Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 5, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

03:42:40

Political Prosecutions Continues in Canada - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	But my message today, more specifically, is for those that haven't yet received their first booster.
	The immunity conferred by a primary series of two doses of vaccines administered in 2021 has now waned.
	While you might have gotten infected, risk is high.
	You could get reinfected with all the downfall, including the risk of developing symptoms of long COVID.
	As health experts and physicians will tell you, it's critical that you go and get the shot that's waiting for you.
	Scientific studies clearly show that our protection from the initial two-dose vaccine decreases over time.
	Our immunity level evolves in a dynamic way as a function of time and variance.
	The virus evolves and Omicron cruelly made us aware that we will never be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
	Like the virus, our immunity also evolves and Omicron made us understand that two doses are no longer enough.
	We have to maintain our vaccinations up to date.
	Fortunately, receiving a booster dose against COVID-19 when recommended improves this protection.
	We now know that being up to date with your vaccinations means you can reduce your risks of transmission of infection of severe symptoms and your risks of developing long COVID.
	That's why it's essential that Canadians remain up to date with their vaccines.
	And what does being up to date mean?
	Being up to date with your vaccinations mean that you've received your last dose.
	During the last nine months.
	If you've already received your first booster dose, congratulations.
	However, find out in order to see when or if and when you'll be eligible for a new dose.
	Thank you.
	I want to put that on pause for a second.
	Make sure we don't hear that torture a second time.
	Technical difficulties.
	How do we connect Bluetooth to a phone?
	Okay.
	I'm trying to listen to the hearing in my left ear, but I'm using...
	I'm using my kids' ear pods, and I'm hearing TikTok videos.
	Hold on a second.
	Hold on a second.
	One second, people.
	I need the help of a child.
	Let me get this out of here.
	Start by prefacing.
	First of all, how is audio?
	It's not going to be good because I went from in a basement in Canada to in a bathroom, in a pseudo-bathroom.
	This is like the entry to a bathroom.
	I'm going to start off by saying no medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornication advice, but I need some kids advice on how to need.
	You now.
	I'm trying to connect so I can listen to the Tamara Lich hearing in one ear and do this stream live and live mouth tweet.
	What's going on with Tamara?
	Tamara Lich, I can't do this.
	It's too distracting.
	People, good Tuesday morning.
	Tamara Lich is going to...
	Trial is not the word.
	She's having a hearing.
	To determine whether or not she breached her bail conditions by attending the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms' George Jonas Award, wherein she was being given the George Jonas Award for her fight for constitutional freedoms.
	George Jonas was a Hungarian Jew, I believe, who escaped communist Hungary, came to Canada, fought for freedom, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, whose name describes what they do.
	Fight for constitutional freedoms.
	Gave her the annual George...
	What is it?
	Bestowed?
	Awarded her the annual George Jonas Freedom Fighter Award.
	And she...
	The Crown, for those of you who don't know this, attempted to argue that by her announcing she would accept the award, she had breached her bail conditions.
	Her bail conditions were...
	After spending two and a half weeks in jail, posting, I think it was $20,000 bond.
	It was either $20,000 bond and $20,000 bail, $5,000 bond, a substantial portion of money.
	She was prohibited from entering Ottawa.
	She was prohibited from attending any protest across the country.
	She was prohibited from posting to social media in support of the trucker convoy or criticizing.
	I think she was actually basically prohibited from using social media.
	She announced that she was going to accept the award, the George Jonas Award from the JCCF, and the Crown sought to put her back in jail on the basis that accepting the award violated the terms.
	Announcing that she was going to accept the award violated the terms of her bail.
	I texted my wife and not My daughter.
	Need your help.
	Come in.
	Sorry, guys.
	This was a little early this morning.
	And if I'm missing it, I'm going to get a little irritated.
	So what was I saying?
	They tried to put her in jail, back in jail, before the award show.
	The Crown.
	And I live mouth tweeted, listened to that hearing.
	To say that the prosecutor was aggressive?
	Would be an understatement of the millennium.
	And people don't appreciate this.
	Prosecutors do not exist to prosecute.
	They exist to pursue justice.
	And sometimes, vigorous prosecution is pursuing an injustice.
	In my humble view, I never practiced criminal law, but I studied it.
	I'm a certified lawyer, 13 years active practice, still a member in good standing.
	Camera's a little high.
	Hold on.
	Here we go.
	Still a member in good standing.
	And still dispensing of the medical advice, just not through YouTube videos.
	The prosecutor was attempting to pursue an injustice to try to lock Tamara Lich back up.
	She's accused of mischief charges.
	Counseling to commit mischief, mischief itself, incitement of mischief.
	She's...
	Mischief charges.
	Held in jail for two and a half weeks.
	The dude that ran over four people in Winnipeg with this van was released from jail in less time than Tamar Litch.
	Pat King's still sitting in jail.
	So, they tried to put her back in jail.
	During that hearing that I was live, mouth-tweeting, listening to, not rebroadcasting because you're not allowed rebroadcasting it, the judge said, The convoy is over.
	The protest is over.
	There's nothing for her to even go out and actively support, encourage, promote.
	And there's nothing in attending an awards ceremony that could encourage, foment, exacerbate an occupation that hasn't existed in months.
	You can come in.
	So she was allowed to attend the gala.
	And she attended the gala.
	She attended the gala.
	Oh, sorry, part of her bail conditions were not to interact with a certain number of people.
	Chris Barber, I believe Pat King, and an individual named Tom Marazzo, who also is under the gun for his alleged participation in the convoy.
	Tom Marazzo, I've had on the channel, ran for office, volunteered when the convoy came in, and...
	Tamara Lich, under her bail terms, was not allowed interacting, communicating with, among others, Tom Maratzo.
	Tom Maratzo was at the event.
	I'm going to see if I can pull up the picture.
	Tom Maratzo was at the event.
	And let me be very clear.
	In fact, not be clear.
	I hate when people say that.
	Let me specify because I omitted something.
	She was not allowed interacting with Tom Maratzo except in the presence of counsel.
	Because I believe they're both facing charges.
	In fact, I'm certain they're both facing charges.
	And they weren't allowed discussing among themselves.
	But to the extent that they're facing charges and might need to discuss strategy, I believe an exception was carved out of the onerous and excessively obscene bail conditions that they could interact with each other when counsel was present.
	This is relevant.
	This is relevant for what Tamarilich is being charged with.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Okay.
	Now, how do I connect to Bluetooth?
	So, the hearing is on.
	Bottom line, I hear TikTok in my ear and not the hearing.
	I'm just going to...
	Thank you.
	So Tamara Lich went to the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms George Jones Award, accepted the award, gave a speech, and it was a beautiful speech, and then took a picture of a group at the award show, which included Tom Maratzo and others.
	The Crown used that picture, if I can find the picture, and said that she broke her bail conditions, and they arrested her on a Canada-wide warrant.
	Comeratso, uh, Tamara Lich.
	They arrested her on the basis that that photograph was evidence that she breached her bail conditions.
	Oh, you got it?
	Okay, thank you.
	Thank you.
	No, no, get out of here, get out of here.
	Someone in the chat said I've lost my mind.
	I may have.
	Close the doors!
	Let me see if I can hear it now.
	Okay, I can hear the...
	I can hear the...
	I can hear it.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Sorry, people.
	They arrested her on the basis that the photograph of her with Tom Maratzo and others violated her bail conditions.
	Because she met with Tom Maratzo.
	There's evidence of it.
	Unknown to many, known to those who watched my interview with Keith Wilson, Tamara Litch's attorney.
	Attorneys were present just off screen in that photograph.
	So let's see here.
	Let me see if I can find the photograph just to show you what the evidence was of the breach of the bail conditions.
	And they arrested her.
	They arrested her on a Canada-wide warrant.
	They arrested her on a Canada-wide warrant.
	She was in Medicine Hat, Alberta.
	She was detained in the Medicine Hat facilities, I think, for...
	Until now.
	I mean, I think she was detained there and then shipped to Ottawa.
	Detained in the interim because they couldn't get her to Ottawa fast enough because they're going to have to go and, I don't know, fly her drive.
	And that's where we're at right now.
	The Crown has had...
	She's been in jail since.
	Let me see if I can find the photograph because it's so innocuous.
	The only way it makes sense is in a world gone mad.
	Let me see if I can share a screen.
	No, that's the wrong one.
	The only way it makes sense is in a world gone mad.
	Let's see if I can find it here later.
	It's a picture of a group of people at the event.
	Find the tweets.
	We're going to get into this later.
	This is the Ottawa police.
	No, we're not seeing the right one here.
	Ottawa police confirming Kamerlich has been arrested in Alberta for breach of her conditions.
	Canada-wide warrant.
	For anybody who practices law or criminal law, you would know that a Canada-wide warrant, I didn't know this until I spoke with Keith Wilson and others who practice this law, is reserved for murderers.
	Like, the most serious of crimes, not breach of bail conditions for having attended a gala.
	Canada-wide warrant.
	And it's so stunning and brave that the Ottawa police limit who can respond to their tweets.
	I don't know if I'll find the picture, but it's a picture of people at a gala, which include Tom Morazzo, an individual who many people might not know, and Tamara Litch.
	Tamara Leach, it might be the right pronunciation.
	Let me see if anything's going on here.
	Yeah.
	Court is a massive exercise of hurry up and wait.
	And so they've arrested her, and now they're going to try to put her back in jail on the basis that this photograph of her at an event with Tom Morazzo in the same image when they were ordered not to communicate with one another, but in the presence of counsel, though counsel was present, just off.
	Off the perimeters of a photograph.
	That's what's going on right now.
	So, let me just get to some Super Chats.
	And then we're going to do...
	The Autistic Tiger, I met you at the Protivertas.
	Okay, cool.
	Comic-Con.
	I'm not much of a Comic-Con man, but there will be...
	Getting settled down is an amazing exercise.
	It's difficult.
	Zen Master Me, thank you very much.
	And Jonathan Bailey, did the boomer just ask how to connect to a phone using Bluetooth?
	I was hearing TikTok in my ear, not the Tamara Leach hearing.
	Okay, nothing.
	And for anybody who doesn't, you get to court, you're not allowed broadcasting, rebroadcasting a court hearing.
	So you can't broadcast any portion of it.
	You can't broadcast the audio without the video.
	You can't broadcast video.
	You can't broadcast screen grabs.
	You can't reshare, restream.
	Contentious behavior, that would be.
	And I don't push the envelope.
	To some people's dismay, play by the rules a little too much.
	But I'm going to listen to it and then verbally mouth-tweet.
	If anything happens this morning, what's going to happen?
	They're going to go through all of the tedious, laborious procedural stuff.
	They're going to hopefully have arguments and argue jurisprudence.
	Oh, the breach of the bail conditions in blank and the queen versus whatever resulted in re-imprisonment.
	What's going on in Canada, it's nothing shy of absolute...
	It's tyrannical madness.
	Period.
	There's no if, buts, there's no qualifying it.
	It's tyrannical madness.
	This is a regime.
	It's a regime that has now been weaponized and is targeting with the full force of the prosecutorial system, the political system, the media system, targeting ideological adversaries.
	It's Kafkaesque.
	It's Orwellian.
	Tyrannical madness.
	Now, there were some rumors this morning.
	I say rumorings.
	David Paisley from Live from the Shed is reliable.
	So I don't want to say rumors as in I'm suggesting David Paisley is not a reliable source.
	He is.
	I just like to really verify things before I share them.
	There have been rumorings that Tamara Leach...
	Has not been allowed to attend the hearing because she allegedly refused to submit to a COVID test and therefore is being denied in-person contestation.
	To be there in person.
	I think she'll attend by Zoom or whatever.
	But she's not going to be allowed to be there in person because she refused to submit to a COVID test.
	Because she's presumably unvaxxed and the government knows it because you had to upload your information to apps because you had to register with the public health care system when you got your shots.
	Yes.
	Presumably the government knows everything about you.
	Public healthcare is wonderful.
	It's free, except you pay for it.
	You just don't know you're paying for it when you pay for it.
	From what Eric Duhem, the leader of the Quebec Conservative Party, said on my channel when we had him on for a stream, 50% of the provincial budget goes to healthcare or healthcare system.
	That means 50 cents of every dollar you pay in tax goes to healthcare or the healthcare system.
	So it's free when you show up to need it.
	Free and oftentimes very crappy.
	But you pay for it with every dollar of taxpayer dollars that you pay.
	So presumably they know Tamara Leach is not vaccinated.
	So they require a COVID test because of science and safety.
	And she refused to submit to the test.
	And apparently...
	From the rumorings, share screen.
	She's being prohibited from attending in person.
	Why can't I see which tweet this is?
	This one?
	Yeah, here it is.
	She's being prohibited from attending in person.
	And, oh, I didn't retweet it because I'm not sure about it yet.
	From David Paisley has the news.
	I've asked people I know who should have direct information.
	They say they're not aware of this.
	But either way.
	It would not be the most ridiculous thing of the day.
	The idea that she might be prohibited from attending in person her own hearing, but she can attend digitally, electronically.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	Would not be the most absurd issue, potential issue of the day.
	But let's start off before we get into Tamara Leach, I'm not sure if we're going to hear anything of import.
	I might just come back at the end of the day with a 10-minute summary of what happened.
	Let's go back to the intro.
	Let's go back to the beginning, people.
	Let's go back to the beginning.
	Now, I'm not going to read my response because no medical advice, no election fornification advice, and no legal advice.
	Let's just listen to this and appreciate what is going on here.
	All that I ask for in life, Substantiate your claims.
	Evidence your claims.
	I don't ask for much, ever, except show me that what you say is true.
	Period.
	Show me your evidence, and we can disagree or agree that your evidence is sufficient to prove that which you think your evidence proves.
	I had a discussion with someone the other day, might have been a heated discussion, that a prominent Twitter, social media I'm not an influencer.
	Journalist.
	A prominent journalist was a white nationalist.
	A white supremacist.
	I was like, okay, that's your opinion.
	What is your evidence to substantiate that rather serious accusation?
	It wasn't me.
	We weren't talking about me.
	What's your evidence?
	That's your conclusion.
	That's nice.
	I'll disagree with your conclusion, but show me your work as to how you got there.
	Like I typically do in arguments.
	Okay, the court is starting now, so we're just going to have the intros and everything.
	I said, don't bombard me with spaghetti on a wall.
	You have three pieces of your most concrete, your strongest arguments.
	Just give them to me, your strongest arguments.
	And you'll often see them.
	In fact, three might be too much.
	Give me your one strongest argument.
	We're in an elevator.
	You want me to believe after this elevator.
	That the individual you called a white supremacist is a white supremacist.
	It should be easy to prove.
	Him carrying around a Yahtzee flag would be a good piece of evidence.
	This entire discussion then culminated with a photograph of the individual doing the okay sign.
	And I said, that's your strongest evidence.
	Okay, that's your evidence.
	We're going to agree to disagree now.
	Come to this individual right here.
	For those of you who don't know, Yves Duclos is the health minister.
	All I ask from Yves Duclos, it's nice to say the things that he says here.
	It's nice for them because, my goodness, I said it yesterday, I'll say it again.
	Trudeau is never going to relinquish the awesome power that is COVID.
	It's the proverbial ring.
	It's the proverbial ring.
	I didn't like the ring, and I hope I'm not going to piss anybody off in the chat.
	I didn't like the ring.
	But I appreciate its message.
	Why shouldn't I keep it?
	Like, it's a funny thing.
	Anybody who's ever found...
	They're saying no cell phones in the courtroom.
	If they see anybody with a cell phone, they're asking them to leave.
	Admonishing.
	And by the way, fair warning.
	It's a court.
	Don't mess around.
	For anybody who's ever found a wallet full of cash, why shouldn't I keep it?
	Now, if you have a conscience, you say, that cash meant something to the person who lost it.
	And maybe it didn't.
	Maybe that person is so filthy rich, they can afford losing their wallet.
	But that, you know, a necklace.
	Something beautiful.
	Something beautiful.
	Just got to make sure that nobody hears me.
	I don't think anybody can hear me through the phone.
	Find something beautiful, a necklace that you know means something to someone, but it's beautiful.
	Why shouldn't I keep it?
	Because it meant something to somebody else.
	And the freedoms that this government has taken meant something to somebody else.
	But my goodness, why shouldn't they keep these freedoms?
	It's for our own good.
	It's for our own good.
	Evidence.
	That's all I ask.
	But listen to what this guy says.
	I'll put it on mute so I don't...
	But my message today, more specifically, is for those that haven't yet received their first booster.
	The immunity conferred by a primary series of two doses of vaccines administered in 2021 has now waned.
	I would ask for evidence of this, except...
	We've had...
	I don't need to ask for evidence of this because I think it's...
	I call it judicial medical notice.
	Yes, effectiveness wanes over time.
	And we've had the CEO of Pfizer confirm that not only has it waned, but for subsequent variants, apparently it's allegedly useless.
	So we know that.
	Don't need to show the homework for that.
	It's common knowledge.
	While you might have gotten infected, Risk is high.
	You could get reinfected with all the downfall, including the risk of developing symptoms of long COVID.
	Break that down.
	Break that down.
	If you've been infected, your risk of reinfection is high.
	Stop right there.
	Show me your homework.
	Your risk, despite being infected, your risk is high for reinfection.
	Show me your homework, Yves Duclos, before you strip me of my rights and force me to submit to medical procedures.
	Show me your evidence.
	Your risk is high.
	First of all, that's a subjective term.
	What does that mean?
