Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 8, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:48:02

Musk, Young Adults Dropping Dead, SCOTUS Scare & MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	What we're trying to say, what I'm trying to say to you, is that the economy is in a better place than it has been historically.
	And so we feel here at this administration, and other experts as well, is that we feel that we are in a good position to take on inflation.
	We are in a good position to really start really working on What we're trying to say, what I'm trying to say to you, is that the economy is in a better place than it has been historically.
	Let's pause it right there for five seconds.
	That is a statement that means absolutely nothing.
	The economy is in a better place now than it has been.
	I'm trying to say to you is that the economy is in a better place than it has been historically.
	I'm not being tongue-in-cheek when I say compared to what?
	The Great Depression?
	Have there been times in the history of the United States when the economy, history of Canada as well, when the economy has been in a worse place than it is now?
	Yeah, I could think of...
	The economy is in a better place than it has been historically.
	Great Depression.
	The oil crisis of the 70s.
	Jimmy Carter.
	I can see this being true technically and therefore not a lie.
	Words matter, people.
	And there's a reason why people hate lawyers and hate politicians.
	But wait, there's more.
	And so we feel here at this administration and other experts as well is that we feel that we are in a good position to take on inflation.
	I know when I know something and when I don't know something.
	What does it mean to be in a good position to take on inflation?
	What does it mean to take on...
	How do you take on inflation?
	But I love also the we feel.
	Not we think, not we know, not we have reason to believe.
	We feel.
	We feel that we are in a good position to take on inflation.
	We are in a good position to really start really working on what we're...
	I'd love to know where it went from there, but...
	Verbal diarrhea.
	I mean, that's what it is.
	We're in a good place.
	The economy is in a better place than it has been historically.
	We feel that we're in a good place to take on inflation.
	This is their experts.
	Undoubtedly, Secretary of Treasury, whatever, Yellen.
	She's the one now who, three months ago, was denying inflation.
	It's transitory.
	Don't worry.
	It's transitory.
	Now they feel that they're in a good position to take on this inflation, which they now recognize is not transitory, despite having firmly believed.
	They felt it was transitory way back in the day.
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs.
	I'm late today.
	I was actually maybe thinking of not even doing a daytime stream, because tonight we've got a...
	I don't want to call it a sidebar when Barnes isn't here.
	It's just a live stream.
	With Spidey, the behavioral analyst.
	I don't want to call him the body language reading guy.
	Because I think that term has a lot of baggage to it.
	People think of body language reading like tarot card readings or palm readings.
	He's a behavioral analyst.
	And I think he makes some very insightful observations.
	I didn't know, by the way, a Montrealer, a magician, a well-established magician who happens to be good friends with one of my friends who's also a magician in Montreal.
	But once you get into the Montreal community and the Montreal magician community, it's a very small community.
	So Spidey is coming on tonight.
	Spidey has made his explosion onto the interwebs YouTube streams presence known in the context of the Johnny Depp trial.
	Amber Heard body language analysis, speech analysis, an educated guy, a degree in psychology, and it's going to be a good one this evening, 7 o 'clock.
	The reason for which I was late today, and possibly even not going to do a stream, I did a podcast this morning with a young gentleman named David Brady.
	And I forget the name of his podcast exactly right now.
	17-year-old kid.
	Libertarian.
	Amazingly intelligent kid.
	And we had a great podcast this morning.
	His handle on Twitter is RealDavidBJr.
	So that's RealDavidBJr on Twitter.
	So we did that podcast.
	I think he's going to publish it Sunday.
	And it was a fun discussion.
	Now, today, people...
	Hashtag not an ad.
	That better not be watermelon.
	Okay, no.
	Guru.
	80 calories.
	So 30 calories better than Red Bull.
	Made with natural cane sugar.
	Bottoms up.
	All right, so tonight, live stream with Spidey, 7 o 'clock.
	We're not just going to talk about body language reading, Amber Heard, Johnny Depp, but we're certainly going to.
	It's going to be an amazing discussion.
	Viva, can you say cool whip?
	Of course, you can't have an afternoon stream without some cool whip.
	Let me see if I'm demonetized yet.
	Let me see.
	Yeah, demonetized.
	But can you imagine I've been demonetized already?
	What could I have possibly whispered with my mouth that could have resulted in...
	It's just...
	They get re-monetized systematically.
	I don't think there's any financial consequence to this.
	It's just...
	Something's working or something's not working that I've been demonetized so swiftly.
	Interesting stuff to talk about today.
	The economy is in a good place compared to the worst places it's ever been.
	What's his face?
	Robert De Niro is on Stephen Colbert's show saying, you know, Joe Biden's doing a decent job.
	Wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
	Then you have Matthew McConaughey at the White House.
	Same press.
	I think it was the same day, actually.
	Talking about Uvalde.
	People railing on McConaughey or criticizing him.
	Celebrities have no business chiming in.
	Why is their opinion worth more than regular Americans?
	We'll probably talk about that at some point.
	I very much...
	That subject is a...
	Difficult subject matter just to address in general, to talk about in general.
	But Elon Musk, the fight is heating up with Twitter.
	There has been a public filing, a letter from the Musk to the Twitter, accusing Twitter of not respecting the terms of their understanding of agreement.
	And not communicating information that Twitter, that a purchaser, is deeming to be slightly somewhat extremely relevant, critical to purchasing the company, and that is the number of bought accounts, boosted accounts, spam accounts.
	We're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about what's going on in Canada.
	Because Canada, like I said to David Brady during our podcast this morning, the slippery slope is not a fallacy, it is a strategy.
	You can't take a piece of wood and just bend it in half in one motion.
	You'll snap it.
	What do you do?
	You've got to soften it up with water.
	You've got to bend it over time.
	Consider that we won't use the term the slippery slope.
	We're just going to use the bent stick.
	You cannot achieve a certain bend in a stick without going slowly, without watering it, buttering it up, making it supple, making it amenable.
	To being bent in a direction that it would not be able to bend if it were swiftly and rigidly bent on a moment's notice.
	That's the slippery slope.
	It's not a fallacy.
	It's a strategy.
	Because you can't get people to make radical shifts overnight.
	You can't get people to go cold turkey more often than not.
	You can't get people to radically change their views overnight more often than not.
	But for a traumatic experience, that's not how it works.
	It's got to be slowly.
	It's got to be gradually.
	Canada is on the slippery slope to...
	I mean, I compared to North Korea in my Viva clips earlier today.
	Hold on.
	Let me actually...
	Let me pull this up just for one second.
	No.
	Ah, whatever.
	I put up a clip breaking down, talking about Bill C-11.
	And the thumbnail is a very funny thumbnail in which Justin Trudeau and Kim Jong-un have sort of been...
	We're going to talk about this.
	The Minister of Justice and Attorney General came up with a statement that should shock the conscience of anybody who does not aspire to live in a totally communist, fascistic, totalitarian regime.
	It should shock the conscience of everybody.
	An article.
	Now there's a thing called SADS, by the way.
	There was something called SIDS, which was Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
	Now they have SADS.
	Sudden adult death syndrome.
	And it's not a heart attack, people, because it's something different.
	We're going to talk about that article.
	Just read it.
	There will be no medical advice.
	There will be no election fortification advice.
	There will be no legal advice.
	There may be insights.
	There may be opinions.
	There may be analysis.
	Speaking of the superchats, actually.
	Hold on a second.
	Speaking of the...
	Here we go.
	Keith Tarnofsky.
	Canadian, 699.
	That means you're from Canada, dude.
	How you doing?
	I used to think Matthew was a good head for the most part, only to have that blown out of the water.
	From a public, from a performative value, his speech was impactful.
	I think he said some decent things on a substantive level.
	But we'll get into the actual, you know, the substance of what he proposed in his emotive and very impactful speech.
	We'll get there.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats, like this one right here, $4.99.
	That means $2, or whoever's doing my math, $1.59, whatever, goes to YouTube.
	If you do not like that, simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants, the equivalent.
	And Rumble takes 20%, so better for the creator, better for you to support a platform that supports free speech.
	And that's that.
	Best place to support us.
	is at vivabarneslaw.locals.com if you want to support Robert and I. Musk is mad because he knows the Defensive Production Act is about to get slammed down on his company's Salty Army Re, the Defensive Production Act.
	On which product?
	Keith Tarnowski says, I cannot rant still.
	Yeah, they have some stricter, I don't know, I think you have to set up an account to rant on Rumble.
	I need to re-up on Locals.
	Locals, there's amazing exclusive content, an amazing community, lots of discussion.
	And even though we disagree with each other at times, I think it's what Facebook and what social media is intended to be.
	Respectful disagreement, but above all else, beautiful community.
	Okay, with that said, what do we start off with?
	Let's start off with the slippery slope of Canada and where we're going.
	Let me see.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Let's bring this up.
	Let's bring this up, people, and just revel.
	Revel in what we're listening to.
	David Lamedi, for those of you who don't know, is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
	That is, aka MOJAG, because we have our acronyms in Canada as well.
	Americans, you don't get to keep SCOTUS and POTUS and what else is there?
	PRESS SEC?
	Well, anyways, we have our acronyms.
	They just happen to suck.
	MOJAG is a terrible acronym.
	It sounds like a terrible show from the 80s.
	MOJAG.
	Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
	For those of you who are not new to the channel, you've heard this term before because Jody Wilson-Raybould, the first indigenous female who was ever appointed as MOJAG by Justin Trudeau because he's so progressive and tolerant and wonderful.
	Not misogynistic, not racist, not discriminatory at all.
	Justin Trudeau appointed Jody Wilson-Raybould, the first Indigenous woman, to the position of Mojang, only to subsequently demote her, shuffle her out of the Cabinet when she refused to adhere to his corrupt demands, to not prosecute SNC-Lavalin, this construction conglomerate for corruption, because, you know, Justin Trudeau had his reasons for suspending the application of justice.
