All right.
	And he saw Amber for roughly two years.
	He was part of the Dr. Kipper connection, right?
	She's going to have a good answer for this, I think.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And did you see anything?
	In Dr. Cowan's notes, and did he say in his deposition that he diagnosed Amber Heard with borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder?
	No, I didn't see it.
	I saw the symptoms clearly delineated throughout his notes and in his deposition.
	He does not use diagnoses, so he would not.
	He's there to treat her, to give her therapy.
	In his deposition, he did not diagnose her with that, correct?
	Yes, and he also specifically stated that he does not use diagnoses.
	Oof!
	Elaine!
	Read the full...
	Yes.
	Not her deposition.
	I reviewed her notes in the transcript.
	All right.
	Did Dr. Anderson diagnose Ms. Heard with borderline personality disorder or is it history on a personality disorder?
	I don't believe she provided any diagnosis since she was a couples therapist.
	All right.
	Now, you've said quite a bit about Don Hughes, but do you remember how many years of experience Don Hughes has in IPV and domestic abuse?
	25. Who cares, Elaine?
	Quite a bit.
	Oh, she's board certified.
	29 hours.
	So was Spiegel.
	Did she not?
	Yes.
	Mostly interviewing.
	All right.
	And she admitted and she interviewed her therapists, Bonnie Jacobs and Conin Cowell, correct?
	Yes.
	And she also interviewed Amber's late mother.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And she administered 12 different tests.
	Over the period of that time, correct?
	Well, as I said, the majority of those were checklists, which are inappropriate for the forensic setting.
	I understand that's what you say, but she administered 12 different tests, correct?
	If you want to qualify them as tests, sure.
	Okay.
	And so, you disregard...
	No, I'm not even going to say that.
	Okay.
	Let's go to the CAPS-5 and PTSD.
	Now, you assessed Ms. Hurd's traumas in her life, correct?
	Yes, I did give her an instrument to assess for any trauma exposure throughout the entire lifespan.
	Yes, it's fine.
	And you wrote that Ms. Hurd's exposure to a traumatic event, namely one of the sexual assaults by Mr. Depp, more than satisfied this requirement.
	Did you not write that in your notes?
	That is not what I wrote in my notes.
	Do you have my notes?
	And you administered a structured clinical interview based on that trauma, correct?
	Not exactly.
	It's not quite right.
	Now, Dr. Hughes administered a full intimate partner violence assessment, correct?
	No settlement can be had.
	We can't assess for intimate partner violence.
	That's an event.
	Dr. Hughes administered a full intimate partner violence assessment, correct?
	She stated that, and that's actually something I'm rebutting today.
	Okay.
	And you reviewed her psychological testing?
	I sure did, yes.
	Okay.
	And are you aware that in September 2019, Ms. Hurd had a trauma-based symptom on many of those valid tests?
	Can you be a little bit more specific?
	Many of those valid tests.
	Which tests are you talking about?
	Do you have a recollection of that September 2019?
	She administered all of her testing in September 2019, so I'm not sure which one.
	Oh, except for the CAPS-5, which was 10 days after mine in 2021.
	Now, Dr. Hughes clinically evaluated those symptoms and established that Ms. Heard does have PTSD from the totality of the intimate partner violence by Mr. Depp, correct?
	That's what she stated, yes.
	No, no, it's a private attorney.
	They're not cheap, Elaine's team.
	No, Dr. Anderson's clinical notes that said Amber had come to...
	Objection, hearsay.
	I haven't even asked the question yet.
	You're referring to something...
	Are you going to read her notes?
	Well, let me...
	No, no, actually, I wasn't going to read her notes.
	Elaine sees a window to get a question in.
	You talked about danger.
	Do you recall that in your testimony?
	Yes.
	All right.
	Now, if...
	If a patient comes to you as a couples therapist with two black eyes, would you assess that there may be a potential danger there?
	Sure.
	Did you read Dr. Anderson's notes?
	I believe I did.
	Now, you administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2, the MMPI-2.
	Do you recall that?
	Yes.
	And you used that to determine whether Amber had PTSD, right?
	Not by itself, but it was a part of the data.
	Okay.
	And in the 60 to 70 T-score range for that test, which, quote, deliberate attempts to mislead are uncommon, end quote.
	Isn't that correct?
	Sorry, could you repeat that?
	In the T-score section of that, which assesses deliberate attempts to mislead.
	She scored a 60 on that test, correct?
	So there are multiple T scores for each scale, so I'm not sure which scale you're talking about.
	Okay.
	Well, we can deal with that later.
	So you would agree that you need to follow ethics and best practices in forensic psychology.
	Look who's talking about ethics now.
	Why is Elaine bringing this up?
	specialty guidelines for forensic psychology.
	Why is she bringing this up again?
	Specialty guidelines 1.02 states that forensic practitioners, quote, strive for accuracy, impartiality, fairness, and independence.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And specialty guidelines 1.03 states that you have to avoid a conflict of interest.
	Yes.
	Correct?
	Mm-hmm.
	Let's hear what you think the conflict of interest is, Elaine.
	That's not a conflict!
	You also did not list that you spent an hour with Dr. Shah, correct?
	That's incorrect.
	You say that the designation said that you During my deposition, Very little.
	I didn't spend an hour with Dr. Shah.
	There was an introduction with the attorneys present on Zoom.
	My time on that call was less than 30 minutes.
	But you still didn't disclose it, did you?
	In your reports?
	No.
	Why?
	Where's the conflict, Elaine?
	You have not been asked to testify about Ms. Hurd's behavior in the context of her relationship with Mr. Depp.
	Is that correct?
	I was asked to testify about somebody's behavioral mental status in general, so that can include behavior involved in a relationship with Mr. Depp, but not specifically.
	Yeah, she's trying to say it.
	She's trying to suggest it.
	Why would it be a conflict of interest to meet with the team that's mandating you?
	Why?
	Is it a conflict of interest to meet with the patients you're assessing?
	I cannot see why it would be a conflict of interest to meet with the team that is mandating.
	Unless Elaine is saying that this was...
	An independent court-appointed who should have been meeting only with both parties or with none of the parties.
	Did she meet with Elaine?
	I want to know if she met with Elaine.
	Elaine.
	Cannot presume intentions, but look, I know it's Velasquez, like Cain Velasquez.
	Is he still in jail?
	She's trying...
	Yeah, of course, she's trying to show bias towards debt, but why would meeting with the team to determine the scope of the mandate establish bias?
	Unless I'm mistaken, it was known.
	They knew who was paying her.
	The other team wasn't paying her.
	They know that.
	Spitballing.
	And then there's just...
	Muffins aren't board certified, are they, Dr. Curry?
	You're not board certified.
	You think being board certified is like the be-all and end-all of credibility of a witness, of an expert?
	But you're not board certified.
	Dr. Curry, this is your testimony from day 10 in this case.
	And if you can look at page 2710.
	Line 13. My question was, now is it your testimony under oath today that you have not been asked to testify concerning Ms. Hurd's behavior in the context of her relationship with Mr. Depp, including any abuse?
	And your answer under oath to this jury that day was, that's correct.
	Yes.
	I still agree with that to that question.
	All right.
	And you have not made any determinations, including any opinions, that Ms. Hurd abused Mr. Depp or Mr. Depp abused Ms. Hurd, correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	And in fact, you said that's outside the scope.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Of psychology.
	And you cannot testify whether Amber Heard suffered any emotional distress as a result of any of the defamatory comments that she has alleged Mr. Waldman made through Mr. Depp, or Mr. Depp made through Mr. Waldman.
	Absolutely.
	Correct?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Do you want me to read my response?
	Sure.
	Objection.
	I'm sorry.
	Hold on.
	That's okay.
	What's the objection?
	You want to approach?
	Okay.
	So here's the only thing that I'm thinking.
	Viva aren't experts allowed who are paid.
	Yes.
	And She was a court-appointed expert, from what I understand, but I don't think she was appointed for and on behalf of the court, but rather ordered by the court to conduct an assessment, an evaluation of Amber Heard.
	And I presume everybody knew that the Depp team is paying them because it's their expert, even if the court authorized it.
	So this dinner, I mean, it's so idiotic.
	I mean, if they're meeting with Amber...
	It's only a question of whether or not it's supposed to be an independent court expert paid by both parties or a court-ordered expert for the benefit of one of the parties, for the party.
	You have not made any opinion as to whether Amber Heard exhibits patterns of behavior that would suggest her allegations of abuse against Mr. Depp are false.
	Would you agree?
	No.
	I mean, yes, I would agree with that.
	Thank you.
	And you have not...
	No, that's all I've got.
	No further questions.
	That's all you've got, all right.
	A four-hour dinner with the party that's mandating her.
	That's great.
	You want to go with that for an ethics?
	How about what Spiegel did?
	But thanks for reminding the jury of the Code of Ethics again.
	Yes.
	What's that?
	It's a structured clinical interview.
	It's for rendering a diagnosis.
	It's best for treatment because you're asking direct questions of the examinee and about symptoms.
	So if you have an examinee who...
	Has a tendency to minimize, you're not going to get much information.
	Why didn't you use it?
	Because, well, first of all, I had a limited amount of time for my evaluation and I had already had to use just to complete the interview was extremely time consuming.
	And I had to even restructure it into handouts so that I could.
	Keep Ms. Hurd on track.
	I determined based on that.
	So this is where you would make an inference.
	So because I was having difficulty getting direct answers to my questions from Ms. Hurd.
	I had determined that creating forms of those questions would be a better use of the time, which it was.
	And then I further deduced that adding on the structured clinical interview would probably be unproductive, given that I had limited time and needed to use the best, most reliable methods for getting information in that time.
	You were asked about the APA specialty guidelines.
	Yes.
	Specifically 1.02.
	Yes.
	1.03.
	Have you complied with them?
	I have.
	No further questions.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Dr. Curry, you can have a seat in the courtroom.
	You're ready to go.
	Thank you, ma 'am.
	Okay.
	If we break.
	Now, the question is, do I go to the car and do a vlog on an article or do I just review the article now?
	We're just going to take our morning recess for 15 minutes.
	Do not discuss the case and do not do any outside research, okay?
	Okay.
	While they do the dramatic pan to the sick.
	Semper, Tyrannus, Virginia.
	Judge looks very concerned.
	What just happened?
	She stares.
	The judge looks at the jury leaving the room, assessing each and everyone.
	There's a commotion in the courtroom.
	No, there's not a commotion.
	It's just the jury leaving.
	People come in from the bathroom break, not realizing they have missed all of the action, and it is broken again from morning break.
	Elaine looks over at the judge, looks back at the jury, back at the judge.
	And cannot wait for this trial to be over.
	The judge gets into scheduling.
	I'm hoping to be here as early as noon, just in case with the fluid of the trial, I'm not sure what time we can get to that motion.
	Okay, just to let you know.
	They need to work on that.
	They're going to find out who the next witness is.
	So let's go ahead and take a recess until 1055, okay?
	Recess.
	Who remembers the term recess from elementary school?
	It was the most happiest time.
	Of the day.
	Recess.
	Oh my god.
	Political foolishness.
	I swear to you, I did not see your...
	Sick.
	Semper Tyrannus.
	It's back in the foreground.
	Remove.
	I swear to you, political foolishness.
	Oh yeah, get these off.
	I did not see your comment.
	Recess!
	And then when recess was over, saddest moment of the day.
	Okay.
	We used to play football.
	Nerf football during recess.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Being retired and disabled is a horrible thing.
	Trials like this will put me in my grave sooner.
	LMFAO.
	I know what that means now.
	Re.
	Gary Graham.
	Trials like this will keep you sharp, in tune with what's going on in the world, and I think it's a good thing to follow.
	If you only inundate yourself with bad news.
	Or the really bad stuff.
	That will be worse for retirement than anything else.
	I do not remember cookies, orange juice, and a nap.
	Now, we're on break for 15 minutes.
	I will not be going live all day today.
	Early dismissal, so I could only have a maximum of three and a half hours left to go live anyhow.
	This morning, people who are just tuning in, Tamara Lich.
	Judgment was read.
	And she's not going back to jail.
	The terms of her bail have been ratified of sorts.
	The new judge who heard all of this de novo heard the Crown said, I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the Crown that she breached her bail conditions and I'm not sending her back to jail.
	But said, look, I believe that reasonable social media restriction is justified.
	It'll keep people from getting whipped into a silo frenzy on social media, which goes to show you what the judge perceives social media to be.
	I don't perceive it to be a silo that whips people up into a frenzy.
	I perceive it to be a source where they interact and discover ideas, but to each their own.
	And said that the geographic limitations of preventing Tamerlich from going to Ottawa are...
	No longer justified given the current state in that there's no risk of a convoy reappearing, but that she should not be allowed to gallivant around the area where she allegedly potentially caused trauma to citizens.
	So she's not allowed going to the downtown core, but she can go to Ottawa for court hearings and to stay out of the downtown core, take her kid to university and whatnot.
	Now, what I do want to do is...
	I want to see if I can go back and find Kate Moss's testimony because apparently it was quick.
	Oh, was this it?
	For the record.
	My...
	I haven't seen Kate Moss in a long time.
	Let's go watch Kate Moss's testimony since everybody who's watching here did not see it because we were listening to me live mouth tweet the Tamara Lich judgment.
	Let's go see what...
	What Kate Moss has to say, and don't expect any of the juvenile simping or comments on one's physical appearance.
	Don't expect it, but let's just go back and see what they had to say.
	Do you swear for him to tell the truth under penalty of law?
	I can.
	Thank you.
	Good morning, Ms. Moss, or I should say good afternoon, your time.
	My name is...
	Professor Frick joke.
	Would you please state your full name for the record?
	Kate Moss.
	Miss Moss, where do you reside?
	She's British?
	London, England.
	From where are you testifying today, Miss Moss?
	London, England.
	Gloucestershire, England.
	Okay, close enough.
	Miss Moss, do you know Johnny Depp?
	Yes, I do.
	She smiles.
	She looks happy there.
	I had a relationship with him.
	Ooh.
	Oh, look at Jealous Amber.
	Uh-oh.
	Yes.
	Oh.
	She just blinked twice.
	Three times.
	From 1993, no, 1994 to 1998.
	And it was the best five years of my life.
	Miss Moss, did there come a time when you, while you and Mr. Depp were a couple, that the two of you took a vacation together to the Golden Eye Resort in Jamaica?
	Yes.
	What, if anything, happened when you were in Jamaica with Mr. Depp?