	What does your risk is high of reinfection, if you've already been infected, mean?
	High means guaranteed, means that if you come across someone, it's 50-50.
	What does high even mean?
	Your risk of reinfection is high.
	One.
	Two, even if the risk is high, as of what period of time might your risk be high?
	A year?
	Two years?
	Three years?
	Six months?
	As of what point after reinfection is your risk high?
	Not relevant for the purposes of what you're saying right now?
	Even if you've been infected a month ago, my risk is still high?
	Not a doctor, but I got questions.
	If I've been infected, Yves Duclos, a month ago, is my risk high?
	And if it is high at any point in time, as of when?
	Well, I'm not wearing that shirt today.
	As of when?
	Is my risk going to return to being high?
	And by the way, when is your risk ever high at any point of contracting a specific illness?
	So, even if you've been reinfected, your risk is high.
	Define that term, please.
	And define as of when the risk is high in relation to having been previously infected.
	But it doesn't stop there.
	What did he say here?
	risk of developing symptoms of long COVID.
	Stop!
	Stop.
	In the hearing right now, they're asking, apparently there's audio problems with Tamara Litch.
	And they've asked Maître Greenspong, not Maître, that's the French one, lawyer Greenspong if they want to proceed as is or try to fix the audio with Tamara.
	And apparently they're going to try to fix the audio.
	How amazing, eh?
	Prohibit Tamara Lich from attending in person.
	And then there's audio problems.
	Let's postpone the hearing.
	Sit in jail a little bit longer, Tamara.
	Now they're asking if they can connect to a cell phone.
	Simplify.
	This is the year 2022.
	The court is having audio problems.
	It's a public system, by the way, guys.
	It works.
	It works as well as the public health care system.
	Okay, now they're trying to figure out the audio issues because Tamara Leach, I guess Dave Paisley's information has been confirmed, is not attending in person.
	I don't know the reason yet.
	I don't know if I missed it.
	She can't attend in person or she's not attending in person.
	They're having audio problems because the court system works.
	And they're trying to figure it out.
	And I think it was the judge who asked, do you want to take some time to try to figure out the audio issues or proceed in a compromised manner?
	Well, that's one hell of a damned, one-way damned, the other kind of situation.
	Proceed with compromised audio with your client's defense, or we'll try to resolve it.
	And if we can't resolve it today, we'll come back.
	We'll come back.
	You'll sit in jail, Tamara, and we'll come back when we've fixed our court audio problems.
	Sorry.
	Now, back to Yves Duclos.
	Back to Yves Duclos.
	Putting the risk of developing symptoms of long COVID.
	Long COVID?
	Long COVID.
	I've just got a lot of questions.
	What is it?
	What evidence is there that it exists?
	Who does it affect?
	How many people has it affected?
	And now we're just talking about long COVID as though, just follow the ifs here, as though if you've already been double vaccinated, even if you've been infected, don't specify the time, you are at high risk of getting reinfected, developing symptoms, and long COVID.
	I mean, string that series of hypothetical, undefined, fluffy terms together and try to make sense of it.
	Try to make sense of it in light of what they're going after right now, which is this.
	Experts and physicians will tell you it's critical that you go and get the shot that's waiting for you.
	Can we also—I understand Yves Duclos' first language is French, but he didn't write this for himself.
	Go and get the shot that's waiting for you.
	I mean, are they trying to sound like fascists?
	Are they deliberately trying to sound like murderous tyrants?
	Go and get the shot that's waiting.
	Who the heck do you think you're talking to?
	Go and get the shot that's waiting for you, you animal.
	It's waiting for you.
	Go and get it.
	And if you don't, something's going to happen to you.
	It's going to pain me to do it, but I'm going to do it.
	Listen to this.
	scientific studies clearly show that our protection from the initial two-dose vaccine decreases over time Never mind.
	I can't even say what I want to say.
	I'll get in trouble.
	Oh.
	Let's just keep going.
	Our immunity level evolves in a dynamic way as a function of time and variance.
	The virus evolves and Omicron cruelly made us aware that we will never be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
	Can we appreciate what the hell he just said?
	We will never be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
	Understand what that means.
	The government thinks it owns your body for the rest of your life.
	We're never going to be fully vaccinated against it, so you're going to have to come and get the shot that's waiting for you every year, every nine months, every six months.
	By the way, we're never going to be fully vaccinated against influenza.
	We're never going to be fully vaccinated against any rhinovirus.
	The judge just asked someone to take their hat off in the courtroom.
	Take your hats off in the courtroom, people.
	Admonished, again, says anybody found with a cell phone is going to be asked to leave.
	They're still trying to fix the audio problems.
	We're never going to be fully vaccinated against other viruses.
	But COVID is the proverbial ring.
	It's been turned into the proverbial boogeyman, the proverbial candy man, the proverbial...
	I'm trying to think of another horror movie.
	Freddy Krueger.
	It's been ingrained to instill terror.
	The Mio words, I have COVID.
	It's like the new cancer word.
	I have COVID.
	I'll never be fully vaccinated against COVID.
	Imagine he came out and said, you're never going to be fully vaccinated against the flu, so everybody has to submit to the flu shot every year.
	The COVID is the ring.
	It's the power.
	They wield over everyone.
	They have used it as a pretext to shut businesses down, to lock people in their homes.
	And now they're saying, we're never going to be fully vaccinated against it.
	And you're going to come and get your shot whenever we tell you.
	Otherwise, you want to come back to Canada?
	14 days quarantine.
	You want to go play sports?
	Nope.
	You want to go into a department store?
	Not unless you're fully vaccinated, because if you're not, even if you've been infected, there's a high chance that you're going to get reinfected, develop symptoms, and long COVID, a concept which has hitherto, we haven't been around long enough to know what the idea of long COVID even is, or if it even exists.
	Long COVID.
	It's just a new term, long COVID.
	Awesome.
	Talk about playing the long game, because COVID is only...
	You know, in the past, how do we ensure that we can retain the powers that we have usurped over the last three years indefinitely?
	They should have gone with indefinite COVID.
	Call it indefinite COVID.
	But now that he's saying, you will never be fully vaccinated.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	That wasn't the agreement that we had.
	Like the virus, our immunity also evolves and Omicron made us understand that two doses are no longer enough.
	We have to maintain our vaccination up to date.
	Fortunately, receiving a booster dose against COVID-19 when recommended improves this protection.
	I'm sorry, I don't mean to veer out of my lane.
	That's not what I understood the CEO of Pfizer said, Albert Bourla.
	In fact, I'm fairly certain.
	He said the exact opposite.
	No, I'm not sure.
	I'm fairly certain he said the exact opposite.
	Hold on, let me just cut this.
	By the way, Tamara Leach just came in and said, apparently they're going to have a phone in her cell in a matter of minutes.
	That's not what I want to look up.
	What am I looking up?
	Albert Bourla, Viva Frye, but not Networth, tweet.
	I'm fairly certain that's not what he said.
	I'm just going to play his words.
	The two doses of the vaccine offer very limited protection, if any.
	The three doses with a booster, they offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths.
	Against deaths, I think, very good.
	and less protection against infection.
	Now, we are working on A new version of our vaccine, the 1.1, let me put it that way, that will cover Omicron as well.
	So, I'm not playing expert here.
	In fact, I'll just defer to the experts.
	I don't know which expert do you trust when at any given point in time they say both A and not A. Hey, remember, you get videos removed from YouTube.
	If it contradicts the official WHO position, what do you do when the WHO position has contradicted itself over time?
	If I made a video back when the WHO said, don't wear face masks, they're useless, and now WHO says, wear face masks, they're compulsory, does YouTube then get to go back and delete and penalize a channel for having put up a video that reiterated the WHO's position when it disagreed with itself?
	Well, which expert am I going to rely on here?
	This guy's saying you have to go do it because it's the only way to be effectively protected against variants.
	And I got the CEO of Pfizer saying quite literally something different.
	Reasonable protection, but minimal against infection.
	Who do I listen to?
	Or is it part and parcel?
	Is it part of the game?
	Say both.
	Speak on both sides of your mouth.
	You're never lying.
	Or, as I like to say, you're always lying.
	Let's keep going.
	Let's keep going through this torture.
	It's for those that haven't yet received their first booster.
	The immunity conferred by a primary series of two doses of vaccines are no longer enough.
	We have to maintain our vaccine.
	Like the virus, our immunity also evolves and Omicron made us understand that two doses are no longer enough.
	We have to maintain our vaccination.
	It's up to date.
	The amazing thing is even with the influenza shot, which it's funny that most people don't call it a vaccine, they call it a shot.
	Even with influenza, they modify it year over year.
	They tinker with it because the strain mutates.
	And in order to be reasonably effective, the shot itself has to be adapted to the new strains.
	It's amazing.
	We're three years into this, and it's still the same.
	It's seemingly, as far as I understand, still the same initial shot.
	Burla, the CEO of Pfizer, says reasonable protection against Omicron, but minimal against infection.
	And this guy's saying it's the only way to effectively continue protection.
	Maybe I'm dense, and maybe I'm not understanding something.
	Let's keep going.
	No news right now except...
	I can hear Tamara.
	There's some discussion as I think she's getting a cell phone.
	I think she's getting a cell phone to communicate.
	Fortunately, receiving a booster dose against COVID-19 when recommended improves this protection.
	We now know that being up to date with your vaccinations means you can reduce your...
	Risks of transmission of infection of severe symptoms and your risks of developing symptoms and your risks means you can reduce your risks of transmission of infection of severe symptoms.
	Does that make sense?
	Try to say that five times.
	Reduce your risk of transmission of severe symptoms.
	Language means something.
	My father always says, as lawyers, language is the tool of our trade.
	You can reduce the risk of transmission of severe symptoms.
	It's one hell of a qualifier, especially compared to what we were told at the beginning.
	Now it's not even reduced the transmission.
	Now it's reduced the transmission of severe symptoms.
	You can still get it, carry it, contract it, and have symptoms.
	But now you've got to go get the shot that's waiting for you.
	Because according to this guy, It reduces the risk of transmission of serious symptoms.
	And these are the experts.
	These are the purported experts.
	This is why you don't need to be an expert in order to pick apart an expert in the court of law.
	I'm not an expert in structure, buildings.
	But I've done a lot of latent defect litigation.
	I've examined experts.
	Who know more than me about the trade.
	But you don't need to know more about the trade to pick apart flawed reasoning and faulty logic.
	You don't need to know more about the underlying aspects.
	I don't know about the tensile strength of metals, although I probably do.
	But I can pick apart a bad argument that is contradicted by its own premises or evidence.
	And I certainly have a memory.
	And if somebody said something had a certain tensile strength...
	Three years ago.
	And now they're saying, well, it doesn't have that $10.
	I don't forget.
	Let's keep going here.
	Hold on.
	Let's just finish this up.
	There's some chatter during the hearing.
	Nothing really important yet.
	I heard someone say, I think it was Tamara, saying if I'm going to sit here for eight hours, I need a phone.
	And I think they're getting her a phone.
	And your risks of developing long COVID.
	That's why it's essential that Canadians remain up to date with their vaccines.
	Where is the evidence that the shot reduces any risk of whatever long COVID is being conceived of here?
	Where is that evidence?
	It's so preposterous that they are now purporting that the shot prevents the risk of long COVID, a concept which itself...
	Has barely been defined or is barely understood to the extent that it even exists.
	But go get up to date because otherwise, hey, September comes around.
	New variants.
	You're not up to date.
	Get your face mask back on.
	Reactivate that app that you downloaded on your phone that the government's been spying on you and stealing your information.
	And if you think I'm being hyperbolic, go Google it.
	And what does being up to date mean?
	Being up to date with your vaccinations means that you've received your last dose during the last nine months.
	If you've already received your first booster dose, congratulations.
	However, find out in order to see when or if and when you'll be eligible for a new dose.
	Why nine months?
	Where's the evidence to substantiate that criteria?
	Why nine months?
	Why not a year?
	Why not two years?
	Why not?
	In relation to last infection.
	If the shot, if the booster is required after nine months of the initial shot, why wouldn't it also be nine months from past infection?
	Does that make sense?
	Am I a heretic for asking that question?
	I don't know the science, Dr. Duclos.
	If the criteria that you have set...
	Is that you require the booster in order to be up to date because of the waning effect of the shot.
	After nine months from your second shot, why would it not also be nine months from your last date of infection?
	If the answer, by the way, is, well, we don't know definitively when you were last infected, so we can't rely on that, your word for that.
	Well, up yours.
	I was going to say something worse.
	Because what you're basically saying is, We might be administering a potentially unnecessary procedure or requiring, extorting the submission to a potentially unnecessary procedure just because we can't administratively determine when you were in fact infected.
	And there might actually be potential effects from that inability to so run a system that might affect only my body.
	If I'm actually doing something unnecessary and potentially redundant, when it comes to immunity, redundant is not always good.
	So yeah, if it's nine months for the booster from the second shot, why wouldn't it be nine months from infection?
	Riddle me that, Duclos.
	Let's finish this up.
	Sorry, we're done.
	So, just questions, just questions, which...
	Show me the papers.
	The funny thing is, when I got mine last August, and I jokingly said here, I emailed my wife the picture of my papers, and I said, the papers for when they ask.
	And I wrote it, like, phonetically, like the way you'd see out of horror movies.
	The papers.
	P-A-P-A-H.
	Might have been Zapapas.
	This is reality now.
	Let me see what we've got here.
	I don't...
	I just...
	I don't...
	Mahogany, not stirred.
	I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.
	I just...
	I want them to clarify what the hell they're talking about when they're talking about using my body as a...
	Receptacle for the shot that's waiting for me.
	Go get the shot that's waiting for you.
	Did they run that by a focus group?
	The hearing is on.
	Oh.
	Give me one second, people.
	One second.
	So okay, now people are introducing themselves.
	So okay, now people are introducing themselves.
	Okay, now I'm hearing the prosecutor.
	I know his voice.
	They're asking for a publication ban on the hearing, I think.
	They're asking for a publication ban on the name of the certi.
	This is the defense now, I believe, that's asking for the publication ban.
	I'm not even going to tiptoe on that line.
	they're asking for a publication ban on the identities of certain people.
	Do those rebroadcasting limitations still apply to you as you are not in Canada anymore?
	I'm still a member of the Quebec Bar, so yeah.
	And even if they didn't, I wouldn't do it.
	So yeah, I err on the side of caution when it comes to following the rules, even if some people call me names for that.
	And ethics.
	I'm not interested in being regarded as an unethical individual.
	So they're asking for a publication ban.
	I'll get to that in a second.
	You should gather some fellow expats and talk to the CIA.
	Any good beaches in Quebec?
	Yeah, I gotta go look more into the Bay of Pigs.
	I know I don't know enough about that.
	Wow, I do...
	I love the new Viva, a.k.a.
	Viva Free.
	Well, my last name means freedom.
	Freiheit, verbatim.
	My leftist cousin now has heart problems.
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	Contact my brother, Daniel Fryheit, in Ontario.
	He is working with the injury program that was set up by the government.
	And I'm not going to read the rest of your chat.
	And I'm not going to...
	First of all, I'm not your buddy guy.
	Thank you very much for the chat.
	I share anecdotal...
	immediate anecdotal experience, not myself personally, immediate people that I know.
	Long COVID is no joke.
	I didn't say it was a joke, by the way.
	I didn't say it's a joke, nor did I say it doesn't exist.
	In what frequency and in what demographic?
	Because if they're using long COVID as the pretext to compel boosters in a demographic that is statistically...
	Who is already statistically not at risk for any meaningful Rona infection, if they're using that as the blanket coverall pretext, that's kind of relevant.
	I have no doubt there are people who suffer long-term consequences.
	How many?
	What demographic?
	So that we can assess whether or not it's a real risk for certain individuals that need to be specifically protected?
	And whether or not it's being exploited and weaponized by the government to issue a blanket application across all demographics who might be at minimal, if any, whatsoever.
	So, yeah.
	Florida Dad, welcome to Florida.
	Be careful.
	Two random guys may jump you on the street.
	Put a pina colada in your hand, a book in his head, a beach towel on your neck, and yell, this is Jimmy Buffett country.
	Okay, so they're talking about...
	The ban.
	Okay, so they're saying family and certi, total publication ban directly or indirectly across all social media so people out there don't mess around.
	Now, by the way, my wife forbade me from going longer than three hours today.
	So if I cut, I'm going to cut by noon because there's logistical stuff that we have to take care of.
	And she said sitting, if you saw the chair that I'm sitting on for three hours in a bathroom, in a pre-bathroom room, she said it's not healthy.
	So I'm going to have to...
	Ian Bridges, Viva, can you talk about your move to Florida?
	I'd love to move to the U.S. as well, but don't know how to get in.
	Ian, stay tuned longer term.
	There'll be more announcements coming.
	And I'll have more discussions coming because it was a massive, massive learning curve.
	But also watch the stream from Sunday night.
	I went into a lot of stuff, but mostly the insanity of Canada and what actually drove me from my homeland.
	Okay, they're asking for members of the media to raise their hand.
	No.
	Oh!
	The judges said, wow, as though there's a lot of, I guess there's a lot of people there.
	Asking for media credentials.
	Oh, they're asking for credentials.
	Hold up your media identification.
	Only way we can know if you're actual media.
	So why are they asking this?
	There's seven members of the media in the courtroom.
	Okay, so they're asking who's been with the media and the media may use their electronic devices.
	Okay, so he's saying media can use their phones to live tweets.
	uh long covetous fear porn Interesting.
