Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 23, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:00:59

Viva Saturday! Bannon CONVICTED & Pawlowski ACQUITTED! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Please get out.
	Get out of this property.
	Immediately get out.
	Get out of this property.
	Immediately.
	Out.
	I don't want to hear anything.
	Out of this property.
	Immediately.
	I don't want to hear a word.
	Out!
	Out!
	Out of this property.
	Immediately until you come back with a warrant.
	Out!
	Out!
	Out of this property.
	Immediately out!
	Immediately go out and don't come back.
	I don't want to talk to you.
	Not a word.
	Out of this property.
	Out of this property.
	Immediately out.
	I don't care what you have to say.
	Out!
	Out!
	Out of this property, you Nazis.
	Out!
	Out!
	Gestapo is not allowed here.
	Immediately Gestapo is not allowed!
	Out!
	Do you understand English?
	Get out of this property!
	Go!
	So go!
	Go!
	And don't come back without a warrant!
	Out, Nazi!
	Out!
	Out!
	You understand?
	Nazis are not welcome here!
	Out!
	And don't come back without a warrant!
	Do not come back without a warrant.
	They came back.
	Nazis are not welcome here.
	They came back with a warrant.
	Do not come back, you Nazi psychopaths.
	Unbelievable, sick, evil people.
	Intimidating people in a church during the Passover.
	You Gestapo, Nazi, communist, fascist!
	Don't you dare coming back!
	Not mincing words.
	Can you imagine those psychopaths?
	How long ago was this?
	The holiest Christian festival in a year.
	April 3, 2021.
	And they're coming to intimidate Christians during the holiest festival?
	Unbelievable!
	What is wrong with those sick psychopaths?
	It's beyond me.
	Well, that was the intro.
	Let's just go refresh and see if we've been demonetized.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	We've been demonetized.
	It'll get approved after manual review.
	Let's just go ahead and request review.
	Sorry.
	You can't use names on the YouTubes because it automatically triggers flags.
	People, I don't have my standard office today.
	Just let me know how bad the audio sucks.
	On a scale of 1 to 10, 5 being the suckiest.
	Yeah.
	That was Alberta Health Services.
	In conjunction with...
	I don't know who the other police...
	Did I close the window?
	Did I close that window down already?
	I don't know who the other...
	Alberta Health Services.
	Yeah, 7.7.
	Turn and bank, you win.
	Oh, maybe six with a squirrel wins.
	Anyhow, sorry, guys.
	I don't have my office today.
	It's under some minor construction.
	That was Archer Poblowski.
	Been following that story since the day it occurred.
	That video went viral.
	I might have to get the dog.
	Hold on.
	Hold on, people.
	This is what happens.
	Everything gets thrown into disarray.
	Can someone get the dog?
	I think he's stuck at the top of the stairs, period.
	Okay.
	A sequence of events makes me late.
	No good lighting, no good audio, but at least I'm not in a bathroom, right, peeps?
	Okay.
	There is a lot of echo.
	I think it's more reverb than echo because I'm in a room with minimal padding on the stucco walls.
	That was Artur Pawlowski.
	That was, what year are we in now?
	That was a year, April 2021, April to April 2022, April, May, June, July.
	That was longer than that.
	Anyhow, that was a while back.
	Arthur Pavlovsky holding church services, notwithstanding an injunction that was issued, purportedly prohibiting all unlawful gatherings throughout the province of Alberta.
	Holding church services and Alberta health services come in to make sure everything is compliant.
	They weren't asking for the papers at that time.
	They were asking for the compliance.
	You must make sure that you're compliant.
	Archie Pawlowski, where's he from?
	He's from Poland.
	He's a Polish pastor.
	Lived through communism.
	Probably can detect it a lot more than the fortunate Canadians who have never smelt communism.
	And still don't identify that foul odor that we're wreaking in the country of Canada is modern communism.
	He can identify it.
	And he can identify when the police show up to interrupt church services, you might be getting a little close to something known as fascism, communism, totalitarian, authoritarian, whatever you want to call it.
	You might be getting a little close to it.
	And I remember saying at the time, Everyone was like, you go, Pastor.
	Awesome.
	Good on you.
	Only because he's vindicated after two years of hell.
	I said, oh, they're going to come back.
	They're going to come back with a warrant, and they're going to come back with even more police officers.
	And they did.
	And we'll get into the Arthur Pawlowski story, because yesterday, the breaking news of the day, an Alberta Court of Appeals overturned the conviction.
	Hold on one second.
	Come on, let's go.
	Come on, get it, get it, get it.
	Let's go.
	Get over here.
	He was not stuck up at the top of the stairs.
	He wanted to come in.
	Winston, today, got his diphtheria and...
	He got some vaccine today, so he might be...
	And he's getting a haircut sooner than later.
	It's time now.
	It's time.
	Because he smells like a wet carpet pretty much all of the time.
	No, no.
	That's the dog when he barks.
	It's a high-pitched...
	And it can pierce the ears even through headphones.
	What the heck am I even wearing headphones for?
	If I've got nothing to listen to.
	Okay, so...
	Pavlovsky has been vindicated by a court of appeal ruling that just came down yesterday.
	Ezra Levant covered it at length, and I was listening to Ezra livestream commentate on this, interviewing the lawyer that they used for this appeal.
	And we're going to go through it.
	We're going to go through that decision.
	In the same day that we have a glimmer of light coming out of Canada, Steve Bannon convicted.
	No surprises there.
	And that's where things are at.
	It's a little echoey.
	There's nothing I can do about it today.
	Sorry, peeps.
	Let me just get that.
	I think he killed it.
	I love the dog.
	I love the dog and the avatar.
	So those are the two big stories.
	We're going to go through the decision itself, not in meticulous detail, just to highlight certain paragraphs, because people might have forgotten how absurd the story was.
	It's not just that Arthur Pavlosky was arrested for contempt of a court order.
	To which he was never a party.
	It's not that he was arrested in the middle of the highway with police goons.
	I mean, he went onto his knees and made the cops cuff him.
	Pulled over on the side of a busy highway because he's public threat number one.
	Arrested twice.
	Spent time in jail.
	Subjected to a court order that compelled him to say certain things.
	We're going to get into this compelled speech part of the court order.
	And, you know, however many hundreds of thousands of dollars later, a year plus later, finally vindicated.
	Assuming it doesn't get appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada because, hey, the government's fighting with our tax dollars.
	So they're at a casino just pissing away somebody else's money.
	There's no skin off their back.
	And then we're going to start with Steve Bannon's conviction.
	No surprise there because...
	No surprise.
	It was never going to end any other way.
	But we're going to go through that subpoena.
	Because we talk about the law.
	We talk about how absurd it is.
	And until you actually read stuff and get into a little bit of the weeds, but not too many of the weeds to become an uncomfortable swim, you see how absurd it is.
	The Steve Bannon subpoena is a McCarthy-esque fishing expedition.
	The initial order...
	That was requiring Arthur Pawlowski to say certain things when speaking, when protesting, over the top.
	And in case anyone has forgotten, I'll refresh your memory.
	In case anyone ever knew, I will inform you today.
	Join me for a Mai Tai, Jimmy Mack.
	Oh, this is a good segue into the first disclaimer.
	Viva, if you do one of these on Locals like Robert does, we can use the tip function for live chat questions.
	I would love to ask questions.
	And you know what?
	I'm supposed to do that.
	I was supposed to do that yesterday.
	I'm going to do a Locals exclusive live because there is a new function that they are testing out.