	Oh, this is interesting.
	We were leaving the room.
	And Johnny left the room before I did.
	And there had been a rainstorm.
	And as I left the room, I slid down the stairs and I hurt my back.
	How did you...
	I apologize, Ms. Moss.
	Please continue.
	And I screamed because I didn't know what had happened to me and I was in pain.
	And he came.
	Running back to help me and carried me to my room and got me medical attention.
	She's 48 years old if that matters.
	Did Mr. Depp push you in any way down the stairs?
	Are you crazy?
	No.
	What kind of bloody question is it?
	No.
	He never pushed me, kicked me or threw me down any stairs.
	Ms. Moss, have you ever before today testified in any kind of court proceeding?
	No, I have never.
	Why did you decide to testify today?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Let's be on the scope of what we just talked about.
	All right, I'll sustain the objection.
	Thank you, Ms. Moss.
	We have nothing further at this time.
	We greatly appreciate your taking the time to testify.
	Okay, dude, thanks.
	All right, you're free to go.
	Thank you, Ms. Moss.
	Thank you very much.
	That was it.
	And no cross-questions.
	Why?
	Because they know that Amber's a liar.
	I said this.
	I'm not...
	No, I didn't say this.
	I don't want to pretend to think I'm smarter than I am.
	Your Honor, we're calling Dr. Shannon Curry.
	All right, so let me go back to that.
	Okay.
	Just give us a moment.
	Yeah, let's just go all the way here.
	Sick Seba Tyrannus.
	You shall look at it for the entire 15 minutes of the break.
	You shall think about what it means.
	To tyrants come bad things.
	The motto of Virginia.
	I have to go look up the history as to why that would have been the motto of Virginia.
	Let me take these back out now.
	All right.
	So, that rage blinking.
	That was the testimony that was heard.
	My goodness, a lot of these testimonies that you'd think were going to be the most earth-shattering, internet-breaking testimonies are lame.
	That was lame.
	Let me see here.
	I saw rage in Amber or jealousy, but that might be pure projection, me seeing what I want to see because, you know, she got dressed up for that performance.
	I did see jealousy, but I might just be seeing it because I want to see it because I think it's there.
	But it might also just be there.
	So that's the answer to the story of that incident.
	I think that's the incident.
	Was that the stare incident where Amber had to get in the way of somebody to protect them?
	Let's take it to the chat.
	JustJC says, I'm biased.
	Maybe the entire chat is biased, but not JustJC.
	Did the chat see seething rage in Amber's eyes when Kate Moss was testifying about their having had a five-year relationship?
	Yes or no?
	And we'll see.
	Maybe everyone is biased except for the people who accuse other people of bias without potentially checking their own bias.
	We've seen it too.
	And daggers.
	So we've got yes.
	We've got no.
	We've got yes.
	One.
	Yes.
	Not biased.
	Amber was jealous.
	Yes.
	So it's interesting.
	Maybe we are...
	No, just jealousy.
	Okay.
	That's what we're saying, Pauly.
	So we all agree.
	My goodness.
	What's going on in that avatar?
	It's a very colorful avatar.
	I love how Viva drags the time bar all the way to way right to get back to live instead of just clicking the word live next to the volume button.
	What are you talking about, Fezzador?
	I'll look for that later.
	All right.
	What time is it?
	They said they're coming back at 10.50.
	Let's just read.
	Let's read one article.
	Maybe I'll do a separate video on this afterwards.
	Maybe I'll do a video on this afterwards.
	I'm going to remove the screen and go to share.
	You've got to see this.
	We'll go to share screen.
	Pat King.
	Okay.
	No, this is not on incognito mode, so I don't want to accidentally come along any Tweets.
	Messages.
	Okay, here, I believe.
	Let's see, are we in?
	I don't think we're in incognito here.
	Okay, I think we're in incognito.
	Let's just go.
	You've got to see a story that Reuters ran.
	That Reuters ran.
	Fact check.
	The World Economic Forum does not have a police force.
	I'm just going to cut that.
	I'm going to go to Google.
	Reuters.
	Fact check.
	WEF police.
	Listen to this.
	Here we go, people.
	Are we seeing the same thing here?
	Let me just bring this up.
	We are.
	Fact check.
	This is from May 24th, yesterday.
	Fact check.
	The World Economic Forum does not have a police force.
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	Social media users have falsely claimed that the World Economic Forum, WEF, has its own police force after police officers in Davos, Switzerland, were spotted wearing badges with the WEF logo.
	I'm going to save the punchline for you.
	Been falsely claimed that the WEF has its own police force after police in Davos, Switzerland, were spotted wearing badges with the WEF logo during the organization's annual meeting.
	Thousands of people have shared this across Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, here, here, and here, alongside with a photo of a Swiss police officer and a close-up of his left sleeve where there are two badges.
	This is Marjorie Taylor Greene, an individual whom they want to discredit thoroughly.
	By the way, that's not a World Economic Forum badge, by the way.
	Let's just remember the logo.
	Remember the WEF logo?
	This is not the WEF logo, Reuters.
	This is the World Economic Forum police badge.
	It's not the World Economic Forum logo.
	It's a little, just a tad more than that.
	And then we've got the WEF detainee Posobik getting pulled over.
	One has an orange insignia and the wording World Economic Forum, Police, and 2022.
	That's a little bit more than the first paragraph which said it was the WEF logo, you liars.
	But that's assuming anyone even got past the first paragraph, which I suspect 90% of the people who read Reuters thinking it fact-checked accurately did not do.
	This should freak everyone out, said one Facebook user on May 24, a private organization, the WEF, has its own police force.
	This organization is not a government, but they sure act like it.
	Where is their authority recognized?
	What authority do they have?
	End quote.
	The World Economic Forum is holding its annual Davos meeting between May 22nd and May 24th, where this year many of its attendees are worried about the current threats to the global economy.
	Oh yeah, they're so worried about it.
	Hold on, I gotta see what this, I gotta see what...
	Oh my god.
	They're worried.
	They're worried.
	They're worried for us people.
	Let's just get back to the punchline.
	Reuters fact check has previously addressed misinformation related to the WEF.
	Not checking it, because you guys are liars.
	On May 24, police in the Graudenbunden Canton, where Davos is located, the police told Reuters that the WEF police badge...
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You called it a WEF logo in the first paragraph.
	Now it's a WEF police badge.
	But don't worry, I'm sure they're going to have a good explanation as to why they have a WEF police badge.
	It's an additional one, redesigned every year by the region's own emergency services.
	They were told by the police that the WEF police badge, which they're now recognizing is a WEF police badge and not the WEF logo as dishonestly stipulated in the first paragraph of this fact check.
	It's redesigned every year by the region's Oh, okay.
	This serves...
	Oh, my God!
	They're telling you it's not true.
	This serves the team spirit for use around the annual meeting, end quote.
	The spokesperson said, adding, quote, the WEF organization does not have a police force.
	Who are you going to trust?
	Me or your own lying eyes?
	Moreover, the close-up of the picture of the officer's sleeve shows a second badge representing the Graundenberg Security Service.
	Okay.
	So the WEF contracted for its police force from an existing security service.
	That is not only not mutually exclusive, that's entirely logical.
	I mean, the fact that they subcontract out security forces does not mean that the WEF, which has its own police badge, therefore does not have its own police force because they subcontract their own police force from an existing security force.
	You're confirming the fact, you pathological liars.
	Badges marking the WEF annual meeting in previous years can also be seen...
	Sorry.
	Badges marking the WEF annual meeting in previous years can also be seen...
	Okay, so that's a link.
	Let's just see them.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	If I go look at these, I don't see WE...
	Oh, are we seeing the same thing?
	Yeah, we are.
	I don't see WEF anywhere here.
	I see Canton's Poliziae.
	And I don't see any WEF police on this badge.
	I don't know if this badge was worn with another one.
	Show us the previous years.
	Show us the previous years if ever there was also a WEF police standalone badge.
	Verdict.
	False.
	Can you imagine this?
	This is a fact check coming from Reuters.
	They've laid out all of the evidence to support the claim and they come to the end of the paragraph as they did in the beginning because when anyone reads this crap, First paragraph, last paragraph, skip over the body.
	They've laid out the evidence that the WEF police badge is not just the WEF logo, as they dishonestly asserted in the first paragraph, that it says World Economic Forum Police, that they're wearing that, that they've confirmed that they're wearing it, that it seems that they've subcontracted as their own WEF police, the Gründenberg police or whatever security.
	They've confirmed all of this and they get to the verdict.
	False.
	The WEF does not have a police force.
	Yes, it does.
	Yes, it does.
	And it may be subcontracted, but it has its own police force.
	They have their own damn badge that says World Economic Forum Police.
	The police badges with the WEF logo, lie, lie, lie, Reuters, are used by local officers in Grabunden.
	To mark the organization's annual conference.
	This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team.
	Read more about our fact-checking work here.
	Liars, liars, liars.
	Bold-faced, pathological liars.
	And don't believe me, I believe your article.
	World Economic Forum Police.
	Oh my god.
	It's atrocious.
	It's shocking.
	It's in your face.
	They are literally saying...
	Sure, you're seeing people wearing badges that say World Economic Forum Police that are subcontracted or whatever, hired through another security, but they're not World Economic Forum Police, you dumb bum.
	I mean, you'd have to be stupid to read the words on their badge and think the words said what you think they say based on the ordinary meanings of words and definitions.
	You would have to be foolish.
	And even if you got here, it's just the WEF logo.
	First of all, I'm not sure if that, like...
	Satanic-looking creature is the WEF logo.
	But I don't really see the WEF logo here.
	I see the World Economic Forum police badge.
	Liars.
	Pathological liars.
	End of article review now.
	End of article review now.
	That is gaslighting at its absolute finest.
	I know you think you see what you're seeing, but it doesn't say what it says it says.
	It says what we tell you it says, which is actually not what it says.
	It's just the logo.
	With police on their own badge.
	And the previous year's examples actually show that it doesn't say World Economic Forum Police.
	I think we should all call out Reuters for lying.
	Maybe...
	Do I still have the screen up in the back?
	Okay, I do.
	They said they were coming back at 10.50.
	I have got to break for my morning release of the morning pee.
	I have to pee.
	That sounded even grosser than it should have been.
	All right, we're back.
	They have some sidebar issue.
	Let's just pull this back up.
	Okay.
	How many people are heading to that sidebar right now?
	One, two, three, four, five, six.
	Average hourly rate, let's just say $1,000 an hour.
	That is $6,000 an hour right now that you're looking at.
	And that's just legal fees.
	That's not court costs.
	I once had a judge not warn me, but what's the word I'm looking for?
	Make me aware of the fact that setting aside legal fees, like extrajudicial costs, court costs.
	This was maybe eight years ago.
	Court costs are like $10,000 a day.
	The judge gets paid.
	The clerks get paid.
	You got to pay for that infrastructure.
	Six weeks of a trial.
	And I'm just going to average.
	Six weeks of a trial.
	Where's my calculator?
	Six weeks of a trial.
	And by the way, for everybody who's interested, typically a day of trial is a day of prep.
	Six weeks of trial is six weeks of prep and probably more because a six-week trial is a lot tougher to strategize, to organize, to orchestrate than a one-week trial.
	One-week trial, you have a half dozen witnesses and it doesn't...
	A week prep for a week trial.
	Six-week trial?
	Sometimes more than six weeks to prepare.
	You've got to summon your witnesses, prepare all of your depositions, all of your line of questioning for all of the witnesses.
	impossible to conceive of what goes into a six-week trial.
	Okay, I don't know what that is.
	I don't know what that is.
	So let's just say a six-week trial.
	And it was four days a week, so let's just say four.
	Times four days a week times six is...
	Okay, we got the six other than 24. Okay, so we got 24, 48. Let's just say 50 days of prep.
	50 days...
	How do I even do this?
	50 days of prep.
	You're going to have three lawyers a day on prep.
	10 hours a day.
	1,000 bucks an hour.
	10,000 per lawyer.
	I might be way off on this.
	10,000 bucks a lawyer times three.
	30,000 bucks a day times, let's just say 50. Oh, come on.
	30,000 times 50. A million and a half dollars?
	I think I'm actually under.
	I think I'm under what this trial is costing Johnny.
	So they have a sidebar.
	Let's just see Elaine.
	Just pay attention to Elaine.
	Pay attention to Elaine.
	She ganders over at Team Depp.
	She wishes she were on Team Depp.
	She's moving her shoulders nervously.
	She realizes this trial has not gone the way she thought.
	That in listening to Dr. Curry, she now sees many of the traits that she sees in her own client.
	She wonders why 2.1 million.
	Viva needs a producer to help.
	There's no question about this.
	I need a producer to cut some of these clips and then put them on the second Viva Clips channel.
	Johnny spent 50% on legal fees.
	Oh, by the way, that's legal fees.
	That's not experts.
	That doesn't include the experts that they have to pay.
	I mean, this has got to be a $5 million.
	I have no idea.
	$5 million?
	All right.
	Professional analysis of Elaine.
	Thanks.
	I mean, she's deflated.
	Again, someone's just going to accuse me of projecting.
	There's no way anyone on Team Amber can think the trial went well for her.
	No way.
	You could see Elaine.
	She can't get a question out.
	She can't get a question out without being leading, where they say, you know, objection.
	What was the word that they used?
	Well, there was hearsay.
	But Elaine couldn't get a question out because her witnesses were so bad that they couldn't.
	They couldn't elect the information that they're supposed to as witnesses, and I'm thinking Amber Heard in particular.
	You look at the confidence in Team Johnny, and look at the deflated nervousness in Team Elaine.
	Definitely not $100 million.
	No way.
	The salad bar.
	Johnny Depp thinking, my goodness, if I'm going to lose $65 million, Or $650.
	I don't even know which one it is.
	I'd rather lose it this way and at least get something of entertainment out of it than just have people steal from me.
	Steal from me!
	What movie was that from?
	People are stealing from me!
	True Romance.
	The producer of the movie says, how much did that movie cost?
	People are stealing from me!
	Why is Viva distracting us with this irrelevant gossip problem?
	Well, you're late to the show then because you didn't watch this morning, nor did you watch during the break.
	Why are you distracting us with distracting comments that are not founded in fact and reality?
	Who said Depp looks nuttier than Amber?
	Depp looks like he's playing a role of the coolest dude on Earth.
	Oh, you think?
	Okay, someone says he was parroting Dr. Evil.
	So that was not a 100...
	Okay, fine.