	He says, if you're not media, you have no rights to use your cell phones.
	And you can't report on anything from there.
	interesting.
	Okay, so media can use electronic devices.
	Okay, so they're doing housekeeping.
	We'll get to some substantive stuff later.
	Okay, they're asking for more.
	This might be less fun.
	Okay, so Tamara Lich.
	They're pronouncing it lich, so it's not leech.
	Lich.
	Lich.
	Okay, so now they're worrying about the cell phone.
	Okay, when they get to some substantive stuff, they're worried about how long the cell phone is going to last for Tamara in the hearing.
	And speaking of which, I'm going to look to my phone and maybe...
	Oi!
	I'm going to charge my phone while we do this.
	I'm really impressed with the young YouTubers of true crimes, talk shows, and smiling.
	I don't know who they are, but I'll have a potential look.
	Florida has never had any lockdowns during the two-plus years.
	From what I've discussed with people here, there was a period of time where things were shut down somewhat for, I think they said, two weeks or a month.
	And people didn't put up with it.
	And I said this, it's not to be hyperbolic.
	It's impossible to look at what was done in Florida, what was done in Texas, or what was not done in Texas, what was done or not done in Sweden.
	It's impossible to look at that and then say anything of what is going on in Canada makes any sense other than the fact that it's a tyrannical government that has seized control through the pretext of COVID and they will never relinquish that power.
	It's impossible.
	Florida, remember when they...
	Eliminated face mask mandates in Texas.
	And, like, the countdown to death was on.
	It's...
	And then...
	Forget about it.
	Everything's...
	Nothing.
	And nobody talks about it.
	The predictions of doom and gloom.
	Texans lying on the streets because they removed the mask mandates.
	Nothing.
	Florida?
	Nothing.
	And then in Canada, there's still masks.
	I think the masks were eliminated recently.
	They're still talking about reimposing the mask mandates in subsequent variants starting next September.
	Not sure if you saw the Geert van den Bosch interview with Brett Weinstein.
	They go into how...
	I have not seen that particular interview, but I have...
	Who was I listening to?
	It was a doctor who was talking about it.
	I know the theories.
	It's interesting listening to experts who can substantiate their theories versus those who don't.
	Okay, so did I read any more super chats?
	Viva should run for governor.
	You don't need to be a citizen.
	No, you don't need to be born in the States to run for governor.
	Where in Georgia did you run into that peach stand guy?
	If he was at the gas station with a guitar and his name Zenny, you met an acquaintance.
	I have a cool story about how I met him.
	I'll tell you.
	No, Ponton.
	It was actually South Carolina where I met the guy.
	It was at a gas station, and it was...
	I think it was right on the border of Georgia.
	Let me make sure not to screw up the geography.
	It was right on the border.
	The gas station itself...
	It had a Tim Hortons.
	No, it did have a Tim Hortons.
	I'm sorry.
	Dunkin' Donuts.
	So yeah, it was in South Carolina, and he didn't look offended.
	He just said, Georgia peaches are not the only good peaches out here.
	I appreciate you sharing how you move, but time is of the essence.
	As soon as you can share how you did it, the better for us, who are held hostage here.
	Please share who your immigration lawyer is.
	Simon Olmsted, I shared the immigration lawyer's firm and name in our locals.
	Not for the supporters only, for the entire community.
	So I'm not trying to direct people there for profitable reasons, period.
	I'm only doing it there because if I put it on YouTube, trying to avoid, not trolls, but just trying to avoid bombarding this law firm with more than they can handle.
	So that information is in our locals' community for everyone to see.
	Everyone who's a member, not just supporters.
	So it's there.
	And just give me a little time.
	Okay, they're going to try to proceed with Tamara because things are...
	By the way, what time is it now?
	What time is it?
	The court's been going for nearly an hour.
	They haven't gotten into anything yet.
	They've gotten into the publication ban.
	They haven't gotten into the substance of the hearing.
	Whether or not they're going to finish this today and Tamara's going to know whether or not she stays in jail today.
	Who cares?
	Hurry up and move slow.
	Hurry up and wait.
	Sorry, that's the expression.
	Viva, what is your thinking on the turning point for the ethical when dealing with unethical situations of people?
	Porkchop Express, that's the philosophical question.
	What can an individual live with?
	What could I as an individual live with in terms of immoral contact?
	When I think the world has gone crazy, I don't know.
	I studied philosophy, people.
	And, you know, it's the consequentialist sort of ideology.
	Could you legitimately end an infant's life?
	I mean, this is not the big A debate.
	I'm just trying to not use words and flag YouTube.
	Can you kill a kid?
	Can you kill a child to prevent the deaths of 100 people?
	You know, it's unethical, but it's required.
	I mean, these are the philosophical theorizing.
	And I wrote my thesis, and I'm still trying to find it, except Yahoo deleted my entire Yahoo email account, which had my thesis in it.
	I'm still trying to find it.
	But I wrote my thesis, my philosophy thesis, and I entitled it Deontological Consequentialism, which is you can't just maximize the good.
	You can't kill one child to save 10 people, even if it would.
	Because you're not maximizing the actual good by committing an act of evil to prevent an act of evil.
	And so what you have to do is maximize that which is good in order to be truly consequentialist.
	And what is good is the deontological consequentialism.
	So you have to maximize the good.
	And you can never do that by increasing the evil in order to minimize the evil, if that makes any sense.
	I have to find my philosophy thesis to see how I flesh that out.
	Hey, Viva, can your brother still help my cousin if she lives in Michigan?
	I believe so.
	If the injury occurred in Canada, I believe so.
	But contact him.
	It's at, what's the name of the law firm?
	You'll find it.
	There's only, I think, in Canada, there's only 10 Freiheit families, and there's only one of us.
	Daniel Freiheit, he's a lawyer, and he's working with the V Injury Program.
	Fun.
	That the Canadian government set up.
	So, maybe he's going to get more business, more calls now than he can handle, but whatever.
	Hey, Viva, this is Jason.
	I talked to you about Project Veritas and I'm going to move to Florida.
	I'm so glad you finally moved to Florida.
	Well, it's...
	We're here.
	And it was good to meet you at the PV event.
	That was a good event.
	Okay, so they're talking more logistics.
	No, it occurred in Michigan.
	You're going to have jurisdictional issues.
	Where did the damage occur?
	Oh, but then again, where it materialized might be different from where it occurred.
	Long story short, contact.
	Jurisdiction is always the first issue to resolve in any potential claim.
	Where is the appropriate jurisdiction?
	Because the injury materializing in a different jurisdiction, it's a condo.
	It's temporary.
	Yeah, let me rephrase.
	Where the injury materialized versus where the cause of that potential future materialization occurred, you have arguments.
	So, not to hypothesize and not to give medical or legal advice, because I'm not.
	A lawyer with knowledge of all the facts will determine that.
	Scalzo Photo.
	Optimistic.
	Even in states like New York, only New York City had strict...
	I went to New York City briefly on my way down to Tim Pool back in September.
	They required the Vax Pass to get into coffee shops.
	No, sorry, to sit in the coffee shop.
	I refused to show it at any point in time.
	You could get your coffee and then walk out, but you couldn't sit in the coffee shop because science.
	Long Island, for example, is politically mixed.
	Most people were less crazy.
	I'm convinced that a lot of people...
	Only enforced those rules because it gave them a sense of power over their fellow citizens.
	And, you know, if this Rona experience has taught me one thing, there are a lot of people who look to have control over other people, who walk around looking to wield whatever power they can get over their fellow citizens.
	In Chile, we have a vax pass to go into cinemas, restaurants, concerts, and it requires the fourth.
	They're discussing the Fifth only here.
	People protest about everything except this.
	That's madness.
	And I would like to know, in Chile, what other trends might be correlated with that.
	I'm actually going to look that up because you can't ignore evidence that does not support the theory that you think you have.
	I'd like to know if there's been other anomalies noticed in Chile that might coincide with that policy.
	I'm just trying to see something.
	So there's nothing going on in the court yet.
	Let me see here.
	Okay.
	So there might not be much.
	It's shocking.
	There was nothing more frustrating for me as an attorney.
	Whether or not I have ADHD, I've been, what's the word?
	Digitally diagnosed.
	Not digitally.
	I've been social media diagnosed as ADHD.
	Apparently, a lot of astute observing people up there, like, look at my easily distracted.
	Thoughts come in the head and push old thoughts out.
	Always having an engine churning in the back of your head.
	There's a lot of people playing doctor out there in a funny sense.
	But just from a personality perspective, I get exceedingly frustrated when things don't move.
	As fast as I would like them to move or as fast as I expect that they should move, all things considered.
	I know it's a problem and I know it's a flaw and sometimes it makes me look rude.
	I get frustrated waiting for someone to finish a sentence when I know what that sentence is going to be.
	Mostly an argument.
	When I'm arguing with someone and I know what they're going to say for their point, I get frustrated listening to them.
	Try to get it out.
	I sometimes finish the sentence for them, which people perceive as being rude, arrogant, condescending.
	And like my father tried to condition me, you just have to let them finish.
	But it always frustrated me.
	And as the practice of law goes, sitting in there and listening to someone hem and haw, and you can't interrupt and you can't interfere, even when they're lying through their teeth, is exceedingly frustrating.
	Getting to court and having to...
	Thoughts around now for an hour and five minutes without having even gotten to the issue of the day, the reason for which you are there, which is someone's physical freedom, it'll cause an ulcer.
	It'll cause an ulcer for me.
	Civil law was for me.
	I was a commercial litigator.
	I still am a commercial litigator.
	But I never did family and I never did criminal.
	And I never did tax.
	Although tax law sometimes touched on bankruptcy, which I did more of than I wanted to just because of one very horrendous file that went on forever.
	Maybe all the greats have ADHD, just saying.
	No, I'm more at issue with other...
	Whether or not ADHD is...
	OCD, GAD, ADHD, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder.
	Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
	ODD is another one.
	Oppositional defiance disorder.
	I have been told, in retrospect, now that people have put names to these behavioral traits, now that they put names to them, they can go back and say, "Yeah, Dave, you know, when you were a kid, you certainly defied oppositional defiance disorder.
	You certainly defied authority as of being three years old." And now I look at my kid, my youngest, and I'm told, Dave, you can't get mad.
	You can't get frustrated with the kid because he is you.
	And yeah, here we go.
	ODD is only in kids.
	It progresses into antisocial personality disorder.
	I have not been told that.
	I've been told it just, you know, turns into rebellious teenagers and then potentially independent adults.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	I think you missed my $10 super chat.
	If I did winning reality, do not put another one in.
	Sorry, I also missed the standard disclaimers.
	If I miss a super chat and you're going to be upset, don't get mad at me, but I miss some of them.
	In fact, I can't bring up all of them.
	But win, winning reality, just put another comment in and I'll bring it up now that I'm looking for it.
	So an hour, an hour, an hour and seven minutes.
	An hour and seven minutes.
	I'm schvitzing, sitting in place, and it's just too frustrating to deal with.
	And in civil law, okay, fine, it's money.
	It's a contract.
	It's a lease.
	It's whatever.
	Someone has to wait a little bit longer to get reimbursed for the costs they incurred to fix a latent defect in a house that they bought.
	In criminal, there's a woman's life and freedom, physical freedom at issue here.
	And thank you, Winning Reality.
	But thank you for the super chat as well.
	There's a woman's, a person's physical freedom.
	A person is sitting in jail.
	And this is it.
	Just thoughts around.
	And everyone else is getting paid.
	It's their job.
	Judges getting paid.
	Prosecutors getting paid handsomely.
	Defense counsel, they're getting paid, but I don't judge them for it.
	They have to go and raise money.
	I donated $500 to the trucker.
	If you go to the JCCF and you go to the drop-down box under the donate, they have specific campaigns that you can donate to, and I believe it's the truckers.
	Truckers.
	It has the words truckers in it, which is the legal defense for Tamara Leach.
	No, everybody's getting paid, except the person who's now being physically deprived of her physical liberty in an allegedly free country because she posed in a photograph with someone who she was prohibited from interacting with, but in the presence of counsel under outrageously, I'll just say, what I believe to be unconstitutional.
	And unjustifiable bail provisions.
	You need to restart Viva on the streets of America.
	The problem is, it's one thing I don't...
	Look, no place is perfect.
	Florida is such a sprawled-out city.
	I love Montreal.
	I love Montreal.
	You walk along Green Avenue.
	You can walk along St. Catherine.
	You have stores.
	You can walk from place to place.
	You know, California, not so much unless you're in specific core communities.
	Florida, everything's sprawled.
	You have to drive eight lanes of highway.
	What I've noticed at every intersection in Florida is remnants from a car accident.
	You know, serious or not, fender bender, broken glass.
	And it's always in that angle where cars, either they turn left, they turn right, and there's always just where the glass and rubble just naturally accumulates due to the traffic.
	But maybe.
	Let's...
	Shitting.
	I'm sitting.
	No, no.
	It's...
	Oh, look at this thing.
	Look at this awful, awful chair.
	Yeah.
	It's beautiful.
	Oh my gosh, my back hurts.
	Yeah, no, I'm sitting in place.
	And it's crooked, the camera.
	Either that or the frame is crooked.
	No, no, no.
	The frame is crooked.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's going to fall down.
	I'm going to break something that doesn't belong to me.
	So nothing's happening.
	I hear paper shuffling, the occasional murmur.
	Anyway, so that's it.
	But we'll get back to Tamara Leach when we have it.
	But let's bring up something else that occurred in the news that has legal implications and is very, very interesting.
	You'll recall Jordan Peterson.
	When was it?
	It was a couple of weeks ago.
	Let me just bring this up so I can get the date.
	June 23rd.
	You will recall that Jordan Peterson put up a tweet on June 23rd, which is now almost two weeks ago, in reference to one Paige, who starred in such films as Juno, in which Paige played the role of a young girl who got pregnant at the hands of Matt Serra.
	Transitioned or gone through transition, not just therapy, but surgery.
	Cosmetic, full mastectomy or mastectomy?
	Mastectomy.
	And Jordan Peterson put out a tweet which I can't, apparently you can't view it anymore.
	You can't view the newsworthy element that is the tweet that led to Jordan Peterson being suspended from Twitter so long as he does not delete that tweet.
	And he put out a 14-minute video on YouTube in great detail explaining why he would rather die than take down that tweet.
	And it's a funny thing.
	To delete that tweet, talk about succumbing to caving to unethical conduct, would be a form of death for some.
	And I appreciate how, for Peterson, the death of integrity is something of a metaphoric...
	And almost actual form of death.
	To delete that tweet, which incidentally, according to Twitter's email to Peterson, would have been an admission that the tweet was either abusive, harassing, or whatever, broke the terms.
	To delete it would have been an admission of guilt.
	And I can see how that, to do something like that, to compromise your own integrity, is a form of death.
	When I interviewed James O 'Keefe, And I asked him, I said, you know, is there anything you regret?
	I asked it in the sense of, is there any particular publication that you regret?
	Any story you ran that, you know, in retrospect, it was wrong?
	He said, no.
	I regret one thing, he said.
	I regret bearing false witness to myself when I pleaded guilty to a crime that I didn't commit in order to secure a plea deal.
	It came back to haunt him in a great many respects.
	But he said, I bared or bored?
	Bored.
	I bared false witness to myself.
	I violated my own integrity.
	And that is something that I regret to this day.
	Jordan Peterson, to delete the tweet in which he deadnamed Paige, misgendered Paige.
	And as much as that term has a meaning, I mean, I don't even know how you would describe Paige, who was a pregnant woman in Juneau.
	How you describe any of this without...
	Without mangling concepts and language, if he were to delete that, it would be deemed to be an admission of guilt.
	It would be a death of his integrity, which is, at the end of the day, we're all going to die.
	The question is, do we die with integrity, or do we die as having compromised our own integrity?
	So his tweet now can no longer be viewed.
	And by the way, I do disagree with Peterson on the substance of this.
	I think he raises very good points.
	And I understand the points, and I think there is merit to the points that he raises.
	Go watch his video on YouTube, because he goes into detail.
	I say, Paige is a 33-year-old adult, can do whatever Paige wants with Paige's body.
	Doctors do cosmetic surgery all the time.
	Now, typically, the cosmetic surgery is purely cosmetic.
	And not compromising of the natural functioning of a human body.
	So nose jobs, I won't embarrass anybody, but I know plenty of people who've had nose jobs.
	And that's cosmetic.
	I don't think there's anybody out there who would say that violates the Hippocratic Oath of do no harm.
	I don't think there's anybody out there who would say that a nose job violates the Hippocratic Oath of do no harm.
	It's cosmetic.
	It's not necessary.
	Someone wants to do it to feel better about themselves.
	Maybe they have a big...
	Bump on their nose and maybe they have a broken nose and they want to restrain it.
	Whatever.
	They want to feel good about the way they look.
	Then it becomes, there's a wide gray zone.
	People who tattoo themselves, doesn't go through a doctor, but let's just say people who lacerate their tongue.
	And the doctor does it.
	The people who want to have the lizard tongue.
	People who want to implant, well let's just say people who want to implant cheekbones.
	Again.
	It does no harm in the sense that it does not compromise the normal functioning of a human body.
	Let's say, I mean, that might be the actual relevant criteria as to do no harm.
	Even injecting under the skin those horns.
	People do things to their body.
	It's none of my business.
	Even those things are easily removable and do no harm in the sense that they do not interfere with the normal functioning of the human body.
	But let's just say a full-grown adult wants to have a preventative mastectomy.
	The argument there is going to be preventative.