	I told our channel manager I would do it yesterday, and yesterday didn't work out.
	I might have been spreading myself too thin.
	So that's what's on the menu.
	By the way, Super Chats.
	If I don't get to your Super Chats and it's going to make you feel like you have been grifted, don't give the Super Chat.
	I don't like people feeling bad.
	As far as Super Chats go, YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that, we're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	They have something called the Rumble Rant, where Rumble takes 20%.
	So it's better for the creator, better to support a platform that actually supports free speech, yada, yada, yada.
	Simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Best place to support if you're so inclined, vivabarneslaw.locals.com or there's a merch store, vivafry.com.
	No medical advice, no election fornification advice, and no legal advice.
	I want to bring up one thing.
	When I say that there's a glimmer of hope coming out of Canada, and it seems perhaps...
	That it's starting to be reflected from the top down in terms of politicians.
	Why can't I find...
	Here we go.
	Leslie Lewis, who's running for the leadership, I believe, of the Conservative Party.
	Starting to make sense.
	Hold on.
	And it's starting to get popular.
	Popular enough for politicians to now start publicly supporting.
	Positions, which up until now might have been a little bit too politically unpopular to publicly espouse.
	There have been some who've been doing it from the beginning.
	Roman Baber, who's also running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, has been doing it from the beginning.
	Vocally, to his own detriment, has been doing it vocally, publicly, since the beginning.
	It's good to see some politicians doing it now.
	It's very easy to say they should have been doing more earlier.
	The only problem with that is one has to be self-reflective.
	If I say that about them, there are other people who are going to say it about me.
	Viva, you should have known two weeks into this pandemic that it was never going to be two weeks to flatten the curve, that it was always going to turn into this.
	I think I learned pretty quickly and I became relatively vocal pretty early on, but someone can say, Viva, why didn't you do it two weeks earlier?
	Better late than never, but I think it's a reflection of the times now that it's becoming politically popular to start talking.
	Like this.
	And the reason why we have seen such unrest, even if you look at the trucker convoy, whether you are for or against the convoy, there are lessons to be learned.
	And one of the lessons is that never again should our prime minister or any politician be able to freeze your bank account.
	Now, I say it's politically getting popular to support these positions now.
	I didn't see that many people or that many politicians standing with the truckers during the protests.
	Some were less condemning of the protesters.
	I think some might have had some photo ops and then it became toxic and people backed away for a bit.
	Now it's becoming somewhat more popular.
	So, better late than never, but better to state the obvious, that no government should have the right to arbitrarily, unilaterally, without any protocol of the court system, in as much as you can trust it to be someone as corrupt, potentially, as the political system itself, but bypassing the watchful eye of the court system, politicians should not have the right to say, Banks, you get to freeze the accounts of people we've identified, for whatever the reason.
	And we'll immunize you when we do it.
	It's a no-brainer.
	And when I say that Justin Trudeau single-handedly, although he's probably working with people, has done more to destroy the very fabric of Canadian society than anybody out there.
	When you cause people to question the safety of banking and investment in a country, guess what people do?
	They pull their money from the banks as there was a bank run when they froze the accounts.
	And they disincentivize or at the very least destabilize a country and people from investing in that country.
	Leland Lewis is now saying it loud and proud.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	And we must realize that we, the people, elect our elected officials to serve us and they must listen to us.
	And when they had an issue, those truckers, they went to their counselors.
	They went to their members of parliament.
	Nobody was listening.
	So some of them drove all the way from BC to go to Ottawa to speak to their offensive officials.
	And what happened?
	They were called racists and misogynists and bigots.
	This is not what and how a leader leads in times of peril.
	I believe that a good leader in times of difficulty will unite Yeah, will unite the country.
	Those people are putting us all at risk, Justin Trudeau.
	They take up space, the anti-vaxxers.
	They're racist, misogynist.
	Oh, I have nothing but disdain for Justin Trudeau.
	I posted a clip.
	I'm going to play the highlight right now.
	It's the idea that they drove to Ottawa, these people, the rabble of society.
	They have no business stepping foot in Ottawa.
	That's our town.
	That's where the government works.
	That's not for the people.
	And they were invading.
	It's like they had no right to go there and protest their own capital.
	Because they're lowly, hoi polloi, just ship us our food, ship us our devices, and shut the hell up, is basically what Justin Trudeau did, said, and continued to do afterwards.
	And when they show up there, it's, what's the word I'm looking for?
	It's thumbing the nose at the elitist government.
	These people show up with their trucks and they park on the capital of their own capital, of their own country, in front of the offices of their elected officials?
	How dare they?
	How dare you?
	I say.
	But Julie Kelly, sidebar of Wednesday, really sums it up.
	This is about January 6th, but it applies perfectly, mutatis mutatis, to the sentiment in Ottawa.
	You see it oozing from the judges and their decisions.
	You see it oozing from the prosecution.
	Of Tamara Lich, Pat King, these people, they have no business being in Ottawa.
	They cross state lines.
	They cross provincial state lines.
	Washington, D.C. view the events of January 6th as a personal attack on their private fiefdom of Washington, D.C., that all these deplorables, you know, you have one judge, Beryl Howell, she's like, you traveled all the way from Texas to Washington, D.C. Yeah, it's this nation's capital.
	Like, it's not your personal little fiefdom, Beryl Howell, or any of the judges.
	Like, I hear them say that, and I have to laugh out loud, like, well, how dare you travel from Arkansas and come into, you know, the Capitol Hill?
	That's for people who are far more educated and sophisticated than you.
	Like, that's the whole tone of it.
	So it's, I mean, I kind of have to laugh, although these people who are trapped in, it's not funny at all.
	But at least they're not making any bones about it, right?
	I mean, they consider themselves American aristocracy, right?
	They are the crown.
	These are their little subjects.
	She's talking about the crown.
	She's talking about the crown, like the Canadian crown.
	Which is funny, because we even told the Capitol building was built by slaves, and after George Floyd, they were taking down all kinds of statues of people in the U.S. Capitol.
	Now, all of a sudden, it's like, you know, it's like a...
	Their own private fiefdom, and I love it.
	Because in the entire time that that protest was going down in Canada, where was Trudeau?
	Well, first he was suffering from a positive test of COVID.
	Then he fled and goes to his private castle.
	I think it was in British Columbia.
	The rabble's at the gates.
	Sir, where should we go?
	Flee the castle!
	Like this arrogant, pompous, elitist jerk of a prime minister.
	The people who feed him.
	The people who...
	Ship the food that he eats across Canada, the people that ship the goods from the ports so that he can tweet out his vomit drivel day in and day out.
	The people that produce that which this man survives off of, he can't step foot out and say, what's your grief and how can we discuss it?
	No.
	The man who groped a reporter and apologized for it.
	20 years ago.
	The man who dressed in blackface more times than he can count.
	The man who fired the indigenous woman mojag that he appointed, Minister of Justice Attorney General.
	The man, oh, what was some of the other scandals?
	The man who is guilty of all of the accusations he hurls at others comes out and says, this racist, transphobic, anti-black racist, extremist protest.
	I won't even dignify it.
	They've come to my castle, and I'm not even going to talk to them.
	Run, tuck tail, and hide like the coward that he is, and spend all of his time demonizing the people.
	The people who are the backbone of a functioning Canadian society, who drive produce across the expansive land that is Canada.
	What is it, 4,000 kilometers coast to coast?
	38 million people.
	One of the least densely populated countries on earth.
	They grow the food.