	With respect to certain corruption.
	The Minister of Justice and Attorney General, it's a two-hatted figure, and they almost have sort of a conflict of interests in that function as Minister of Justice, which is to implement the laws of the land, and the Attorney General, which is to advise the Prime Minister.
	So it's an interesting position.
	It's always had some constitutional issues with it, because on the one hand...
	The Minister of Justice has to apply the rule of law, has to apply the law of the land, independently of against whom they are applying the law of the land, whereas the Attorney General advises the Prime Minister, advises the administration.
	So it's an interesting bifurcated position under the law, under the Constitution.
	Okay.
	Setting all that aside, but any time is a good time to remind everyone of Justin Trudeau's lack of ethics and corruption in his treatment of the first indigenous woman ever appointed to Mojang.
	Do what I say, you, or I boot you from my office if you do not adhere to my corruption.
	This is her replacement.
	Justin Trudeau, because it's 2020 and we need to have women and minorities in our cabinet, when they don't do what we say, we shuffle them out and we replace them with David Lamedi.
	How many of you knew everything that I just said?
	Were you all familiar with all of the information that I just gave as a precursor to this tweet, which we're going to get into?
	Yes or no in the chat while I sip my natural sugar.
	Organic.
	Proudly organic.
	Okay, we got one yes.
	Okay, good.
	Yes, some no's.
	More yes's than no.
	Some no's.
	I was not, sir.
	Good.
	Mr. Steve, VC of Virginia is for lovers.
	Ooh, yeah.
	I might be in Virginia.
	In fact, I think I'm going to be back in Virginia sooner than later.
	To be announced.
	Yes, no, yes, no.
	What did you say again?
	I wasn't listening.
	Can you start again?
	All right, this is Lamedi.
	This is Lamedi.
	The Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
	The man whose job it is.
	To uphold and enforce the law of the land.
	Listen to this, Jim.
	Commissioner Shulamendi, I want to ask you about C19 and the idea of seizing and selling Well, look, we'll obviously tailor the provisions so that it could withstand...
	Can we just appreciate...
	The hemming and hawing.
	Maybe I'm not the best person to criticize someone else for hemming and hawing, not getting to the answer.
	We're 20 seconds in.
	This dude hasn't started to offer an answer to the question.
	They say, the question is, Bill C-19, whatever, it's the seizure of Russian assets.
	It's on shaky legal ground.
	How do you respond to that?
	Well, look, we'll obviously...
	Tailor the provisions so that it could withstand a court challenge.
	You don't have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.
	It could withstand a court challenge.
	You don't have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.
	There are steps that are taken when expropriations happen at whatever level of government, and we'll be sure to stay within those boundaries.
	You don't have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.
	You don't have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.
	Right to own private property.
	Now, in fairness to Lamedi, maybe he's talking only about Russian nationals, foreigners, who are not Canadian citizens.
	Maybe that's who he's talking about.
	So got to give him the benefit of the doubt.
	Contextually, maybe that's what he meant.
	Court challenge.
	You don't have an absolute right to own private property.
	Although he didn't say they don't have an absolute right.
	He said to the reporter, you don't have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.
	In Canada?
	It is.
	There are.
	There are steps that are taken when expropriations happen at whatever level of government, and we'll be sure to stay within those boundaries.
	We'll be sure to stay within those boundaries.
	You don't have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.
	David Lamedi is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
	That's actually down the street from me.
	Minister of Justice and Procureur General of Canada.
	Oh, he has his pronouns in French and English.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	I hadn't seen that until now.
	David Lebedi is the Minister of Justice.
	Try to align his statement with Section 8 of the Charter of Rights Prohibiting Unreasonable Search and Seizure.
	No need to try.
	No need to try.
	Let's just...
	I don't want to stop, Cam.
	I want to share screen, Dave.
	Come on.
	I need a producer.
	Where is the Constitutions Act?
	The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	I know we've looked at this together, people.
	It is always worth looking at again so we can see what rights we have and...
	How whimsically they can be whisked away from our existence.
	This is the Constitution Act of 1982, the portion that basically ratified fundamental rights from violation from the government.
	Incorporated into the Constitution in 1982, we had on Brian Peckford, and he discussed this entire process, the ordeal that this was.
	Listen to this.
	This is our Constitution Act, and I think it bears repeating the preamble.
	Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of capital G God and the rule of law.
	It recognizes the supremacy of God and the rule of law in so much as the government says that it does.
	Charter.
	Charter rights.
	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.
	Flipping this to COVID, half of the edicts that have been imposed as law never went through any legislative process.
	So whether or not they would even satisfy this exclusion had they been passed into law.
	They had never been passed into law, but that's a discussion we've had on another date.
	Reasonable limits prescribed by law.
	As can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.
	And that, right there, ladies and gentlemen, refers to, or was codified, was interpreted by the courts in the OAKS test, O-A-K-E-S test.
	And there were a number of criterias that the infringement had to be necessary, effective, as minimal as possible, and directly tailored to meet the ends of the objective, but whatever.
	Let's just look at some of our fundamental rights.
	Apparently...
	Ownership of private property is not one of them anymore.
	Everyone has the following fundamental rights, fundamental freedoms.
	Freedom of conscience and religion.
	Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media of communication.
	Unless we've determined that that's misinformation and therefore you don't have the right...
	To that press or that media of communication.
	Freedom of peaceful assembly.
	Unless you're Maxine Bernier in the time of a pandemic who's having an outdoor political gathering of 30-some-odd people, then you don't have the right to peaceful assembly.
	But Justin Trudeau, Doug Ford, who attend not a rally, but rather when you commemorate a vigil with thousands of people, they can do it.
	But Maxine Bernier arrested and detained for 32 people outside for a political rally.
	Freedom of association.
	Okay, fine.
	Democratic rights.
	Okay, let's skip this.
	Mobility rights.
	Can you imagine that the government is saying that homelessness should be outlawed?
	Everyone should have the right to a home while simultaneously saying you don't have a fundamental right to ownership of private property.
	But anyways, let's just get to it.
	Here.
	Search and seizure.
	Everyone has the right.
	To be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
	But you do not have a guaranteed right to private ownership of property in Canada out of the words, out of the mouth of Lamedi, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
	Day 101 of Pat King.
	June 14, I believe.
	He's scheduled to be back in court.
	Pat King, still in jail.
	And so that's the latest amazing soundbite coming out of Canada.
	Minister of Justice decreeing that...
	I want to get the words again.
	I want to get the words.
	You don't have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.
	Oh, I...
	Jamie Zero, you have not missed a lot.
	You missed the intro with the press sec saying the economy is just fine historically and David Lamedi saying that you do not have an absolute right to private property ownership in Canada.
	Yeah, the hair has gone wild, which is why I believe now the headphones, I'm not even wearing the headphones out of necessity, although it makes it easier to not forget to put it on mute so you don't hear an echo.
	I like the way it's actually...
	I feel like I've gone back to my days of playing squash, varsity squash for McGill.
	Viva, could you cover the Bill of Rights?
	I think you mean the Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights.
	Yeah, no, Brad Raymond, Viva, I think he's referring to non-Canadian citizens, in this case, Russian investors, I think, LOL.
	Well, I mean, first of all, I mean, so I mentioned it, probably contextually, that's going to be what he says he meant.
	But let's get back to that slippery slope fallacy.
	You know, foreign nationals don't have the right to private property ownership on Canada.
	Okay.
	How long until...
	How long until that's true of...
	To some extent, this is why I think you're actually not correct, Brad Raymond, because he did say there are expropriation laws in Canada.
	Actually, hold on.
	Hold on.
	This is a fair point.
	The argument could be that he was referring to Russian nationals.
	Let me see something.
	Do we see what we're looking at here?
	Let me see.
	Are we looking at the same thing?
	Okay, we're not on incognito, so I'm not going to hit any.
	Here, listen.
	So that it could withstand a court challenge.
	You don't have an absolute right to own private property.
	Okay, there you go.
	That's why now I believe he actually loses that argument.
	That he was only talking about Russian nationals or foreign nationals non-citizens because the Expropriation Act is the law of Canada that provides the grounds, the criteria, the threshold for expropriating and for compensation for expropriation.
	I mean, the government just can't go around willy-nilly expropriating private property, but they can if there's a good reason.
	And the Expropriation Act applies to Canadians when it comes to the government expropriating private land.
	So if he was going to say, It only applies to foreigners owning private land in Canada.
	Well, then, you wouldn't necessarily justify that statement by referring to the Expropriations Act, which applies to Canadian citizens who need to be ultimately fairly compensated for the expropriation by the government, who can only expropriate it for a darn good necessity, reason, or cause.
	Chris Wyan says, Lamedi is a goof.
	Isn't he just so surreptitiously, eh, the superbly...
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me try this again.
	Isn't he just so surreptitiously and superbly ready to whimsically whisk away all of our rights as Canadian citizens?
	What an absolute goof.
	Viva and Barnes equals best ever.
	Godspeed.
	Let him try to raise the argument.
	If the argument was that he's only referring to foreigners owning private property in Canada, you wouldn't have justified the statement by saying it's already lawful to do it under the Expropriations Act.
	So we'll just make sure that we're going to comply with the law.
	I take for granted a government will comply with the law.
	Not that they're going to tailor what they would otherwise be doing unlawfully to the law to make it justifiable to do under the law where it otherwise wouldn't be.
	So we're going to tailor what would otherwise be unlawful activity to make sure it can fit within a law.
	And who's going to interpret whether or not it was lawful?
	It's going to be our court system.
	In English, it's quite easy to accidentally shift the meaning of you from you Russian guys to you Canadian guys.
	Wouldn't you say?
	I don't know, Pasha.