	It might have some medical purposes, reassuring the individual they won't get breast cancer later on.
	Okay.
	But then let's just say someone just wants to have the mastectomy because that's how they want to look.
	Now, whether or not it's criminal for any doctor to do that, there'll be a gray zone there.
	I think it would be criminal of a doctor to blind an individual who feels that they are a blind person from birth and need to blind their eyes.
	There's an actual case of this, by the way.
	I think that would be criminal.
	Because you're not only interfering with the natural functioning of the human body, you are utterly handicapping that body.
	Which is a distinction with a full mastectomy for purely cosmetic purposes.
	But that was one heck of a tangent.
	So setting all that aside, Jordan Peterson's tweet removed from Twitter.
	He's suspended for as long as he does not delete the tweet, which would be an admission of guilt.
	And he says he would sooner die than do it.
	Put out a 14-15 minute video on YouTube.
	Great video.
	Watch it.
	Even if you disagree with it, you can see how the brain of someone who knows how to think, reason, and express himself, how it works.
	Well, apparently, the news of the day here is that Dave Rubin has been banned or suspended from Twitter.
	Sorry.
	There's no such thing as a ban from Twitter.
	It's only a permanent suspension.
	Dave Rubin has been suspended from Twitter for retweeting.
	Or tweeting the screen grab of Jordan Peterson's impugned tweet.
	And it's very interesting.
	I want to keep this one from my records here.
	So Rubin had to post this to locals where his platform that he started, specifically so that people can have these free speech discussions without worrying about the arbitrary political...
	Politically motivated censorship that comes with...
	He created locals to avoid this type of political censorship.
	Okay, now we've got the prosecutor.
	I think they're starting on the substance.
	But anyhow, he posted this to locals because he's been suspended.
	No, we're not proceeding to the merits yet.
	Prosecutor is now talking about the next order of business, which is addressing documents that were filed by the Crown.
	We are now one hour and 20 minutes into it.
	They're now talking about additional documents that the Crown has provided.
	The prosecutor says, my friend, all the time, and I don't know if it's an Ontario thing, my friend, when referring to opposing counsel, I find nothing more patronizing.
	Then being called my friend.
	I find nothing more patronizing.
	Well, I find a lot of things more patronizing.
	I find it very irritating.
	Very, very, very saccharine phony.
	My friend.
	My friend.
	No, dude.
	First of all, we're opposing counsel.
	So just call me counsel.
	Call me Mr. Freyheft or David.
	I don't even care.
	Just my friend.
	Very presumptuous.
	I don't have very many friends, so don't make any presumptions, prosecutor.
	So Rubin has been suspended.
	He posted this on Locals.
	I have been suspended by Twitter for posting a screenshot of Jordan Peterson's tweet, which got he himself suspended.
	I don't know the context in which Dave Rubin posted the tweet.
	Rubin can be sassy and saucy, but it could also be, this is the tweet that got Jordan Peterson banned.
	Let's have a discussion.
	While it is unclear how I broke their terms of service, it is clear that they are breaking their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders by letting a bunch of woke activists run the company.
	I hope Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter goes through so he can blow up their servers and humanity can move past this pervasive, twisted, self-imposed mental institution.
	In the meantime, you can find me at rubinreport.locals.com.
	This is not a sponsored post.
	The platform I created to fight big tech censorship, something we need now more than ever.
	And by the way, you can find me and Barnes at...
	Viva, barneslaw.locals.com.
	But I just say, this is an interesting way of actually, this is memory holy.
	This is Orwellian memory holy.
	We can't see the tweet now.
	We don't know what the discussion is about, nor can we even have it.
	The discussion about the incident on the platform itself, so effectively, in enough time, the entire controversy itself.
	Is set on fire.
	Is memory hold.
	Nobody even knows that it existed.
	And Jordan Peterson's legacy on Twitter, for those who are less interested in it, fades into the backdrop.
	But interesting way of making it impossible to highlight the absurdity of Twitter censorship.
	And although I am merely a Canadian lawyer, there is merit to the argument of a company acting against its own financial interests, if this qualifies as a matter of perspective.
	Ruben does make a good point.
	And there is legal merit to the argument.
	People don't really fully appreciate this, but a company has a, it's called a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders.
	I buy shares in a company.
	There's called a reasonable expectation.
	But I buy shares in a company in order to make money, with the expectation that that company is going to act in a way that's going to increase shareholder value.
	If a company acts in a way that is contrary to the interests of the shareholders, they are violating their fiduciary, which means their sort of inherent obligation towards their shareholders.
	The company is nothing more than the shares which are held by individuals.
	So when the directors of a company make decisions that hurt the shareholders, there's legal remedy for that.
	Just imagine the directors.
	I want to think of a good example.
	We don't even need a hypothetical.
	They act in a way which they reasonably foresee and /or know is going to decrease shareholder value.
	That gives rights and remedies to the shareholders.
	Now, the only question here is, you know the argument.
	I don't need to hear someone else say it.
	Twitter's going to say, "We're not acting Against the shareholder interests.
	We're acting for them.
	In order to increase shareholder value, we need to make sure that Twitter is a safe space, a welcoming space, an accommodating space where people feel empowered, liberated, free, safe, to join, to discuss freely.
	And Jordan Peterson's post, targeting page, making people feel uncomfortable, is itself actually going to decrease shareholder value.
	If we leave the Petersons here, that will...
	Decrease shareholder value.
	So we need to get the Petersons out of here.
	We need to make them say, I love Big Brother if they want to come back.
	That's going to be the argument.
	The only reality is, is that true?
	Is it true?
	And is it going to hold water if ever there's a debate about it?
	And in reality, is it increasing or decreasing the shareholder value?
	Imagine Jordan Peterson, clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.
	Hold on, let me just make sure.
	He's a clinical, I think a psychologist.
	Google.
	Jordan Peterson.
	Clinical psychologist.
	So not a psychiatrist.
	Can't prescribe meds.
	Jordan Peterson.
	Clinical psychologist.
	A respected and respectable thinker.
	Blue checkmark.
	Booted from a platform for, I'll say, arbitrary or...
	Capricious application of nebulous rules.
	Is that good for shareholder value or bad for it?
	It makes me not want to buy Twitter.
	I do not own Twitter.
	Until Elon Musk expressed an interest in buying Twitter, I saw Twitter only as a necessary evil in that it's unfortunate, but it's the place to, on the one hand, reach new people and also, on the other hand, to hear what people who I disagree with have to say.
	but um But...
	Oh, wait.
	Oh, shoot.
	Are the sex bots out?
	Oh, my gosh.
	They are.
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	I didn't even see them.
	I haven't looked at...
	Okay.
	I'll block them.
	I block them in as much as I see them.
	Miss Scusi about the sex bots, people.
	So the question is, you know, Twitter is a necessary evil.
	Sorry.
	And I use it out of necessity, but it's where the discussion is.
	Now, is it going to be good for Twitter's business to ban the likes of Trump, of Peterson?
	You know, I am actually surprised that there was not a shareholder class action lawsuit for the decision to ban Trump, because there's no one out there who can say that that was in the financial best interest of Twitter, except people who are, you know, espousing specious or untenable arguments.
	It is, I believe, call me bias, an untenable position to hold that banning Trump from the platform was in Twitter's best financial interest.
	Now, sometimes a company would have to comply with the law, even if it's not in its best financial interest.
	And if Trump was inciting the erection, as we say in the industry, maybe they had to do it, even if it was bad for business.
	But I don't think there's any legitimate argument to say that banning Trump was necessary by law and /or in the best financial interest of Twitter as a company.
	And I'm surprised there was not a class action lawsuit for that decision.
	Because if I own Twitter stock and they banned the most popular dude on the platform for no good, legally compelling reason, I'd be pissed.
	I'm just listening to what's going on here.
	I hear the prosecutor.
	His voice makes me angry.
	I do not believe he's a good-faith individual.
	Twitter is not above the free exchange.
	No, it's definitely not.
	I am in Florida for an extended period of, not on vacation.
	I am in Florida for an extended period of time.
	I hope that Viva doesn't get banned for sharing the screen jab of Ruben's local sport.
	Well, I won't because I didn't post, I didn't share the screenshot of Jordan Peterson's tweet.
	I was just, hey, I should feel fortunate I didn't get banned for retweeting it before he got banned for the tweet.
	But I guess it hadn't been banned.
	His tweet hadn't been flagged when I retweeted and engaged with it.
	But how long until they start penalizing people for engaging with tweets, which later on end up getting banned or suspended?
	Who knows?
	Who knows?
	I don't know what that means.
	I'm listening to the Tamara Leach hearing in my left ear as we do this.
	Ah.
	So that's what's happening with Twitter.
	Now they're just talking about...
	Recognizing documents that have been submitted.
	I'm in agreement with my friend's suggestion.
	They're literally talking about filing and classifying additional documents so they can be referred to clearly.
	The judge is now saying...
	The judge just said he...
	He spent the day yesterday reading the file.
	And he's now talking about whether or not these are essential documents.
	Okay, so the judge has taken cognizance of the file.
	And for anybody who has not yet practiced law, oftentimes, at least this is from my Quebec perspective, it's definitely different in the states and in certain states where one judge handles the file from beginning to end.
	In Quebec, you go to court, you fall on any given judge on any given day of the week, and it's not always the same judge who knows anything about the file.
	So more often than not, the better part of any hearing is apprising a new judge who has no knowledge of the file, what's going on in the file, what documents the judge needs to read in order to understand what the issue is of the day.
	And so this oftentimes doesn't happen until the day of the hearing.
	The judge gets this file.
	They've never seen the file before.
	They've got to read through the essential proceedings for what they're called to adjudicate upon for the day.
	In this case with Tamara Litch, I'm listening to the judge, Phil.
	The judge was selected in advance, so got the file, I don't know when, but read it yesterday.
	Inasmuch as a judge can take full cognizance of a new file in a day, this one's pretty clear, and you watching this know as much as anybody else about how this case ended up in front of this judge and under what circumstances.
	But now they filed additional documents because they want to put her back in jail, so they got new evidence, and now they've got to file that new evidence, give it a little, what we call in French, the labeling, like TL for Tamara Leach 1, or prosecution, P1.
	when people get sucked into the machine of litigation, you see how it works.
	And it's horrendous.
	This is going to use up your three hours before they do anything, Viva.
	I know.
	I'll do a 10-minute speaky-talky update at the end of the day.
	By the way, my prediction, they're not going to be done today.
	There's no way they can be done today.
	You know what's going to happen, by the way?
	It's 10.30.
	They're going to break for a pause.
	Everyone needs a 15-minute break, especially those with hyperactive bladders.
	Then they're going to come back for another hour, maybe an hour and 15 minutes before lunch.
	Prosecution is going to get through a portion of its argument.
	I don't know if they intend on calling witnesses.
	They're going to break for lunch.
	They're going to come back after lunch, maybe 2 o 'clock.
	Go maybe until 3:30.
	Break until 3:45.
	Come back at 3:50 because everyone's always late.
	Break at 4:30.
	Sorry, no time for the day.
	Come back tomorrow.
	That's what's going to happen.
	Now they're saying there's the criminal side.
	And this is the prosecutor saying that there's a criminal side and a civil side to this.
	I'm listening to what the...
	They're talking about...
	I think now the prosecutor is talking about this meeting that was somewhat supervised by counsel.
	Thank you.
	And there's a wicked echo in the courtroom as well.
	In as much as it's distracting enough ordinarily to hear someone talking while you're trying to talk...
	Now I'm hearing the echo of them talking in what I'm listening to with my left ear.
	At least I got the earbud to work.
	Earbud.
	There's some...
	Oh, they're trying to define, I believe they're trying to define or discuss the charges themselves as they're drafted.
	Okay, stay tuned for a summary at the end of the day because we're not going to get through this today.
	If you are talking trans, it's 100% experimental and has 67% failure rate.
	I do know the statistics as they currently, as they seem to be understood today, of the effectiveness of resolving the underlying...
	ideations of self-harm that are often used as the justification for the procedures.
	You mumbled over my optimistic comment and went negative.
	15 minutes outside, big...
	No, no, I didn't.
	I know.
	I appreciate that.
	I did not mean to be the black-pilled Viva.
	New York City...
	I went there, and when I went to that coffee shop, and I walked around, it was like Zombieland.
	It was just like Montreal.
	So yes, I did not mean to skip over the positive, the white-pilled portion of your comment, although you use a Canon.
	Hmm.
	Scalzo.
	I know people say Canon is better than Nikon, but I'm a Nikon man.
	You mumbled over my optimistic comment and went negative.
	15 minutes outside.
	Big Gov, New York City was a way less restrictive, less crazy, no proof of V. Optimistic.
	Thank you.
	I am not on Twitter because I am sane.
	However, it is my understanding that you can filter everything you do not like on Twitter.
	So if you can create your own safe space, why does Twitter have to do it?
	I don't know about the...
	I haven't...
	I had my account for...
	I don't know how long, 10 years maybe?
	How long have I had my account for?
	Never used it until...
	2016, and even then, I used it in a manner that would not upset people, because I was, at that point in my life, you know, holding back my own...
	2009, I joined.
	Oh, they're talking procedures still.
	This is so...
	And the prosecutor's talking so slowly.
	I know you have to talk slowly for a judge, but get through the stuff where you know the judge doesn't need to take notes so you can get to the substance.
	Get through the procedural stuff quickly.
	Am I still on?
	Mic check one, two.
	Is this still on?
	Let's see.
	No, it looks like we're still good.
	Yeah, we're still good.
	Okay.
	So, I don't know what the...
	How you set up an account, if you can set up filters, I don't want to see nudies on...
	Okay, I'm still good.
	I don't want to see nudies on Twitter.
	There's a really, really outrageous rabbit hole on Twitter.
	Rabbit hole, almost pun intended.
	And I learned it from back in the day when I used to listen to Howard Stern.
	They had this one particular episode on that referred to a Twitter handle on Twitter.
	And I went to see it not thinking it was even conceivable that this could be on Twitter.
	And it was.
	So, I don't know if you can set up your account so that it automatically filters what you might find offensive.
	That's part of the solution.
	That's part of the solution that we're looking at with the rumble terms of service.
	If you don't want to be exposed to certain language...
	Block it in your own profile, but don't expect the platform to cater to the non-legally required restrictions so that you can restrict other people's speech in order for you to feel safe on a platform.
	And Elon hopefully gets inspired by the terms of service that Barnes and I have drafted.
	Set up your accounts so that you can, first of all, you can already do it.
	By just blocking certain words.
	But set up the profile so that if you don't want to see awful but lawful, you won't see awful but lawful.
	Now, whether or not Jordan Peterson's tweet as relates to Page was abusive, targeted harassment, whatever.
	I mean, we can't even have the discussion now because we can't see it.
	So it's been memory hold and Jordan Peterson has been tried and convicted almost in absentia.
	I'm from the UK and moved to Canada 12 years ago because of the freedoms, considering moving to the USA now due to recent changes in Canada.
	It's the amount of people who I spoke with during the Ottawa protests.
	Hungarians, Poles, Venezuelans.
	Now they're asking if Ms. Leach can still hear them.
	Technical problems.
	Okay, she says she can still hear them.
	Okay.
	They're asking Ms. Leach that she can see what's happening.
	He says, all right, thank you.
	And then you hear a full, all right, thank you, the judge says, and you hear all right, thank you as a full echo after the judge speaks.
	Venezuelans.
	I met a guy from Saudi Arabia, all of whom said the exact same thing.
	I fled to Canada because of what I am now seeing being implemented in Canada.
	Winston.
	Come here.
	Someone wants to see you.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Here we go.
	Winston has...
	What do you say?
	I like you.
	Thank you.
	Let's see if we can see his eyes.
	Oh, yeah.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	I'm listening to this as we go.
	Let's see.
	Can you see the...
	Oh, yeah, there you go.
	Now you can probably see...
	Oh, there you go.
	You see that whiteness?
	There you go.
	That is the...
	The source of Winston's blindness.
	Lenticonus lentoglobus is what the veterinary optimologist individual said.
	He said, when my hair turns white, then we'll be true twins.
	Or if I dye his hair black.
	Next time, I'll get a Scottish terrier.
	I'll get a Scotty, and that'll be a black furrow on the dog.
	What were we just talking about?
	Oh yeah, so Twitter, yeah.
	They're not banning that which is unlawful.
	They're not censoring.
	They're not blocking that which is truly, in a legal, in a meaningful sense, harassing.
	It's pure censorship.
	Okay, by the way, now we've started with the substance of the hearing.
	I believe they have one, a detective.
	The prosecutor is...
	Yep, there's a witness!
	We're going to go Tamarilich right now, an hour and 40 minutes in.
	The prosecutor is examining a detective who's talking about text messages that he obtained from Barber's cellular device.
	They pulled...
	They pulled documents from Chris Barber's cell phone and then submitted it to Ottawa police.
	Just going to make sure while we're...
	So they're talking about evidence that was allegedly not available at the last bail rehearing for Tamarilich.
	You cannot live stream at court, and in this case, you can't even reproduce any portion of it.
	You can only...
	So they're asking the detective to interpret what they pulled from Chris Barber's cell phone as evidence.
	So they're going over the evidence that they pulled from Chris Barber's cell phone, which I guess is going to be text messages.
	Did they have a warrant?
	I presume they had a warrant, but I don't know offhand.
	I presume they had a warrant, but I don't know offhand.
	Okay.
	Sir, now he's asking the detective a question.
	Sir.
	I can't hear what they're saying.