	They ship the food.
	They keep society functioning.
	But the second they show up in their little fiefdom to complain about the fact that the government is crushing their backs, destroying their livelihoods, destroying their lives.
	How dare you come to my house?
	My castle block user, David Trudeau, voted for.
	David Trudeau voted for...
	What does it say?
	I lost it now.
	I don't understand the nature of these spam bots.
	David Fryeck voted for Trudeau.
	No, I didn't.
	No, I didn't.
	Anyhow, so that's...
	We'll get to it.
	I wanted to show that Leslie Lewis or Leland Lewis, I forget exactly how they pronounce it.
	I like it.
	She needs to loosen up and get a little more natural in her delivery.
	uh i think that'll come with uh some experience i think But the substance, more important than the form, as says the guy who's hiding in his kid's room with the cupboard behind me.
	Substance over form every day of the week.
	All right.
	Bannon, people.
	Bannon, Bannon.
	No surprise.
	I'll say this, by the way.
	I can't pretend to be smart because it wasn't a smart prediction.
	It was just basically obvious.
	The trial might have lasted five days.
	They had Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and then the verdict came down Friday.
	The trial might have lasted five days.
	But there was effectively one day of evidence.
	Monday was jury selection.
	It took the better part of the day, and then they finalized it Tuesday.
	So Monday...
	Procedurally, yes, it's part of the trial, but no evidence.
	Jury selection for a one-day trial.
	One day of jury selection for what ended up being one day of trial.
	Tuesday morning, there was a three-hour debate over the admissibility of correspondence between the committee and Bannon's counsel, which was odd because it was not the Crown.
	It was the prosecution that wanted to admit this evidence.
	I love it.
	I love it.
	But that's a thumbnail from now!
	How does it happen?
	So it's a bot taking a thumbnail in real time, creating an account in real time, and one after the other because I'm blocking them, and I don't understand the purpose other than just being annoying, but thank you, because I still think bot chat enhances chat.
	Welcome to the club, William Petri.
	It was the prosecution that wanted to admit correspondence between the committee and Bannon's counsel, which spoke to the issue of executive privilege, which it was the prosecution that moved the judge to prohibit Bannon from being able to invoke.
	So the prosecution had made a motion to not allow Bannon to speak to his defense's in-law of executive privilege, the illegitimacy of the committee, and professional reliance.
	And reliance on old OLC memos, Office of Legal Counsel memos on executive privilege.
	And the judge ruled, Judge Nichols last week or the week before, ruled that Bannon could not raise the executive privilege defense, the illegitimacy of the committee defense, or the professional reliance defense.
	And then the day of the trial, it's the prosecution that moves to admit correspondence that contains back and forth as relates to Bannon invoking executive privilege.
	Then they were talking about whether or not they redacted.
	And then the issue would be like, if they admit it, the correspondence, and Bannon can't speak to the defense of professional reliance or executive privilege, it would look like he raised it willy-nilly disingenuously in the correspondence to the jury if he can't invoke it.
	If you redact half of the letters, it also looks somewhat suspicious.
	What is it that Bannon is hiding?
	None of it made a damn lick of a difference, because Bannon was getting convicted one way or the other.
	So after that morning debate, And they suspend the trial until 1 in the afternoon.
	They started the evidence on Tuesday, and it went to Wednesday.
	One day of prosecution evidence, two witnesses, the general counsel for the committee, Kimberly Ammerling, and the FBI investigator, a guy named Stephen Hart.
	Ammerling testified on the legitimacy of the committee, the resolution that constituted the committee, and the horrors of January 6. That was it.
	The committee was valid.
	The committee issued a subpoena.
	The subpoena was served on Bannon.
	Bannon did not comply.
	And January 6th was on par with 9-11 and Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima and all of this outrageously inflammatory and disrespectful comparisons to actual historical atrocities.
	Set that aside.
	Okay.
	Stephen Hart, the FBI agent, the FBI investigator, gets summoned by the committee and they say, look, we think he's in contempt.
	Would you investigate and determine whether or not...
	To issue an indictment.
	And the guy looks at some social media posts, Bannon's Getter posts, and says, yeah, Bannon was overtly defying the subpoena.
	He was posting on Getter.
	Verified posts on Getter, whatever they're called, gets.
	Will not comply.
	So it was not a question of thinking he benefited from executive privilege.
	He was saying, I will not comply.
	Content.
	Funny thing that happened, and I don't know how it happened.
	The FBI investigator's testimony was all struck.
	There was some sidebar, and the judge said Hart's testimony is struck, which means that the jury doesn't consider it, nor do they consider the exhibits, the documents, the evidence filed in line with Hart's testimony.
	So it means, in theory, that even though they heard Hart testify on Bannon's defiant tweets or gets or whatever they are, they were not to consider that evidence in their deliberations.
	Not that it would have made a difference.
	And I don't know how that happened or why that happened or what the basis of the objection was.
	They disregarded...
	Yeah, I heard this.
	Another January 6th committed suicide.
	Julie Kelly tweeted out that prosecution or whoever it is, they have blood on their hands.
	No question.
	So either way, we'll get to that.
	I'll pull up an article on that in a second.
	The FBI investigators' testimony all struck as per the exhibits.
	So the prosecution, in fact, only had one witness, and the defense said, we are not presenting a defense because we're not allowed by the judge, and also we don't believe that the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of 12,
	14 D.C. citizens, D.C. people who live in D.C. Yeah,
	but the problem is, Deborah, there are some people who can do it and who can stomach that incessant stress, potential jail time, and then there are others who break under that pressure and break in a non-judgmental way.
	I don't know how Arthur Pawlowski Internalizes or deals with the stress.
	Normal people, strong people, can still be broken and are broken.
	That is not the first individual who's taken their own lives because of the abusive procedure.
	No, I didn't.
	Another one of these bots.
	I've never shaken Trudeau's hand.
	I probably wouldn't.
	I probably would.
	Now we got Carly Ellison, the legit troll.
	Report Viva's lies to YouTube, please.
	This, by the way, Carly Ellison, is harassment.
	It is actual targeted harassment, Carly Ellison, by telling people to wrongly flag a channel.
	And Carly, I know you love the attention, so I probably shouldn't have given it to you, but tell me one lie that I've ever said on my channel.
	Not when I'm wrong.
	I may have been wrong from time to time.
	I remember I got a kinder egg story wrong.
	Lies.
	Things that I knew were untrue when I said them.
	And times when I've even said anything that's inaccurate that I haven't subsequently corrected.
	So I implore you and I dare you.
	But just so you know, Carly, it is a violation of YouTube's terms of service to incite and instigate false flagging on people's channels.
	Not that I care.
	You got your five minutes.
	Enjoy the weekend.
	Can you explain what power a judge has that he can deny evidence or stop a defendant from being able to defend himself properly?
	That sounds like denying DNA that would clear me.
	My understanding, I'm going to talk about it with Robert again tomorrow night.
	My understanding in this particular case is that these are legal defenses and therefore they're questions of law and not questions of fact that ought to be submitted to a jury and that he has preserved these appeals, these legal appeals in law.
	So although...
	Bannon was precluded from raising defenses in law to be presented for a jury because people, a jury trial, the jury are the triers of fact.
	The judge is still the gatekeeper of evidence.
	And the judge can say, this is a question of law, not a question to be submitted to the jury.
	Does Steve Bannon benefit from executive privilege?
	Is the January 6th committee unlawfully formed such that the subpoena is invalid?