	I get it now.
	I'm an idiot.
	Nobody tips off Jack Sparrow.
	So what's the judge now doing here?
	Let's just see what we can do in terms of lip reading.
	I don't want to do it.
	I would have a dirtier sense of humor than I'm allowed to have on the interwebs.
	I was distracting.
	I was distracting the chat with Kate Moss alerts.
	Not to mention, no one is making anyone be here.
	Agreed, Robin.
	Oh, man.
	It's like distraction.
	Everything's a distraction from that which one person has a specific interest in.
	Love is the answer.
	I love you, Viva.
	Your retorts are gold.
	Gold, I tell you.
	The judge is not Rachel Maddow.
	I'm not making those types of jokes.
	Everyone's...
	Commenting on a demeanor like Dr. Spiegel, who's up there on the stand where he gets asked a question that he can't answer.
	He's like...
	There, you're not making fun of what someone looks like.
	They can't change what they look like.
	You're making fun of how they respond, which is demeanor.
	Amber Heard, she's beautiful.
	Fine.
	From a purely superficial physiological perspective.
	Or from a purely subjective perspective.
	But that face.
	That is, I'm trying to look cool.
	I'm trying to look like this is not phasing me.
	But if I don't open my mouth, like I'm going to clench my teeth and give myself TMJ.
	The Hows.
	No one, but something is making us be here.
	Who could miss a morning wake-up coffee with Viva Frye?
	Love, we love you, Viva.
	Thank you very much, The Hows.
	I like your avatar.
	I don't want to embarrass myself.
	I think the flag on the right is a western or prairie province flag.
	But I am going to embarrass myself.
	Flags.
	Cannot do.
	I don't find this...
	We're too slim.
	I hope I didn't give the person too hard a time.
	I don't find this boring.
	I find this entertaining.
	I find it interesting.
	Some of it's boring.
	Eight hours a day to listen to boring testimony that doesn't do anything.
	Amber Heard's examination and cross-examination was interesting.
	The expert Dr. Brown meltdown was as interesting as law is ever going to get.
	If you did not find that interesting, do not become a lawyer.
	And if you become a lawyer thinking it's always like that, do not become a lawyer.
	More often than not, it's like yesterday.
	Boring.
	And the best thing is, there's time in the day to talk about other stuff.
	So we have addressed the WEF stuff.
	What else do I have on my Twitter feed?
	There's more stuff on my Twitter feed that I'm going to address.
	We've addressed the Reuters being pathological gaslighting liars.
	Yeah.
	The badge says World Economic Forum Police, but they don't have their own...
	Then, by the way, that's fraudulent misrepresentation.
	Okay?
	Reuters, if you're right...
	It's fraudulent misrepresentation by the WEF, and some might even say potentially illegal, to impersonate a police officer.
	If they don't have their private police force, to have a badge that says World Economic Forum Police is impersonating a police officer.
	I think that's a crime in pretty much every jurisdiction.
	Ooh, did I just think of the checkmate for Reuters and the WEF?
	Hmm.
	This is a long sidebar.
	The judge...
	Looks like she's addressing Team Depp.
	No, now she's addressing Team Rottenborn.
	And also, you know, in as much as it's tempting to make fun of someone's name...
	But why am I...
	I don't mean to take these...
	Have your discussions.
	I'm not trying to...
	WEF police can detain people.
	Well, no, Matt Deckard.
	Because they're not police.
	Don't be fooled by that badge that says World Economic Forum Police.
	They're actually...
	Another security force.
	You have to look at the other badge and ignore the one that says WEF police.
	As if, it's like, yeah, I don't have security.
	I don't have my own police force.
	That's not mine.
	I mean, I hired them for a party, but they're subcontractors.
	Well, for that evening, they are my security.
	So I don't care if the WEF subcontracted this police force.
	For this event, it's effectively a WEF.
	WEF police force.
	So much so, they have their own official badge.
	There is some bad news that I can't even make fun or light, and I just can't discuss it.
	But, you know, Tamara Lich, you have to find something of a silver lining in it, but you also have to...
	You can laugh so long as you know what the ultimate objective is, and that is to...
	None of this should ever happen again, but there should be political repercussions.
	For everything that has been done to Canada in the last two and a half years.
	And if there's not, be careful who you vote for.
	Be careful who you date.
	If you enter into the relationship voluntarily...
	Yeah.
	Hellfire Kitchen by Rob Hellfire says yes.
	That looks like a Tim Burton avatar.
	Yep.
	I ain't that good.
	Tamara is free, but her rights are still being infringed upon.
	No question, but all rights of all people released on bail terms are infringed.
	It's just that under the law, the infringement has to be as minimal as necessary to achieve its goal and no broader than necessary because you are limiting the rights and freedoms of an otherwise legally innocent person because they have not been found guilty in a court of law yet, only charged.
	Vive la France.
	Yeah, there was once, I think someone came to Quebec and said, at Viva Frye, will you be covering James Topp arriving in Ottawa?
	Yes, I just don't know if I'm going to be in Ottawa when it happens.
	Oh, maybe I should actually see where he is now.
	Maybe he wants to pop on and say hi.
	Let's see if I can get James Topp on.
	Can you pop on during lunch for an update?
	Let's see if we can do that.
	Yeah, this is alongside.
	My goodness.
	I want to know what they're talking about.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	Yeah, we'll see if we can get it.
	Okay.
	Oh, we've got a response.
	Maybe 12.45?
	What time is it now?
	It's 11.10.
	Oh, hold on.
	What time was that?
	Eastern.
	Let's see if we can do this.
	I think we can make it happen.
	Yeah, let's see where...
	He was supposed to be on.
	He's been on twice.
	Once for the long interview, once for an update.
	Supposed to be on a couple weeks ago, but...
	It didn't work out.
	And sometimes things just don't work out because scheduling is just too impossible.
	Very recently started watching you, Viva Frye, and just got to say your viewpoints make this interesting.
	Thank you very much.
	Most people don't know that I actually have relatively extensive litigation experience, 13 years.
	All of which was not an unhappy relationship.
	It just was not the relationship that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.
	Vivant, c'est le général de Gaulle who said, vive le Québec libre.
	I don't think I was alive at the time.
	I wasn't conscious if I was alive.
	It was exquisitely controversial because it was France basically coming to Quebec to interfere with Canadian-Quebec politics to encourage, incite, motivate Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada.
	Viva is a heavily financed co-opter.
	I'm curious what that means, Sue Slim.
	Viva is awesome.
	Thumbs up for fine Canadian brother.
	Mike Harrington, I like your avatar.
	Okay, let's see who's in the chat today.
	It is time for the Golf Voice.
	This gentleman wearing the blue tie.
	He looks like he might have to go to the bathroom.
	It's not clear.
	It's not clear.
	He's thinking, why did I not go to the bathroom when I had the break before?
	Now the camera who has taken an interest in him, whoa, you're allowed in with cameras like that?
	Okay.
	The crowd exceedingly seeming to be women, at least on this half of the crowd.
	One wonders if they are Johnny Depp fans or Amber Heard supporters.
	We cannot know without seeing their shirts and whether or not they have any Team Johnny shirts or Team Amber shirts.
	Or if they are wearing the hashtag Amber Turd shirts, which would be a clear indication that they are not there to support Amber Heard.
	We pan to the left.
	Seems to be disproportionately women again.
	I'm going to have to freeze frame and do a count.
	Oh, we've seen this guy, the guy with the blue shades, the blue blockers, has been in there from the beginning.
	Okay, we got DUI guy on the far left in the gray suit.
	Okay, here we go.
	I'm sorry.
	Let's get the jury first, right?
	All right, we ready for the jury?
	Now the jury's coming in.
	Viva, I just published multiple links to CERN on Locals for you.
	I mean, I know what CERN is.
	That's the electron thing where they spin the atoms around.
	The atom particle accelerator.
	Okay, I'm going to have to go see what it is.
	Let's see what we got here in the chat.
	Too early for cocktails.
	Blue tie guy has an eye.
	Let's see here.
	Santo had its own police force, remember?
	Oh, yeah, the collider.
	That's what it is.
	The neutron collider thingy thing.
	Where people were saying, don't worry, there's a small chance it creates a very small black hole.
	It won't be enough to swallow up the universe.
	I want to see what co-opter meant.
	I'm curious.
	Okay, I am not bringing up the simp chats.
	Ready for the next witness?
	Okay, who's the next witness?
	Okay.
	I'm sorry, what?
	What?
	Will, we just got here.
	I can't go to the bathroom now.
	What in the name of high school football?
	We're calling Johnny Depp back up.
	Bear in mind, people, he's already testified in chief and been cross-examined in chief.
	This is rebuttal witness testimony.
	Just a reminder, you're still under oath, okay?
	Still under oath?
	Oh, because when did they swear him in?
	This is to rebut evidence that Amber adduced in her evidence.
	Because there's two claims here.
	Johnny's claim and Amber's claim.
	Oh, he's got the voice.
	Oh, I'm so glad.
	We heard a lot about some statements that Mr. Waldman made.
	Do you remember that?
	Oh, yes.
	Yes.
	And Mr. Waldman is your attorney or was your attorney?
	Yes, he is.
	Could we please pull up Defendant's Exhibit 1245?
	Let's look at the tie selection.
	Look at the beautiful...
	This is already in evidence, so permission to please publish.
	If we could scroll down to the second page.
	Why can't we just admit that they have their own police force?
	Mr. Doug, do you see the statement here attributed to Mr. Waldman?
	Adam Waldman, Depp's lawyer, said afterwards, Amber Heard and her friends.
	When was the first time that you saw this statement?
	All right, so bear in mind what's happening here, people.
	Okay, let me think.
	She says, when's the first time you saw this statement?
	Amber's claim for defamation, which survived a motion to strike, which was presented Monday morning?
	I don't know what day it is anymore.
	Johnny Depp's team, after Amber's evidence closed, made a motion to strike her counterclaim, saying there's not even enough to present to a jury that would allow any reasonable jury...
	To come to a conclusion of guilt based on the evidence adduced as a matter of law, which is why the judge, you can dismiss it now.
	Judge said, no, I don't want to make that decision.
	Put it to the jury.
	Because one of the questions is a question of agency, vicarious liability.
	The judge is not saying Waldman's statements are not defamatory.
	That's going to be up to the jury to decide.
	Johnny's defense is that Waldman, when he made these statements, was not my agent.
	He was not my employee.
	He was not acting for me in his capacity as lawyer.
	And therefore, even if the statements are defamatory, they can't be attributed to me because he's not my employee.
	I do not have vicarious liability for the defamatory, the allegedly defamatory statements made by Waldman because I don't have that link with him, that agency link, that employment link, whatever.
	The judge basically said, look, the question of agency is we're going to leave it to a jury.
	The question of defamation, I'm going to leave it to a jury, so not striking it now.
	But now Johnny is going to try to prove that he did not authorize or order or instruct Waldman to make that statement.
	Mr. Depp, when is the first time that you saw this statement by Mr. Waldman?
	Here we go.
	When it was published.
	The first time that I ever saw this statement was in August.
	It was when the piece was...
	Published.
	Get to it, Johnny.
	Come on.
	When she, August 2021, I was countersued by Ms. Hurd.
	It was the first time that I saw any of these statements.
	Can we please pull up Defendant's Exhibit 1246?
	Now, by the way, first time I saw it, if I'm cross-examining, is not the first time I became aware of it.
	This is also already in evidence.
	Might have only seen it when it was published, but he might have said he's going to make the statements.
	Or the third, perhaps.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Depp, do you see this statement that's attributed to Mr. Waldman here?
	Let's see the statements.
	Quite simply, this was an ambush, a hoax.
	These statements.
	The officer came to the penthouse, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after scene.
	When the countersuit was filed.
	And could we please go to defense exhibit 1247?
	And again, this is already in evidence.
	Just if anybody's paying attention to language.
	When was the first time you saw the statement?
	Do you see the statement attributed to Mr. Waldman?
	I do indeed, yes.
	And when's the first time that you saw this statement?
	This is the same.
	It's the counterclaim to August 2020.
	After you saw these statements for the first time, did you form an understanding as to where they appeared?
	I didn't know as to where they had appeared, these statements.
	In what publication?
	know off the bat I didn't know exactly It just seemed like a lot of word.
	Salad to me.
	I didn't know where they'd come from or, I mean, where they ended up.
	He might have known where they came from but didn't know where they ended up.
	Mr. Dev, do you recall Ms. Heard testifying that you did not assist her in getting her role in Aquaman?
	Yes, I do, yes.
	And what is your response to that?
	It's not.
	It's not exactly true.
	Do you know when Ms. Hurd first auditioned for Aquaman?
	Strangely, I know the date.
	Well, yes, I do know the date.
	Because I was scheduled with my band, the Hollywood Vampires.
	Sell it, Johnny.
	Two shows at the...
	Roxy, which is a place in Los Angeles, to rehearse for a- we were invited to play at the Rock and Rio concert, which is a huge rock and roll festival.
	So we did the two shows to go to Rio and play there.
	Ms. Herd wanted to come with me, and Whitney, her sister, had come as well.
	While we were there in Rio, we were rehearsing, getting ready for the show.
	Miss Hood informed me that she would have to be going, she would have to get back to Los Angeles for an audition.
	What's the word when they don't answer the question?
	Non-responsive.
	Basically after our two-hour show or whatever, we would have to get on the plane immediately.
	To make it back to Los Angeles for this audition.
	And that audition was at Warner Brothers.
	It was whatever film it was.
	And when were you performing at the Rock in Rio?
	Oh, sorry.
	Yeah, that was the...
	I believe it was the 24th of September.
	In what year?
	That was 15. What do you understand happened after Ms. Hurd auditioned for Aquaman?
	After Ms. Hurd's audition or possibly auditions for Warner Brothers and...
	Puffy Joe, this is exactly my impression as well.
	I don't think he likes being looked at by this many people.
	The film was going to be, Warner Brothers had said the film was going to be shooting in Australia.
	And Australia was a, for a misheard of, that was a potential problem, which...
	Jackson, Your Honor.
	Okay.
	So, Puffy Joe, I get the impression, I have been looking, again, it might be biased, or it might just be because of what we've seen him.
	He does not like being looked at by the jury.
	Because right now, if one were to attribute this type of demeanor to guilt or knowing he's done something wrong, it wouldn't be manifesting itself right now at this point after his main testimony, certainly not on this subject.
	He just looks like he doesn't like being gazed at in real life by this many people in real time in the flesh.