	Pasha, what would you say?
	Thank you.
	No, no, it's either way.
	Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, slippery slope.
	They've already seized, not seized, I'm sorry, let me rephrase.
	They've already frozen bank accounts of Canadian citizens with no due process.
	So they're already one step past what we're thinking Lamedi might have meant with this statement.
	Anyways, we've seen the charter.
	The charter's a beautiful thing on paper, on digital paper.
	Okay, that's that.
	Oh, here, actually, no, hold on.
	I pulled up an article.
	I mean, this is just the 101 of expropriations.
	Can the government take your land?
	Under rare circumstances, legalline.ca, take it for what it's worth.
	But the bottom line, this is like the fundamental 101.
	They can take your land.
	If there's a good reason, if they need it for running a train, Power lines.
	If they're going to reroute a dam or something, they can expropriate land that would otherwise be private with following certain protocol under the Expropriations Act, and it has to be remunerated at a fair price.
	This is called expropriation, and it means taking a private land for public use.
	If they're seizing Russian assets, for what public use?
	Common examples of expropriation include...
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Widen the road, schools...
	Okay, whatever.
	In addition to fair compensation for the price of the expropriated property, landowners may also have the right to compensation for losses such as...
	I actually did a little bit of expropriation law when it came to compensating tenants for their lost leases when the government expropriated a building that was privately owned by the owner and the tenants got screwed.
	In that they lost their leases of, what, 5, 10, 15 years left or renewals.
	And that can really upend the business.
	And which is why you'll notice, people, oftentimes in commercial leases, there will be a provision or a clause in your lease that the landlord does not need to fight expropriation.
	Because the landlord might not want to fight expropriation.
	And that if they don't fight expropriation, they're not going to be held liable for any expropriation by the city.
	They have no positive obligations to fight for and on behalf of the tenants.
	And they also have no obligations to indemnify the tenants for loss of leases or loss of revenue.
	So it's an interesting field of law.
	I mean, it doesn't happen all that often.
	And you know the buildings where it runs a bigger risk, typically industrial buildings where the government might want to build a train station in already industrial areas.
	It's not as much of a risk with like downtown.
	Commercial buildings.
	The government doesn't typically come in and expropriate prime real estate.
	But anyway, that's it.
	There's a whole process.
	There's compensation.
	There's already a law that governs it.
	But now they're saying not just that.
	There's already a law governing it.
	You don't have an absolute right to private land ownership in Canada.
	Who would have thunk?
	Okay.
	That was not legal advice.
	That was just interpreting leases.
	Talking about what goes on.
	Okay.
	Speaking of horse plop and not legal advice, I will not make any commentary.
	I will not say anything that can even remotely be considered medical advice.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	I am not a doctor.
	I am an obsessive-compulsive neurotic individual and arguably even a hypochondriac.
	But I'm not a doctor.
	And I will not make any of the comments that all of you might be thinking in your own heads as we read this article.
	But let's read the article.
	Let me just minimize this so I can see it at the same time.
	There will be no commentary.
	I will not be stating anything mildly objectionable, offensive, getting out of my lane as a lawyer with a YouTube channel.
	From the Daily Mail.
	Healthy young people...
	This is from June 8th, 2022.
	Or as they say in the UK, 8 June 2022.
	Healthy...
	I will also not read the chats, although I'm looking at them.
	Healthy young people are dying suddenly and unexpectedly from a mysterious syndrome as doctors seek answers through a new national register.
	You know, they want to...
	In Canada, they had...
	Floated the idea of a national gun registry so they could keep track of firearms.
	Now they need a national registry to keep track of young, healthy people dying from a mysterious syndrome.
	In case you don't have time to read the entire article, bullet number one.
	People aged under the age of 40 being urged to go and get their hearts checked.
	Many potentially...
	That's my problem here.
	May potentially be at risk of having sudden adult death syndrome.
	SADS.
	SADS is an umbrella term to describe unexpected deaths in young people.
	It's funny.
	Historically, it was just called heart attacks if it was a heart-related death.
	A 31-year-old woman who died in her sleep last year may have had SADS.
	No, she may not have had SADS.
	She had SADS if it means sudden adult death syndrome.
	Because she died in her sleep at 31. It's happened before.
	It happens.
	I have known plenty of people who have passed away untimely.
	SADS is an umbrella term.
	Okay, we just read that part, but let's just get into this article.
	The term is used when a post-mortem cannot find an obvious cause of death.
	By the way, interesting, trivial pursuit question.
	What is literally the cause of all death?
	Ooh, let's see if anyone in the chat knows this.
	This was...
	I believe this was a Trivial Pursuit question, but literally all cause of death.
	What is it?
	Let's see.
	Let's see.
	Yeah, hold on a second, people.
	Let me see.
	Sorry.
	Okay.
	Seems that...
	Oh, that's too crooked.
	Hold on.
	All causes.
	All death can be attributed to one explanation.
	Darn it.
	Apparently my zip tie cracked plastic container is no longer a good base for the camera.
	I'll fix that later.
	It is not hard stops because you can be...
	You can still be alive without a beating heart.
	Lack of a beating heart would not be the right answer.
	It is lack of oxygen to the brain.
	That is what is the cause of all death.
	Lack of oxygen to the brain, which can be brought about by lack of circulation, lack of a heart beating, and so on.
	I had gotten here late.
	I'm glad no young people.
	Oh, I don't want anyone misconstruing that.
	So it is lack of oxygen to the brain is technically the cause of all death.
	Now, let's get back to this article and hope the camera doesn't fall down again.
	The U.S.-based SADS Foundation has said that over half of the 4,000 annual SADS deaths of children, teens, and young adults have one of the top two warning signs present.
	Those signs include a family history of SADS, Diagnosis or sudden unexplained death of a family member and fainting or seizing during exercise or when excited or startled.
	Okay.
	It's a very...
	I mean, I'm just noticing from this article, one thing is acutely missing.
	Comparison of timeframe of an increase in SADS.
	By the way, let me just...
	No, I'll flag this and I'll get to it afterwards.
	Not flag, I'll star the comment to get to it.
	Okay.
	Then we have an example here, which, you know, one example is not something that we draw a large conclusion from.
	Melbourne's Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute is developing the country's first SADS registry.
	There are approximately 700 cases per year of people aged under 50 in Victoria suddenly having their hearts stopped.
	Okay, I'd like to know the comparison over time, if I may ask the obvious question.
	Which seems to be acutely missing from this article.
	Okay, fine.
	90% occur outside the hospital.
	The person doesn't make it.
	So it's actually ambulance staff and forensics caring for the bulk of these patients.
	Okay.
	Where are we going to get to any meaningful reporting in this article?
	The best advice would be, if you yourself had a first-degree relative, a parent, it would be tough to have a parent-sibling child who's had an unexplained death.
	It's extremely recommended you see a cardiologist, she said.
	So can we appreciate what just we witnessed with that article?
	A headline, which is shocking.
	Because presumably this is news, and that's why it's in the news now, because it's new and not an old existing phenomenon that has always existed with the same severity.
	Because now it says, we have to, and then again, don't anyone accuse me of suggesting anything.
	This headline says, people are dying suddenly and unexpectedly from a mysterious syndrome.
	Healthy young people are dying suddenly and unexpectedly.
	So this sounds like it's something of a new problem by the phrasing of this headline, unless I'm reading into it based on my own perceived bias.
	Because this is all new.
	I don't recall seeing articles like this five years ago, and I'm neurotic.
	I do remember my mother and my father.
	They still do.
	They send me articles of...
	People dropping dead after going in very cold water.
	They say, David, don't go winter swimming and you're going to have a heart attack.
	It can cause cold-induced arrhythmia.
	I was like, yeah, okay.
	My mother always sent me those articles going back 20 years.
	I don't recall there being an epidemic of people under 40 suddenly dying from an unexplained mysterious death so much so that they gave it a name.
	Oh, who in the chat can see when SADS was created as a concept?
	Yeah, here.
	I'm 54. I've never heard of SADS until the other day.
	Me neither.
	But maybe people in the chat can find out when SADS was created as a term.
	I'm going to go look for it afterwards because now that's a question I have.
	But this article is talking about news.
	That's why it's in the news because it's new and not old.
	It's called the news and not the olds, to quote a Simpsons.
	I've never heard of it either.
	And I pay attention to these things.
	When we say in our family, my grandfather on my mother's side, Died of a heart attack when he was 54, when my mother was 13. But other than that, you know, then we have heart conditions, but my grandfather on my father's side died too young, but not at 50. Grandmother on my dad's side lived to 103.
	Yeah.
	The relevance of the article are the numbers presented which are higher than historical norms for SUD.
	And SADS.
	Yep.
	Well, that's what I think is the point of it.
	So anyways, mysterious.
	Nobody possibly knows.
	And then when you get into the substance of that article, acutely missing from that piece of journalism is actual journalism.
	Comparisons to historical averages.
	Investigations into the causes.
	Descriptions of contemporaneous events.
	So.
	Acutely missing from the journalism is journalism.
	But the headline is a shocking headline.
	And they're telling young people to go get their hearts checked out?
	I'm old enough to remember when stress tests were not required unless you were applying for life insurance and they just wanted to make sure that you didn't have any underlying conditions that would increase your likelihood of...
	Oh, that's annoying.
	...of issues that might cause them.
	To increase the...
	Oh, I'm just making it worse now.
	There we go.
	That's it.
	Not touching it again.
	I'll sit up a little higher if I have to.
	So there's that.
	There's that.
	And if you dare ask questions, they'll call you all sorts of names.
	There was a chat that I wanted to get to.
	It's just a flesh wound.
	That's in reference to the camera falling over.
	Oh, hold on.
	Okay, that's better.
	I just made it worse.
	How long?
	Okay, and then there was this comment.