	It's my understanding that these dismissals or inability to present these defenses to the jury are preserved as legal issues for appeal.
	That's my understanding.
	Because you don't argue interpretation of the law to the jury.
	You argue facts, and the jury assesses the fact and comes to a determination on fact.
	And then when it relates to issues of law, that's what the judge is there for.
	So that's my understanding.
	I may be wrong, and if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
	So they had two witnesses, the prosecution, only one of which the testimony was retained.
	Defense says, you haven't proven your case.
	And the defense on Thursday, it was Thursday, filed two motions.
	One was a motion to acquit, I believe, or some variation of a motion to dismiss.
	And the other one was a Rule 29 motion to dismiss on the basis that, I wonder if it's a JNOV, if it's a dismissal because...
	No reasonable jury could come to a conviction based on the evidence presented.
	We've seen it happen.
	So what ended up happening, by the way, the judge says, I am dismissing one of your motions to dismiss, or I'm dismissing your motion to acquit, and I'm going to deliberate or render a decision on the other Rule 29 motion to dismiss only after the jury has rendered their verdict because I don't want to influence the jury.
	That obviously means that the judge is going to dismiss it because if you were going to grant it, He wouldn't be influencing the jury if he grants the motion to dismiss.
	The jury's set free.
	So quite clearly, the judge is going to dismiss it as well, but didn't want to dismiss it before the jury rendered their verdict so that no one says, look, the jury obviously rendered a verdict of guilty because the judge dismissed the motion to dismiss.
	But the judge has yet to render a decision on that second motion to dismiss.
	Probably going to do it sometime between now and sentencing, which is in October.
	So Thursday, legal arguments.
	Friday, jury gets their instructions.
	Deliberates for under three hours.
	Conviction on both counts.
	Contempt of Congress for failure to produce papers.
	Contempt of Congress for failure to submit to testimony.
	I mean, this...
	I don't know how many people have been prosecuted for this.
	Exceedingly rare.
	And I think the last one prosecuted might have been Gordon Libby.
	I keep getting the name wrong, but might have been under...
	Might have been under...
	Nixon.
	But it's exceedingly rare.
	The law itself, I believe, is from 1938.
	Exceedingly rare.
	This jury comes to a determination within three hours.
	Under three hours, conviction on both counts.
	Given the situation, it was basically a rubber stamp of a verdict.
	Anyhow, it couldn't have gone any other way, really.
	Yeah, G. Gordon Liddy, not J. Gordon Libby.
	G. Gordon Liddy, I think, was the last person convicted.
	Or maybe the only other person convicted and exceeded...
	Yeah, that's it.
	So this five-day trial was because court is about hurry up and wait, jury selection, arguments, yada, yada, yada, one day of evidence, more arguments on procedural stuff, jury instructions, deliberation, conviction.
	Most people, by the way, haven't seen this subpoena.
	Now, I read it for my post-millennial exclusive summary, day five, which I put out last evening.
	Which is why yesterday was just nuts.
	We're going to go through that subpoena just briefly so people can see.
	We've talked about whether or not this committee is validly formed.
	I don't think it is.
	Which means that the subpoena is arguably invalid.
	Because bear in mind, by the way, the committee could not have followed its own rules for its constitution, but might still have powers, congressional powers.
	So oftentimes, and this was the case with impeachment, The courts will not necessarily get involved to supervise a political process, or as I like to say, a political process.
	So it's not clear that even if they didn't follow their rules for the Constitution, that the Congressional Committee can't issue subpoenas.
	But I think the committee, on its face, has not abided by the rules of its own Constitution, shall have 13 members, five of which are appointed by the minority or the GOP.
	It's got nine members.
	And the only bipartisan members were handpicked, nominated by Nancy Pelosi herself.
	But we're going to read this subpoena because I don't think most people understand.
	There's fishing.
	There's fishing expeditions.
	And then there's casting a wide net.
	And then there's trolling the ocean floor to salvage anything.
	We'll get to it after these.
	Steve Bannon, Art Pavlovsky.
	Okay, I've read this one.
	Thank you very much.
	Thanks for connecting the truth, the true north with the south by Florida.
	I went for a jog this morning.
	Ended up being much longer than I thought it was going to be.
	Let me see here.
	I did 1.9 and 6. I did 8 kilometers.
	That's 5 miles.
	I sweated like Aviva.
	If anyone's following us on Locals, I posted an exclusive video of me draining the sweat from my shirt into the sink.
	Just so everybody knows, stay hydrated.
	Please make a truth account.
	We will help me share your stuff.
	I can do that.
	I hope no one already got a Viva Frye truth.
	Viva, I agree with your response to my previous super chat.
	So sad about the January 6th.
	It's inconceivable.
	And the things people perceive are sometimes wrongly qualified taking one's own life as an act of weakness or they were not strong enough to deal with the pressure.
	It's not that.
	Imagine living in constant physical pain.
	And when people are in constant physical pain, people can understand.
	Constant psychological pain.
	Day in and day out.
	To the point where you feel that you're failing everyone and devastating.
	And it's not a question of weakness.
	It's just a question of people have breaking points.
	And when I look at Artie Pawlowski and Steve Bannon...
	You know, I have to think either they don't have breaking points or they thrive on this because they see something that's beyond themselves, which is interesting.
	I mean, but wouldn't want to be Artur Pawlowski, but then you never know if you're put in that position, what do you do?
	If you're forced to witness an injustice and you're forced to endure an injustice, what do you do?
	Nobody knows until they're in that position.
	That pizza guy, the pizza delivery guy who sees a house burning down?
	And runs into it to save six people.
	Gets four out.
	Runs into the flames and the fire to save a young kid.
	Smashes a window.
	Deep lacerations.
	Inhales smoke.
	Most people don't know.
	Some people would not do that.
	They might be called cowards for not doing it.
	But until you're in that position, you never know what you're going to do.
	And so you never know how you react until you're put into that position of adversity.
	But people have their breaking points.
	Everyone has their breaking points.
	And the system loves it.
	The system wants to break the people.
	The system would have been...
	The system would not have objected if Pat King did not deal as well with what he's going through as he did.
	The system would not object if Tamara Lich just broke.
	Okay, rant.
	Rant.
	End this.
	Share.
	Let's just go through this subpoena.
	For all the things that we've gone through on this channel, we went through the indictment.
	Get rid of this.
	We went through the indictment.
	No, this is the decision for Alberta.
	Wrong one.
	We went through the indictment of Steve Bannon.
	I expect you, after three years, to be half-dead, dragging back to Canada, an alligator chomping up your leg.
	Liberty is good, but Florida is killing you.
	Florida's not killing me.
	I mean, I'll get used to the heat.
	Just got to stay hydrated.
	And a super sticker.
	Joe K., thank you very much.
	Bots, do you realize that you are the proof by your presence that Viva is doing a perfect job?
	What did I just do?
	I want to screen grab this.
	Well, maybe I did.
	Okay, whatever.
	Okay, let's pull up this subpoena.
	I don't think people have seen it.
	Although if you've been following the post-millennial or my episode from yesterday, is this it?
	That's Alberta.
	This is the subpoena.
	Okay, peeps, check this out.
	We're going to go through this only briefly because I just want to highlight.
	And by the way, I've gotten a subpoena to testify.
	Long story short, I got a witness.
	I got a subpoena from a client.
	It became a former client.
	I was so in love with my legal services that the client insisted that I testify in their case on a motion that I drafted.
	Totally improper and the court quashed it because you can't compel a lawyer to testify on a motion that they drafted.