	Okay, now they're going to a document.
	They're going to pull up the document.
	There's dead air space now, which I find very irritating.
	They're going to a document, a specific document.
	Let's hear what this document is.
	This new evidence to arrest a woman on a Canada...
	The woman part is totally wrong.
	To arrest a person on a Canada-wide warrant for breaching bail conditions.
	Let's hear what this evidence is.
	Okay, so they're going to...
	Let's hear what this evidence is.
	We can't really see it.
	I wonder if in court...
	I don't think they would see it in court on any sort of screen or anything.
	So.
	Thank you.
	Okay, they're looking at a specific page of a specific document.
	We're going to see...
	Canada-wide warrant, which is usually reserved for murderers and drug dealers.
	Okay, let's hear what's going on.
	Let's hear the news.
	My question to you is, sir, who is...
	They're trying to figure out who the acronyms are.
	Oh, they're talking about CP.
	So these are the investigator's notes.
	They're talking about the communicator's phone and the targeter's phone.
	Can you...
	So they're talking about the identification of the phones.
	Communication phone and...
	They're talking about the phones.
	And they've apparently obtained documents from Chris Barber's phone as relates to exchanges with Tamara Looch.
	Did they have a warrant?
	I mean, I don't know, but they had to have had a warrant.
	The materials are voluminous.
	They've got to slow down because...
	Go to page four.
	They're going to ask for some more technical stuff.
	No, they're in Canada, Robin.
	As far as I know, they never...
	I don't think they ever broadcast trials.
	And if they do, it's exceedingly rare.
	In Quebec, you're not allowed in with a cell phone or anything.
	There's a specific press quarters outside of the courtroom.
	So when people come out, you ask them questions, but you can't record, nor do they broadcast, as far as I know.
	CP.
	Communication phone, I think.
	I hope.
	I hope this is easy to follow, or at least followable, because this is just like live tweeting.
	In as much as it can be done effectively.
	Okay, now the judge needs some time to get to some documents.
	It's not just a shame.
	It's absurd what's happening in Canada.
	If this were Otto Warmbier in North Korea, we were laughing in the tragic sense that Otto Warmbier's trial, his one-hour trial in North Korea where he was found guilty.
	For having stolen government materials from a hotel, sentenced to 13 years hard labor, and ultimately died, effectively died in North Korea.
	shipped his barely conscious body back to Canada, not to Canada, to the US.
	If this is eerily analogous to the absurdity of Otto Warmbier's trial in North Korea.
	This is painful.
	The prosecutor now is referring to the communicating phone instead of by names.
	The prosecutor is trying to explain to the judge who is saying what in the text exchange, but the prosecutor cannot clearly identify Because they have these acronyms to identify the phones, not by name, but by communicating phone, which is Tamara's apparently.
	So Tamara Leach's phone was the communicating phone, and then you have TP.
	So you have CP communicating phone, which is Tamara Leach, and then TP, which is the target phone, which is Chris Barber.
	And now they're trying to explain what's going on with the text exchange between TP and CP, which is Tamara Leach and Chris Barber.
	Hey, prosecutor.
	Just put a name on the acronyms.
	Barber Lich.
	Let's get going here.
	Now he's trying to explain how they know.
	Who's TP and who's CP?
	I'm not going to be able to do it the whole day, people.
	I think I'm going to have to...
	End this at noon because my wife would kill me.
	But I'll do a summary at the end of the day because I'll keep listening to this madness throughout the day while I do.
	Page...
	Communicated phone, Tamara Leach, and Target phone.
	Now the judge is trying to get clear on whether or not it's Tamara Leach who says thank you.
	In response?
	In response to a message from Chris Barber.
	The text message is...
	Oh, by the way, I should say, who's live-tweeting this?
	should also follow Okay, they've clarified...
	Let me see, I think Dave...
	The echo really is annoying, even for me.
	I'm going to try to see when the text messages are from.
	Let me just see who's covering this live tweeting-wise.
	There was the CTV, the CTV journalist.
	Okay, now, there...
	I'm trying to see if live from the shed is covering this.
	I don't see that they are.
	Oh, boy.
	okay Now they're playing a video.
	We're going to see what this video is.
	Yeah, Glenn McGregor.
	Oh, God.
	I actually just pulled my arm trying to scratch my back with my own thumb.
	Oh, God.
	This is what happens when you get old, people.
	Glenn McGregor is tweeting it, by the way.
	Good.
	Let me just go.
	I thought I was following Glenn McGregor.
	Did he?
	Glenn?
	Okay, he didn't block me.
	Good.
	Okay, Glenn McGregor.
	So Glenn underscore McGregor.
	Officer Benson is only available till noon.
	So the detective right now that they're examining is only available till noon.
	43. Livestream injury.
	Okay, so the video that they want to play is a 36-minute video.
	I suspect it's the video from the JCCF galley.
	Greenspoon, Greenspawn, sorry, who's Tamara's attorney, is saying there's nothing in the 36-minute video that's even relevant to the charges.
	Her charge is based on the photograph, not the video.
	And the prosecutor wants to play the 36-minute video.
	And Greenspawn is saying we're not...
	The prosecutor wants to take 36 minutes of court time when the witness is only available until noon today to play a video which is totally unrelated to the actual charges which stem only from the unlawful photograph and not from the 36-minute video.
	I just don't know what the 36-minute video is of, but I suspect it's the gala.
	Okay, Sheila Gunn-Reed.
	Follow Sheila Gunn-Reed instead of Glenn McGregor.
	Sorry not to be mean against Glenn McGregor, but he is...
	Glenn McGregor is CTV.
	CTV National News, CTVW5.
	Okay, the judge is going to rule here, I think.
	Okay, judge says I'm leaning towards agreeing with defense because he's reviewed the video.
	Yep.
	He says, I agree with Mr. Greenspan.
	The judge says this.
	Okay, so it's the video from the gala.
	He says, the judge is saying, I saw this video.
	She gets up, she accepts the award, gives the speech.
	And that's essentially the first 30 minutes of the video, the judge says.
	This is a good sign, because when the judge starts saying, what the F are you doing, prosecution?
	I'm sorry.
	Mr. Crimgy, any comments?
	I can't hear Crimgy right now.
	Crimgy is the prosecutor.
	I finally remembered his name.
	My wife said the hair would stop growing.
	She was wrong.
	And I can do the man bun.
	Or the samurai ponytail, as I like to call it.
	Relevant to provide context.
	The weakest argument on earth, Crimgy.
	Krimji, the prosecutor, says, he has an accent.
	I'm not making fun of people's accents.
	No, but.
	He says, I think it's relevant for context.
	Let's waste 36 minutes.
	Someone's coming up.
	Let's waste 36 minutes watching a video for context.
	He says, I have no problem with you playing maybe two minutes of it.
	This kid has no idea what's going on.
	Seeing dad talk to a little eye in the camera, listening to something in my ear which he doesn't hear.
	The judge is basically saying, look, I've seen it.
	This is context.
	Context, by the way, not for a jury, for the judge.
	Close the door, Ethan.
	Close the door.
	The judge has already watched the video.
	Now the prosecutor, Kim Ji, wants to take up 36 minutes of court time to play it again.
	The judge is the only one who needs this information, and he's already viewed it.
	So...
	He says, if you want three minutes, you can take three minutes.
	But you ain't getting 30...
	He didn't say you ain't getting 36 minutes.
	He says, if you want three minutes, you get three minutes.
	I used to...
	When I was younger, by the way, my hair used to be much, much lighter as well.
	Genetically, I'm not concerned that the kid's not mine.
	I'm certain he is.
	But my hair used to be much lighter when I was a young, young kid, and then it got darker.
	Now it's getting queer.
	Thank you, sir.
	Livestream airplane.
	So they're arguing over playing this 36-minute video of Tamara Lich at the JCCF Gala.
	Judge has given him three minutes, even though the judge has already seen the video.
	Let's see what the three minutes of this video...
	Shows by way of compelling evidence to deprive a human of their God-given right to freedom.
	Let's hear it.
	Sorry, I'll just flick it.
	What do I think?
	I know people are flipping out about it.
	I'm not so concerned about it.
	But maybe that's based on my own ignorance.
	If it's going to cause a black hole that's going to swallow up the earth, I'm also not so concerned about it.
	If there's one way to go out that's probably quick and extremely interesting, being sucked into a man-made black hole is probably the way to have it happen.
	To have it happen.
	Let me see here.
	I see.
	She was asking people to attack police over a bullhorn, coming from Mike Bruno.
	Mike, let's see.
	You don't need the 36 minutes if that's what she did.
	And in fact, if that's what she did in fact do...
	Wasting 36 minutes for that highlight is a wrong, failing strategy.
	But I'm not saying you're wrong.
	I'm just saying I question this greatly, that she, quote, was asking people to attack police.
	I want to hear her say, attack the police.
	And if I don't hear her say that, Mike, you might have put out inaccurate information.
	Okay, I'm hearing it right now.
	I am now listening to them playing a recording, which I can barely hear, so I can't hear anything.
	And by the way, Mike Bruno, not only does that not sound like Tamara, I know that it's not Tamara.
	She gave an interview where she specifically said it was the Freedom Flowers, or Flowers for Tamara.
	Peaceful and peaceful only.
	Unless you mean attack in a metaphoric sense by placing flowers at their feet.
	That qualifies as attack, in which case we're just not using language properly anymore.
	So, I'm tapping out chat, viva for the win.
	Ned Blanc.
	Blanc is French for white.
	Ned, enjoy the day.
	So, Mike, I'm not...
	You show me where she called for people to attack the police, because that's a very serious allegation.
	I have heard from her nothing, ever.
	At any point in time, categorically full stop calling for any form of violence whatsoever.
	There was the movement to place flowers at the feet of the police who were out there carrying out Ontario police or Trudeau's corrupt orders on Canada Day.
	If that's what you mean by an attack, yep, that's like that hippie who attacked the soldier by placing a daisy down the barrel of his gun.
	Keep vibes up.
	We are electric with positive and negative blood types.
	They hate love.
	Okay, I think they just played it.
	Okay, I think they just played it.
	Now I hear Kim Ji and I can't understand what he's saying because it's too muted.
	Now I hear Kim Ji and I can't understand what he's saying.
	Okay, now they're identifying the minute mark of the video.
	36.32 is the three minutes of the 38 or 36 minute video that we wanted to waste the court's time listening to.
	He said it was two minutes.
	I also, I don't know what, if I believe someone's a troll, I'll ignore them, but legit criticism I will listen to.
	And legit opposing views.
	Okay, now Kim Ji is saying, is it saying Kim Ji?
	That seems like something I've...
	Kimchi?
	No, kimchi is the coleslaw.
	Kimchi.
	If I'm pronouncing it wrong, my apologies.
	If you think I'm full of hate, as opposed to legitimate criticism and frustration with a tyrannical government...
	Yeah.
	If that's what you mean by hate, I am full of criticism for a tyrannical, unconstitutional, abusive government that has done more to...
	Tear apart the fabric of Canadian society than anyone in the history of Canada.
	I think I'm justified in that sentiment.
	Thank you.
	Oh, he's asking the investigator whether or not he saw the council in this photograph or at the event.
	I was asking the investigator, where was Tamara Leach seated at this event?
	If this is not a political persecution, there is no such thing as a political persecution.
	The prosecutor, Kim Ji, is asking the witness, the investigator, where was...
	Oh, Rex Murphy was there too.
	Where was Tamara Leach sitting at this gala?
	I did not see any council in the vicinity.
	Thank you.
	He's asking now the investigator, "When did you obtain that photograph?" The source of that photograph is from a Facebook post.
	So it doesn't even sound like this investigator was at the event.
	Maybe they wanted to play the 36-minute video to show that counsel could not be seen within the vicinity.
	Yeah, I don't think the investigator was at the gala.
	This is an absolute travesty.
	This is a travesty.
	It is a taxpayer-funded political persecution of a travesty.
	The investigator...
	Who investigated the incident based on the photograph from a Facebook post, and I presume video evidence, says, I didn't see the attorneys in the vicinity of Tamara Lich when she was sitting next to Tom Maratza or posing with him for the photograph.
	I...
	Oh, sexbot is out.
	Blocked.
	I don't think the prosecutor feels ashamed.
	I think he feels...
	Proud for what he's doing.
	And that's why you need prosecutors with honor and dignity, not prosecutors who are just there carrying orders, carrying out orders, following orders.
	Thank you.
	Now as a result of the video and this photograph.
	In that photograph, Tamara Leach is photographed beside Tom Ratso.
	This is the investigator.
	Ow!
	I'm cracking my back.
	So now he says, why did you believe she was in breach?
	Because she had orders not to communicate with Tom Maratso.
	Thank you.
	I don't believe there's any counsel to my knowledge, the investigator just answered.
	I don't believe there's any counsel to my knowledge in this photograph.
	This is what our government is doing with our taxpayer dollars.
	Sir, Mrs. Prosecutor.
	Sir, Mrs. Prosecutor.
	In terms of the current impact of the Freedom Convoy leading up to Canada Day, do you have any personal observation experience, objection, relevance?
	Yes, that will be maintained.
	What the...
	This...
	This...
	Greenspawn is objecting to this prosecutor's question.
	Up until Canada Day, do you have any experience with the impact of the Freedom Convoy?
	Like, this is...
	A shot in the dark is what the lawyer just said.
	It's not a shot in the dark.
	It's irrelevant.
	It's a fishing expedition.
	And it has not...
	It's irrelevant.
	It's irrelevant.
	He says, we're in a show cause hearing where somebody's liberty is at stake.
	He says, it has nothing to do, as far as I know, with Tamara Lich.
	Crimgy.
	Cringy, not kimchi.
	So, prosecutor says, disclosure is not required, but relevance is.
	He says disclosure is not an obligation.
	Prosecutors are going to lose on this.
	This is a stupid question anyhow.
	The judge is not...
	It is abuse of power.
	There is no question about it.
	You know how much cringe he gets paid a year?
	Let me just go Google while we're listening to this.
	So we're going to go Crown Prosecutor.
	It's not as much as I thought it was.
	Salary, Canada.
	I think it's $140,000.
	Oh, no, sorry.
	Crown Prosecutor average salary in Canada.
	This is from Talent.
	It says over $100,000 a year.
	The average Crown Prosecutor salary in Canada is $103,000.
	I guarantee you, Crimgy makes more than that because he's been there for a while.
	Crimgy?
	That's the name.
	Of the Crown Attorney, why does Glassdoor say it's $200,000?
	It's expensive.
	It's more than most Canadians make.
	And they're getting paid regardless.
	They got their raises during COVID.
	They got their...
	They're getting paid...
	To persecute Tamara Leach on our taxpayer dollars.
	I don't even care if I didn't agree with Tamara.
	This is an absolute waste.
	There's actual real crime out there.
	And Trudeau knows it.
	Because he's mandating more firearm restrictions because of it.
	I know it's over 100,000.
	It's not a question.
	Depending on what's the word?
	seniority?
	There are links.
	I'm not sure that the links are public, which is why I'm reluctant.
	The hearing is public.
	It requires a Zoom link.
	And I don't know if it's limited.
	And there's journalists in there.
	Thank you.
	I can't hear what the prosecutor is saying right now, but he's invoking the charter.
	I hope he's doing it ironically.
	Wow.
	Karimji makes $229,000 a year.
	Like the previous chat said, it's a good time to be corrupt.
	So he's arguing that there's no obligation for disclosure by the Crown.
	And then he says it's extremely relevant.
	Okay, how?
	Yep, now Greenspon says perhaps the argument of relevance can be made in the absence of the witness.
	This is what is often referred to in my understanding as a speaking objection, where you don't want Karimji basically leading the argument.
	For the witness as to why the answer would be relevant and thus leading the witness to that answer.
	So Greenspawn is on.
	He says, kick the witness out.
	If Karimji, the prosecutor, wants to argue why it's relevant, do it in the absence of the witness so that he's not basically leading the witness to the answer that he wants.
	Thank you.
	What risk has Leach created and what would the release create?
	So he's saying this officer has been an officer during Canada Day.
	This is the prosecutor.
	Karimji wants him to testify about the impact.
	My...
	This is such a stretch.
	Speaking of fishing, what the prosecutors are doing right now is nothing shy of a fishing expedition.
	The judge is saying, let me get this clear.
	You're asking for the officer to provide comments on the impact of what happened prior to Canada Day.
	Thank you.
	And now the prosecutor says, I'm glad your lord should summarize it.
	I was not very clear.
	That's right, Karimji.
	You're not clear because you don't know what you're asking for.
	When you don't know what you're asking for, it's very difficult to be clear.
	And the judge understands it, and I don't think the judge is buying it.
	The judge is saying, you want this witness to explain what his perception of the potential impact of statements made before July 1st was on Canada Day?
	This cannot be.
	And now, by the way, we've just wasted.
	Mission accomplished, Karimji.
	Seven minutes?
	debating over this stupid question?
	And I was saying on June 27th, Leach was arrested.
	This is Greenspun.
	She was arrested on the basis of an alleged breach.
	An alleged breach for the photograph with Tom Ratso.
	This is Greenspun talking.
	Greenspun.
	She was not charged with breach of condition 5, which would be organizing or promoting protests.
	She wasn't charged under that.
	Greenspon says she was not charged with a breach of not logging onto social media.
	She was only charged with that photograph.
	And appreciate that, people!
	I'm gonna find the photograph.
	I'm gonna find the photograph.
	So he's saying she was only charged with the photograph.
	Leitch was in custody on Canada Day.
	Thank you.