	Monkeypox.
	People, there is an article floating around that is debunked as fake news.
	That the monkeypox was, in fact, shingles being diagnosed.
	The CTV or whatever article that it was attributed to never ran the article, never ran the headline, so don't get caught sharing what is seemingly either A hoax, satire, fake news, good faith, whatever.
	That story apparently is not true, so don't be sharing it and then get accused of spreading misinformation.
	Someone sent it to me.
	First thing I did, I Google in search, in quotation mode, a citation from the article.
	It didn't come up, which is never a good sign.
	And then I read a bit more and it seems that CTV never ran the article and the information is inaccurate.
	Okay, that's what we've got here.
	SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, is what it was originally called.
	They added the A for adults.
	SIDS is used when they don't know what cause of death was.
	SIDS, any parent knows about SIDS.
	I had never heard about SADS.
	I had heard about SAD, which is S-A-D-D, Seasonal Affected Depression Disorder.
	I had never heard of SADS as Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.
	I just knew that as heart attacks, cardiac arrest, underlying heart condition.
	And when it happened, it's always tragic.
	It's always unexpected, unless people are running Ironman, and then it tends to happen more often in general, just from overexertion.
	But I had never heard of SADS as a phenomenon as rampant as SIDS.
	And every parent knows about SIDS because they tell you not to let your baby sleep on their stomach.
	They don't know why that seems to exacerbate SIDS in newborns and infants.
	But I had never heard of SADS.
	And I pay attention to these things because I...
	I live in fear of everything.
	Okay, the relevance.
	I got that.
	I got that chat.
	And then I don't think there's another chat.
	So that's the article.
	Interesting headline.
	Interesting in what is specified in that article, but more interesting in what is omitted from that article.
	And if you ask any questions, get ready to be called names.
	Okay, going to rumble just to see.
	There is a rumble rant, people.
	We got a rumble rant from MAK.
	2022.
	My husband, 26 years old, died of SARS in bed beside me after several hours of vigorous squash.
	I think you mean SADS and not SARS.
	Unless you meant SARS.
	So squash, by the way, and this is growing up, my parents also told me, you stop playing squash when you hit your 30s.
	And I'm sorry to hear that.
	I had a very good high school friend.
	We were in high school together whose father passed away spontaneously on the squash court.
	And you remember these things when we were both very young and this person was a close friend.
	And it's just tragic and obviously traumatic.
	For the person.
	Then they created a squash memorial named after the man.
	I mean, when you're 12 and 13, 45 seems old.
	And then you realize when you get there, you know, it's dropping dead of a heart attack, playing squash shouldn't happen.
	And it's just unbelievable tragedy when it does.
	So SAD, sudden arrhythmic death syndrome affects around 500 people in the UK every year, according to British Heart Foundation.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, so that's the article.
	That's one article which you come across and you just like, it's just like, in a way it feels like we're seeing a lot more of these articles.
	And I think because maybe we are, maybe I'm just noticing them more because of my sensitivities of the time.
	Maybe there are more of these articles.
	Just peppering the landscape so that we get used to this new reality.
	Okay, let's stop screen sharing there.
	What's the next article?
	We're not going to go very long today, people.
	Because I started late, got to pick up the kids, and I got to get ready for Spidey this evening.
	Let's do the Twitter.
	Let's do the Twitter thing.
	We did the doctors are trying to determine why.
	Okay, we got that article.
	Let's look at Elon Musk's filing with the SEC.
	Okay, hold on.
	Minimize this.
	I'll make sure that we're looking at the same thing.
	Then I'm going to take it back out and give you all the rundown.
	We all know that.
	We all know.
	Oh, that's not going to work.
	Okay, hold on.
	Let's just try like this.
	There we go.
	And like that.
	Nope, it's not going to work.
	I'll have to maximize it.
	Okay, give me one second.
	So, Dr. John Campbell.
	There's nothing that would not surprise me in this world anymore.
	We all know what's going on with Twitter.
	Elon Musk decided to buy it.
	Twitter's a pretty good free speech platform.
	Let's buy it.
	How much would it cost?
	Multiple lawsuits in the works because Elon Musk had acquired 9.2% shareholding in the company but apparently failed to disclose that he had exceeded 5% ownership as required by law under SEC Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.
	Disclosed that he owned 9.2% after having gotten there but not disclosed it at 5%.
	Had sold their stock after the time Elon had acquired 5%, but before the time he made the public announcement where the stock price jumped 20%, they sold.
	Whoever sold, they sold not knowing that Elon had in fact attained 5% ownership.
	They're claiming class action status because Elon had to have disclosed it.
	They got, let's just call it, fraudulently deprived from potential profits because the argument would be they would not have sold it had they known Elon acquired 5%.
	Whatever.
	That's one lawsuit.
	Then there's SEC potentially going after Elon for failing to file filings with the SEC.
	So you can have a civil suit based on alleged torts of not having disclosed.
	SEC is going after Elon for allegedly having not disclosed, but those are minor sort of statutory offenses.
	Elon promises to buy.
	Get into an agreement that says, I'll buy it.
	I want to look at your books.
	Twitter has to open its books and disclose information, good and bad, that might affect the agreed-upon purchase price.
	One of the issues was whether or not Twitter had been publicly misleading people, including the SEC, in their court filings, in their SEC filings over a decade, as to the actual number of bot or spam accounts on the platform.
	They've been saying 5% or less.
	The obvious reason is Twitter's only method of making money is through advertising dollars, which You know, if you spend a dollar and you think that there's only 5%, let me just make sure I can get my math here.
	Let's say you spend $10 on an ad, knowing that 5% of the recipients of that ad are fake accounts.
	Okay, well then it's worth 5% less than it would have otherwise been had everyone been bona fide eyes.
	If you spend $10 on an ad, being told that the bot spam accounts are only 5%, but they actually represent 20%.
	Well, you are wasting money on 15% that you thought were real people that are not.
	So when Elon says, I'm going to buy the company, I'd like to make sure that you are actually accurate, honest, or at least not even truthful, that it's accurate when you say there's only 5% bought, spam, whatever boosted accounts, because that will affect my purchase price.
	If it turns out half of Twitter are fake accounts, I'm not spending $44 billion on it.
	I might not even spend half of that because it might actually be worthless.
	So there's an offer to purchase, an accepted offer to purchase, and the parties have to do their due diligence, open their books, yada, yada.
	Elon says, I think you've been misleading me and I might want to back out of this deal.
	Twitter says, you can't back out of the deal.
	We've satisfied our obligations and now you're backing out for no good reason.
	And he says, no, there is a good reason.
	I don't believe you're being truthful.
	I believe you're hiding information.
	And he's made a filing to that effect, which he filed.
	I think it's June 6th.
	So let's see here.
	United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay, so we got here.
	If the person...
	Let's see what this is.
	Okay, this is all nonsense.
	Okay, Elon Musk.
	This is a public document.
	Schedule 13D.
	Number of shares owned.
	73 million shares.
	Okay.
	9.6% of the company.
	Interesting filing.
	Purpose of the transaction.
	On June 6th, here, let's highlight this part.
	I cannot highlight, that'll be impossible to read.
	The reporting person delivered a letter to the issuer, reiterating his request for certain data and information necessary to facilitate his evaluation of spam and fake accounts on the issuer's platform and reserving his rights resulting from the issuer's refusal to provide such data and information in material breach of the issuer's...
	obligations under its merger agreement with the reporting person.
	The foregoing description of the reporting person's letter is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit O. So pretty straightforward.
	And let's just see what the letter says.
	You gotta love this.
	By the way, everyone should have...
	One of the best takeaways from the practice of law...
	At least for me.
	I'm going to take this out.
	This is not legal advice.
	This is practical practice advice.
	In law, at some point, you become conditioned or traumatized to understand that everything you ever write to anyone can and very likely will find its ways under the eyes of a judge at some point in time.
	Emails to your client.
	Emails to opposing counsel, emails to third parties, emails to witnesses.
	So my absolute total takeaway from the practice of law is draft everything and anything as though one day a judge is going to read it and you will tailor your language accordingly.
	I say that even with my Twitter feed, but Twitter is totally public and intended to be public, hence stylistically why some tweets are drafted the way they are.
	But people sometimes think, I can be a total a-hole privately.
	I'll write an email lambasting someone, chewing someone out, and oh, it's going to feel so good to do it.
	And then one day, you're going to be sitting there and a judge is going to be reading your words to somebody else, staring at you afterwards, and you're going to have to say, oh my goodness, why did I, I was a jerk.
	So, that's the practical law advice.
	Reading this letter.
	You know, this letter was not drafted as though someone might see it.
	This letter was drafted as though someone would necessarily see it, and they knew it.
	So read it accordingly.
	But my advice in law and in life, if you draft everything as though the judge or a judge, as in a legal judge, or the legal judge or a spiritual judge will one day read it, you might weigh your words accordingly, and it might make for a happier, more peaceful life.
	To Twitter.
	Vijay Gad, Chief Legal Officer.
	Dear Ms. Gad, we are in receipt of correspondence sent on Twitter's behalf dated June 1, responding to Mr. Musk's request for data and information described in my letters dated May 25 and May 31. Mr. Musk does not agree with the characterizations in Twitter's June 1 letter.
	Twitter has, in fact, refused to provide the information that Mr. Musk has repeatedly requested since May 9, 2022, to facilitate his evaluation of spam and fake accounts on the company's platform.
	Twitter's latest offer to simply provide additional details regarding the company's own testing methodologies, whether through written materials or verbal explanations, is tantamount to refusing Mr. Musk's data requests.
	This is an easy letter to write, but this is beautifully drafted.
	I don't want your explanations.
	I don't want your methodologies.
	Give me access to the data.
	I'll look at it.
	I'll break it down the way I want.