	That's a story for another day that I might share.
	But getting a subpoena is not fun.
	It's kind of scary.
	You get a bailiff, rings your doorbell, says, all right.
	It's like that scene in Back to the Future, except not necessarily in the future, where...
	This is amazing.
	How fast do the bots work?
	Getting a spin is not fun.
	And it's almost as creepy as in Back to the Future when Marty McFly, the car disappears, and the second the car disappears and leaves Marty back in 1955, this guy in a trench coat shows up and gives him a paper.
	It's not much less spooky than that.
	But let's read this.
	Subpoena by authority of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America, Stephen K. Bannon, care of Robert Costello, Esquire, because Bannon, through count of Okay, listen to this.
	So place of production.
	To produce the things identified on the attached schedule, wait till you see it, by the date of October 7, and to testify at a deposition by October 14. Yada, yada, yada, signed.
	Not sure.
	So there was an argument during the trial as to whether or not that was Benny Thompson's signature.
	It looks like it was.
	I think Bannon at one point tried to raise a procedural argument that the subpoena was not served with what they call a Schedule B or a Schedule 3B.
	Which I think, still haven't found out the definitive answer, I think refers just to the sanctions for non-compliant, which could invalidate, you know, improper service invalidates the subpoena, but then they tried to argue that it wasn't necessarily.
	We couldn't tell if it was Benny Thompson's signature.
	He's the only person that had authority to sign this as chair of the committee.
	Whatever.
	Made no difference.
	Okay, proof of service, all redacted.
	Fine.
	This is the letter.
	The 107...
	18th Congress, select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol.
	Mr. Bannon, pursuant to the authorities set forth in House Resolution 503 and the rules of the House of Representatives, the select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol, hereby transmits a subpoena compelling you to produce the documents set forth in the accompanying schedule.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	The Select Committee, we've read the House Resolution 503, and it's trolling the ocean floor broad breadth.
	The Select Committee is investigating the facts, circumstances, and causes of the January 6th attacks and issues relating to the peaceful transfer of power in order to identify and evaluate lessons learned and to recommend to the House and its relevant committees the corrective laws, policies, procedures, rules, regulations, yada, yada, yada.
	And you know why they have to include that self-serving, and I would argue wholly inaccurate paragraph?
	Congressional committees are only lawful if they have some valid legislative purpose, What better way to say we need to investigate this to determine if we need legislation in the future?
	Because obviously there was a lack of legislation to prosecute and persecute all of the Jan 6 defendants like they've been doing for the last two years or a year and a half.
	Obviously they need to discuss what legislation might be required because they seem to be lacking.
	In the persecution of the defendants already?
	Picketing and parading?
	Obstructing Congress?
	Trespass?
	Assault?
	Conspiracy to commit sedition?
	Seems like all the legislation is already there.
	But the committee, knowing what it has to draft in order to make it lawful on its face, we need to see if there's any corrective measures and legislative purposes for this committee so that we can go on a fishing expedition that would make Black Tip H a fishing channel.
	Green with envy.
	Anybody who doesn't know Black Tip H, best fishing channel out there.
	The select committee has reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding important activities that led to and informed the events on the Capitol.
	For example, you've been identified as president.
	We've read this was in the indictment.
	Let's look at the schedule, by the way.
	This is the schedule of just, you know, just some documents we're asking you to submit.
	17 items.
	And then they define what documents mean.
	Okay, but let's just go back.
	Just 17 bullet points, people.
	It's not that much.
	And they have a very specific point in mind as to what they're looking for.
	Schedule.
	In accordance with the attached definitions and instructions, you, Stephen K. Bannon, are hereby required to produce all documents and communications in your possession, custody, and control, including any documents or communications stored or located on personal devices, in personal or campaign accounts.
	And or on personal or campaign applications.
	Referring to relating to yadda yadda.
	If no date range is specified, it's April 1st of the present.
	Fine.
	Just take, we'll just go through.
	Let's just pick five at random.
	Number two.
	Then President Trump's participation in the January 6th, 2021 rally, including any communications with President Trump or any paid or unpaid attorney, advisor, aide, or assistant.
	to President Trump relating to the nature, context, or content of President Trump's intended or actual remarks to those attending the January 6th round.
	Executive privilege much?
	Anybody?
	They want correspondence with then-president, the executive, and Bannon.
	And not just that, by the way.
	Including any communications with President Trump or any paid or unpaid attorney.
	I mean, Bannon's not the client.
	But are they asking for potentially solicitor, what would be governed by solicitor client correspondence or information between Trump's attorneys and Trump and what might have been communicated in the context of that relationship with Bannon?
	Just anything and everything.
	That's all we're asking for.
	Do it now.
	I love item five.
	The War Room podcast, insofar as at any time you communicated through it.
	Statements referring to, referring or relating to efforts to contest the election results.
	They want to audit the war room if they've talked about anything.
	A constitutional process, I might add, of contesting the election results or contesting certification.
	A constitutional process.
	In as much as you ever talked about it on your channel, on your show, on your podcast, wildly popular podcast, more popular than any of the committee hearings, more popular than any MSM, we want all of it.
	Any statements, anything, any notes here, including planning for the January 6th rally, including all statements concerning its planning, objectives, purposes, or organization, messages, or sponsorship.
	David Langford, I know David Langford's an attorney.
	Yes, he writes in caps not because he's angry, but because it's easier to read.
	It's preposterous.
	I mean, we could go on.
	Your presence, purpose, statements, and activities at a meeting at the Wheeler Hotel on January 5th.
	What the hell does this even mean?
	Your purpose?
	Please, what was your purpose there, January 5th?
	What was the purpose for you speaking freely as per your First Amendment rights?
	Your communications with President Donald J. Trump concerning events on January 6, 2021, including but not limited to communications, on December 30, 2020.
	We want your communications with the then-president.
	And by the way, you're not allowed raising executive privilege.
	Listen to this.
	Anyone with whom you communicated by any means with respect to any aspect of the planning objectives, don't even know what that means, conduct, don't even know what that means, or participation in the January 6, 2021 rally, including but not limited to Boris Epstein, Kashiap Patel, and Ezra Cohen Watnick.
	I don't know who those people are.
	Anyone with whom you communicated by any means with respect to efforts, plans, By the way, I think we've seen enough of this.
	By the way, do you remember all of the videos of other Democrat politicians contesting certification once upon a time?
	Do you remember?
	We saw those videos.
	Can you imagine if anyone subpoenaed those politicians for any and all correspondence relating to their contestation of the certification process?
	Viva, if they were truly trolling the depths, they would catch themselves, Nancy Pelosi, Well, Deborah, they can't catch those creatures because they're not trolling for those creatures.
	I don't know if Ray Epps got this subpoena.
	Did Ray Epps get a subpoena that looks like this?
	Because he was planning the events of January 6th.
	He was there on January 5th telling people what to do.
	He was there on January 6th.
	Corralling people to the Capitol.
	He was there behind the barricades on restricted grounds.
	Did he get one of these?
	I'd like to know who Ray Epps was talking with.
	I would love to see this subpoena issued to Ray Epps.
	Although, if I were a lawyer on the committee and I wanted to draft it in what I think would be lawfully confined terms, I would limit and maybe make it a little more specific.
	A little more specific and not just insanely broad.
	That's 17 items.
	Any communications with Representative Scott Perry?
	Oh, they're asking for his communications with other politicians now.
	Why not subpoena Scott Perry?