	So they're objecting to...
	Why?
	it's either going to be hearsay because it's going to be why Amber had a problem going to Australia.
	Now let's see here.
	I've got an interesting tweet message.
	I thought I found him a little pretentious in his early...
	Part of the testimony.
	But that's, again, maybe because I didn't know what his demeanor is actually like, but one...
	Uh-oh.
	Uh-oh.
	She knows what the objection's about.
	He...
	Well, what's she...
	Did she just listen to something in her earbud?
	Oh, no.
	She was listening to Elaine.
	Oh, boy.
	I still don't get the joke of Australia not existing.
	Three-piece suit.
	Very nice.
	Perfectly, perfectly done up tie.
	That looks like a full Windsor.
	Johnny, Johnny, can you hear me?
	If you can hear me blink twice.
	One.
	Damn it.
	Twice.
	There we go.
	Okay, his team is watching.
	Let me see this.
	Viva, there are no extra costs associated with most trials paid in civil trials in Virginia or elsewhere.
	I apologize, Mr. Duck.
	Could you please continue?
	What happened after Ms. Heard auditioned for Aquaman?
	I was informed by Ms. Heard that the film was going to be shooting in Australia.
	And that was of...
	Concern to her.
	And because it was of concern to Warner Brothers.
	Why?
	So she asked if I would...
	Because I'd had a multi...
	For a few years I'd had a multi-film deal with Warner Brothers.
	And so we'd been in business together.
	I knew these people.
	I'd been on films with them.
	So she asked me if I would speak to them.
	I made a phone call and I spoke to...
	Objection hearsay, Your Honor?
	I don't understand.
	He made the phone call.
	I don't know if he said anything.
	I think he was going to say who he spoke to.
	Okay.
	Overruled at this point.
	I spoke to...
	The three upper echelon, Warner executives, Kevin Sugihara, Sue Kroll, and Greg Silverstein.
	I can see how people find this hard to listen to.
	I can appreciate...
	Your Honor, hearsay?
	I can appreciate...
	Next question.
	What was the result of you speaking with those individuals?
	Well, I can only say that ultimately she did get the job in the film.
	So hopefully, I suppose I had curbed their worries to some degree.
	Oh, they don't want him testifying that he got her the job on Aquaman.
	Do you recall Mr. Depp, do you recall Mr. Depp, that she saw you consume 8 to 10 MDMA pills at once, while you were in Australia in March of 2015?
	Yes, I do remember that.
	I have to remember her saying that I took a handful.
	Objection beyond the scope question.
	Sorry, I just thought it was extra residue.
	Sustaining objection, next question.
	How many times have you done MDMA in your life, Mr. Depp?
	Lots.
	Actually, not that many times.
	I would say in my lifetime, maybe...
	Six.
	In my lifetime, MDMA, six, seven.
	Okay, I want to see the cross on this.
	And how much MDMA have you done on those occasions?
	Dude, you don't do more than one tablet, or whatever it is.
	Not enough to...
	Have an effect?
	Not enough to...
	Properly...
	Well, not enough to properly experience what the chemicals are supposed to do to you.
	Have you ever consumed 8 to 10 MDMA pills at once?
	Are you crazy?
	No, I have not.
	And why is that?
	Because that would kill you.
	Because I'd be dead.
	I'm pretty sure I'd be dead.
	I think one would die.
	Sorry, I'm going to pee in my pants.
	Because I think one would die, and therefore I would not do that.
	Mr. Depp, I'd like to show you some pictures from the home in Australia that Ms. Heard testified about.
	Could we please pull up the women's exhibit 1817, which is already in evidence?
	Have you ever snorted as much cocaine as Tony Montana in the end of Scarface?
	No, why not?
	Because you'd be dead.
	Mr. Depp, do you recognize what's depicted in this photograph?
	Yeah.
	Yes, I do.
	It's my blood on the floor.
	That's the downstairs bar of the house we rented in Australia.
	God.
	And can you please show the jury where you were sitting when Miss Heard threw the two vodka bottles at you?
	If you assume that Johnny Depp is telling the truth, this has got to be purifying for his soul.
	If I touch this thing, we'll make a mark.
	Yes, it will.
	Okay.
	So?
	Which finger are you using, Johnny?
	You should, for effect, use the damaged finger.
	That one here was over here.
	Nobody, okay.
	And it was in pretty much when I was turned around, they were on swivels, so when I was turned around towards the bar, I'm facing the bar.
	When I turned around this way, the chair, this chair here was in pretty much exactly this same position as this chair.
	It was when I was facing Miss Heard, who was...
	If you're looking at the photograph, she would be about here.
	Could you draw a line in the direction where Miss Heard was relative to where you were sitting?
	Yes, absolutely so.
	This image is only to show where the broken bottle is, and I guess they're going to get to the blood drops on the floor, because this is when he got his finger.
	Crushed, smashed, severed off by the thrown vodka bottle.
	Thank you.
	Approximately how far away from you was Miss Hurd, if you can recall?
	I would say it was probably 10, 12, 15 feet maybe.
	10 feet, 12 feet.
	Approximately where was your hand when the vodka bottle hit it?
	It was leaning.
	My arm was leaning on the marble bar right there where the imaginary seat is.
	And leaning.
	Just leaning back.
	Thank you.
	But I tell you something.
	He's reliving it.
	But he's finally getting to tell it to the world.
	I have no idea what MDMA does.
	I think this is...
	Vindication for him and also it's like...
	Exploded first bottle.
	It lets the demons out finally.
	It went past my head.
	And the second bottle hit right up here where my hand was resting on the marble bar.
	Can we please pull up Defendants Exhibit 1820?
	Mr. Depp, do you recognize what's depicted in this photograph?
	This is behind that very bar.
	Who took these pictures?
	And what do you see on the floor in this picture?
	That's my blood.
	I see what looks to me like some kind of napkin.
	It looks I'm not doing any of this stuff people.
	I do not condone any of this behavior.
	Do you know how that bloody tissue got on the floor?
	It fell off my hand.
	Oh god, I have a finger.
	Remind me about cutting my finger.
	Sustained.
	Do you know how the blood got on the floor, Mr. Doubt?
	Yeah, it fell out of my body.
	It came from my dripping finger.
	So that's why the tissue is, I'm 99.9% sure since it is, it looks like he's got blood on it as well as what I held my finger with.
	Do you see the wall on the left side of the photograph?
	I do.
	Was there a wall-mounted phone on that wall?
	On the left side of the photo?
	No, I didn't know.
	No.
	Who?
	I mean, if it's a rented place, they would be easily able to determine if there was an actual phone on that wall.
	Could we please pull up Defendant's Exhibit 394, which is already in evidence?
	It depends what it is.
	If it's a picture of the finger, we don't want to see it.
	But you have to show it to the jury.
	Mr. Depp, do you recognize this text message?
	Okay, fine.
	I do.
	What is this message?
	It's a text to Dr. Kipper.
	I'm just reading through.
	Stop it, Mystic.
	That makes my legs hurt.
	This is my text to Dr. Kipper, who had just happened to be in town, telling him that I've had it and that I just lost a finger, a fingertip.
	How long after your finger had been injured did you send this text message, if you can recall?
	It's hard to tell because when I look at the timestamp, it's delivered 3 /7 /2015, 5 o 'clock.
	But I know that because of Australia time, it was the 8th and it was probably, the whole thing lasted probably until about 2 p.m.
	Oh, God.
	That was when Kipper was called.
	Jerry was brought in.
	Jerry Judge, sorry, excuse me.
	So do you have an estimate as to how long after your finger had actually been injured that you sent this message?
	I don't think it was very long.
	I think it was probably within the next, I'm sure it was in the next half hour.
	So I would have had to sneak into a...
	A bathroom, locked myself in to type this out.
	How were you able to send this text message to Dr. Kipper in the state that you were in?
	That's a fair question, Vicki.
	Well, he wasn't available at the time, so just to thumb your way through, don't you?
	I would not say no to Rogan.
	How long after sending this text message did you see Dr. Kipper?
	Two hours.
	I don't recall, but I think it took them probably 30 minutes or more, 30 to 40 minutes to get there.
	And what did Dr. Kipper do when he first arrived at the home?
	Applied pressure.
	The first thing he wanted to do is inspect the damage of my finger and try and...
	Figure out exactly what had happened, how it happened.
	And what did you tell Dr. Kipper about how your finger had been injured?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	We've discussed this several times.
	See, this rule of hearsay makes no sense.
	What did you tell Dr. Kipper?
	It's a statement made out of court, and it's a statement that can never but be made out of court because it was made out of court, and I made it.
	This is where I lose it with my understanding of the hearsay rule in Virginia as being applied by this judge.
	What did you witness with your own mouth say to somebody else?
	Hearsay?
	No.
	No.
	Not in any realm of the world.
	But...
	I say but.
	But if you want...
	I don't understand how it's hearsay.
	How it can even be hearsay.
	How did you lose your fingertip?
	She cut it off.
	Okay, what did you tell the doctor?
	Hearsay.
	No.
	Did he lose it on his right finger?
	So that would not affect guitar.
	I wouldn't say no to Jordan Peterson either.
	Everybody loves a discussion.
	Yeah, I don't know how your own statements can be hearsay.
	And not statements that he himself heard.
	Even that I don't understand as hearsay.
	Okay, what did you hear with your ears?
	I heard them say, I'm going to kill you.
	I heard them say, I ran over the dog.
	That doesn't mean they ran over the dog, but I heard them say that.
	Now, true hearsay would be, what happened to the dog?
	Well, Timmy told Jimmy that Timmy ran over the dog.
	Did you hear that?
	No, but Jimmy told me that Timmy said that.
	You need both hands to play true.
	But if you use a pick, at least, you know, it doesn't affect the digit.
	Look at these.
	Look at these fat sausages for fingers.
	I can play piano, despite what these things look like.
	But, um...
	I have never run over a dog, Nightwolf.
	I ran over a rabbit once.
	We were speeding to the hospital because a friend was having an allergic reaction.
	And I thought it was life or death.
	And I was driving, not speeding, but just driving on a country road.
	And a beautiful little freaking rabbit.
	Like, I don't see rabbits.
	I see a rabbit as I'm driving to the hospital with a friend.
	Dr. Kipper was treating your finger.
	Unfortunately.
	What did you tell him about how your finger became injured?
	Um...
	I told him.
	I told him that there was obviously...
	I mean, when you saw the damage in the house and the blood everywhere, I mean, obviously there was serious damage done.
	There would be no point in lying to the man.
	He'd been through it with me and, and I served before.
	I told him that she had thrown a bottle of vodka and smashed my, smashed, He's trying to protect Amber.
	He would have protected her had the damage not been undeniable.
	But a good chunk.
	I miss it.
	Mr. Depp, you heard Ms. Hurd testify about an alleged incident of abuse on your honeymoon.
	Do you remember that?
	I remember her testifying that, yes.
	And when did you and Ms. Hurd go on your honeymoon together?
	I believe it was somewhere in the neighborhood of August.
	Yes, but Law& Crime doesn't have Viva.
	Maybe end of July, August.
	I'm not quite good on the exact date.
	Do you recall the year?
	It was 2015, I believe.
	And where did you and Miss Heard go on your honeymoon?
	We took the Orient Express from Bangkok, Thailand to Singapore.
	And what happened while you and Ms. Heard were together on the Orient Express?
	There were times when it was very...
	Agreeable, very nice.
	And then there were times when something had become dissatisfactory for her and she would start the rant, the blooming of a fight.
	We would be on deck there, and at one point, it didn't, I mean, I don't remember it lasting long at all.
	I just remember that I took a pretty good shot to the face, to the eye, to somewhere up here.
	So I had a bit of a shiner.
	But it all went and ended and then everything got fine again.
	We'd go to dinner and it was all fine.
	Did Ms. Heard ever apologize to you for giving you the Shiner?
	I don't recall.
	Can we please pull up Plaintiff's Exhibit 162, which is already in evidence?
	Mr. Depp, do you recognize this photograph?
	I do.
	It was with the, yes, the chef and the maitre d' and the staff were asking if they could take a photo with us and they've been very kind.
	So where was this photograph taken?
	That was in the...
	Yes, that's towards the back of the Orient Express.
	That's in the back train bar compartment.
	And just out back, you could smoke on the sort of caboose.
	And what, if any, injuries do you have in this photograph?
	I think the eye's a little bit bugged out.
	If you will.
	How did that happen?
	These things could happen very quickly.
	It's a question.
	This is rebuttal evidence.
	Some of it might overlap with examination in chief.
	How did that happen?
	I believe he was about to explain.
	Yeah, I think Johnny's doing fine.
	I do think he's telling the truth, so it's harder to lie when you're telling the truth.
	I'm sure it hit me.
	Is that better?
	Does this picture accurately reflect what you looked like on that date?
	It's a bad question, but whatever.
	I don't look at myself much, but it certainly looks like me with a black eye.
	Does this picture appear to have been photoshopped in any way?
	Oh, snap!
	No.
	That's a direct implication of Amber Heard's identical images that were photoshopped to make one look redder.
	Could we please pull up plaintiff's exhibit 1301, and this is a new one.
	One, Your Honor, so this is not in evidence.
	Okay, let's hear this.
	New evidence.
	So this is, a lot of it's going to overlap, but this is rebuttal testimony to what Amber Heard testified, her evidence.
	Let's see, let's see this photograph.
	Yes, this is the staff, it's the manager and his staff at the Raffles Hotel in Singapore.
	And before we left, They asked if they could take a photograph with us.
	And when was this photograph taken?
	Well, that would have been, we were off the Orient Express.
	We stayed in raffles, I believe, a couple of days, a few days.
	And then from there we flew to San Francisco.
	So this photograph was taken after the photograph we just looked at?
	This photograph was taken after the photograph in the dying car of the train, yes.
	Your Honor, I move plaintiff's exhibit 1301.
	Let's see this picture.
	Happy honeymoon.
	31st of October.
	No objection, Your Honor.
	Even if she is being honest, you would not want to be making this face when someone's testifying about it.
	I see pretty much the same.
	I can't see enough here, but maybe under the left eye?
	The area in here is swollen and yeah, there's a bit of a shiner there.
	Thank you.
	We can take this down.
	Oh boy.
	Devastating for my case.
	Who's she looking at now?
	I didn't understand that question.
	Do I remember her saying that?
	Yes.
	Oh, I remember her saying that.
	Three times.
	Yes, I do.