	She wasn't charged with images.
	I'll find it.
	I'll find it, people.
	Basically saying she wasn't charged with encouraging the protest.
	She wasn't in charge with posting to social media.
	She was charged with breaching the terms of being in contact with Tom Muratso in the absence of counsel based on that one picture on Facebook.
	So what this investigator's personal impression is of the impact her statements might have had on Canada Day, irrelevant.
	It's obvious.
	And now we're just wasting 10 minutes of this.
	And the witness is only good until noon.
	Apparently.
	Just trying to find the...
	There it is!
	Here, I got the picture.
	I got the picture.
	Yes.
	I have to pee very badly, but I'm going to hold it in.
	I'm going to hold it in because...
	Is there another sex bot in the house?
	No, there's not.
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	I like Greenspawn.
	Okay, the article was on...
	Is it this one?
	Was it...
	Greenspawn says it's totally irrelevant.
	So minute, CBC.
	Okay, it is this article.
	Here, people.
	This is the picture right here.
	This is the picture and this is the post that landed Tamara Leach in jail on a Canada-wide warrant.
	Got an investigator involved, is resulting in a day of court hearing today.
	This, Stacey Cotter, I don't know who she is, so proud of my friend Tamara for earning the George Jonas Freedom Award.
	A beautiful tribute to George Jonas and so proud of Tamara for her determination and strength.
	Cheers to freedom because Tamara is in the middle and Tom Muratso is immediately, I did it again, to her left.
	This is the picture, people.
	This is the picture that led to this.
	And this, oh, no, no, there's nothing, nothing.
	Oh, were you guys seeing the same picture?
	You were.
	There's nothing absurd about this.
	And if you get angry about it, yeah, I'm full of hate.
	I'm angry.
	If this doesn't enrage you, you might be a tyrant.
	If this does not enrage you, you might tolerate abuses of people's civil rights.
	You might tolerate tyranny.
	You might actually like it.
	And I would rather get angry at injustice than enjoy injustice.
	And her lawyers are there just off frame.
	Trumped up charges, much like other trumped up charges we've been seeing in that January 6th committee hearing that I just cannot stomach anymore.
	I cannot stomach watching it.
	I cannot stomach.
	The judge is prepared to agree with Mr. Karimji.
	He's going to hear his answers.
	The probative value will be determined later.
	Looks like the judge is going to allow the question.
	Question's irrelevant, by the way.
	The judge is going to allow it.
	Okay, now they're calling the witness back in.
	Okay, people, I might not be able to hold it in.
	I had coffee on an empty stomach, and the effects of that are scientifically conclusive.
	Let me just see.
	What was I just about to do?
	I was going to go to Rumble and see if there was anything there that I need to address.
	Okay, people, give me 30 seconds, and I'm going to listen to the answer.
	Thank you.
	What a waste of time.
	So he's reminding the witness he's still under oath.
	Let me listen to the answer, and I'll be back in 30 seconds, people.
	Chat amongst yourselves.
	Chat amongst yourselves.
	Chat amongst yourselves.
	Chat amongst yourselves.
	I'm back.
	The answer is actually fascinating.
	The witness says, I was working as a uniformed officer that day, and typically we see thousands of families on Canada Day, and we saw fewer families on Canada Day in Ottawa.
	And we saw more, I think he said militants or more protesters, more vehicles.
	In the no parking area.
	So he's basically saying...
	He says there were fewer families there this year.
	He was an officer in uniform.
	And appreciate what he's saying right now because he's implying that the fact that there were fewer families celebrating Canada Day and more militants, I think he said was the word, is evidence that Tamara Leach's statements had an impact and motivated protesters to come.
	Families weren't in Ottawa because they were afraid of getting assaulted by police.
	And I'll tell you this, because if I were in Canada, I probably would have gone down.
	I would not have been afraid of getting assaulted by police, but I wouldn't have brought my kids.
	Because I saw what the police did when kids were present when they broke up that peaceful protest.
	Now they're trying to use the fact that there were fewer families there.
	As a direct result of what we all witnessed of grotesque police abuse to break up that protest.
	Now they're saying fewer families there because of that violent police response, and they're trying to blame that on inspiration from Tamara.
	This is when they hold their victimizing of you against you.
	Well played.
	Well played, Steven.
	Okay, Greenspawn is cross-examining now.
	He's currently a detective in the homicide division.
	They're using homicide detectives.
	Karim G. and the prosecutor are using homicide detectives to go after Tamra Litch.
	Karim G. I was there.
	I would not bring my kids.
	To that protest, to Canada Day, sorry, not because of the protesters, but because I saw what the police did.
	They detonated two concussive grenades within five feet of me for no good reason.
	They assaulted a war veteran, cuffed him, had him in the freezing cold for hours, hauled him off out of Ottawa, and dumped him like garbage.
	I saw the police response.
	I wouldn't bring kids to Canada Day.
	Not because of the protesters, they were the most peaceful people I've ever seen, but because of the police.
	And now the prosecutor is suggesting that the absence of families...
	Which was a direct response to police abuse is a causal effect to Tamara Leach's statements which motivated militants.
	You guys are...
	Not you guys.
	Prosecutor.
	Trudeau.
	Ontario police or Ottawa police.
	Unbelievable.
	They're asking some more questions.
	But by the way, so this is the prosecutor.
	I don't know what the evidence is other than this for the Crown, for the prosecutor.
	Yeah.
	There were not always statements on the roof because they only got there at a certain point.
	Okay, so...
	There's some back and forth between prosecutor and defense.
	The new...
	they have greensponsing.
	The new evidence.
	The new evidence is about going through 4,000 pages of text and MSM, SMS, SMS, whatever, messages.
	They went through 4,000 pages of text and MSS, SMS, SMS.
	SMSM.
	2,000 chat conversations that were in the report that this homicide detective looked into.
	Out of all of that...
	Out of all of that...
	Out of all of that, the only thing produced by the crown is the photo.
	Greenspoon's making a great point.
	Greenspoon basically said, you detected, you reviewed the 40-page report.
	That was a summary of the 4,000 SMS text messages.
	Greenspoon's making the point.
	He's making it slowly.
	And when they're making the point that I like, I don't mind them doing it slowly.
	He's basically saying, you went through 4,000 text messages and SMS messages.
	And the only thing the Crown got that they submitted to this court as the new evidence is Tamara saying, awesome.
	Command center just called.
	Can you head over there?
	Can you head over there soon?
	Tamara says, they have us.
	They have a strategy to gridlock the city.
	I don't want to make those decisions on my own.
	The individual to whom she's exchanging, okay, he says, I'll get dressed.
	Tamara says, I'll get dressed, and Tamara says, okay.
	Sorry, I hope you understood that because I tried to do my best.
	Out of 2,407 chat conversations, That's all you got.
	The most inculpatory thing they got that has been put before this court, and it's that exchange.
	Well, I'm not going to say it's the most...
	Sorry.
	I'm not going to say it's the most...
	I haven't reviewed the information, but...
	Okay, Greenspawn, that's it.
	In any normal world, that's Checkmate.
	They want to lock her up.
	They went through thousands and thousands of text messages, SMS messages.
	All they came up with was what I just read as an exchange.
	This thing's falling out.
	I thought I just turned it off.
	And that photograph.
	And that photograph.
	Because they need to show the evidence for the continued detention and for the breach of bail.
	This is not a bail hearing.
	This is a breach of bail hearing.
	So they said that the breach was for non-communication with Tom Moranso.
	So now he's saying, when you went through the speech...
	So he's saying, when you went through her speech, were you not going through it to see if there was something in her speech that violated the terms of her release?
	And he says, you went through the speech several times, and you were not able to find anything, conclude anything violated of her bail terms.
	Of condition five, which is, I believe, not to organize, aid, or abet any public protest.
	He says, "I did not know any of that." She was definitely within the guidelines they issued.
	The judge...
	Said she could go to the JCCF Gala and accept the award.
	But it doesn't matter.
	They don't need you to break the law in order to allege that you broke the law.
	They don't need you to commit the crime to prosecute for them to prosecute you for the purported violation.
	The text is old, not new.
	So he's saying, she didn't break any non-attendance, any non-attendance provision either.
	I need lips on.
	That's my lips on.
	Oh, so yes, it's...
	Okay, amazing information.
	Subject to confirmation, it would seem that the text message that they're reading is old evidence.
	In which case it becomes, oh my goodness.
	Robert, I think.
	Let me think about that.
	I feel guilty using people's names and in any way even given the perception of monetizing the injustice of Tamara Leach.
	And maybe if we do it, donate all the proceeds.
	There is malicious prosecution.
	The judge has all the powers that a judge needs.
	But I don't think there's any meaningful...
	Maybe.
	Maybe they'll be reprimand, but I wouldn't hold my breath, and I doubt it.
	Yeah, old evidence to support the new evidence, which was that photograph I've heard with Tom Maratza.
	They were planning.
	They were conspiring to commit mischief in that photograph.
	So my understanding, this is not a continued bail hearing.
	This is now...
	What was that noise?
	AirPods going dead?
	No.
	This is a request to re-incarcerate for alleged breach of bail terms.
	The AirPods are at 10%.
	That's a problem.
	Well, we might be ending early out of technical issue because I can't play the audio loud.
	I can't play the audio so that anybody can hear it because that would be rebroadcasting.
	Yeah, I don't have any wired headphones.
	so Oh, now they're reading the conclusions from the civil case, which I talked about.
	They're reading it.
	Provided the terms of this order are complied with.
	The defendants are allowed to continue peaceful, lawful protest.
	February 7th order.
	I've read that many times.
	Okay, you know what we're going to do?
	They went dead.
	I'm going to do it like this.
	So, I talked about this many times, that there was a civil court order that said, so long as you protest peacefully, you can continue to protest lawfully.
	In response to the continued, repeated misinformation statements that the protest was illegal, coming from Justin Trudeau's mouth.
	So, I did that specifically for a reason, because everyone called the protest illegal and unlawful, but there was a court order that said if you continue to protest peacefully and lawfully, you are entitled to continue doing it.
	And they just read that conclusion from the February 7 order.
	You can probably find that in PDF version.
	Okay, sorry, this is gonna be very weird.
	Very rude to talk on the phone.
	Now the prosecutor's going after condition three.
	How do you...
	Maybe I'll charge these.
	Now they're talking about the non-communication.
	Okay.
	And now they're talking about the prohibition, the prohibition on communicating with Maratza.
	Directly or indirectly.
	Now I think the judge is asking which conditions are you referring to?
	Let's see if I can do this here.
	Okay, I'm gonna unplug my computer, charge these...
	What the heck, man?
	This is not the right...
	Ah, gosh.
	Things will get better when I get properly set up.
	All right.
	So basically asking the prosecutor, the only reason she's here today is because of the photograph and violating condition three of her bail terms, which was not to communicate directly or indirectly with Marazzo.
	She has a brief interaction with Muratzo where she goes around the table at the event.
	The witness, the homicide detective, says she sat at the table with Muratzo at a social event.
	It's not a lawyer's office.
	It's not a boardroom.
	This is the opinion coming from the murder detective.
	Oh, shoot.
	She's at a gala.
	Clearly from the video, there's hundreds of people.
	This is the murder detective, the homicide detective, saying that she was at a gala.
	She went around the table to meet Morazzo, and it wasn't a lawyer's office.
	It wasn't a boardroom.
	The witness is interrupting Greenspan.
	Saying the basis of the charge is that she gave the speech, came around the table, and took a picture.
	She had some interaction with Mr. Morazzo.
	Witnesses, that's correct.
	And the fact that she's at his table at the event.
	This is actually kind of fascinating, but just funny.
	You didn't check to see if she was allowed to be at that table with Tom Ratso?
	Tom Ratso?
	Okay, so they have a video, and apparently there's no audio for that particular video.
	So the witness just says, I can't hear what Mrs. Litch is saying in the video.
	There is audio, but I can't hear what she's saying.
	Unbelievable.
	Pat King is still in jail, by the way.
	Yes.
	1,500 pages.
	I'm listening to the court hearing.
	For anybody who's new here, like just came in, I'm listening to the court hearing via Zoom on my phone.
	You cannot rebroadcast it.
	Thank you.
	Okay, so Greenspan just said, her interaction, if it was nothing more than a congratulatory handshake, do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?
	And he says no.
	He says, there was nothing in their interaction that had anything to do with planning a protest that you're aware of?
	No.
	He just asked, do you know the name John Carpe?
	I know that name.
	Do you know the Justice Center?
	I had John Carpe on the channel multiple times.
	He's asking, do you know if John Carpe was present at the event?
	John Carpe is a lawyer, by the way.
	He says, if I were to suggest to you that John Carpe, lawyer for the JCCF who's representing Tamara Lich, was the emcee.
	He says, do you know who called up the stage?
	I have no idea the witness is.
	I have no idea the witness is.
	He says, you do know that some of the Justice Center's lawyers are representing Tamara Lich, correct?
	He says, I don't know anything other than there's a lawsuit.
	He says, I believe Mr. Wilson, Keith Wilson, who I've also had on the channel.
	And he works with the Justice Center.
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	Not looking so good for this witness.
	What is that?
	Gray hair?
	Less than three second portion of the video where she goes around the table to interact with Tom.
	All right.
	He has no idea where Mr. Wilson works, the witness.
	He has no idea who John Carpe is, I think.
	Let's deal with the photograph, Greenspawn says.
	No audio.
	No audio, no evidence of the substance of the communication.
	Correct?
	No evidence.
	No evidence of any communication.
	With Tamara, before, during, or after the photograph?
	Doesn't have any.
	Again, I don't know who Mr. Carpe is.
	This is great.
	No evidence of the location of Mr. Wilson?
	There's no evidence of Mr. Wilson being in the photograph, is what the witness just answered.
	No evidence of the witness being in the...
	There's no evidence of Mr. Wilson being in the photograph.
	Thank you for telling us what we could see with our own eyes.
	Was he just outside the photograph?
	Oh, but you don't even know who Wilson is.
	You don't even know who John Carpe is, other than Tamara's lawyers.
	Oh, this better go badly for the prosecution.
	What just happened?
	I hear my dog, the other one, barking.
	Do you have any...
	Do you know if she was responsible for populating the head table at the event?
	I have no idea, says the witness.
	He says, you realize there's nothing in condition number three, which precludes physical contact with Mr. Morazzo.
	Correct?
	I don't know what term number three says.
	That's not what he said.
	Let's just see his answer.
	What?
	What was the answer?
	Mr. Homicide Detective?
	I can't...
	Contact?
	Does that mean not be in physical presence if they pass each other in a vehicle?
	Yeah, it is.
	What is this?
	This is like the stress lock.
	I think that's psychological trauma, stress.
	He says there's nothing in the condition that prevents them from touching each other.
	Physical contact.
	Pfff.
	If the officer can be permitted to answer the question, I mean, if I'm Karimji, I'm objecting and saying I don't need, the officer's not in a position to interpret term three, but I don't want to do Karimji's job better for him than he's doing for himself.
	I pulled those out.
	He says, "My question, if I'm permitted to ask you, there's nothing in Term 3 that prohibits physical contact between Morazzo and Leach." In other words, it says, "Can you reboot the conditioners to not contact or communicate in any main directly or indirectly, yada, yada, yada." So no physical means.
	Do not contact directly or indirectly through physical or electronic means.
	He says clearly you're not going to suggest that contact means physical contact.
	It means communication.
	Now the witness is saying, can you read it again?
	This is Fano.
	Will do.
	And he says, I don't know what physical means in that except physical contact.
	He says, you think this term means preclusion of physical contact, as in they can't touch each other, as opposed to physical communication of correspondence.
	Dear God, that's crap.
	I'm not doing that.
	I prefer to pull them out and it makes me sneeze and it feels good.
	Thank you.
	He says, you would conclude homicide detective?
	He didn't say homicide detective.
	I would be saying that in each question to illustrate the absurdity.
	He says, you think that that term precludes them from standing next to each other?
	Okay.
	So he says he had several options as to how to deal with this highly incriminating photograph.
	This one.
	He says, here are the options.
	He says, you could have done the following things.
	One would have been nothing.
	Because there's no evidence of communication.
	He says, you could have done nothing with this photograph.
	This one.
	He says, that would have been open to, correct?
	Witnesses.
	It's always an option to not do anything.
	Second option was what's referred to as a referral hearing.
	I don't know what that means.
	What's a referral hearing?
	I don't know what that means, people offhand.
	He says he doesn't know what a referral hearing is under Section 523.1.
	Now the lawyer is going to lawyer him.
	He's going to explain what a referral...
	I mean, I suspect it's to refer to the court to determine if there was a breach.
	He's going to read the code.
	Okay, so he's reading it.
	An accused appears before justice.
	So I guess a referral hearing is to determine, based on the evidence, whether or not there's been a breach before an arrest.
	because it's not like she's not complying.
	A distinction without a difference.
	Once the civilians do the surveillance for the government, that's how they achieve the same end goal.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	An option is a referral hearing.
	So it's basically, it's a hearing to determine if, as opposed to issuing a Canada-wide warrant for a photograph, Mr. Homicide Detective.
	It's a different option, says the Homicide Detective.
	He says, not an option that was discussed quite clearly because this guy, Homicide Detective, didn't even know what it was.
	Third option, to seek a warrant from a judge in Ottawa.
	He said he didn't do that either.
	No.
	What he did was the fourth option, the nuclear option.
	He didn't refer to it as a nuclear option.
	He said you were instructed by Mr. Karimji, the prosecutor, to get a warrant.