	Oh, that's right.
	Because to subpoena a member of Congress would itself look too over the top.
	So don't subpoena Scott Perry.
	Subpoena someone else and ask for your communications with a politician.
	About any...
	Any communications with Representative Scott Perry and or other members of Congress about any of the foregoing topics?
	Hmm.
	Imagine what would happen if they actually just subpoenaed Scott.
	Imagine if they subpoenaed other members of Congress for any correspondence that they had about January 6th.
	This is a...
	Oh, any communications with Rudolph Giuliani?
	I always know him as Rudy.
	Rudolph just reminds me right away of Christmas.
	All right, for Christmas.
	John Eastman, Michael Flynn, Jenna...
	Oh, Jenna Ellis, a lawyer.
	Sidney Powell, a lawyer.
	About any of the foregoing topics.
	Hey, Bannon, bend over, take your pants down, and let us look straight up your colon through your mouth.
	We're going to go...
	We're not stopping at the colon.
	We're going right up your lower intestines, and we want to see the light of day coming out your mouth.
	That's the subpoena.
	Now, I don't know...
	If they made a motion to quash that subpoena.
	I would be shocked if they didn't.
	I just don't know that question offhand.
	Oh, I know who Cash is.
	I just didn't.
	Cash Patel.
	Sorry, I didn't know that was his first name.
	Evil Empire.
	There's not much more ways of describing it.
	That's the subpoena.
	Well, the lighting is particularly good.
	You don't even see what I call the stress streak so much.
	It's right there.
	That's the subpoena.
	Bannon convicted after three hours.
	It's par for the course.
	Sentencing is going to be in October.
	And what do they call it?
	Deferred sentence.
	The word on the street, the rumor, probably what's going to happen is they're going to...
	Oh, geez.
	Chad, help me out with it.
	I just blacked out on the word.
	They're going to go for a deferred sentence pending the appeal because at the end of the day, this is nonetheless a misdemeanor charge.
	I think the maximum fine is $100,000 per contempt charge.
	Minimum fine is $100,000.
	Maximum sentence is one year in prison for each contempt charge.
	Minimum is one month.
	So the idea is that if he serves his time pending an appeal, He in all likelihood would be out of jail before the appeal would even be heard.
	He would have already served his time.
	By the way, Bill Miller, he could get two years.
	It's conceivable he could get two years because their minimum one-year sentence per contempt, so contempt for failure to testify, contempt for failure to produce documents, he's been convicted on two counts.
	So in theory, he could serve two years because the judge could say max sentence on both.
	Served consecutively, not concurrently.
	It's not going to happen.
	Yes, it's not going to happen.
	What's likely going to happen is they're going to ask for a deferred sentence.
	He'll be out pending the appeal, and if he gets convicted or gets ratified on appeal, then he'll go for whatever sentencing he's going to get in October.
	That's what happened to Smollett.
	He says, let me out of jail pending my appeal because I'm only sentenced to what?
	I forget what Smollett was sentenced to.
	I'll have served it by the time my appeal gets around.
	And therefore, it'll be academic.
	I'll have done the time I'll have suffered already.
	So don't put me in jail to serve my time until we hear the appeal just because of the nature of the conviction, the nature of the sentence.
	So we'll probably get a month, maybe two months.
	Maybe you'll get one month per charge.
	Or maybe, I don't know, who knows?
	One month, two months, whatever.
	He might get time served for the week of trial.
	I don't know what that's worth, one and a half or two times.
	Robin, they're not going to give him a max on both.
	They won't.
	But my goodness, it would be funny.
	I mean, funny in the absolute black-pilled, most cynical way.
	It would be funny.
	So that's where it's at.
	October, they come back.
	The judge asks for recommendations for sentencing from both parties.
	We'll see what the prosecution even goes for.
	If they go for max sentence...
	They're getting greedy and they're sucking the fat from the bone.
	But they'll probably go for a month each, two months, and maybe he'll get two weeks with time served.
	Deferred judgment, deferred sentencing, pending appeal, and that's it.
	In the meantime, he'll be raging against the machine from Steve Bannon's The War Room.
	He is appealing, something to do with their not providing him a Schedule B with the subpoena.
	You know what?
	Let me pull up.
	I don't even need to pull up.
	It was David Hoggy from Epoch Times who I had on the channel on Thursday.
	Yeah, one of the defenses was that the service was deficient because it didn't come with a Schedule B, which I suspect is the sanction.
	Failure to comply could lead to jail.
	If nobody warns you of the penalties of noncompliance, they can't punish you for noncompliance afterwards.
	And then there's a number of other bases for appeal, and I think all of the denials of his defenses before the jury or the denials of the defense at large are going to be part of the appeal.
	He'll have robust grounds for appeal, I think.
	The procedural ones I find interesting.
	Anyone in the chat who knows definitively what the Schedule B is or the Schedule 3B, under New Jersey subpoena laws, there is something called the Schedule 3B, which refers to the penalties for failure to comply.
	That's New Jersey.
	And there's no reason to believe that the numbers would be the same, but I looked through the subpoena that we saw.
	It seems that there is nothing saying failure to comply with the subpoena could lead to jail time.
	If people don't know that, when they get a subpoena, they might be more inclined to thumb their nose at a subpoena.
	If they know they might be going to jail for failure to comply, they might be more inclined to, at the very least, respond to the subpoena.
	January 6th.
	Circus is as bad as the trials of the Soviet Republic.
	I agree.
	It's not much different than, you know, Otto Warmbier's trial in North Korea.
	Just go through the motions and hard time, 13 years.
	Rumble rants.
	Get on rumble.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	I don't know what that means, but hold on.
	We have rumble rants, it would seem.
	Oh, we've got 1,500 people on Rumble.
	Booyakasha.
	Okay, I don't see any Rumble rants, but thank you.
	And then there was one other chat that I just saw and flagged.
	That's the latest on Bannon, people.
	I heard Bannon might have a case for being targeted because he was treated differently than others who refused to testify.
	Is this possible?
	Okay, well, I would say no.
	It's like...
	Any sort of application of the law, you don't have to apply it to everybody.
	And if you selectively apply it, you can choose to not pursue certain charges as per discretion.
	So I don't think, you know, malicious prosecution?
	No, because he was convicted.
	I mean, you know, I thought it was a malicious prosecution of Tamara Lich, which maybe if, you know, the Court of Appeal gets involved and vindicates her at the end of the day, maybe you can still get there.
	But once you're convicted, you can't be malicious prosecution.
	If they go after one person to make an example, it's not because they didn't go after others that they can't go after one.
	So I don't think that.
	I think procedural questions, deficiency of service would be a great grounds of appeal.
	Like if the jury just said, screw it.
	I don't know what procedure is required for a valid service of a subpoena.
	So forget about it.
	It's too complicated for me.
	He got the subpoena.
	He had lawyers.
	They knew damn well.
	Schedule 3B or no Schedule 3B, he obviously knew, convicted.
	But unfortunately...
	You know, it could be a matter of law.
	And do it properly the next time.
	The old expression, procedure is supposed to be the servant of the law, not its master, in that you're not supposed to be denied rights because of a failure to abide by procedure.
	But if someone wants to deny you of your rights and they themselves didn't follow the procedure, tough noogies, learn and serve it properly next time.
	So we'll see.
	We'll see.
	Anyhow, so that's Bannon.
	Knew it was going to happen.
	Fait accompli.
	No surprises.
	And I'm just going to close this window here.
	That's the subpoena.
	We don't need that.