	And if we disagree on the outcome of those calculations, we'll talk then.
	But don't make my decision for me.
	Don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining.
	I want to test the fluid that you just applied to my face.
	Bad analogy.
	Who cares?
	Twitter's efforts to characterize it otherwise is merely an attempt to obfuscate and confuse the issue.
	Mr. Musk has made it clear that he does not believe the company's lax testing methodologies are adequate, so he must conduct his own analysis.
	And we know how this works now.
	This is no different than polling data.
	You can choose to change definitions, change thresholds, change criteria that will radically affect the outcome.
	So I don't want your methodology.
	I want your data.
	The data he has requested is necessary to do so.
	So let's just see here.
	I think this is going to refer to the agreement.
	As noted, under various terms of the merger agreement, Twitter is required to provide data and information that Mr. Musk requests in connection with the...
	Consummation of the transaction.
	It's very romantic.
	Twitter's obligation to provide Mr. Musk with information is not, as the company's June 1st letter suggests, limited to, quote, very specific purpose facilitating the closing of the transaction.
	Even if it were limited to that very specific purpose, that's a specific purpose with broad implications.
	It's not even clear that if Musk doesn't get this information, that he'll be able to secure the financing if he needed any.
	Now, the problem is, I think this was a cash deal, in which case Elon's going to say, can't blame it on a third party.
	Well, the bank won't give it to me unless you prove this.
	But even if it was limited to the very specific purpose of facilitating the transaction, that's a very broad objective.
	To the contrary, Mr. Musk is entitled to seek and Twitter is obligated to provide information and data for inter alia, among other things.
	Any reasonable business purpose related to the consummation of the transaction, section 6.4.
	Twitter must also provide reasonable cooperation in connection with Mr. Musk's efforts to secure the debt financing, so he is going to get financing, necessary to consummate the transaction, including by providing information, quote, reasonably requested by Musk.
	Mr. Musk's request for user data not only satisfies both criteria, but also meets even Twitter's narrowed interpretation of the merger agreement as this information is necessary to facilitate the closing of the transaction.
	This is beautifully written.
	It's sufficiently easy to understand, even for a layperson, and there's not a wasted word in there.
	As Twitter's prospective owner, Mr. Musk is clearly entitled to the requested data to enable him to prepare for transitioning Twitter's business to his ownership and to facilitate his transaction financing, yada, yada, yada.
	Let's go to the last paragraph.
	This is beautiful.
	If Twitter is confident in its publicized spam estimates, Mr. Musk does not understand the company's reluctance to allow Mr. Musk to independently evaluate those estimates.
	As noted...
	In our previous correspondence, Mr. Musk will, of course, comply with the restrictions provided under Section 6.4.
	I suspect that's confidentiality, including by ensuring that anyone reviewing the data is bound by a non-disclosure agreement and Mr. Musk will not retain or otherwise use any competitively sensitive information if the transaction is not consummated.
	What do we got there?
	Oh, that's the last page.
	Based on Twitter's behavior to date, the company's latest correspondence, in particular Mr. Musk believes the company is actively resisting and thwarting his information rights and the company's corresponding obligations under the merger agreement.
	This is a clear material breach of Twitter's obligation under the merger agreement and Mr. Musk reserves all rights resulting therefrom, including the right not to consummate the transaction and his right to terminate the merger agreement.
	So...
	Some interesting conundrums.
	I want to break out a meme.
	It's a conundrum.
	Some interesting conundrums here.
	Twitter might realistically have the problem that even if they provide all of the raw data to him, and Elon does his own calculations, and does not publicly disclose any of that information, but doesn't go through with the sale, that's as good as confirming that there's a big problem, Houston.
	And so Twitter is saying, even if we give him all of the data, even if it remains all confidential and he doesn't exploit it for his own potential competitive purposes, which is also one of the issues, if Twitter, if he doesn't go through with the purchase, one will and likely reasonably properly conclude that there's a problem with Twitter, which is going to devastate its stock price.
	Regardless, after the deal falls through, which itself would probably devastate the stock price.
	So, serious financial problems here.
	If I wanted to listen to Mostly Bots, I'd listen to Bell's Automated Customer Service.
	But they're Mostly Bots, which means that they're partially human.
	I'm joking.
	That's just a joke.
	So, it's interesting.
	The letter, it's drafted for public consumption.
	It's drafted for public filing so that the public will read it.
	And that...
	You know, Twitter, not Twitter, Elon, in addition to fighting a legal battle, if this goes south, is going to be fighting a public opinion battle, and he's fighting it publicly.
	Draft a letter, knowing you're going to file it, knowing it's going to be public, and the public's going to read it, and if this deal doesn't go through, and the poop hits the fan, at the very least, now, people...
	Can say, well, who am I going to sue?
	Am I going to sue Elon Musk for futzing around and bailing out of the deal?
	Or am I going to sue Twitter for not respecting what seem to be its obligations of disclosure and blame them for tanking the price?
	Or blame them for having lied?
	Or, without presuming intention, misrepresented for over a decade the actual amount of actual bots actually on the platform?
	Okay.
	It's going to go back to Rumble for one second.
	I think I saw another.
	No, that's the same one.
	Okay.
	So that's where it's at with the purchase.
	Now, some people could hypothesize that Elon's playing hardball.
	He might be pushing hard to try to get Twitter to drop the price, as he would absolutely be within his rights if it turns out that Twitter...
	Intentionally or accidentally has been underreporting, underestimating the actual number of bots.
	He'd be within his rights to do it.
	This is not like litigation warfare for the sake of it.
	So, inconceivable!
	I'm going to finish up my drink here.
	I think I like Guru better than Red Bull.
	It's delicious.
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay, over there.
	So, that's it.
	What's up with Elon trying to give our brains a USB?
	Twitter didn't misrepresent the bots.
	The reports explicitly state that MDUA exclude bots.
	MDUA.
	5% is just what they miss.
	Read the effing quarterly reports.
	Well, now I'm going to have to go see exactly what you're talking about.
	MDUAs exclude bots.
	Hold on.
	What's MDUA?
	Anyhow, what is an MDUA?
	Winston is a bot.
	Hold on.
	Royal.
	What's MDUA?
	Nice avatar.
	That is the evil guy from Terminator 2. I think you're naturally caffeinated.
	Yes, but it doesn't hurt to help that out.
	It's not too much sugar in this one.
	It has less.
	How many grams of sugar?
	Let's see how much sugar is in here.
	How many grams of carbs?
	21 grams.
	Might be too much.
	Here we go.
	Monetizable daily active users.
	I may have got it backwards.
	Okay.
	To be determined.
	Monetizable daily active users.
	But now the question is, how do you define a monetizable daily active user?
	Bottom line, it's going to be interesting to see what happens.
	I think Elon is still going to buy the company because I think he wants it and I think he understands the true potential and value of the company.
	But we all know that there's a lot of bots and if he's going to buy that company, he's not going to buy it for more than he has to.
	The only problem is negotiate the price down too much.
	You're going to piss off the shareholders who need to get bought out.
	And then they're going to try to find someone to sue, and that might be those who may have misrepresented the number of actual bots, thus artificially inflating the value of the company.
	Viva deserves way more likes.
	It's free for crying out loud.
	I agree.
	It is both free optionally.
	There's always an option to support.
	If you want to get merch, Viva Barnes University.
	Hashtag not a real university.
	Merch at vivafry.com.
	Superchats, Rumble Rants, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, but the best way to share is to share.
	The best way to support?
	For free.
	Share.
	Were you aware of attempt...
	Oh, that's the article.
	That's the article that I have in the backdrop.
	That's SCOTUS...
	SCOTUS...
	SCARE.
	SCOTUS SCARE is what I was going for.
	Were you aware of attempt on Justice Kavanaugh life last night?
	Well...
	We'll read the article.
	I don't know that they went that far, but it didn't sound good.
	And it was entirely predictable that political permission slip has been given out, people.
	When you have politicians, when you have the freaking press secretary and the president of the United States saying it's okay to protest on the front lawns of SCOTUS judges when it's specifically forbidden under federal law.
	I forget what the article is.
	It's United States Code.
	I want to say 2507.
	But that one might be in my mind for another one.
	No, 1953.
	Let's see if I got it.
	Hold on.
	I think it's 1953.
	USC, 18, 1953.
	I went 1963, damn it.
	Interstate transportation of wagering?
	That's not what I'm looking for.
	Chat's going to get it.
	I forget what the exact provision of law is.
	Specifically illegal.
	To protest on the front lawn of a judge so as to influence a decision that they're in the process of rendering.
	So, it's trickle-down lawlessness.
	In the same way as in Canada, it's trickle-down intolerance.
	When you have the Prime Minister of Canada coming out and saying, those people are putting us all at risk.
	It is only normal that other people feel empowered to embody a similar intolerance.
	When you have the POTUS and the PRESS SEC coming down and saying, we don't mind actual breaking of actual federal law so long as they do it peacefully, it's predictable and it's reckless.
	But let's just go here.
	Armed California men arrested at the SCOTUS.
	Here, let's just bring this down.
	Close this.
	But yeah, unfortunately predictable and unfortunately obvious that when the political permission slip, you get people who are clearly unwell, like that HR lady with that TikTok video that I'm sure she's going to regret having posted.
	Armed California man arrested by Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's Maryland home.
	Suspect was carrying a gun and a knife when he was arrested in Montgomery County, Maryland.
	Oh, come on, get out of there.
	I don't want to see that.
	Okay, goodbye.
	An armed man, yada yada.
	The suspect was carrying a gun and a knife when he was arrested and had made violent threats against Kavanaugh.
	The man's name is being withheld at this time, but sources say he is in his mid-twenties from California and was picked up on a nearby street.
	He did not get to the Kavanaugh home.
	By the way, they said at what time?