	He says I was not instructed.
	Okay.
	He says, contrary to what's being said in the media, I make the decision, homicide detective, as the lead investigator.
	Not the Karimji, not the Prime Minister.
	No, I did it myself.
	You're goddamn right, I did it.
	This is not quite a Jack Nicholson moment.
	He says, if the person's not in the jurisdiction, it goes to warrant.
	He made the decision himself, Mr. Homicide Detective.
	He filed the warrant, the charge package, and then the warrant gets issued.
	"In that warrant?" asks Mr. Greenspan.
	It's in the warrant.
	Yep.
	By the way, Greenspawn did not use the nuclear option.
	I did.
	It wouldn't be bad if he did refer to it as the nuclear option and continually remind the court that this man is a homicide detective.
	So, as we're talking about the provision of law pursuant to which he issued this warrant...
	So they're talking about a term of law where the individual could be released in order to appear.
	Was a homicide committed?
	Only a homicide of our Constitution.
	A homicide of our rights.
	And I'm not saying homicide because that just means a death caused.
	A murder.
	A murder of our charter and a murder of our rights.
	So the order that you'll be taken into custody.
	So the order that you'll be taken into custody.
	So in the warrant it says I hereby authorize the release pending a hearing.
	So the officer, he's saying, an officer may release her, but doesn't have to.
	And they didn't.
	And they didn't.
	Greenspawn says, you didn't take a moment to think about, you know, having her released on her own cognizance to appear, which she would have done anyhow.
	You went straight to the Medicine Hat Police.
	He says the decision was made with the Medicine Hat Police to have her arrested.
	They arrested her, Medicine Hat Police, because of the warrant.
	And we attended Alberta and returned her to our jurisdiction to answer to the charges.
	They get a six-day remand, which means they held it for six days.
	Mr. Karimji expanded the warrant to a Canada-wide warrant.
	He says, I don't know who saw it, the witness.
	He says, I don't know who decided, but the warrant was arrested to a Canada-wide warrant when they knew where she was.
	And why?
	Makes for a good headline.
	CBC probably liked that headline.
	Canada-wide warrant for Tamara Litch issued by homicide detective because of a photograph at the JCCF George Jonas Award Gala.
	I missed a question, but I thought I had just heard the word hamulca.
	Vivo is a Trudeau guy, but does it?
	I ran for the People's Party of Canada!
	For goodness sake!
	Who's Heather Aura?
	Oh, this looks like spam, by the way.
	Well, see, I don't know how anyone could have done this so many times within a short period of time because I do have slow-moed on.
	That looks like spam.
	If it happens again, spam gets blocked.
	Not because of the speech.
	Because I allow everyone to say what they want.
	Okay, it's spam, yes?
	Okay, so let me just go block it.
	But you know the problem is it's coming from different accounts.
	Because no one with the same account would be able to post that so many times in a row.
	Oh, did I not put on slow mode?
	Maybe I didn't put slow mode on.
	Oh, I didn't put slow mode on.
	Well, that's spam anyhow.
	Well, that's it.
	Oh, no, it's not Homolka.
	It's someone else in the file.
	I thought they were comparing the Canada-wide warrants to like Carla Homolka.
	I thought they were comparing the Canada-wide warrants to like Carla Homolka.
	Hold on, now I feel bad.
	I have to unblock that person.
	They're talking about how they decided they needed to extend the warrant.
	To return her to Ottawa.
	And that's exactly what happened.
	Correct.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	So she got arrested.
	She called counsel.
	So they extended the warrant to a Canada-wide warrant, seemingly at Karimji's request, the prosecutor.
	No malicious prosecution here.
	He says, I don't know.
	He doesn't know people.
	He doesn't know people.
	Okay, so they're asking some questions.
	I don't know who the people that they're talking about are, but...
	Okay, so they go to Alberta.
	They go to Alberta and they bring Lich back.
	She's been held for a total of nine days.
	Six days in medicine, had three days in Ottawa.
	She's been held for a total of nine days because of that picture.
	This picture.
	This picture, people.
	Don't get angry, people.
	Don't get angry.
	Don't get angry.
	She's been in jail for nine additional days because of this.
	The guy who ran people over at the protests in Winnipeg is out.
	Nine days in addition to her two and a half weeks.
	You tell me this is not malicious prosecution.
	Okay.
	So they're asking about what's going to happen with the monies that were put up by the certi.
	I think they're asking for the seizure of it.
	Because if she breaches her term, if she breaches the terms of her bail release, they get to seize the certi that was posted to guarantee her respect of it.
	$20,000.
	And we learned during the last hearing when the certi testified, that's a lot of money.
	That's a lot of money for these people.
	So they would...
	I don't know what the legal term is, but they basically seized the certi, that $20,000 posted by whoever the certi is.
	And that's a lot of money to most people.
	Just both.
	She broke her terms.
	The crown says so.
	let's seize the $20,000.
	Since, oh, it's, There's some sense to it.
	It is political persecution.
	And everyone.
	Let me rephrase.
	The Canadian government, Trudeau, should be an international laughingstock.
	Except it's not funny.
	Okay.
	Confiscated.
	There's a legal term.
	But they confiscate the surrogate, the 20,000.
	No, they didn't do this for 20,000.
	They don't need the money.
	They just want to break everyone involved.
	Break the certee.
	Make sure that nobody...
	Sorry, my nose is itchy.
	I'm gonna find something to scratch.
	No, just terrorize the certi so that no one in their right mind would act as certi for anyone accused of a crime under the Trudeau regime.
	Because they'll fabricate a breach, They will maliciously prosecute a fabricated breach and they will use that malicious prosecution of the fabricated breach to confiscate any money that any surgery put up to guarantee the respect of the bail conditions of the accused.
	Welcome to Canada, people.
	2022.
	2022.
	Sorry, I didn't mean to take that one down.
	Oh god, my nose is itchy.
	Thank you.
	Let me see who's going on here.
	See if my wife texted me.
	Okay.
	Still going on.
	A little bit of silence.
	I am so ashamed of our country.
	it is communist.
	Thank you.
	Seize their accounts.
	WUEF directed and deputy PM executed.
	Can he identify the other people in the photograph?
	The homicide detective says.
	There's a female.
	He's identifying the other people in the photograph.
	I'm not naming the names.
	I think it's irrelevant.
	And Mr. Morazo.
	Those two individuals were in the photograph together.
	And he does not know who the other two individuals in the picture are.
	BANG
	I don't know.
	You know how we stop this madness?
	It sure as hell is not going to come with the help from Jagmeet Singh.
	He's perpetuating this madness.
	He's perpetuating this madness.
	He has no idea who the other two people in the picture are.
	Warning people, I'm gonna put slow mode on.
	I realize I didn't have slow mode on.
	I'll put it on mild slow mode.
	Moderate.
	Let's get 15 seconds.
	A little late, but whatever.
	It's on.
	Rex Murphy was at the table, he says.
	Violence is not the answer.
	Violence will only justify more of what they are doing currently.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	Maxine Bernie and his wife were there.
	I put on the slow mode not to censor just so that people don't spam the same comment 15 times over and over again.
	This is one other area of questioning.
	They want someone to do something violent.
	That's what Trudeau wants.
	That's what he wanted from the day one of the protests.
	And when it didn't happen, they had to come in and provoke it.
	They're asking the witness if he's okay to stay for a little longer because he had a hard out at noon.
	They're going to play the video and apparently one minute of the video.
	Trudeau wanted violence.
	He wants violence.
	He wants crisis.
	He needs it in order to promote, in order to justify the continued tyranny.
	He needs it.
	So, and I would venture out so far to say that anyone who gives him that excuse is probably, I won't say probably.
	Anyone who gives him that excuse I will say works with Trudeau because everybody who is fighting Trudeau now knows you have to avoid it and you cannot succumb to that temptation even if you have it because he wants it and he wants it to happen so he can exploit it and weaponize it for more tyranny and anyone who succumbs to it is either weak-spirited or working with Trudeau to give Trudeau the excuse he needs to do more of what he's already been doing.
	There.
	Anyone promoting violence is working with Trudeau.
	Thank you.
	They're playing a portion of the video.
	I can't hear what it is.
	A picture is worth a $20,000.
	A picture is worth a thousand words and $20,000.
	And someone's life and liberty.
	Am I still on here?
	Okay.
	Oh, I could see.
	They're playing a portion of the video.
	Okay, some clapping.
	people are laughing It's a video from the George Jonas Award.
	I believe the video shows Tamra Lich shaking.
	I can't see too good.
	Shaking someone's hand.
	We'll get what the tenor of this video is.
	We'll get what the tenor of this video is.
	Okay, so she was shaking hands with Maxime Bernier.
	I wasn't sure, but it looked like Maxime Bernier.
	Witness confirms.
	Now, he's showing the video of the portion after her speech where Tamara Lich shakes hands with people.
	So she shook hands with Maxime Bernier.
	And then she proceeds to shake hands with the next person at the table.
	Thank you.
	And they're introducing the keynote speaker for the evening.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Sorry, I got totally lost for a second.
	So she actually shakes some hands and comes back to the table So Okay, I think that's it for the video.
	Okay.
	I will.
	Absolutely.
	Although I've seen the tips of those aloe vera plants.
	If those things break off, that can impale someone.
	The tip of the aloe vera plant, it's sharp, pointier than any knife I've ever seen.
	Scratched myself on one yesterday when I was walking by.
	So, okay, they just played the video.
	He's made the point.
	She shook hands after her speech with Maxine.
	Not specifically with Tom Ratso to say, hey, let's organize another protest.
	Like, hey, let's do it.
	This was my goal all along, to accept this award so we can orchestrate another protest in this handshake right now.
	She shook hands with Maxime Bernier, everyone else at that table by the looks of it, including Tom Maratso.
	Oh, it's a century plant.
	Okay.
	Jailed for accepting a Freedom Award.
	Hmm.
	Now he's getting back to who else was at the table.
	Sorry, I have to do it.
	Oh, there you go.
	So he's saying there's seven people at the table.
	I hate holding the phone this close to my head.
	I hate the warmth of the phone.
	He can't say for sure.
	It doesn't know how many people there.
	doesn't know who the people are.
	Okay, so Rex Murphy.
	Well, no joke.
	No medical advice.
	One of my clients was a...
	An engineer for a cellular company.
	said in as much as possible don't put the phone next to your head Nothing.
	So he's talking about more people at the table, yada, yada, yada.
	There was a funny comment.
	Definitely a secret handshake.
	They organized con point number two.
	Gang, gang, gang shake.
	He says there's people at the table he can't identify, and he agrees with that.
	Let me see if I can get this bud back in, yo.
	Oh, thank you very much, officer.
	Those are my questions.
	Oh, now there's redirects.
	And he says, my friend asks you.
	I. I. I. I. I. Thank you.
	I just missed the question to which there was a vigorous objection.
	So I don't know what the question was, but now Greenspawn says, look, I asked what his options were.
	I asked if you had four options.
	Oh, so I guess I think Karimji said, in your opinion, how serious were the breaches?
	I think.
	How do I get this thing to work again?
	Forget it.
	We're going to deal with it for now and I'm never going to use it again.
	So apparently Karimji asked about the seriousness of the alleged breach.
	He says it's become fashionable, almost automatic in our world to ask people questions like how confident were you of victory?
	How serious was the breach?
	In other words, suggesting that it was serious.
	Yeah, in other words, suggesting the answer to the question.
	Greenspawn is smart.
	He says it's something that's done automatically.
	Greenspon actually sounds a little bit like Pierre Poilièvre in his delivery.
	So he says, basically, Karimji is suggesting to the witness a level of seriousness of the alleged breach in the question.
	He says it's not a proper question.
	Okay.
	How do I reconnect these stupid earbuds?
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Okay, so the judge says, look, I've heard your objection.
	I went back to see my notes as to what was said when you discussed your four options.
	The judge is going to allow the question.
	Because the judge is going to say, look, when you went through that hierarchy, that implies a seriousness or lack of seriousness to the offense.
	Correct.
	I cannot put this on speaker because that would qualify as a rebroadcast of the hearing itself.
	Settings on Bluetooth on.
	I'm going to live with it for now.
	I hate it, but I'll live with it for now.
	And I'll go disinfect my ear.
	I'm joking.
	Okay, the judge is going to allow the question.
	It's an irrelevant question, anyhow.
	Let him say it's a serious...
	Let him say it's a serious breach.
	Sure.
	Let the witness say that photograph is a serious breach and let's see what credibility the homicide detective has with the judge.
	By the way, my bar society can still disbar me in Quebec if I commit an ethics breach.
	It's not legal reasons as in that.
	It's like, I'm still a member of the Quebec Bar Society in good standing, and I intend to stay that way.
	I don't think the judge allowed the question, but it's all irrelevant.
	There's another objection, but I'm missing the questions.
	I can't hear Karimji properly.
	Put the headphones back in their cradle.
	I just dropped them on the floor.
	Okay, put'em back in the cradle.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Where did the sound just go?
	Oh, I just got logged out.
	Oh, son of a bee sting.
	I just got logged out.
	Give me a second.
	Let me see if I can get back in.
	Oh, give me a second, people.
	And yeah, they were in cross.
	They were in cross.
	And I know I took a...
	Oh, gosh darn it.
	Hurry up, Dave.
	Okay, hold on a second.
	Okay.
	Oh, come on.
	I can't.
	Now I'm panicking.
	Okay, let's do this.
	Take a deep breath.
	Do it slow.
	Haste makes waste.
	Two.
	Haste makes waste, people.
	Okay.
	Join back.
	Join back.
	Unless it ended or unless I got booted.
	I don't think I got booted.
	I think I accidentally hung up when I...
	Good, I'm back.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Okay, now he's saying that you went to Alberta on taxpayer dollars with another homicide detective.
	He says you went with another homicide detective on a Canada-wide warrant to bring her back.
	And when I asked if you had ever done that before, I was confident the answer was going to be no.
	He says apparently Apparently Karimji asked a question why he had never done that in the past versus whether or not he had ever done such a thing.
	Whether or not the homicide detective had ever gone with another homicide detective to Medicine Hat on a Canada-wide warrant to bring back Tamara Lich.
	He asked, Greenspan said, had you ever done this before?
	The answer was no.
	And apparently Karimji asked the question, why didn't you ever do this before?
	which Greens want to say is a totally inappropriate question.
	Thank you.
	He's saying, by the way, he's highlighting the fact that it was this Crown, Karimji, who sought the expansion to a Canada-wide warrant.
	It was cringy.
	He says, when I asked that question, I was certain that Mr. Homicide Detective had never gone with another homicide detective to bring back someone who breached the terms of a bail with a photograph.
	That wasn't homicide.
	That was a good one.
	Greenspot is very, very, very sharp.
	And he actually, it's not painful to listen to him speak slowly to get his points across.
	And now he's basically saying, look, yeah.
	I...
	you.
	He's saying the seriousness of the breach is a proper submission for the prosecution to make in argument, not to ask a loaded leading question to the witness to say how serious the breach was.
	So I think Karimji asked, have you ever sought a Canada-wide warrant for breach of bail conditions in the past?
	Thank you.
	Clearly what my friend was attempting to do was to leave the court with the impression that the officer acted unreasonably.
	And there was something nefarious going on.
	This is from Karimji's mouth.
	I'm now convinced that there is something nefarious going on and the officer acted unreasonably.
	Okay.
	Okay, so he's...
	Okay.
	He said, the question was, how serious did you view the breach?
	The alleged breach?
	That was the question at issue here.
	Thank you.
	I won't be able to continue it after lunch, but I'll give an update by the end of the day.
	Have you ever extended in the past?
	Thank you.
	I just texted her.
	Let me see.
	They're good.
	we have more time people So he's basically saying, look, the process...
	Judge says, I understand the point you're trying to make, but I agree with Mr. Greenspan.
	If you want to...
	Readdress this issue with respect to the seriousness of the alleged breach.
	There's certainly an opportunity to do that, I guess, in closing.
	He's basically saying with Greenspawn's line of questioning, you had four options and you went with the nuclear one, there was nothing suggesting his personal assessment of how serious the breach was.
	He says, However, I will invite you to come back in final submissions and argue it.
	Argue it in argument because that's what it is.
	It's not a question to a witness.
	I'll leave it to final submissions.
	Good for you, Karimji.
	I'll bring the officer back in because they took him out.
	Yeah, my wife.
	It's funny.
	When you start from scratch, you realize that you don't even have spices.
	You go get meat or you go get dinner.
	You have no spices.
	You have no oil to cook.
	You have no pans and no plates.
	It's an experience.
	I'll caution you, Mr. Karimji.
	I'll caution you, Mr. Karimji, move away from that line of questioning and you can address it in final submission.
	The judge had better sanctioned Karimji.
	Someone had better sanctioned Karimji.
	Some dude in Ottawa wants to file an ethics complaint against Keith Wilson?
	I don't invite anyone to weaponize any...
	Licensing board, ethics board.
	They're asking if they're finished.
	Detective Benson, we thank you very much.
	You're out.
	Homicide detective, you're out.
	Go home.
	Go research homicides.
	Go research.
	20 minutes past 12. It will be appropriate.
	We break for lunch.
	Yep.
	It's funny, as I actually said break for lunch right before the judge even said it.
	Okay?
	What's the appropriate return time?
	They're going to say before you answer the question.
	Oh yeah, they need to know what's on schedule.
	They're asking Cringy if he has any more witnesses.
	Crown's material has been filed.
	Oh, they're going to call the surety.
	So, apparently, prosecution's done.