	So that's that.
	Let's get on to Arthur Pawlowski.
	No, hold on.
	One small break before we get there.
	Let's just see if this headline...
	is accurately reflected in the substance.
	Monkeypox, the who?
	Not the awesome rock band from the 70s.
	The corrupt international organization, the World Health Organization, declares highest alert over outbreak.
	The monkeypox outbreak has been declared a global health emergency by the WHO.
	The government is the Make Work Project.
	By definition, they only exist and continue to exist by continuing to create work for themselves.
	The classification is the highest alert that the WHO can issue and follows a worldwide upsurge in cases.
	You know, it's interesting.
	The timing.
	It used to be, I think, once upon a time, pandemics were like once in a blue moon or maybe more rare than that.
	Blue moons are not that rare.
	I don't know.
	It used to be like we used to hear them every, you know.
	Every so often, every seven years, every 10 years.
	And now it's like all the time.
	But just, you know, dots that people are going to connect.
	What has occurred over the last year and a half on a global scale that coincides with this outbreak of monkeypox?
	The monkeypox.
	What coincides?
	I mean, it's interesting.
	I'm not a doctor.
	No medical advice.
	No election fortification advice.
	But I can, you know, I can think.
	Mildly critically, I can...
	Oh, monetization is back on, peeps.
	Good.
	I can think mildly critically, and I can also just, you know, ask interesting questions.
	It is interesting.
	A worldwide outbreak that coincides with worldwide Fauci juicifying.
	You know, if I were asking critical questions, and if medicine, as this doctor on Twitter says, is supposed to be...
	Amoral.
	I think you used the wrong word.
	It's not supposed to be governed by morality.
	And it's supposed to be apolitical.
	That's a question I would ask.
	Is this a coincidence?
	Or is this causally related?
	Potentially.
	It came at the end of the second meeting of the WHO's emergency committee on the virus.
	More than 16,000 cases have now been reported in 75 countries, said WHO director.
	Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
	There have been five deaths so far as a result of the outbreak.
	There are only two other such health emergencies at present, the coronavirus and the continuing effort to eradicate polio.
	Wow, those seem like very diametrically opposed in urgency, I think.
	Okay, they've been unable to reach a consensus on whether the monkeypox outbreak should be classified as a global health emergency.
	However, he said that the outbreak has spread around the world, so the headline's a little misleading, people.
	But whose assessment is that the risk of monkeypox is moderate globally and in all regions except in the European region where we assess the risk high?
	I don't care.
	So bottom line, people, who could have thunk?
	And don't ask questions about monkeypox because that might make you...
	Don't ask questions.
	Shut up.
	Don't look up.
	Okay.
	Archie Pawlowski.
	Let me see what I'm looking for here.
	Okay, I'll give you the summary of Archie Pawlowski before we get to the decision.
	Archie Pawlowski, you saw the video.
	You know what?
	No, we'll just get it in the fact pattern of the summary and the decision.
	Archie Pawlowski was arrested twice, detained for several days, fined $20,000, I think?
	Had compelled speech included in his terms of release, Alberta Court of Appeal, three judges.
	Let me just make sure it's three judges.
	It's always three judges at the Court of Appeal.
	Who are the judges?
	Yeah, okay, there's three judges.
	Justice Barbara Lee Veldwis, Justice Michelle Crichton, Justice Joanne Strekov.
	So there's three judges.
	And, you know, you tend to get better rulings as you go higher up the court system, if only because you have more minds working and you don't get one Judge Germain, who, in his own fiefdom, thinks that it was a good idea to compel someone to say the following when speaking about COVID publicly.
	This was Judge Germain's order, and I railed against it at the time.
	I said I've never heard anything like this.
	The Court of Appeal rightly noted, we'll get there, that compelled speech is as much of a violation of freedom of speech as denying freedom of speech.
	This judge said when you're exercising your freedom of speech, this is what you must say.
	No, judge, you just violated someone's freedom of speech by virtue of compelling them to say something because compelled speech is a violation of freedom of speech and the Court of Appeal got it right.
	I just want everyone to understand the absolute lunacy of the previous order and the situation at large.
	And I'll say egged on, motivated and encouraged by the most divisive, racist, sexist, misogynistic, awful leader, leader ever, Justin Trudeau.
	Because you create an environment where judges feel empowered to do this.
	They do this because they think they're going to get the moral Pat on the back, the proverbial virtual pat on the back by their political elites.
	You did good, Judge Jean-Marie.
	You were very virtuous in your decision and compelling the defendants to say this when speaking against COVID policies.
	I am also aware that the views I am expressing to you on this occasion may not be views held by the majority of medical experts in Alberta.
	While I may disagree with them, can you imagine making someone say this?
	I have to pull up my fingernails to make me say this.
	I am obliged to inform you.
	I'm obliged.
	By a rogue judge who thinks that he has the power to tell people what to say.
	Because he probably thinks he's got the blessing from Justin Trudeau and his WEF ilk.
	I am obliged to inform you that the majority of medical experts favor social distancing, mask wearing, and avoiding large crowds to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
	And here's the brought to you by Pfizer part.
	Most medical experts also support participation in a vaccination program unless for a valid religious or medical reason you cannot be vaccinated.
	Except according to Supreme Leader Justin Trudeau, the religious exemptions are going to be exceedingly difficult to obtain because Justin Trudeau knows what's best for your body and he knows what's best for your religious practices.
	Vaccinations have been shown to statistically save lives and reduce the severity of COVID-19 vaccines.
	Brought to you by Pfizer.
	This is what the judge required.
	The Pavlovsky brothers and Scott, the guy from the Whistle Shop Cafe, who was ordered not to hold a gathering, this is what he ordered them to say when speaking in public about COVID-19 and protesting the government measures.
	Can you imagine compelling people to become the spokespersons of the regime that they are opposing?
	I love it, by the way, and I was watching Ezra Levant yesterday, and it's not his thought, but it's a good insight.
	He's saying, This is like, you know, back in the kingdom of England where the king said, am I not the king?
	Who dares defy me?
	Make this individual tell me how good I am when they defy me.
	Now, I'm not saying the king is...
	I made two comments on Roma for $10.
	I didn't see it.
	Oh, here we go.
	I don't know how to...
	I just lost it.
	I don't know how to pay in shekels, but I don't know if this is...
	Okay, David, fellow Tribe Canuck, next time I'm in Quebec, hit me up.
	I was delayed.
	This is all on me.
	I don't type before he reads my YouTube comment.
	I just call out YouTube for being...
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	Okay, now hold on.
	There was one more here.
	I think I started.
	I expect you to...
	Okay, so this I saw.
	Okay, this one I saw.
	It was this one.
	Stephen Goldstein.
	A lawyer argues that a law should not be followed.
	That is, in fact, the kind of conduct that can get an attorney disbarred because an attorney cannot advocate either negligent or intentional violation of the law or process.
	A lawyer argues that a law should not be followed.
	Well...
	I would agree with you as a matter of principle, which is why I never tell people to, you know, civil disobedience or encourage anybody to break the law.
	So I don't know if you're telling me something that I've said you think is telling people to break the law.
	So I'm not sure what that is, too.
	My God, a lot of trolls.
	This is great.
	But yeah, it's true.
	You can't...
	You can't tell people to break the law, which is why I never tell anyone to go on the streets and protest and get arrested and get the ticket and contest the ticket.
	If you get it, contest it.
	When it came to Artur Pawlowski, and by the way, if what you're suggesting is that I'm saying that Artur, I'm telling people not to read what a judge compelled you to read.