	I think they said 1.50 a.m.
	Yeah, here we go.
	At approximately 1.50 a.m.
	That's after midnight.
	That's 1.50 in the morning.
	A man was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh's residence.
	Patricia McCabe, spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, said in a statement to Fox News.
	The man was armed, made threats against Justice Kavanaugh.
	He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District.
	U.S. Attorney Merrick Garland is to speak around noon at a pre-scheduled press conference to provide an update.
	Okay, so this is on Uvalde.
	He's expected to address the incident near Kavanaugh's home.
	The arrest came hours before the Supreme Court revealed Wednesday that it had not ruled in the case of Dobbs v.
	Jackson.
	This is the one that everyone's protesting on the front lawns about because they're afraid they're going to overturn Roe v.
	Wade based on a leaked draft decision which overturns Roe v.
	It kicks it back to the states.
	The issue of the Big A kicks it back to the states to be established at state law level.
	But, you know...
	Protesting on the front lawns of SCOTUS justices, that's redundant, of SCOTUS members while they're deliberating.
	To pretend it's not to influence their decision would just be intellectually dishonest, but probably par for the course for politics these days.
	Specifically illegal under federal law.
	The Department of Homeland Security issued a new bulletin Tuesday, warning of heightened threat environment over the next several months as they monitored both risks of domestic...
	And foreign adversaries looking to sow US societal division and inspire.
	You know what?
	You don't need anybody else for that other than mainstream media in the United States.
	You do not need any other entity that can do it as effectively as MSM has done it, continues to do it, and will continue to do it going forward.
	While citing other recent events including...
	So that's the news.
	I mean, I guess it's a developing story because it is.
	Did the chat get what provision of law it was?
	Breaking?
	I don't know if this is true.
	Twitter now plans to comply with Elon Musk's demands for data about bots on the platform.
	Very interesting.
	Viva Dwarf.
	I am not a tall man.
	I do not mind being called a dwarf, however.
	I can run fast.
	And I'm strong.
	I just want to see if we got the article title.
	His home arrested the guy.
	Montgomery County, is that in California?
	Or is that in another place?
	A California man.
	Oh, 1507.
	Good.
	Hold on.
	Let's just go to 1507.
	1953.
	Come on, man.
	Picketing or parading?
	Picketing or parading?
	Seems to me they got a bunch of people on.
	The picketing or parading under different circumstances.
	Seems to be under different circumstances.
	My goodness, have they picked up on people for picketing and parading.
	That's a lot of alliteration.
	The parky puppy perked up his puppy eyes.
	Who's going to get that movie?
	What was the...
	It was a puppy who perked up his puppy ears.
	Billy Madison.
	I'm going to save the suspense there.
	18 U.S.C.
	code 1507, picketing or parading.
	Whoever with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge in the discharge of his duties, pickets or parades, in or near a building, housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied.
	Or used by such a judge.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Or with such intent uses any sound truck or similar device.
	Resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year.
	Or both.
	Overt criminal.
	It's an overt crime.
	And you actually had, I think it was Pressec Saki.
	Come out and say, so long as they do it peacefully, we're okay with them breaking federal law.
	And what do you think?
	What do you think that has by way of trickle-down political permission slip?
	Eh, duty.
	Yeah, so that's it.
	That's the story.
	We'll see what the latest developments are, but they have sanctioned in the sense of authorized Political permission slip tolerated overt criminal conduct, so long as it remains peaceful.
	Well, whatever.
	Let me see what happens there.
	So, good question.
	We talked about the Cosby.
	I don't want to talk about it now, but we talked about it as to how Cosby is getting a new trial in California.
	I didn't hear that he was getting a new trial.
	Anyway, so that's what happened with Kavanaugh.
	It's just, you know, it's lawlessness to some extent.
	When the politicians weaponize the prosecutorial process to devastate people for picketing and parading in the Capitol building and then simultaneously tolerate and I dare say even promote.
	Picketing or parading on the front lawns of SCOTUS justices while they're deliberating on a big decision.
	The outcome is predictable.
	And then the only question is whether or not it's intended or just accidental to incompetence.
	I know where I tend to think right now on that.
	All right.
	And then, I mean, look, I don't want to pull up Matthew McConaughey.
	You should see the January 6th committee.
	I will be live streaming it tomorrow and Friday.
	I'm just going to figure out how to do it.
	My wife might kill me because we're going to have to do tag team parenting, which might involve all morning duties to my wife, including drop-off and pickup.
	But I'm going to stream it because it's going to be fascinating to watch from a pure spectacle perspective because I think...
	This is not going to be the type of hearing that it ought to be, which is how can you justify what is being done to these individuals, some of whom are still being detained?
	I was listening to Julie Kelly on a Twitter space thing, and I think it was yesterday.
	It was yesterday.
	Julie Kelly, let me just disclose her Twitter handle, because she's not just worth following, it's a necessity because she's covering...
	The July 6th.
	So it's Julie Kelly, Julie underscore Kelly 2 on the Twitterverse.
	That's one more time.
	At Julie, J-U-L-I-E underscore, little dot thing, Kelly, K-E-L-L-Y 2. 248,000 followers on Twitter and does not seem to have the blue checkmark.
	So don't be looking for a blue checkmark.
	So Julie Kelly had a Twitter space yesterday, and it seems that there's upwards of 40 January 6th defendants who are still being detained.
	Pre-trial detention, still being detained.
	Oh yeah, so I'm going to be live streaming the hearing, because it should be a hearing into how on earth can any of what's being done possibly be justified?
	How are there still 40 people detained 500 days later?
	Some of whom have been, by some accounts, held in solitary, denied medical treatment.
	Some of them have had apparently 1% of the broken hand that was not getting medical treatment.
	How does that happen?
	No.
	It's going to be about January 6th, the day that we'll live in infamy because a bunch of people stormed the Capitol.
	Some got rowdy.
	And now the government is using this as the pretext to lock people up indefinitely, lock people up with insanely long sentences.
	And now they're discussing, through Jamie Raskin, using it as the pretext to abolish the Electoral College.
	To quote Dana Carvey, well, isn't that convenient?
	Okay, so tomorrow I'll be doing that.
	But Matthew McConaughey.
	So he went to, he had the podium, he had the podium, the press secretary's podium, and he gave a very impassioned speech.
	Now, I like, I don't know, you like celebrities and you don't know why you like them.
	I like the movies that Matthew McConaughey has been in.
	I like what I think he is as a person, even though I have no idea.
	In reality, he seems nice.
	He seems smart.
	He seems sincere and genuine, more so than many other celebrities.
	I like his accent, and I think he's good-looking.
	All of these things put into one human that I've never met before make me think that I would like him if I were to actually know him as a person.
	Seeing some of the chat, people do not seem to like him.
	There is something to be said about...
	Hollywood.
	So, all that to say, don't know him from a hole in the wall.
	My impression, he's sincere and reasonable.
	People do ask, why on earth does this guy get a podium when...
	I don't even want to say Joe Schmo because I don't mean to denigrate the ordinary citizenry.
	Why does this guy get a podium just by virtue of being rich, famous, good-looking, and in good movies?
	Why?
	Does it make his opinion worth...
	Anything more than any ordinary Canadian or U.S. citizen.
	In this case, U.S. because it's an issue.
	It's an American issue.
	It's all subjective.
	I think he's extremely good looking.
	Maybe that's because I see a little bit of myself in Matthew McConaughey.
	I'm joking.
	All right, all right, all right.
	So, why do celebrities...
	Why does the media treat celebrities as though their opinion matters more than ordinary citizens?
	The flip side to that, however, is that when the media goes and gives a voice to an ordinary citizen, non-celebrity, people then say, well, they're just cherry-picking one ordinary citizen because they like what that ordinary citizen is going to say.
	And it's a legitimate criticism as well.
	But bottom line, McConaughey gets onto the press sec podium.
	And gives a 21-minute speech.
	He talks about the victims.
	It's emotive in the sense...
	It's not possible to watch it however you feel on the Second Amendment debate.
	It's not possible to watch it and not cry or want to cry.
	It's not possible.
	You cannot look at an incident like this and setting aside how it will be weaponized for political purposes or debated or argued.
	It's impossible not to look at this and cry.
	For whatever...
	You'll attribute your sorrow to the loss of life and then what you attribute to being the underlying problem here.
	He talks about several of the victims.
	He's from Uvalde, which I didn't know.
	He said his mother was a teacher at a school one mile from the Uvalde school, which I also didn't know.
	He is a man who supports Second Amendment rights to some extent.
	Then people are going to say, well, you can't support Second Amendment without it being absolute.
	It says shall not be infringed.
	So you can't be someone who says I support the Second Amendment, but or I support the Second Amendment with certain restrictions.
	But he came up and said this is the problem.
	He wants more thorough background checks.
	He wants red flag laws.
	And he wants to raise the age of acquiring What do I want to call it?
	AR-15s of semi-automatic rifles to 21. And people are going to disagree with all of those.
	Some of those, tell them to go shove it.
	As did Joe Kent, who's running for office right now.
	He says, Hollywood celebrities are always about taking away our gun rights, our civil rights and liberties.
	Open the border.
	Don't build the wall.
	Take away everyone's firearms, but we live in fenced-off communities with armed security guards.
	The irony.
	So it's fully semi-monic.
	Okay, that's a joke.
	So that's it.
	And now people are going to look at his speech and digest it in the way that they want.
	The media is going to run with it and say, you know, even middle ground celebrities have some practical solutions.
	NRA, demonic, evil people who...
	Don't care about anybody.
	So that's that.
	My opinion on this is totally irrelevant.
	I'm Canadian.
	I've had a very sharp learning curve on the Second Amendment debate.
	I've seen it from both sides.
	I took the firearm safety course in Canada.