	Defense is going to call the surety.
	They're going to come back at 2 o 'clock.
	2 o'clock.
	Karimji's asking them to come back earlier, at a quarter to two.
	Just so they make sure they conclude the hearing today.
	Okay.
	Is it normal for bail hearings to be extremely involved like this?
	Only for murder.
	Not only for murder.
	They're breaking until quarter to two.
	Okay.
	They have broke for lunch.
	They have broke for lunch, people.
	I've still got a few more minutes.
	And then I think I might actually go for a jog because I need to get some exercise.
	Although maybe jogging at 1220 in the Florida heat is not the best idea, but I need to exercise.
	Okay, so they've broken for lunch.
	They're going to come back at a quarter to two.
	I'm going to be following it throughout the day.
	Now they're recessing.
	Do they get paid for lunch?
	Dude, they get paid.
	They get paid.
	The judges, I was told by a judge once, the administrative costs of a day of court were $10,000, and this was about 10 years ago.
	$10 a day.
	Judge salary, clerk salary, court structure, electricity, all the costs.
	Plus the law, lawyers.
	Okay, so this is...
	Okay, recap.
	Let me just wait for it all to go.
	I'll do a recap, then I'm going to check out for the day.
	Someone just asked if they can use the washer.
	Pat King is not forgotten, and I won't forget about Pat King.
	That's not an affirmation of character, a defense of anything in Pat King other than the injustice that is being perpetrated against Pat King.
	An accused murderer maybe could justify three months in jail.
	Maybe!
	Under circumstances that could warrant it.
	Okay, I see an empty room.
	Okay, so I'm going to close that down.
	Maybe.
	Certain types of accused murder.
	Certain types of accused bad, super naughty crimes.
	Maybe.
	Mischief charges.
	And then it was like, but they threw in perjury after.
	They threw in perjury too.
	He's a very serious bad man.
	He lied to court.
	Load of rubbish.
	Recap.
	We had an hour and 10 minutes of procedural wasted time.
	Oh, recap.
	Let's do the recap.
	Tamara Lich, an alleged organizer of the Ottawa protest, arrested on February 18 on mischief-related charges at the time.
	Four charges based in mischief.
	Mischief in Canada can both be...
	Oh, geez.
	Summary conviction or indictable offense?
	It's a hybrid crime that can be either...
	Summary conviction less serious or felonious by nature.
	Maximum sentence, I think 10 years in jail, although I have not done the research to see if anyone in the history of Canada has ever gotten 10 years for mischief.
	She was arrested on four mischief-type charges for her participation in the Ottawa Trucker Convoy.
	Arrested February 18, in jail for two and a half weeks, initially denied bail because some officer of the peace, officer of the court, concluded that releasing her would undermine or impugn the system of justice itself.
	Ultimately released on a rehearing under terms which could only be described as exceedingly onerous.
	They are necessarily unconstitutional in the sense that bail terms limit your rights.
	They just still have to be justified under the circumstances.
	In my view, nothing of the terms of her release could ever be justified under the context.
	That's just me.
	She had the rehearing.
	Sorry, so she was released on those terms.
	Can't communicate on social media, can't attend protests, can't communicate with certain individuals.
	$20,000 certee, $5,000 bond.
	She was presented with an award by the JCCF, Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, the George Jonas Award for Fighting for Constitutional Freedoms.
	She indicated she would be accepting that award.
	The Crown sought to use that affirmation that she would accept the award as proof that she violated her bail terms.
	And they wanted to put her back in jail.
	There was a rehearing on both changing the terms of her bail from the defense and the move to put her back behind bars for allegedly breaching her bail terms on the basis that she announced that she was going to accept the award.
	I live mouth tweeted that hearing as well.
	The judge said, no, she can accept the award.
	She can go attend the gala because there's no Ottawa truckers protest to even encourage or motivate right now.
	She went to the award show, got the award, gave a speech after the award.
	Shook hands with Tom Muratzo, an individual she was prohibited from communicating with, directly or indirectly, under the terms of her release.
	A photograph of the two of them together was posted on social media.
	The Crown seized on that photograph to allege that she broke the terms of her bail.
	Issued a Canada-wide warrant.
	Had homicide detectives look into it.
	Go arrest her in Medicine Hat.
	Hold her for six days on remand.
	Go get her.
	Haul her back to Ottawa for three additional days behind bars because they want to put her behind bars.
	Again, alleging that that photograph was proof of unlawful communications with Tom Maratso, an individual that she was not allowed to communicate with, but in the presence of counsel who were also present at the JCCF.
	I hope that's a summary.
	The summary of today's hearing is that basically it looks like the bulk of the prosecution's evidence is the homicide detective.
	Who analyzed thousands of text messages, which I understand now are old text messages and not new ones, and concluded that the photograph of her with Tom Ratso and a five-second video where she interacted with him physically qualified as a breach of the bail terms.
	And he, apparently from his testimony of his own volition, issued the warrant and the prosecutor, Karimji, extended it into a Canada-wide warrant.
	And they arrested or brought her back.
	And that's the extent of their evidence.
	They wanted to play the 36-minute video of her at the JCCF event, giving the speech.
	The judge said, I've already seen it.
	Pick the part that you think is most important for your evidence.
	And it was the five seconds where she physically interacted with Tom Maratzo and the picture.
	That's the evidence from the prosecution.
	Defense after the break.
	I presume...
	I don't know if they're going to call any attorneys, but I presume they're going to put into evidence the presence of counsel in the backdrop of that photograph, and they've announced that they're calling the certi after lunch.
	That's where we're at.
	This is revolting.
	It is revolting.
	Don't I consider myself a traitor for leaving Canada?
	No.
	There is a part of me that feels guilty.
	I do not consider myself a traitor because I'm not going to toot my own horn.
	I did as much as I could, and it's exponentially more than many.
	Other than fighting day in and day out for two and a half years, other than running for political office to effect the change, and other than having a darn good reason for coming here, I don't feel like a traitor.
	There is a part of me that feels very, very guilty, and there's a part of me that feels tremendous regret that Canada has turned into A fascist regime that is holding its own people hostage.
	I feel bad.
	Now, flip side also, there are other things to consider in this, and sacrificing myself is one thing.
	Sacrificing my children, I'll say, is even more selfish.
	And if you think, and by the way, for someone like me, other than having very good reasons for coming down here, to be discussed and disclosed at a later date, For voices like mine in Canada, time is limited.
	Bill C-11, if it passes, will be the end of independent discourse in Canada.
	Justin Trudeau will have effectively usurped the internet for his political propaganda.
	And by the way, I said it, if Bill 15 ever passed in Quebec, that was my line, that was my spiritual line in the sand, Bill 15. They have time to squeeze those through the legislative process, which usurped parental supremacy from the Youth Protection Act as the overarching principle.
	I said it a year ago.
	If that passes, that's my red line in the sand.
	I had a few other ones which also got violated.
	I do not feel like a traitor.
	I feel bad because the Canadian government is holding Canadian citizens hostage as political prisoners.
	And Canada has seemingly, under the current regime, Been destroyed.
	But it will not even be possible to fight for this any longer within Canada.
	Because voices, if Bill C-11 passes, is this not the grasshopper going after the one ant?
	It's a bug's life.
	If we realize how many of us there are, we will win.
	They divide us to conquer us.
	Godspeed.
	Problem is, there's a lot of Canadians out there who...
	There are a lot of people out there who can't do it and are literally being held as political prisoners by their government, by the regime.
	Okay, so that's what happened today.
	I know for certain I have to squeeze some urine out of a certain pudge.
	The amazing thing, by the way, I had to temporarily switch from the raw beef diet to kibble on route down.
	Everything in their bowel movements changed with one feeding of kibble from raw beef.
	And it is messy.
	And it's going back.
	And so we're back on the raw beef.
	And I just hope the ingredients are...
	The raw beef makes the poop very hard and dry and easy to clean up.
	Kibble, I don't know what's in this crap.
	Turns their poop into wickedly fluffy, moist stuff.
	And she's been...
	No, that's good.
	We pulled up the carpet because we can't...
	And she's been drinking more, but I think that just might be the local weather and peeing a lot more.
	So I got to get her out and get the stuff out.
	This guy's taking a crap.
	No, I'm not.
	Okay.
	You know what the funny thing is?
	When I ran for office, I could have put Winston on...
	Winston could have run for the Liberal Party.
	Winston, my dog, could have run for the Liberal Party.
	He still would have beaten me.
	Keep up the appropriate level of outrage.
	Some like yours is completely justified.
	Thank you.
	And I will never...
	And people don't like this about me.
	I will never promote violence or unlawful activity.
	Not only because I'm morally and ethically against it.
	Strategically, it is exactly what they want and what they need to continue to drive down the screws, to drive down the hammer, whatever is the expression.
	It's what they need.
	It's what they want.
	And it's what they need and it's what they want.
	And it was the most frustrating thing.
	Trudeau waited three weeks hoping it would happen.
	He waited three weeks, not really because he's too proud to talk to the protesters, not because he...
	He waited three weeks because he thought it would irritate the protesters to the point where they would do something stupid.
	And when they didn't, he did something stupid, and then he blamed it on the protesters.
	Convinced the NDP to walk away from the lives by guaranteeing the NDP leader his next electoral...
	No, sorry, Jugmeet is done for me.
	Jugmeet.
	Can never.
	Jagmeet needs to be voted out.
	He can't even betray his betrayal.
	It's too late for him.
	He's made his political bed.
	Viva, you must stop pronouncing it leech.
	Leech is...
	Okay.
	Leech.
	It is leech.
	But at one point someone was pronouncing it leech and then I caught on to that.
	Tamara's not a leech.
	She is a stronger person than many and definitely...
	You know, I think she's a stronger person than me.
	Nobody can possibly imagine or predict how they would react after two and a half weeks in jail.
	Nobody.
	Nobody can possibly imagine how they would respond.
	Some people would break and some people get stronger.
	And Tamara, I'm sure a part of her has broken.
	And I'm sure she has lingering trauma from this.
	She seems to be stronger.
	And even if she's not actually stronger, she's doing a good job maintaining her composure.
	When I interviewed Branda Strzok, spent a couple of days in jail, three months under house arrest, political persecution from the events of January 6th, there's lingering trauma.
	But, you know, there's also like Ross Buten, you know, when you kick the bamboo sticks with your shins, it causes trauma in your shin.
	Boom.
	But then it fills in with calcification that makes it even stronger.
	I am the only person in Canada to be ticketed for having a picnic in the park when there are 10 other people having a picnic.
	Fraser McBurney, something tells me that I'm going to predict by the looks of you, I don't know who you are, what you look like, but something by the looks of you made you look like a target who would pay the fine, which is why the police picked you up if the circumstances you're describing are accurate.
	Sex thoughts?
	Blocked.
	I remember Beavis and Butthead, man.
	That was a good show back in the day.
	After Bill 15, the government can...
	Well, they can do worse, by the way.
	You get a rambunctious, rebellious kid who knows how to pull your buttons.
	Push your buttons, pull your strings, whatever it is.
	All they have to do is, as young, impressionable, stupid kids, make a call to the government.
	Government gets its claws in.
	The government owns your kids.
	And I'm not being hyperbolic.
	They've already had cases in Canada where one parent's desire for the V to a kid trumped the other parent's opposition to it.
	They've already had it with respect to certain procedures when one parent consented, the other one did not, to the demands or the desires of the child.
	Now it's just going to be both parents objecting, but the kid wants it, and the kid calls up the police, calls up the government, gets DPJ.
	The Youth Protection Service is in.
	Government comes in.
	It will happen.
	It's not a question of if.
	It's a question of when.
	Have I seen Beavis and Butthead on white supremacy?
	I have not watched Beavis and Butthead in a while.
	All right, people.
	No, it has happened only when there was disagreement among the parents.
	And the court comes in and says, we're deciding that one parent's approval is in the best interest of the child.
	And the other parent's refusal is not.
	It has not yet happened, to my knowledge, where both parents said no to the jab, no to the therapy, and the court came in and said yes, but it's only a matter of time.
	All right.
	Do I know how she's been treated in jail?
	Let's see.
	Does Quebec still want to separate from Canada?
	The portion that wants to always still wants to, no question.
	And by the way, after they finish chasing out all their Anglophones with Bill 96, when Anglophones are either going to leave Quebec, leave the country or leave the province, after they scare out all of the Anglophones, it'll make it a lot easier for them to hold another referendum and succeed.
	You think François Legault's behavior is by accident.
	Chase out, scare out and move out those who would oppose Bill 96. You'll win your next referendum.
	But at this point, let them separate from Canada.
	I never had a problem with the movement, but at this point, as far as you can get from the Trudeau government is better for you.
	Thank you very much, Nature Lover.
	Jagmeet sided with the Liberals on the War Measures Act in exchange for 500,000 new immigrants let into Canada most ever.
	So Jagmeet removed rights from his citizens for the benefit of non-voters.
	Jagmeet gave a speech that the Trudeau government is the most divisive, incompetent government in their response to the protests, and then went ahead and gave that incompetent government all the powers under the Emergencies Act.
	Jagmeet is worse than Trudeau, because at least Trudeau...
	Has let the world know that he's a snake.
	Jagmeet still puts out virtue signaling tweets about how he's such a good person.
	Mass civil disobedience is the only answer.
	Unfortunately, a lot of people do not realize this throughout the world.
	Enjoy your jog.
	Thank you very much.
	I don't know.
	Civil disobedience.
	They ruin your life.
	They ruin your lives.
	Depends what type of civil disobedience.
	Anyone who considers you a traitor is ignorant and a creep.
	You are protecting your family and dogs.
	I admire you.
	As JP would say, stand up straight with your shoulders back.
	I will, and I'm going to jog with my shoulders up.
	Oh, did I see another sex ball in the house?
	No, that was just emojis in someone's chat.
	Okay, people, so I'll follow this afternoon.
	My prediction thus far, the Crown is not succeeding on this.
	Tamara is going to be released.
	I just don't know procedurally how it happens or when.
	Oh, there is a sexbot right there.
	No, not you.
	How do we get rid of Trudeau legally?
	Elections!
	I tried to do it.
	Sexbot?
	You're gone.
	I just went to look at my list of blocked a lot of sexbots in there.
	What was I just about to say?
	My prediction.
	Tamara is going to be released.
	The Crown has submitted their best evidence, and the only thing that this has evidenced is the malicious prosecution from Karimji and everyone else involved.
	It's going to get tossed, but there needs to be either court-imposed sanction for malicious prosecution or a lawsuit for malicious prosecution.
	Karimji is not just carrying out orders.
	There's an old religious expression.
	I asked, once upon a time, the rabbi.
	Can I eat?
	The starving, you know, someone starving, can they eat unkosher foods?
	This was once upon a time.
	He says you can eat the meat, but don't suck the fat from the bone.
	You can do something that you know is wrong religiously, okay?
	You can break the rules if you're compelled to, but don't relish in the fact that you're breaking the rules.
	Karinji is not just following orders.
	If you were following orders, it would be more robotic in my mind, and it would be less vigorous.
	He gets pleasure out of this.
	He is the tyrant that I have discovered there are far too many of in the world.
	He loves the power.
	He loves the control over the citizens.
	He loves what he gets to do.
	He gets pleasure out of this, and he gets pleasure out of going above and beyond what would otherwise, in any sane world, be malicious prosecution.
	There need to be sanctions for this.
	And as far as I understand of the court procedure, the court process, the court can impose them, as we say in French, d 'office, of their own volition.
	Sua sponte.
	The court can impose sanctions as it deems fits, and I would love to see it.
	It has to happen.
	It has to happen because this is an absolute outrage.
	It is a legal, constitutional outrage.
	Rob Juno, thank you very much for the super chat.
	Thank you for the support.
	Welcome to the USA.
	Don't feel guilty for taking care of your family.
	I donate to help Canadians get out of Dodge, but JT would probably freeze my assets.
	My grandpa was born and raised in Quebec, so I feel connected to Canada.
	Chase from my home.
	Anyhow.
	Okay, good.
	I'm gonna end it now.
	I'm gonna end it now.
	I'll follow.
	My prediction is it's getting tossed.
	My wish is that there be sanctions.
	Karimji has gone above and beyond the duties of malicious prosecution.
	Duties.
	He's gone above and beyond the duty of someone just following orders.
	He's taking pleasure out of it.
	He's sucking the fat from the bone of this malicious prosecution.
	And there should be judicial sanctions for it.
	We'll see.
	I'll listen.
	I'll do a 10-minute follow-up later tonight.
	Post a little walkie-talkie.
	Maybe I'll catch a fish.
	And thank you.
	Thank you, everyone, for the support.
	And I'm going to stay with it.
	I'm going to stick with it.
	And I'll be live tomorrow.
	What day is it today?
	I have no idea what day of the week it is.
	It's Tuesday.
	I believe we have a sidebar tomorrow.
	I'm not certain.
	I will be live one way or the other at some point.
	There will be more legal stuff to discuss, and I'll see you later, everyone.
	Snip, clip, share some stuff around, and thank you for everything.
	Just leave it on this note.
	This is the picture.
	Tamara Litch in the black dress and Tom Maratzo to her left at an award ceremony.
	The George Jonah Award Ceremony.
	Okay, go.
	Enjoy the day.
	I will see you later.
	And just before I do it, just make sure on the Rumbles, go to Rumble.
	I don't see any Rumble rants, but thank you all for watching on Rumble as well.
	Stay tuned.
	I'll see you guys tomorrow.
	Enjoy the day.

▲