	He looks angry.
	Do you have any understanding as to what Ms. Heard was referring to?
	Objection, hearsay.
	Calls for speculation.
	Yes, I do.
	As Kate Moss, Kate testified as many, many years ago, and what exactly what happened is what she said happened.
	I recall Speaking with Ms. Hurd about that very incident, because of the downpouring of rain, because it was raining very heavily that day, Kate slipped.
	And I recalled the story to her.
	Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
	May we approach Your Honor?
	So, by the way, it looks like James Topp is confirmed.
	Can you send me the stream?
	It looks like James Top is confirmed for 12.45 today.
	If this ends earlier or a little later, everyone, spread the word.
	After James Top, I'm going to call it a day because I've got to pick up the kids at 2.30.
	Can't leave the stream running unattended.
	I've got to set up the stream for tonight.
	Tom Woods is coming on for the sidebar.
	But James Top is coming on at 12.45, people.
	So share this link around, let people know, and then we'll have an update.
	On James Topps' Walk Across the Country.
	March for Freedom.
	Viva, you do make your show inclusive.
	And that we all have important contributions.
	I'll make it easy for Mr. Rottenborn.
	Mr. Rottenborn took the story and Turned it into a very ugly incident.
	All in her mind.
	I said that about the sex.
	Where I pushed Kate down any set of stairs.
	Yet she's spewed this three times before.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Ms. Hurt simply testified that she had heard a rumor.
	Oh, that's not what she testified.
	Don't testify for your witness, Rottenborn.
	Overrule the objection.
	Overrule the objection.
	And warn him not to testify for the witness.
	I was drawn by Mr. Rottenborn's voice.
	What was it?
	So what specifically had you actually told Ms. Hurt about the incident with Ms. Moss and the stairs?
	Very simply that she had...
	We were in Jamaica.
	Yes.
	I had left our bungalow about three minutes prior to her.
	I was standing outside and suddenly rain was just coming down.
	Amber said that he pushed her down the stairs.
	Monsoon.
	And then I remember looking and seeing Kate coming out the door and there were three little...
	Wooden stairs and she slipped her legs went up and she landed directly on her coccyx and her lower back.
	So and she was obviously physically in pain and she was hurt she was crying so I ran over and grabbed her to make you know to make sure she was all right.
	That's that's it that's the that's all I ever But that's the whole story.
	Remind me about the twist of something negative.
	I've never heard a rumor of that before Miss Hurd grabbed hold of it.
	Twisting actual events to give it a negative spin.
	I called that on the cavity search.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	And how would you describe your relationship with Whitney when you were in a relationship with Ms. Hurd?
	I liked Whitney very much.
	Initially, I mean, when I first met her, I liked her very much.
	And grew to love Whitney.
	Very much.
	Because I always, it seemed...
	Whitney, Amber's sister, Whitney seemed to always get the sort of dirty end of the stick.
	And I felt bad for that because it wasn't new.
	It had been there for life.
	That seemed pretty obvious.
	So I took to Whitney.
	Very, very quickly, very easily.
	She was a very sweet kid.
	She was wonderful.
	What do you mean that Whitney got the dirty end of the stick?
	She got picked on by her sister.
	Her abusive, manipulative, controlling, dominating sister.
	If I'm writing his answer.
	It's kind of a strange combination of loving sister, trusted sister and friend.
	And then lackey.
	And then, you know, either the punching bag or the dartboard or the recipient of some rather demeaning and ugly words.
	Or she would have wine thrown in her face.
	And who was the source of those?
	Demeaning words and the wine that you just referenced.
	It would be Amber heard her sister.
	And how do you know that?
	Well, I witnessed quite a lot of it.
	The wine in the face was something that happened in New York, which I think that even made it into the papers.
	Go on.
	How did you first learn about that incident?
	Objection to hearsay.
	In detail.
	I think they missed it.
	What else did you observe of Miss Hurd and her sister Whitney's interactions during your relationship with Miss Hurd?
	It was just constantly up and down, but I, you know, I could...
	I could sense, I could feel that Whitney was trying to please her sister, trying to be up to snuff, and it just seemed like she got shot down.
	Jackson, Your Honor, this is gone beyond the scope of the question.
	Yeah, I mean, sustained.
	Your Honor, I asked what he observed, you know, between them.
	I think this is responsive to that.
	And his testimony is to what Whitney felt is...
	I'll sustain the objection.
	Who's this lawyer?
	I have not seen her before.
	Camille didn't get a perm.
	Did you ever see Miss Hurd physically attack Whitney?
	Yes.
	I've never seen any physical blowouts between them.
	tons of verbal beyond the scope um I've certainly seen Miss Hurd grab Whitney, push her around.
	There were a number.
	There were half a dozen times when we, some of us, whoever, whoever was in the General vicinity would have to leave.
	This is at Orange, when Whitney and Amber were living at Orange.
	Whitney and her boyfriend at the time, Sean Krzyzewski, and we actually had to leave the apartment and wait in the car while they fought.
	When you say fought, do you mean...
	Physical.
	And when you said Ms. Hurd would push Whitney around, do you mean that physically push her or metaphorically?
	Metaphorically push her.
	Yeah, I think you mean...
	You heard Whitney...
	Oh, Elaine's angry.
	...that she lived in Penthouse 4 at the Eastern Columbia Building for a time, correct?
	That is correct, yes.
	How did Whitney come to live in Penthouse 4?
	I gave it to her.
	My recollection when Whitney first came to stay at the Eastern Columbia building in Penthouse 4 was she and her boyfriend Sean had broken up and she needed a place to go.
	And so Amber asked if she could stay in Penthouse 4 and I said of course.
	How long did Whitney live in Penthouse 4?
	A year and a half.
	It was well over a year on and off.
	Did you ever ask Whitney to move out of Penthouse 4?
	No, I did not.
	Why did Whitney ultimately move out of Penthouse 4?
	Objection?
	Foundation?
	When did she leave?
	Department, Your Honor.
	He was living there.
	Oh, overall.
	Amber told her to go.
	She got jealous.
	Whitney moved out of Penthouse 4 long before the marriage.
	And it was due to an argument that Ms. Heard and Whitney had had, which had to do with Whitney working at the Art of Elysium with Jennifer Howell and those people.
	Nobody cares about the details, but bottom line, Amber told her sister to leave.
	Amber asked her to leave.
	Get out.
	Where did Whitney live when she moved out of Penthouse 4?
	My understanding is she went to live with Jennifer Howell.
	I don't know who Jennifer Howell is at this point.
	Your Honor, I know you anticipated having a motion at noon.
	You can keep going.
	Okay.
	What's the motion that they anticipated having at noon?
	I have a bit.
	Okay, that's okay.
	Mr. Depp, do you recall hearing testimony during...
	Ms. Hurd's case from Mr. Mandel.
	Who was Mr. Mandel again?
	Yes, I do.
	And who is that?
	Mr. Mandel is my former business manager of 17 and a half years.
	Oh, yeah.
	He was the guy that was angry, miffed of having gotten terminated.
	At a certain point, I discovered had been...
	Embezzling quite a lot of money.
	So I had to take action against him and my lawyer of 17 and a half years, as they were in cahoots, as it were.
	People were asking if Amber got any of that money.
	Yes, Joel Mandel.
	A video deposition yesterday.
	Okay, fine.
	Yeah, got it.
	With me, they made their settlement.
	But yes, that was a very...
	Joel Mandel is a very bitter man who ended up with a lot of money that I worked hard for over the years.
	Do you recall Mr. Mandel testifying in this case that you do not spend very much money on charity?
	That you do not spend very much money on charity.
	The curly-haired lawyer has been there since the beginning, watching more than me and you, and you're still not up on who these people are.
	Wow.
	Yeah, because I haven't been watching it every day.
	Doing my best.
	So the curly-haired lawyer has been on the team the entire time.
	I haven't even seen her sitting next to him.
	I've seen...
	Camille to one side, there was a blonde woman in the back, and then the guy on the left, the guy who looks like the guy from Happy Gilmore.
	You will not make this putt.
	Can you imagine finding out that people have just been stealing from you?
	It's a problem.
	You get to a point in life where you have so much money, your project becomes to make sure that people don't steal your money because you have so much and they just take little bits here and there.
	You won't even notice.
	I wouldn't last to remind you, my question was, what is your response to Mr. Mandel's testimony that you do not spend very much on charity?
	Um...
	My response to that is Mr. Mandel is a very bitter man.
	One thing about me, myself, personally, with regard to charity donations, sending money to a charity, I prefer...
	I would rather that my name were not on it.
	I don't want the name to be the...
	Because Mandel said he didn't donate a lot of money.
	I donate without my name being involved.
	Because I don't see that that's important, my name being there in terms of money.
	Now, if I am able to...
	When I visit hospitals or if I'm able to meet with Make-A-Wish children, I've held on to the relationships that I've held on to within the Make-A-Wish Foundation and the Children's Hospital and various other places.
	Then, obviously, my name is involved.
	When we held premieres in Leicester Square, Amber so wants her name on it.
	She wants her name on donations made by other people.
	Elon Musk, Johnny Depp.
	When it was a public, let's call it donation or whatever, I would talk to the studio.
	I would talk to Disney.
	You got to pick your charity properly.
	We talked to whoever the studio was well before the premiere and make the premiere a benefit that would...
	Once we did what we benefited, we did a benefit premiere for Great Ormond Street Hospital.
	We did a benefit, a couple of benefit premieres for the Make-A-Wish Foundation.
	I mean...
	If you can turn a premiere with that many thousands and thousands and thousands of people there into a benefit, it works and it helps.
	But it wasn't presented under my name.
	It was Disney's doing this or Warner Brothers is doing this.
	I'm not looking for the...
	Pat on the back, as it were.
	If I can make it happen, great.
	But I don't need the pat on the back.
	I don't need the adulation.
	I don't need the attention.
	Did you hear Ms. Hurd testify that one of the charities she donated a portion of your divorce settlement to was the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles?
	Yes.
	What is your relationship with the CHLA?
	Objection, Your Honor.
	You're relevant.
	Alright.
	I don't know where this is going.
	But it's interesting.
	Who's he looking at?
	He just looked at somebody.
	Now he's looking over at the jury.
	Looking over at the foreperson.
	It is at this moment that Johnny began questioning.
	Is this trial going as well for me as I think it is?
	The jury seems to be responsive.
	I don't want to look over and jinx anything.
	He's looking down at his finger, longingly remembering the tip that is no longer there.
	I don't know what the heck he's doing.
	It's pretty, This is the gossipy part.
	Amber is so toxic with everyone that she gets into a fight with her sister and kicks her sister out of Johnny Depp's penthouse mansion.
	The donations.
	So let's see here.
	ACLU is a fake charity.
	So allegedly, hashtag no defamation.
	So we know they should be viewed with suspicion.
	Most take a large vig off every donation.
	So there are ways of verifying your charity as to what percentage goes to administration, fundraising, and what goes to the actual programs.
	And sometimes it's shockingly disgusting.
	Fundraising.
	Is the most disgusting way of siphoning donation dollars for selfish ends.
	Go check out the proportion of every cent on the dollar that goes to fundraising.
	And when you see something like 25% for fundraising, well, we've got to raise the funds.
	And so we go make a party with lots of booze, good food, alcohol that we contract with our buddies and our friends and use their promotion companies, use their entertainment companies.
	And then meanwhile, 25 cents on every dollar goes to promotion instead of to the actual programs.
	But they say it's necessary because we have to raise the money.
	So we have to have these great events to attract donors.
	When really, it's just a way of, in my humble opinion, laundering out the money so you can have these fancy, all-you-can-eat, all-you-can-drink gala events when you could probably raise just as much money without throwing opulent, extravagant...
	fundraising activities.
	I do not have nice things to say about the ACLU either.
	But you could go to Charity Navigator to get assessments of charities.
	What is your relationship with the CHLA?
	I'm a big donor.
	I show up to dress like Jack Sparrow.
	I've had a relationship with the CHLA for probably 20 years or so.
	And what's the nature of that relationship?
	Well, essentially, you know, sometimes there are make-a-wish kids who are in the hospital there.
	And their wishes to...
	Objection, Your Honor.
	What's your relationship?
	I go there often.
	I try to help there.
	I try to show up and entertain the kids.
	And he sounds like he's either...
	Someone's going to say he's so smug that he thinks that children's dying wishes to see him.
	Others are going to say he's so modest.
	He knows that that's what they want.
	And he doesn't want to say it because it's embarrassing.
	I happen to opt for the latter.
	I think he wants to say there are sick kids and their wishes to meet me and I show up to do it.
	But it sounds cocky and arrogant to say something like that to someone who doesn't want to say it like that.
	I ain't saying he's a philanthropist, but okay.
	He goes to donate his time to kids.
	That's what I think he's almost embarrassed to say.
	Back to the gallery.
	Who are those two gentlemen who are clearly blocking the view of the people behind them?
	The next time they should say, may I sit behind people who are grossly shorter than me so that you can see the trial as opposed to being blocked by big, broad shoulders?
	I know this from experience because I'm a small man.
	Oftentimes can't see the show.
	I'd like to take you back to exactly six years prior to this week, the week of May 21st through May 27th, 2016.
	What happened at the beginning of that week?
	May 21st.
	excuse me, May 20th.
	May 20th.
	We're talking 2016, yeah?
	Yes.
	May 20th, the afternoon of May 20th, afternoon evening, my mom...
	Passed away.
	Is that what this is going?
	...made her exit.
	She'd been fighting cancer.
	Numerous times and for many years and she fought all the way to the end.
	And so my mother passed away on the 20th of May.
	Which does bring instant perspective into one's mind.
	I think they do.
	They have to.
	I spoke to Amber that night.
	I called her on the telephone, explained to her that my mom had passed, that issue had passed, and that I thought that the best thing we could do was to That's a gratuitous accusation, Judge JC.
	If people don't want me interacting with their comment, don't post a comment.
	If I disagree with a comment, I'll bring it up respectfully.
	And I never seek anybody on anybody.
	Everybody knows that.
	May 27th.
	I was not in Los Angeles.
	I was on the way to on tour and that was when Ms. Hurt went for the restraining order.
	Oh, yeah.
	Also, that was the day that Alice Through the Looking Glass, a film I'd done, was opening.
	The Tamara Litch hearing is over.
	And I updated the title.
	Yes.
	How would she have known that?
	I told her I was going on tour.
	That was well established.
	How long were you going to be out of town on that tour?
	Two to three months.