	I think everybody should, in as much as you have to You know, learn how to operate a vehicle.
	You should have to take a course to understand the risks and perils.
	After that, I've also had the experience of knowing how the government can weaponize a registry.
	How they can weaponize knowing what you have in your house.
	And they'll say it's for the protection of the public.
	But I've seen now how Justin Trudeau himself saying, effectively, we want to implement...
	Red flag laws, as though we don't already have them in Canada, if your spouse, who has approved you of owning a firearm as they're required to do under Canadian law, if they call the cops, expect a visit.
	But I've seen, now you've seen the way it works.
	If the government, if the Trudeau government, which is proven unethical twice, should have been thrice, but twice, proven corrupt, proven will...
	Willy-nilly abuse of the laws for political prosecutorial purposes.
	Well, find some trumped-up charges against, I don't know, a Randy Hillier type, and then use that as the pretext to go confiscate any firearms that these individuals might have.
	They didn't do that with Randy Hillier.
	Randy Hillier, for those of you who don't know, is the Ontario MPP who, a month after the protest, Got arrested for allegedly instigating mischief, committing mischief, but assaulting a police officer.
	And I was listening to the bail hearing.
	And at one point, the justice of the peace, the judge, who's trying to ratify the bail terms that the parties have agreed on, says, are there going to be any firearm restrictions?
	Because assaulting a police officer is a serious charge, even though it's absolute horse manure in the context of Randy Hillier.
	Did you guys not talk about confiscating any firearms that Randy Hillier might have?
	He lives in the country.
	He probably hunts.
	Go confiscate his firearms because someone who's accused of assaulting a police officer can't be trusted with firearms.
	And luckily, he had a decently honest prosecutor who said, no, the assault was allegedly committed with one of those dividing metal barriers.
	So there was no need to confiscate firearms when the alleged assault was allegedly committed by moving.
	One of those metal barriers that guide people up the stairs.
	But how hard would it be to say, let's find some trumped-up charges against the likes of a Randy Hillier type.
	Let's go into the house and then let's see if he's storing his rifle according to law.
	Let's use these trumped-up, politically motivated charges to go into the house and just see.
	Because we know that he's got a firearm.
	We know it because it's on a registry.
	While we're there for these bogus, politically motivated charges, let's just make sure that he's storing his firearm properly.
	And if he's not, we can get him on two years in prison for that.
	So that's a serious thing.
	Once you realize that that's in the realm of possibility, in the world in which we live, making sure that people are aware of the risks and perils of firearm ownership, I think that's a very logical thing.
	Having the government, which we've seen the way the government acts, know what you have in your house.
	They can find a reason to come in and just see if you're not storing it properly and go after you with the full extent of the law.
	Do a video with Runkle on Canadian gun laws.
	Well, I had Runkle on as a live stream and we talked about it.
	And he's phenomenally knowledgeable on the topic.
	I mean, he's much more into it from both a personal...
	He does competitions and shooting competitions.
	I just took the course because I wanted to.
	I wanted to have the experience.
	The next thing that will be banned will be chickens on acreages, collecting rainwater, growing veggies, etc.
	Dependency, begging, and poverty.
	Well, if I'm not mistaken, Elaine, I believe collecting rainwater was already illegal in Hawaii.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Let me just star some Super Chat so I can get to those in a second.
	I believe collecting rainwater...
	Let me see if I'm not mistaken.
	Decent memory sometimes.
	Collecting rainwater illegal.
	Canada.
	Hold on.
	Is this?
	It is not a criminal offense to collect rainwater in Canada.
	However, this...
	This is fantastic.
	It is not a criminal offense to collect rainwater in Canada.
	However, this practice is regulated by provincial laws, codes and regulations, standards and municipal bylaws.
	It's not illegal.
	It's just regulated.
	And if you do it wrong, then it becomes illegal.
	Fantastically interesting.
	So that's the Makani.
	I mean, you know, the thing that Makani has to understand, and he was thinking or talking about running for office, this is an issue where there is nothing, there is not a position that someone can take on this issue that's not going to vigorously piss off somebody else on this issue.
	As is the case in politics, it's impossible to get into politics and expect to satisfy everybody, even if you are thoroughly convinced you are right.
	And any reasonable person would have to agree with you.
	So, Makani speaks at March for Life.
	David Hogg rallies for years at Matt's Real Gun Feel agenda relayed.
	I don't know exactly what that means, KZ Gypsy Muse, but I think I understand a part of it.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	There was one more chat after that.
	Here it is.
	There is a problem.
	Intending harm on others on purpose, that is the problem we need to solve.
	But he did touch on mental issues.
	He touched on everything.
	And in so doing, he will please nobody with that answer, because it's not going to be far enough to one side for one side, and it's not going to be far enough to the other side for the other, and it's going to be too middle for most.
	But hold on.
	I want to get to this.
	Chrome.
	Collecting rainwater.
	All right.
	This is from TorontoDefenseLawyers.com.
	So to be taken with a grain of salt, rainwater harvesting is the practice of collecting rainwater and storing it for later use.
	I wouldn't do it.
	Sounds very dirty.
	And for someone who's neurotic of bacteria and the like, I wouldn't do it.
	But then again, I'm, I guess, fortunate enough that we have clean drinking water.
	For now.
	And I can buy bottled water if we need, although I'm starting to get suspicious about bottled water.
	But the topic of illegal rainwater collecting became relevant in 2012 when a man from rural Oregon, United States, was sentenced to 30 days in jail for illegally collecting rainwater on his property.
	Remember, people, it's not illegal.
	It's just regulated.
	The incident of the 64-year-old Gary Harrington's jail sentence inspired a lot of questions about...
	Rainwater harvesting.
	Sentenced to 30 days in jail on nine counts related to unauthorized use of water.
	I'm sorry.
	That's not funny.
	That's tragic.
	Tragically funny.
	Not even tragically hip.
	That is unauthorized use of water.
	It is not a criminal offense to collect rainwater in Canada.
	However, this practice is regulated by provincial bylaws, codes, and regulations, standards, and municipal bylaws.
	Each province has respective laws and regulations pertaining to rainwater harassment.
	Let me tell you something.
	If it's regulated, if it's regulated, that's what we mean when we say, is it illegal?
	Because something that is illegal is regulated.
	Something that's regulated but not illegal is still...
	That is what people mean when they say, is it illegal?
	Is speeding illegal?
	No, but it's regulated.
	It's regulated to set the thresholds of the speed after which it becomes illegal.
	Is collecting rainwater illegal?
	No, but the provinces have regulations, and if you don't respect them, they become statutory.
	It is crazy that it is actually possible to restrict the collection of rainwater.
	Thankfully, we don't live in one of those states.
	Good grief.
	I mean, by the way, what do you think the rationale is?
	What do you think the justification is?
	It's obviously for your own safety and your own protection.
	People don't want you, you know, collecting random rainwater, drinking it, and then getting sick.
	They certainly don't want you collecting it, bottling it, calling it Viva Fry in a bottle, and selling it.
	You could make other people sick.
	Is there a regulation about where you can drink water from?
	Is there like the...
	The public banning of drinking from lakes.
	That's nuts.
	I mean, that is nuts, actually, because even if the issue was safety, we don't want people getting sick by collecting rainwater in dirty canisters.
	There's been a rash of people going to the hospital with giardia or whatever from drinking rainwater.
	Might have to do it.
	There's been a rash of it.
	So we have to make it illegal.
	You know, I live in a municipality where it's not illegal to park your car on a hill, but you have to turn your tires into the curb when you're parked downhill, and you have to turn them away from the curb when you're parked uphill.
	I've never seen anybody that I know get a ticket for this, but there's signage indicating it has now been regulated that when you park your car, you have to turn your wheels into the curb.
	If you're parking downhill and away from the curb, if you're parking uphill.
	And the reason?
	I mean, I understand the reason.
	If you're not rack and pinion, whatever that thing is called.
	If you're parking stick thingy brakes, you don't want the car careening downhill.
	You want it to drive off into the curb and get stopped by the sidewalk or the barrier.
	The question that I have is, has there been a rash of cars?
	Spontaneously shifting out of gear and careening down hills and running into people or buildings?
	Has it ever even happened?
	Has it ever happened that there's a car parked on a hill and no car in front of it?
	And it happens so often that something pops on the car.
	I don't even know what part of the car that would be.
	And it just starts careening down the hill.
	So much so that municipal...
	Regulators, municipal council people sat around and said, you know what we have to do?
	We have to draft legislation for this, regulation.
	We have to print up signs.
	We have to pay city workers to print up those on freaking metal things.
	And we have to pay city workers to go install them.
	And then we have to pay the green onions, the people who issue tickets, to go check the tires.
	Check the tires.
	Are those tires pointing into the curb?
	Are they pointing in enough?
	If they're just a little bit...
	Is that enough?
	Do we issue a ticket?
	It's because the past people would dam up creeks and rivers or collect rainfall that was the source of water supplies for ranchers and cities.
	Okay, interesting.
	Didn't think of that.
	If that's the case, the prohibition should be on blocking up dams and creeks, changing the natural flow of water, which I think there are already laws for.
	As far as I understand, you're not allowed changing the natural flow of the direction of water.
	Were people collecting rainwater in the past to such a degree that it actually affected water to dams and rivers?
	I doubt it.
	I doubt it.
	Viva.
	Kathleen Wine wanted every rural Ontario property with a well to get a meter put on it and you'd be taxed for taking water from your well.
	No comment.
	No comment except for when we say, when they say, when I say, government is a necessary evil and you need to have as little of it as necessary.
	That's why.
	Parasites.
	Politicians are parasites.
	They're parasites that not only survive by suffocating their host, they need to find more hosts.
	It's not that it's like...
	They suffocate one host and then move on to another.
	They suffocate swaths.
	And they only exist by virtue of the fact that they have problems to solve, which incentivizes them to find problems to solve, even if that incentivizes them to cause problems that then exist that need to be solved so they can pay themselves, create committees.
	Oh my goodness.
	I am definitely not an anarchist.
	You need police.
	You need firefighters.
	You need infrastructure.
	You need hospitals.
	Above and beyond that, you need as little as humanly possible of the government because people don't trust private enterprise because they're greedy.
	They're only looking for profit.
	Why would anyone who doesn't trust private enterprise trust the public enterprise of the government?
	As if they don't have their own interests?
	I say this.
	Throughout society, there's going to be a percentage of society that are just going to be corrupt, lying, dishonest, criminal a-holes.
	Any combination of all that.
	That percentage does not change radically depending on one's vocation.
	You might find exponentially more sociopaths in certain fields, but you're not going to find exponentially...
	More trustworthy people in government than you would find in private enterprise.
	And anybody who thinks that you would, probably a politician.
	Okay.
	So anyways, that's that.
	What else did we have here?
	Let me go to the Twitterverse just to make sure.
	We are in incognito.
	I started with this.
	I started with, compared to what we did this, covered that.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, here now you can at least see if I've missed anything here.
	Viva Fry!
	This is Viva Inception.
	Saw you on Somebody Feed Phil's show in Montreal.
	That was awesome.
	That was before COVID.
	Before COVID.
	All right, so whatever.
	You might want to go check that out because this is the Bill C11.
	Let me just get this here.
	No, get that here.
	I'm going to put this in our chat.
	Don't forget to go subscribe to Viva Clips where I put clips.
	For those who do not have time for three-hour live streams, and that much I totally understand.
	Let me just make sure that I got to everything that we were going to get to.
	All right?
	Blocked by another person on Twitter for responding to what was an idiotic take of a tweet.
	Someone said...
	Someone screenshotted this, actually.
	Hold on.
	It's outrageous that people block.
	When someone disagrees with them.
	And I'm not even that mean on Twitter.
	I don't think.
	I think I'm still mildly polite.
	Free speech at work.
	Okay.
	Here we go.
	It was...
	No, I want to see the screenshot of the original...
	Here.
	Of all the women who suck up to male power, women lawyers are the absolute worst of the bunch, desperate to prove that they are To
	which I said, desperate to prove that they are, quote, real.
	My goodness, Daubert, you are the epitome of confession through projection.
	With lack of insight.
	Blocked.
	The person who says women lawyers throw other women under the bus as fast as hard as they can while throwing women under the bus as fast as hard as...
	And then she goes on to refer to everybody as skirts.
	She goes on to refer to women lawyers as skirts.
	Here's Harvey Weinstein's skirt.
	Not a woman.
	Not an independent being.
	Not a class of people who had to fight for equal rights.
	If she disagrees with them, she reduces them to what she considers the stereotype of femininity, of a womanhood, to be a skirt.
	It's like, oh, skirt.
	And it's like, well, when you refer to them as skirts, especially in Harvey Weinstein, are you including Lisa Bloom in those skirts?
	A woman demeaning and degrading another woman as a skirt, and not thinking.
	Not thinking for one second, maybe I'm the baddie.
	Maybe we're the baddies.
	No, I don't want to do that.
	Okay, so block, yada, yada.
	I think we got it.
	The world in which we live.
	Okay, so tonight, people, Spidey is going to be on.
	Spidey, the behavioral analyst, is going to be on.
	Before we end for the day, let me just see.
	If I got any...
	Let's get some questions in the chat.
	Viva, in the early 2000s, the US Libs tried to pass the Hush Rush Bill.
	Now in 2022, Canada is trying to pass Bill C10 or the Hush Viva Bill.
	No, now it's Bill C11.
	That's what it's up to now.
	I'll just repost the link.
	Go check that out.
	I think it's more directed at...
	No, it's directed at any independent media.
	It is directed at...
	Any independent media, and it's intended to artificially prop up the industry that they have artificially been propping up with billions of dollars in taxpayer monies, the CBC, Graduate Canada, CTV.
	I won't rehash what I said.
	It's there.
	Let me see what I missed in the chat, if anything, in here.
	The collection of rainwater is used primarily by property owners, our crumbling infrastructure allowing flooding rainwater drains into the ocean, its government overreach on property rights.
	I mean, now that everyone talks about it, I'm curious as to the rationale.
	I can understand interfering with the natural flow of rivers, creeks, and waters.
	There's already provisions of law about that, I think.
	Okay, what time is it?
	2.41.
	I mean the fake news.
	Yes, I do.
	The government-funded propaganda.
	Justin seems to specifically hate Rebel News.
	Seems like this bill targets them specifically, undoubtedly.
	Undoubtedly.
	Rebel News, True North, Postmillennial, and any independent voice that actually reaches more people than the bogus legacy media.
	And by the way, people, There should be a correction coming this Saturday night on W5.
	So stay tuned for that.
	I just hope that W5 does the right thing in the correction, but there is going to be a correction on the story that W5 ran about me a couple months ago now, this Saturday night on W5.
	What's it called?
	The show.
	W5.
	No, it's W5.
	Saturday night.
	So stay tuned.
	May they just do the right thing.
	You know that most states have no laws for storing a gun, i.e.
	SD, your car is considered your property and you can have...
	Dude, you can have a loaded gun just chilling with no case.
	Well, I'll tell you one thing.
	In Canada, not only is there strict law, not regulation, criminal law about storing your firearms, you cannot store a loaded firearm, period.
	Period.
	Rifle, handgun, Period.
	Not only can you not store a loaded firearm, the ammunition needs to be kept itself in a...
	Your firearm needs to be kept in a locked location.
	Or it has to have a trigger lock on it at all times.
	Your ammunition, it needs to be separately stored in a separate location.
	Or...
	And I don't want anyone thinking this as legal advice.
	This is just my recollection of the law, of the class.
	In a container itself.
	Separate locked storage in Canada.
	So, in Canada, it's very, very different.
	And you know what the penalty is?
	For improper storage of a firearm?
	Let me just see if I can find this.
	Improper storage of a firearm in Canada.
	That's the first thing that comes up.
	The maximum penalty is two years in prison for a summary offense.
	Two years in prison for an indictable offense.
	And it is your first conviction.
	Five years in prison for an indictable offense, and it is not your first conviction.
	What is the careless storage of firearms?
	Ultimately, if you are the person responsible for a firearm, then you must take reasonable precautions to keep the other safe.
	That's the penalty.
	Two years maximum if it's your first offense.
	Five years if it's not.
	Okay.
	Bye.
	Okay.
	No comment, but this is not Canada.
	Don't do this in Canada, Mark.
	All right, people.
	That will call it a day here.
	Let me just make sure that I didn't forget anything on the Rumbles.
	The Rumbles.
	Okay, good crowd in Rumble.
	This is beautiful.
	Tonight, 7 o 'clock, Spidey, behavioral analyst.
	We're going to talk about the Johnny Depp trial, some of the highlights of.
	And some other stuff.
	It's definitely going to go places.
	Tomorrow?
	Oh, tomorrow, live streaming the January 6th committee.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You have to remember that self-defense is not a reason to own a gun in Canada.
	In fact, it's specifically not permitted.
	The rules are simple.
	Long arms for hunting.
	Max capacity storage.
	Five rounds.
	For duck hunting, by law, it happens to be three.
	Small arms, you have to have a PAL license.
	You can own one, a small arm, a handgun.
	Much more difficult to get.
	Very strict laws in terms of transportation and whatever, but you cannot own a firearm for self-defense in Canada.
	That's the law.
	What time tomorrow?
	I think it starts at 8 o 'clock, if I'm not mistaken.
	No, that would be way too early.
	Hold on one second.
	January 6th, committee.
	Hearings schedule.
	January 6th schedule.
	One day.
	Go Washington Post.
	The Washington Compost.
	Okay, the first hearing will start Thursday, June 9th at 8 p.m.
	That's at night!
	Oh, I guess we're going live during the day.
	The second will be held Monday.
	What the heck is my problem?
	Is this true?
	June 9th at 8 p.m.
	That's in the evening.
	The second will be held Monday, June 13th at 10 a.m.
	Well, I was right on one thing.
	8 a.m. is too early for the government to start.
	So, looks like it's 8 o 'clock tomorrow night.
	8 o 'clock tomorrow night.
	Okay.
	8 o 'clock tomorrow night, live streaming of the Jancic.
	That's actually much more convenient.
	That will not require me to burden the tag team.
	Parenting with my wife.
	My wife!
	And then Monday morning, 10 o 'clock, makes it much easier.
	Okay, so we will be streaming tomorrow during the day.
	We'll see what happens.
	Tonight, Spidey.
	Tune in.
	I'm going to create the link right now.
	Share it around.
	Everybody, thank you for spending the afternoon with me.
	It's glorious when you think about it.
	We had over 5,000 people watching on YouTube.
	We had over 2,000 people on Rumble for a live stream that was called with 30 minutes notice.
	And all that we do is try to get to the truth of things in real time.
	It's beautiful.
	Thank you for being here.
	Thank you for being a part of this.
	You know what to do, people.
	Like, share, subscribe.
	Snip little bits.
	Share it on social media.
	I would still love to think that I had a hand in getting Brandon Strzok on The Joe Rogan Show.
	You know, if everyone reaches out and make that, see if we can make that happen.
	His story needs to be told to the broadest, widest possible audience.
	And Joe Rogan would flip his lid, getting the details of what happened to him.
	I am the, you the man, man.
	So that's it.
	I'll see you tonight, seven o 'clock.
	Peace out, peeps.
	Enjoy the rest of the day.
	Get some sunlight, exercise, talk to people in real life.
	It's actually a beautiful thing.

▲