	And did Miss Hurd know how long you'd be out of town?
	I don't know if she knew exactly how long I'd be out of town, but it was a pretty extensive tour of Europe.
	How did Ms. Hurd's actions on May 27, 2016 affect you?
	Changed everything.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Oh, it didn't change everything?
	I'm sure if you could wait until the objection.
	Your Honor, this is one of the key dates.
	I am no god.
	I am a mere mortal with as many foibles and flaws as every other human out there.
	But I do tell you, I don't think I've ever attacked anybody.
	And in fact, I so don't attack people when the crowd responds, like on the Twitter exchange over the weekend.
	I genuinely feel bad.
	And specify to everyone, don't make fun of people on superficial, trite things.
	And then I DM'd the individual and we made sure we made up.
	Made sure we made up that there was no misunderstanding that it was not what was going on.
	Viva also does not mind showing and admitting to ignorance when it happens.
	The sign of someone over 42. Well, 42 is the meaning of life, as we know, from a book that I have never read.
	Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
	I know it's in there.
	I know it's in there.
	I just have never read the book.
	Let's see here.
	Dragon Sage?
	I concur.
	I certainly strive to be fair.
	The first lesson anyone learns in life is that of fairness.
	Try to cut a sandwich in half and split it among two kids.
	The first thing they're going to go for is fairness.
	The answer is 42. Someone said that they didn't find Johnny's comments from a few years back to be nice.
	I didn't hear anything that I would have thought responded to that description.
	So someone had said that Amber's hair looks like a blonde poop emoji, and now I see it.
	Not making fun of the way someone looks?
	I am observing on the swirl of the hair today, which looks like a blonde poop emoji.
	We don't know if that was done on purpose.
	If she's trying to reclaim the Amber turd all her own, it is going to be called the blonde turd.
	The turd swirl.
	Yeah, so let's see.
	Booyah!
	We got a new sub.
	Oh, jeez.
	Someone has come downstairs.
	They have found me in the office.
	True, human are mere mortals.
	Dragons are immortal.
	I've never met a dragon before.
	Yeah, here, look at this.
	You put some eyes on that swirl of a hair?
	I think there's a meme in there.
	Okay.
	So I don't know what's going on.
	What's the sidebar about?
	12.17.
	We're going to break for lunch.
	I think they're going to break at 12.30.
	They had some motion, which I don't know where it's going to be.
	When we break for lunch, James Topp is going to come on for an update, and then I'm going to call it quits for the day.
	Let's see what we got here.
	Her hair looks more like a croissant.
	Okay.
	Keep saying what I thought.
	I thought that was going to come up.
	I'm sorry.
	What has it been like for you to listen to Miss Hertz testimony at this trial?
	Frustrating.
	Hurtful.
	I thought that would have been sustained.
	What is the relevance?
	But let's hear it.
	insane It's insane to hear heinous Accusations of violence,
	sexual violence that she's attributed to me, that she's accused me of.
	I don't think anyone enjoys having to split themselves open.
	And tell the truth.
	But there are times when one just simply has to because it's gotten out of control.
	horrible.
	Ridiculous, humiliating, ludicrous, painful.
	Savage, unimaginably brutal, cruel, and all false.
	Also, I wanted...
	No human being is perfect, certainly not.
	None of us.
	But I have never in my life committed sexual battery, physical abuse, all these.
	Outlandish, outrageous stories of me committing these things and living with it for six years and waiting to be able to bring the truth out.
	So this is not easy for any of us.
	I know that.
	But, um, uh...
	No matter what happens, I did get here, and I did tell the truth, and I have spoken up for what I've been carrying on my back reluctantly for six years.
	Thank you.
	No further questions.
	Did you want to take lunch at this point?
	Okay.
	All right.
	Let's do that.
	All right.
	Ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take lunch this time.
	Do not discuss this case with anybody.
	And don't do any outside research, okay?
	Darn it.
	That...
	That...
	Look, some people are going to say that was acting.
	Other people are going to say that was authentic.
	And don't break anything on your way out.
	Thank you.
	What is that supposed to mean, Your Honor?
	Hold on, seriously, what does that mean?
	break anything on the way out um Chat, what did the judge mean by that?
	Since you are back on the stand, do not discuss this case with anybody to include your attorneys at this point, okay?
	If you could just have a seat back there.
	We do have some other issues to take care of.
	Before we take care of the third-party motion, can I have attorneys come forward on...
	I'm going to say, you know, maybe he went into it a little bit dramatically, put it in quotes, but insane is the way, you know, if there's a response that I would have, like a reflex, not to, you know, not to get into using psychiatric disorders glibly, insane would be the word.
	It's like, you're listening.
	If Johnny Depp is telling the truth and Amber Heard is lying.
	You're listening to someone who you were married to, lived with, lived through this, you had a life together, now come up on the stand and say that you did a cavity search on them for drugs when you were in a stupor looking for your drugs, that you assaulted them with a bottle a la Gone Girl?
	Still haven't seen the movie.
	It's insane in the clinical sense.
	It's like watching someone you love fabricate nonsense.
	And if he lived through the abuse that he says he lived through, that he's got the scars to actually prove, the medical notes to actually prove, to hear this person then twist events from the past into horrific, fabricated, you'd have to be insane to say these things.
	Insane would be the word for me.
	But the business about her twisting...
	You know, twisting events into something sinister, disgusting, and awful.
	You remember, when she was talking about the cavity search, and that was the first part of the outlandish, I say, what's the word?
	Salacious, extravagant claims of abuse of the worst kind.
	I'm like, I could foresee a world with them where, you know, they do and talk certain ways when intimate.
	And I'm not into any...
	There's no confession through projection here.
	I could conceive of them, when being intimate, playing certain games, that she can then, like, people who are into spanking, well, one person, if they want to be insane and then twist it into abuse after, it says, yeah, and he struck me while we were doing things.
	Physically abused me.
	When, at the time, they might have been into that type of sexual practice.
	The cavity search, I'm like, okay, I can see if they're talking dirty to each other, like, that's how they do it.
	What I couldn't imagine is that if he did, in fact, violate the sanctity of her body, purportedly looking for drugs that he was accusing her of having hidden, that she just laid there and looked at the ceiling and let him search her cavities.
	I mean, my reflex at the time, and I almost felt bad for having the thought, is like, on the one hand, you're denying someone's story of their alleged assault.
	Part of it's like...
	If someone's pathological, they're going to go back and turn what was a dirty, sexual, romantic, sordid event into how can I use it against him six years later for the first time ever to bring it up?
	So there's that.
	And then the bottom line?
	Johnny has evidence.
	Amber, evidence is not credible.
	Amber simply lacks evidence.
	Let me see if I can get James Topp on a little early.
	Give me one second.
	Where's the...
	Oh, there it is.
	Okay.
	They broke for lunch early, comma, if you're available now, comma, we could go live as soon as you can, period.
	So that's it.
	But, you know, the idea...
	Kate Moss fell down the stairs.
	Let's five years later try to turn that into Johnny Depp pushed her down the stairs.
	The underlying fact is there.
	She fell down the stairs.
	Now let's go make it into something sick.
	Something abusive.
	Go back to that, you know, in the trailer.
	Let's just say they're getting kinky and they're doing something and then he does something like, you want me to look there?
	And then they're into it.
	Six years later, turn it into something sordid sexual assault accusations.
	What was the other one?
	The bottle accusation was so...
	This is not true.
	Don't spread rumors.
	Don't spread rumors.
	It's not hard before things get out of control on the interwebs.
	The bottle, Gone Girl allegation, that is such a serious accusation, such a serious allegation, such a serious form of assault.
	If you don't have evidence to substantiate it, a doctor's visit, a medical report, photographs, and all that you have is raising it for the first time during a trial, sorry, yeah, Johnny has evidence to substantiate his claims.
	Amber does not have evidence to substantiate the most egregious, serious of accusations.
	And that's a problem.
	So, yeah, that's it.
	Anyway, that was good testimony.
	Powerful, and it ended on it.
	And what's interesting, I could have seen the judge sustaining the objection.
	Relevance.
	What difference does it make what he feels like having heard her testimony?
	It's not relevant to the accusations.
	How he feels as a result of the trial is not relevant to the evidence for the trial.
	I could have seen her sustaining that objection, letting him go and letting him end on it.
	It might indicate who she thinks she wants to give him the benefit.
	She thinks he's a victim.
	One victim has had the right to explain their allegations of abuse.
	Johnny should have his moment as well.
	Let's see what we've got here in the chat.
	The Depp team has a chat up on that laptop.
	Well, I have no doubt that they're watching.
	If they're watching anybody, it's Emily Baker or Legal Bytes.
	Because...
	So, and Larry Fancher, I'm not going to read the words.
	The accusation wasn't with the broken bottle.
	Her testimony was, because I think I made this mistake or confounded the two, she was concerned it was broken because there was broken glass on the floor.
	She allegedly cut her arms and her feet on it.
	She was concerned that the bottle with which Johnny was doing what she alleged he did was broken.
	Broken or not?
	I mean, broken, it's...
	Life-altering physical injury.
	Not broken, it's life-altering physical injury of a different order.
	Okay, so we've got 10 minutes before James Topp gets here.
	So, it's like, and I'm not trying to be glib, no exception.
	For anybody who's had certain medical procedures, you know that like...
	A doctor's finger in certain parts of your body is excruciating.
	A bottle of that type of assault, I mean, that's life-altering trauma.
	And then no evidence of that, but you have three pictures of Johnny passed out with the ice cream on his lap.
	You have pictures of broken lamps and not broken bodies.
	And not only that, but in the face of those allegations, you then have evening appearances with the most immaculate, Impeccable.
	And yes, beautiful face.
	Not a scratch on it.
	Not a swollen nose.
	Not a split lip.
	Nothing.
	Not a bruise on her back.
	So it's the absence of evidence in the face of serious allegations is a serious, what's the word in dearth?
	Paucity.
	That was the word that Fauci used.
	Paucity.
	I don't think it applies here, but it's a serious problem.
	You can't make those allegations and then say, yeah, I don't have pictures of the split lip.
	Broken nose, bruises on the back, physical damage to my body.
	But here's a picture of a lamp that Johnny wrote on.
	So, yeah.
	What did that last comment by the judge mean?
	That's what I'm trying to figure out.
	Don't break anything on your way out.
	Anyone who knows in the chat, what did that last comment mean?
	I am surprised that Depp's lawyers did press Amber not getting...
	I am surprised that Depp's lawyers, I don't know if you meant did or didn't, did present for not getting met or producing doctors to verify the abuse.
	So I'm not sure if you meant did or did not, but one way or the other, she didn't have it.
	They don't even need to ask her.
	Ask her why she didn't, which was my reflex.
	Why did you not go to them?
	What's she going to say?
	I didn't want to get Johnny in trouble.
	I was protecting him.
	Someone wants to get into the acting job.
	I could deal with it.
	I could power through it.
	I could take it.
	I want it to protect.
	Don't ask why.
	She didn't.
	And it's implausible.
	It's inconceivable.
	It's inconceivable that she did not go to a doctor after the alleged abuse.
	It's inconceivable that she does not have concrete, indisputable evidence.
	Photographic, video, or whatever.
	It's inconceivable.
	So, that's it.
	Let me see here.
	Viva, women can go a long time without facial damage in an abusive relationship.
	Well, first of all, I have you right up until the be real part.
	My sister went through it.
	A smart abuser won't make it obvious.
	It's not a question of the smart abuser not making it obvious.
	It's a question of the victim who has been documenting a great many things, not documenting that.
	So again, women can go a long time without facial hair.
	First of all, I have no direct experience with this, but I do appreciate it takes time for injury to show up.
	Especially bruises.
	Not a broken nose so much.
	That happens immediately.
	But she's alleging years of repeated serious abuse.
	And she's documented a bunch of things.
	Secret recordings.
	Photographs of Johnny sleeping.
	Photographs of landscapes.
	Photographs of property damage.
	So it's not just that that can occur.
	You're right.
	Her story is that she suffered this for years.
	It was of the worst order.
	She documented a bunch of stuff except for that.
	And not just that, but all of the other evidence of contemporaneous photographs do not support any form of a cover-up of injury that is plausible.
	So a smart abuser won't make it obvious.
	But she was a victim, an alleged victim, and she was documenting all of this.
	Secret recordings, photos, and she has no evidence to substantiate it.
	At some point, you have to say, despite the fact that...
	Hold on.
	I don't want to look like I'm picking on someone here.
	Viva, just be the devil's advocate.
	I don't want to look like I'm picking on you.
	Legitimate arguments.
	This is the response.
	It's not just that she didn't have any evidence.
	It's like she went out of her way to document stuff meticulously.
	Everything except for the alleged abuse on her.
	I went years until my ankle was broken and finally got counseling and realized.
	True, and Maria, I suspect that people who go years trying to deny it to themselves, trying to cover it up to themselves, don't document it for years.
	Everything except for the actual abuse.
	You have to appreciate this.
	She was meticulously documenting, papering her file, as we say.
	Everything except for the actual stuff that would substantiate the most egregious allegations of abuse.
	Never get involved in a land warning, but only slightly enough known as this.
	Never go in against a Thothelian when death is on the line.
	I met him in an airport.
	One of my big celebrities that I met in an airport years ago.
	And Puffy Joe, this is a legitimate point as well.
	I don't pretend to be an expert on this.
	No, but.
	Abused women are afraid to trigger the...
	You heard that recording where she was taunting Johnny?
	Laughing at him, cackling at him, demeaning him.
	I mean, it's...
	I don't know.
	I would just...
	I would think that someone who's involved in an abusive relationship would not try to do that.
	Unless it's some sort of like sadistic, let me get you to...
	Whatever.
	And just, you know, more important on an evidentiary basis.
	She documented everything meticulously.
	It's inexplicable and implausible that the only evidence she does not have is the evidence of her most serious accusations.
	Your nerdly knowledge is great.
	You know, the problem is my nerdly knowledge is old now because I don't get to watch movies anymore.
	Not that I even think I would.
	Like, my memory of movies pretty much stops at, like, 2010.
	I try to get movies in, but...
	Let me just see if I can bring this one up.
	Can't bring that up.
	Okay.
	Amber treats every day of this trial like an opportunity to put on another costume.
	That's another thing.
	I would probably be wearing the same suit throughout a trial.
	Sounds to me like there was mutual psychological emotional abuse, but the only proof of physical violence...
	Is her towards him.
	Terry French, it's a fair point.
	And had her defense been, it was mutual psychological emotional abuse, which I consider to be domestic violence.
	Therefore, when I penned that op-ed, I still consider myself to be a victim.
	Even if I did give sometimes as good as I got, I still consider that to be domestic violence.
	Fine.
	That wasn't, she said, violence of a sexual nature and what she alleged in this trial.
	Even if she could have raised this argument, she erased it by going on steroids way stronger.
	Had she just come off from the beginning and said, it was verbal abuse.
	I was scared.
	He called me the C word.
	Maybe we gave it to each other, but I still felt like I was a victim.
	I think she wins in that Johnny doesn't win.
	Right now, I think she made Johnny win.
	And I actually think...
	61% chance Johnny Depp actually wins in his claim against Amber Heard.
	Not for 50 million.
	I don't know who decides the...
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Nope, comma, I'm still live now, period.
	Let me see if I sent you the wrong link.
	Hold on, people.
	Oh, I did send him the wrong link because I didn't send this to myself.
	Copy clipboard.
	Give me two seconds.
	I think I've sent the wrong link.
	To the guest.
	Stay tuned.
	James Tops is...
	James Tops is coming in hot.
	Let's see here.
	Okay, get this.
	So the cross is going to be interesting.
	I mean, they've got to be careful because if they ask stupid questions, they're going to let...
	I mean, Johnny weighs his words.
	Whether you think he's acting or pretentious or whatever, he's weighing his words.
	So you're not going to get him to blow up on the stand like Dr. Spiegel.
	He weighs his words.
	So one thing you don't want to do is give him an opportunity to elaborate on his testimony.
	He's not going to contradict it.
	Oh, we got James Toppin here.
	Okay, so let me see this.
	Yes, we all know that, Viva.
	You do an excellent job.
	Thank you, we the people.
	All right.
	I'm going to take this down.
	I'm going to remove this.
	And James, I'm bringing you in.
	He's wearing safety first, people.
	How's the signal?
	Signal's good.
	I think...
	Give a mic check one, two, and we'll see what the audio sounds like.
	One, two, one, two.
	Check one, two.
	Sounds good to me.
	You know what?
	Hold on.
	I think we might want...
	Panoramic.
	Yeah, we want to see your surroundings a little more.
	James, I think a lot of people know you.
	I think probably everybody knows you.
	But just in case, who are you?
	What are you doing before we get into the update?
	Yeah, right.
	I'm James Topp.
	I'm currently serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces in the Reserves.
	I'm facing charges, as you may have heard.
	I can explain that a little bit later.
	Because I chose to spoke out against government policies.
	Requiring you to disclose your medical status or have a medical procedure.
	I'm also a public service employee.
	I was and I still am nominally employed by the RCMP.
	However, I don't get any pay because I'm on leave without pay.
	So based on everything that all the mandates that were put in place for federal government employees back in November.
	I endured a couple of months of hardship.
	I was inspired by the Freedom Convoy and the truckers and the protests in Ottawa, and I decided about my own protests.
	I march across the country and go to Ottawa, pay my respects at the War Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
	And in doing so, attempt to get the attention of some members of Parliament and talk about some issues that weren't discussed earlier this year.
	Just to bring up the speed on that, we've made some progress.
	We've had nine members of Parliament now agree to meet with us and we're going to talk about the three R's with them and the three R's are repealing mandates, reinstating government workers, pressuring the corporate world to rehire folks that got fired because of their objections to these procedures.
	Getting restitution to employees for wages lost.
	And we're actually calling it 3 plus 1 because the last R is about repair.
	Something's got to be done about the divide that's been created in this society over the last two years.
	And as of right now, after 95 days, we are just passing through Nipigon, Ontario.
	Dude, you're in Nipigon, Ontario.
	I think I know roughly where that is.
	That's close to the border with Saskatchewan?
	No.
	Not even close.
	I think I skipped over a province and now I'm embarrassed.
	Where is that?
	So yeah, it's in northwestern Ontario.
	It's just at the northern end of Lake Superior.
	Nippegon Bay is not far away and then we're going to be following Highway 17 south along the lake to Sault Ste.
	Marie and Sudbury across the North Bay.
	Follow that to Pembroke, maybe with a little stop in Petawara where I used to work for a little while and then on to Ottawa.
	Then we intend to hit Ottawa by June the 30th.
	So a couple of things that have happened since the last time we spoke.
	We managed to nail down a date.
	And the date that we have nailed down for us to have our discussion with Members of Parliament are the 22nd of June.
	So I will not have reached Ottawa on foot by that time.
	However, because of the time of year, And the fact that recess for MPs will be called on the 23rd, I do believe.
	So we're going to drive in to Ottawa, have the meeting with the MPs.
	Then once that's concluded, drive back to where we stopped on the 22nd and continue the march.
	And then by June the 30th...
	We're going to march into Ottawa and right up to the War Memorial and meet all the folks who have said that they're going to meet us there.
	So in and around the afternoon evening, June the 30th, we'll have march from Vancouver all the way up to the War Memorial.
	And by the way, I get mistaken between the order in the middle of Canada between Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
	That being said...
	I'm trying to think.
	We drove to Winnipeg, and I'm trying to think.
	It doesn't matter.
	First of all, it looks beautiful behind you.
	The clouds are very picturesque.
	Before we even get into the legal stuff, are you weighing yourself?
	How much weight have you lost, or are you actually putting on muscle mass?
	Yeah, I would say I've actually put on a little bit of weight because...
	With the support we've been getting from everyone along the way, and the help I'm getting from the team along the way, I haven't been forced to do a kind of death march.
	We pace ourselves, we eat properly, we make sure we're eating the right things.
	In the community of Morello, just outside Thunder Bay.
	Yesterday, we had a really nice meet-and-greet.
	Probably a couple hundred people showed up.
	It was a potluck, so everybody had a chance to eat something.
	And, you know, we had a really good meal there.
	This whole thing has been an amazing experience in that way.
	Have you had any bad experiences thus far?
	There's been some kind of minor physical ailments here and there.
	Equipment failures.
	You know, I mean really minor stuff.
	A couple of the fellas had to go their own way because of personal issues.
	But then again, we gained four more people on the team.
	Tom Murphy is one of them.
	He's a representative of Vets for Freedom.
	He joined us not far from Ontario, Manitoba border and him and his wife were joining us.
	They got their capper and he marches with me and his wife drives the capper.
	We also got Beth and Ben, brother and sister.
	And they all rotate through various support rules.
	The hardest thing has been probably dealing with the weather going through the prairies.
	That was the biggest challenge.
	You say nine politicians have agreed to meet with you.
	That's correct.
	Nine members of parliament.
	Did you mention which ones?
	I don't have their names available, and I'm going to keep them close to my chest for the time being because they may have security or publicity concerns, and I don't want that to derail the effort that we're at here because my understanding,
	and I would like to clarify to you and to anybody watching this, with the charges that The Public Affairs Office released from the Department of National Defense, and that was an announcement made a couple of weeks ago.
	What they are portraying this, what the media is portraying this as, is that I am being charged for supporting the Freedom Convoy.
	So, number one, that's not the case.
	I'm not being charged for supporting the Freedom Convoy.
	I'm being charged for violating the code of service discipline and speaking out in uniform about government policies.
	Okay?
	That's two counts of National Defense Act 129.
	Conduct prejudice...
	I can't remember.
	You're going to have to look at it.
	The verbiage escapes me.
	The bottom line is you're not allowed criticizing the government while in uniform.
	A hundred percent.
	Well, and also there's a social media policy that strictly states that, you know, you have to conduct yourself in a way or you're not, you know, you're not very, you're pretty much not allowed on social media platforms as a Canadian Armed Forces member and speaking out against these kind of things.
	However, like I said before, I did it because I felt that It is wrong to coerce people and threaten them with losing their paychecks.
	I don't care where you work, whether in the federal government or in the corporate sector.
	I feel it's wrong.
	I said so and I went in my uniform and I said it.
	I'd do it again.
	Just because you're in uniform doesn't mean that you don't have the right to make your voice heard.
	So basically I'm being charged for that.
	Two counts of national defense under the National Defense Act section 129.
	So because that way that it's being portrayed though in the media as I'm one of the folks who's being investigated or it's been insinuated that I'm a freedom convoy quote-unquote supporter and that is being used As an excuse for a lot of,
	I believe, a lot of members of Parliament and other officials to kind of back away and say, well, you know, the Freedom Convoy was a bad and terrible thing, and, you know, and plus we have these charges.
	So what they actually see that what I'm doing is a continuation of the Freedom Convoy, which it is, it's not.
	Okay, so the Freedom Convoy inspired me, but this is our effort, okay?
	This is the effort of myself and the team of Canada Marches to address the issues with regards to the mandates and how they've affected people in a negative way.
	And also, like I said before, I'm speaking on behalf of everybody that has lost the job.
	Got the paycheck.
	Suffered.
	And I'm speaking on behalf of everybody who had to accept or disclose their medical status in order to keep their jobs.
	And that hasn't changed.
	Now, so just for everyone's clear on this then.
	Have you received a fine?
	Have you received an infraction or is it just an investigation thus far for you criticizing government policy while bearing your military uniform?
	Yeah, so the investigation is more or less complete at this stage.
	What's happening now is that we are...
	I have a lawyer, Philip Millar from Millar Law.
	I was put in contact with him through the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
	And he's representing me in this matter and also representing another group of soldiers who is being released under Article 5F or under Item 5F for refusing to disclose the status or remaining unvaccinated.
	So what he is doing is he is now engaged in this with the brigade judge advocate.
	General, who is the military legal counsel, and they're doing some back and forth, because as it stands right now, the charges have been laid.
	There's actually been no sentence passed, and the agreement that we're trying to establish now is whether there's going to be, whether I have the right to elect a court-martial or not.
	Okay, and because the charges have been laid, this is like an administrative internal, this is not a criminal infraction, this is under your code of conduct of the military service.
	Yeah, well, it's the National Defense Act.
	So a civilian can be charged under the National Defense Act under certain things like treason, for example.
	But typically, people who are charged under the National Defense Act are military.
	Okay.
	Your audio, I'm just, I'm continuing to adjust your audio because it keeps bouncing back to regular audio for some reason.
	What are the sanctions that you can face, James?
	Well, it depends on the penalties that they want to impose.
	Like, you know, it could be a fine, it could be release from the armed forces.
	And now it would be an even worse item code.
	So, like I said, for...
	For the folks who are being released under 5F from the armed forces because they're failing to disclose their status or because they refuse to get vaccinated, the 5F means that they are displaying a behavior where they're unwilling or unable to change.
	And if I was to get released, for example, Under this charge, then it would be a different item code.
	It would be like poor conduct.
	That would be a dishonorable discharge, which would have obvious penalties on any pension.
	Both of those items, both of the codes, the release codes that we're talking about, the 5F, and the one for like...
	Poor conduct.
	I don't know the actual code off the top of my head.
	But they're both, you know, in the vernacular that the common person could understand if they don't have any exposure to, you know, military lingo would be kind of like, yeah, dishonorable discharge.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So, I mean, that's interesting because the rumors were around that you got fined for doing what you're doing for marching across the country, which is not the case, but they've...
	No.
	Found a reason.
	And when was the public statements in uniform made?
	Is it stuff you said while marching, or is it stuff you've already said in the past?
	No, no, no.
	No, I made a fairly public statement on TikTok, and I went to a rally for the sole purpose of finding a reporter that I can stand in front of, and I happened to find a videographer instead.
	And that's how strongly I felt about the issue at that time, was that...
	And I still do.
	I've been asked if I would do it again.
	And, you know, if you want to see those videos, you can go to YouTube and the James Top channel.
	This is the Twilight Zone we live in now.
	I have my own channel on YouTube.
	And you can see that video there, okay?
	It's the Sumas Rally video.
	Okay, excellent.
	So that was back in February the 12th.
	So, just to add a couple of things there, the news of the charge is actually old news trying to be new news.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	So, because I was actually charged back on February the 12th, probably, let's call it February the 16th or the 17th, about three or four days after.
	When did you start walking?
	February 20th.
	Okay.
	So the charge predates the march.
	It comes up now in the news because it's a good smear piece to make it look like you're either affiliated with the illegal unlawful occupation, which is no more, or you got fined somewhere along the way just to let people know if you're going to do this.
	You'll be subject to scrutiny.
	So other than that reporting from Canadian Legacy Media, has CBC, Radio Canada, Global, anyone reached out to you?
	Actually, I think I said, I remember talking to you about that, like early on, somebody had reached out.
	Nothing since.
	We have been contacted about a week ago on Instagram.
	I think somebody had made a connection from a morning, a CBC morning show out of Winnipeg.
	Is that Winnipeg?
	Well, anyway, Manitoba, CBC Manitoba morning show.
	And we're trying to establish when and where and how the interview will be conducted.
	But no, absolutely not.
	They're definitely not, you know, we're not fending off multiple requests here.
	And that would be Manitoba, the neighboring province to Ontario people.
	I'm just going to try to make up for that brain fart.
	It's fantastic.
	Has there been, I ask you this every time, other than any bad events, has there been any jaw-droppingly memorable things that you've seen, things that have occurred?
	Not necessarily about the whole movement, but just events caught.
	Have you seen any baby bear crossing the street with their mums, like moose?
	Any beautiful acts of nature walking through storms?
	Any life-shattering, life-altering epiphanies?
	Yeah, you get kind of...
	Immune to some stuff after a while.
	Like, I mean, you know, walking through the prairies in, you know, what felt like the middle of winter was actually spring.
	Yeah, we definitely encountered some weather, you know, crossing Alberta.
	I think last time we spoke, I think we were somewhere in Alberta.
	Well, we had the wind at our back, and then I think the moment we crossed Saskatchewan, the wind just started blowing right into our faces with a couple of freak winter storms in there.
	That was outstanding.
	I mean, not necessarily the best way.
	But, yeah, wildlife is starting to come out.
	You know, you see some deer and stuff like that.
	No baby bears or nothing.
	Eagles, yes.
	Are we seeing, you know, like after crossing the prairies, there was one instance, I remember this isn't like, it was kind of, not quite a whiteout, but definitely, I remember we were walking, and I'll never forget this, because you could see the Trans-Canada, two lanes of the Trans-Canada Highway.
	Just kind of, and all of this white space, you know, like you couldn't differentiate the sky from the ground at a couple of instances, and all you could see were these two twin tracks going off forever into the horizon, and I thought, and I said to Christian, you know, I think we might be in purgatory right now, because there was just no sense of movement anywhere.
	It was just like endless walking, but marching, I should say.
	It was, yeah, I mean, I will say the reception that we got in Winnipeg by the, you know, the freedom community there and Walter, he has founded this kind of group called Camp Hope.
	There was probably 400 people at this gathering.
	And that was pretty amazing to see because, you know, I think I had kind of said that before.
	I didn't really expect, you know, this level of support.
	And then to see that many people at one place coming out to hear, you know, to meet us and hear me talk.
	It was pretty amazing.
	Pretty amazing to see.
	Fantastic.
	What's the destination for tonight?
	Oh, well, we're gonna...
	Yeah, just basically, we're gonna march.
	I want to get in about 45 kilometers, between 45 and 50 kilometers a day.
	I'd have to look at the map, but if you are looking at the map of Ontario and you find Nipigon and then, you know, add 40 kilometers and then there's, I think there's a provincial park in the vicinity.
	There's not a whole lot of urban areas up here, right?
	There's a lot of kind of sparsely populated small towns situated between long stretches of highway and wilderness.
	And we're getting into an especially kind of, not as mountainous as BC, but definitely we're getting into some hilly terrain coming up.
	Okay, phenomenal.
	James, so we've clarified the news.
	Still, it would invite any Canadian legacy media to, you know, get the story out there, but they won't.
	What do you want?
	What do you want to say?
	Oh, hold on.
	There were two questions, actually.
	Hold on.
	One says, how many pairs of boots have you gone through thus far from Robby?
	Yeah, probably at least five or six.
	And I'm at the point now where I swap out so they don't wear out as fast.
	So, you know, like in the morning, I'll wear a set of boots.
	And then if you look around at this terrain, like it's kind of, we're coming up on a shoulder.
	So these are the, these are my latest.
	These are, what are these, Saucony?
	No, Brooks.
	No, I don't know.
	Anyway, they're good.
	But, so I'll put some running shoes on for stuff like this.
	And then, you know, believe it or not, I don't know what the temperature is like now, but it's, it's kind of, it's a little chilly here, so we'll probably pick up the pace.
	Body heat up there, but to answer the question, yeah, at least four or five, possibly six pairs of boots and running shoes.
	If I had to guess, James, I think I know shoes better than I know geography.
	I'd guess those were socketies based on the sole.
	I used to work at Sports Expert.
	There's another question here.
	We Unify Canada says, Hi James, can you please give a shout out to We Unify's conference?
	We're claiming Canada in Victoria this weekend since you're speaking.
	Do you know them?
	Yeah, actually, We Unify.
	I'm actually scheduled to speak at that.
	They're going to bring me in on a call.
	Shout out to them.
	All right, man.
	So, James.
	Anything else that I didn't get to that you want to mention before we say thank you for what you're doing and let us know.
	We'll tune back in.
	What do you want to share with the world?
	Yeah, there's two things.
	What's going on with this group, the team at Canada Marches and what I set out to do and what we are doing, this is an amazing human interest story.
	A guy who had some kind of a vision, and then a bunch of, you know, then a team formed, and, you know, we did know each other before February the 20th, and, you know, there's been five or six of us out of this group now.
	We've been together for 95 days, okay?
	And we're this team that, you know, without, you know, corporate funding, without sponsorship, you doos and donations.
	And some of our own cash.
	You know, we've made our way on foot from Vancouver to Nipigon, Ontario so far.
	And we're probably, I would say, we have a 99%, 0.9% chance of making it all the way to our destination.
	And nobody in the regular media is paying attention to this.
	No magazines, no CBCs, no CTV.
	And it is astonishing that they don't care.
	Not because they know we're looking to be famous.
	It's just this is a pretty amazing feat by anybody's measure.
	And I would say to anybody watching this, you know, go and bonk their nose about this.
	And at least so, you know, I can give credit to the folks who've helped me get this far.
	And this is...
	You know, and if you can't realize that this is being ignored, or if you don't realize that this is being ignored, I've been doing this for 95 days on the highway.
	There's been thousands, tens of thousands of people who have passed me since we started.
	And, you know, the fact that this is not being acknowledged in any way because I have something to say about mandates is I really should wait.
	I don't like using that phrase, waking people up, but they should really open their eyes to how bad it is and how poor quote-unquote journalism has become in this country.
	I'm sure you get the comparison all the time, but you imagine the frenzy around Terry Fox running across the country.
	It's a different story, different facts.
	To get a total media blackout, I'll call it a media blackout.
	It's ignored.
	It's atrocious.
	It's atrocious and what's getting the focus is stuff that should not be getting the focus.
	Yeah.
	And in preparation, just so everybody knows, so they can start getting ready, the closer we get, the more attention we're going to get and the more attempts will be made to kind of They're
	going to try to outlaw a foot convoy.
	No people walking into Ottawa on July 1st.
	Yeah, but put giant nets up.
	Giant nuts up around the city.
	Barricades.
	Declare a preemptive state of emergency.
	Preemptively invoke the Emergencies Act.
	Everybody who's watching, clip and snip and share this everywhere.
	Any piece, any portion, share it on your YouTube channel.
	Share it on Twitter.
	Especially maybe the part about the media not covering this.
	So that people can know.
	James Topp, you're not retired.
	You're still in the military until they sanction you.
	If they do, Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's...
	I often have to wonder what door I went through and when in order to arrive in the Twilight Zone.
	But here we are.
	Well, you're doing God's work, Ben, and people are loving it and people are following it, but I think not enough to even know that you are doing this.
	So, everyone who's watching now, clip, snip, share away so that they can know it.
	And, you know, Johnny Depp's interesting.
	But this is kind of, you know, at the very least nationally more important to most Canadians, even if we don't know it.
	All right, Matt, so when do we check in again?
	So you're scheduled to arrive in a month, a little over a month now, so...
	Yeah, yeah, well, we have the meeting on the 22nd of June, but like I said, for the time being, I'll keep the names close to my chest and the venue, but we do want to live stream it on the 22nd of June, so look for that.
	On our platforms, okay?
	Because the discussion, like I said, we're not going there to insult anybody.
	We're not going there to wave flags around and yell and scream and shout.
	We have an agenda.
	We want to talk about it.
	And like I said, it's fairly simple and a language anybody can understand, right?
	It's repealing reinstatement.
	Restitution.
	Three R's.
	And the one I want to talk to them about, which is one of the most important things, is repair.
	Because it's really important that they understand just exactly what I've seen on the ground since I've been marching.
	And what I've seen is that this isn't just about people unhappy about mandates anymore.
	This has morphed into this.
	You know, it's dissatisfaction, intense dissatisfaction with the government by a lot of people, like a lot of people.
	You know, our representatives need to know about that so they can do something and start fixing it.
	Phenomenal, James.
	So let's catch up again before you're done.
	And maybe, I'm thinking maybe I'll, if you're not in a...
	What did I say?
	If you're not in Saskatchewan, maybe I'll drive and try to meet you one day.
	Well, hey, listen, I'll lay in on something, okay?
	Contingent on the discussion or the outcome of the discussion we're going to have with these government representatives, you know, we'll either stay in Ottawa and continue the negotiation over the three R's that we're going to present, or I'm going to keep marching.
	To the east, in which case I might be passing through your neighborhood.
	Fantastic.
	Well, I won't say, fingers crossed, hope for the best.
	We'll see what the political landscape is in Canada in a month.
	I think it's going to be worse than it is today.
	Well, we'll see.
	James, thank you for what you're doing.
	Thank you for coming on.
	We'll pop back in any day that something happens.
	Let me know and I'll be in touch with you.
	Absolutely.
	We're getting a lot closer.
	Our connections will be better, and as we get closer to Ottawa, absolutely, we should reconnect.
	And like I said, June 30th, and around the late afternoon evening, is when I'll be marching up the War Memorial, and you can put that on the calendar if you wish.
	Okay, will do.
	I'm going to see where I am at that point in time that we might have stuff.
	But James, one way or the other, we'll be in touch.
	We'll keep in touch.
	Everybody, how can people support you, James, actually, for those who don't know where they can support you?
	Yeah, we have managed, even though it's been three months, we've managed to sort ourselves out, got incorporation status, not profit, not for profit.
	We got a business account.
	We got a Shopify.
	We got something going on Shopify, but I'm not really up to speed on it because this is my area specialty right here.
	So we got the ability for folks to go to our website, canadamarches.ca, buy some merch, or at least there's a donate button there because our merch is still trying to line up suppliers and whatnot.
	so we're going to That's how you can do it, and if you're in the vicinity of where I am, if you want to pull over and say hi, just be careful.
	You're on the Tranche Canada, and if I'm passing through your town and you're an organizer, you can help us set something up.
	For example, that's what we did back in Thunder Bay, the biggest town that we just passed through a couple days ago.
	And it turned out really well.
	So that's just a couple of different ways.
	And your route, the path you're taking, is on canadamarches.ca?
	Yeah, and also it's fairly simple.
	We're going to go all the way to Ottawa on Highway 17. Okay.
	Okay.
	I'm going to pin the comments so that everybody can go and support you if they so choose.
	But everybody, just share the story so that's worth more than anything.
	I'm going to go right now, James, and make a contribution myself and just hope that the government doesn't freeze my bank account for doing it.
	James?
	I think you're safe.
	You never know.
	It's a lot of retroactive criminality in Canada these days.
	Be safe.
	We'll keep in touch and keep on keeping on in the liberal and spiritual sense.
	Thank you, sir.
	Thank you for taking the time out to talk to me and help me get the word out.
	My pleasure, my pleasure.
	I'm going to push harder now.
	Okay.
	Have a good day, man.
	We've got a bridge coming up.
	It's pretty cool.
	Check it out.
	Well, let's see this.
	It's the most beautiful country in the world if it weren't for the politicians.
	Okay, I'll see you.
	I'll talk to you later.
	All right, man.
	See you soon.
	Okay, that's it.
	So apparently we missed something in the trial.
	Let me just take my headphones out.
	Oh, gosh.
	Oh, that's James, people.
	Clip, snip, and share away because the media is not going to pay attention to him.
	Let's just see the one thing that we missed in this trial.
	I think apparently they're letting a TMZ dude testify, which I think apparently is going to be devastating because, from what I understand, there's an issue as to Amber Heard shopping the video, one of the videos to TMZ.
	The declaration and everything attached to it and all the cases.
	And I have reviewed it, so I'd rather you not regurgitate that based on our time limit.
	But anything you wish to add to that is fine.
	If I could focus you a little bit.
	Please.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Yes, sir.
	As far as your comments about Virginia Rule of Evidence.
	Okay, we'll skip it.
	Yes, sir.
	I appreciate you coming in today and I appreciate your arguments.
	Yes, sir.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	In this matter, under Virginia Rule Supreme Court 3:14, a new party may intervene as a plaintiff or defendant to assert any claim or defense germane to the subject matter of the proceeding.
	A new party may not intervene unless they assert some right involved in the underlying litigation.
	The party is not entitled to intervene merely because a byproduct of the litigation adversely impacts them, and the decision to allow intervention is within the broad discretion of the trial court.
	Here, the rights asserted are not germane to the trial.
	The central issues in this case are whether defendant defamed plaintiff and whether plaintiff defamed defendant through a theory of vicarious liability.
	The issue of the confidentiality of sources has not come up, as in other cases cited by EHM, which is the corporation that TMZ The judge had her judgment pre-written already, Let's just hear where she's going with this.
	The name of the confidential source without being compelled voluntarily.
	Whether that breach is a non-disclosure agreement between Mr. Tremaine and EHM is not germane to this matter and can be litigated in a separate matter if EHM so chooses.
	And while breaches of contract must be taken seriously, and the court does, any alleged breach is not germane to the underlying litigation here.
	That contractional action has no bearing on this case and is thus not germane to this litigation.
	Therefore, I'll deny the non-party HM Productions motion to intervene.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	For the record, I've known Mr. Tobin for several years.
	I meant no snarkiness toward him.
	You're just a snarky guy.
	...balance the prejudice versus plaintiff or defendant to a certain...
	...this does not relate to an issue in the litigation.
	Well, if it's not an issue...
	which is the publisher of news and entertainment for the celebrity and entertainment industry.
	And, Your Honor, we're seeking to intervene simply to protect the relationship between reporters and their sources when it comes to reporting news in the public interest.
	Intervene.
	And no party was in the position to assert his rights.
	I'm an idiot.
	I've been on mute.
	I've been on mute.
	All I said is, it seems TMZ wanted to intervene.
	And they were denied the right to intervene in the trial.
	But I don't know what that...
	If it is not able to intervene in this action, and neither of the parties is going to be in a position to assert the reporter's privilege, it is TMZ's journalist's privilege that we're talking about, then their rights are certainly going to be prejudiced.
	In all the cases, and I reviewed the cases that you had, in those cases, the witness was compelled to testify and came and was forced to testify, so there was an issue about the privilege of the witness.
	It's my understanding, in this case, this witness wants to testify and is not under subpoena.
	He has been subpoenaed, Your Honor.
	Your Honor, I have a copy of a subpoena that was entered last night.
	Oh, so I guess.
	So he is coming under a compulsion under subpoena.
	Well, if he takes a stand and he asserts some sort of privilege, then that's something I will deal with at that time.
	Sure.
	Okay, so that's fine.
	So a witness from TMZ is coming after lunch.
	Right, exactly.
	And that's why I'm saying all your cases that you...
	Okay.
	People, I'm going to direct you to other people who are covering this because I'm ducking out for the day.
	Got to set up the stream for tonight with Tom Woods, Robert Barnes.
	Got to eat food.
	Got to pick up the kids.
	Got to exercise.
	Get some sunlight.
	Peeps, I'll see you tonight.
	7 o 'clock tonight.
	Sidebar with Tom Woods, Robert Barnes.
	The Tom Woods.
	Tomorrow I might not be live because I might be in transit.
	We'll see if I can get live at some point.
	But I'll be watching.
	From a distance.
	So we've got the Tamar Lich update.
	We've got Reuters being pathological liars.
	Gaslighting pathological liars.
	Got the Johnny Depp.
	Got a James Top update.
	He has not been charged with anything in relation to the convoy.
	It's an old charge under his criminal, not criminal, military code for speaking out in uniform.
	Nothing new.
	Going to be used against him.
	Going to be weaponized by the media that wants to ignore this story except to demonize it.
	Go.
	Enjoy the day.
	I will see you all tonight.

▲