	No, I mean, first of all, I would probably do it the same way.
	I'd do the same thing with YouTube.
	Restrictions.
	I would make it funny.
	Now, I'm not saying that.
	I can't say it.
	The judge required them to say this.
	Unheard of in law, but it's the type of lunacy that can only occur when someone feels that they have the political permission slip to go haywire in their judgment.
	Luckily, a court of appeal reined it in, and reined it in but how?
	Because they've ordered now the Alberta Health Services to pay court costs, some court costs.
	So this was a rebuke of Judge Germain's order.
	So let's just see here.
	The court.
	We're going to get the procedure.
	There's just a few paragraphs of major interest.
	Sorry, just opening another parenthesis.
	Whistleston was the one who got an injunction that says, don't gather.
	You can't have people come to your barbecue.
	He did it nonetheless.
	He acknowledged that he was in contempt.
	Whistlestop acknowledged that he was in contempt and didn't actually appeal the contempt order, but only the sanction.
	The Pavlovskis appealed both.
	So Pavlovskis...
	Pavlovsky is a national...
	Let's say both of them.
	The Pavlovskys are national heroes, not just Canada, but for all of us.
	There's a reason why that video went viral in the first place.
	But, okay, add to stream.
	Let's just do this.
	On May 6, 2021, Alberta Health Services obtained an ex parte injunction.
	That means no one was present to contest.
	They go ex parte, no defendant, and get an injunction from the court.
	It's fantastic.
	Such an emergency, they can't summon a defendant to...
	Contest the issuance of this injunction.
	And typically, when it's ex parte and there's no defendant to be heard, the courts are exceedingly stringent on what is required to get the issuance of that injunction because injunctions in general are very invasive.
	Ex parte injunction to prevent illegal gatherings in contravention of public health orders aimed at protecting the health of Albertans from the threat posed by COVID-19.
	All three appellants, Christopher Scott from the Whistle Shop, the Pawlowski brothers, were found in contempt of the injunction and sanctions were imposed on them for that contempt.
	Mr. Scott does not challenge the contempt finding, but appeals the sanctions imposed on them.
	Pawlowski's appeal both the finding contempt made as well as the sanctions.
	Okay, so we get to some general context.
	Bearing in mind always, by the way, the Pawlowski's were never specifically mentioned in the injunction.
	Alberta Health Services became aware that Mr. Scott and others were organizing and promoting public gatherings to protest and breach the requirements of the Chief Medical Officer of Health.
	In particular, Mr. Scott was promoting a gathering and campout at the Whistle Stop Cafe.
	They get the injunction.
	The injunction named as respondents Mr. Scott Whistle Stop.
	A bunch of other people, Jane Doe's, but not the Pawlowski's.
	Paragraph one of the injunction provided the named individual respondents, ex parte, by the way, no audio, alter, whatever it is, no right to be heard here.
	The named individual respondents and other persons acting under their instructions or in concert with them or independently to like effect and with notice of this order shall be restrained anywhere in Alberta from organizing in-person gathering.
	including requesting, inciting, or inviting others to attend an illegal public gathering, promoting an illegal public gathering via social media or otherwise, attending an illegal public gathering of any nature in the public square.
	This is where it gets interesting.
	Appellants, Pavlovsky, operate a street church in Calgary, health services in violation of CMOH orders.
	On May 8, 2021, members of the Calgary Police Service provided the injunction to the Pawlowskis at a gathering in and around the church and arrested them shortly after they left, having concluded that they were in breach of the injunction.
	Pawlowskis remained in custody for three days, two and a half days, three days.
	Rebel media and Ezra Levant pointed out an interesting thing.
	Even in China, when adversaries are arrested or when a specific incident, they were arrested for similar things.
	They were released the day of, within a few hours.
	So we got the contempt.
	They don't mention the judge's name in this.
	It's quite funny.
	On June 28, 2021, following a contempt hearing, the Chamber's judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Scott was served with the injunction, had actual knowledge of the conduct prohibited by it, and persisted in a public and defiant matter in disobeying it.
	He found Mr. Scott in contempt.
	Those could go, yada, yada.
	Okay, fine.
	On September 15, the chamber's judge heard submissions on sanction with respect to Mr. Scott's contempt.
	AHS proposed a 21-day sentence and sought costs.
	Mr. Scott submitted that community service and a small fund was appropriate.
	The chamber judge, we'll get to this judge because politics ruins everything, especially justice.
	Let me see something here.
	I'm gonna I'm actually gonna start that with I noticed another super chat which might have oh has that been there for a long time here okay I'm gonna come back to this okay sorry I'm not gonna be able to block all the bots because I can't see the chat when I'm doing this um the chambers judge concluded that further jail time would be inappropriate and sentenced Mr. Scott to three days in prison which was deemed fully satisfied He was ordered to pay a fine of $20,000
	and costs of $11,000.
	He was put on probation for 18 months and required to complete 120 hours of community service and obey all AHS health orders related to COVID-19.
	The Chamber's judge also ordered that Mr. Scott remain in Alberta except to attend a family emergency or health that's so benevolent of him and to include a disclaimer when speaking against the government.
	To include a disclaimer.
	Madness.
	Then we get to the Pawlowskys.
	Their contempt.
	In May, AHS brought a separate contempt application against the Pawlowskys because they were in breach of this injunction to which they were not a party nor name.
	Pawlowskys denied they were in contempt, arguing they were not named in the injunction and it did not apply to them.
	There was improper or no service of the injunction.
	They were not made aware of the prohibition set out in the injunction, and it was uncertain whether the injunction applied to church services.
	The judge disagreed with the Pawlowski submissions, concluded that the applicants, the application of the injunction was not restricted to those connected with the named respondents.
	Imagine this.
	The judge says: This applies to even unnamed respondents, and I presume people who were not served with the order would just see it.
	Rather, it applied to all individuals who willingly breached the operative terms of the injunction after having received notice of it.
	Not being properly served with it, unless that's what's meant by notice.
	Although the opening paragraph of the injunction was amended, and its scope arguably narrowed on May 13, at the time the Povoskis' arrest...
	At the time of the Pawlowski's arrest, no connection to the named respondents was required to identify potential contemnors.
	Contemnors.
	I've never heard that word before.
	The Chamber's judge held that the use of John Doe and Jane Doe in the style of cause made clear that the injunction was intended to apply to individuals not specifically named, in other words, everyone and anyone in Alberta.
	He found the Plavoskys were effectively served with the injunction, had full knowledge of it, and the prohibitions contained in it, and knew the injunction applied to them.
	Interesting.
	Talk about arguing from conclusions and not towards them.
	He found the Plavoskys were in contempt of the injunction.
	They participated in the illegal public gathering, yada, yada, yada.
	So they heard the same.
	All of these were heard together.
	And what was the fine?
	It was massive, massive fines.
	Arch Bivlosky was sentenced to three days in prison, which was deemed fully satisfied, paragraph 21, and served by his time in custody following his arrest.
	He was ordered to pay a fine of $20,000, Oh, by the way, they don't mention it here.
	120 hours of community service, but it couldn't be for his church because the judge doesn't recognize his church as...
	Community service work.
	So he had to do it for someone else.
	I don't think the judge specified who, but couldn't be for his street church.
	And obey all of the orders.
	He was ordered to remain.
	Same things, yada, yada.
	Pavlovsky, the brother, was sentenced to three days in prison, which was fully served.
	He was ordered to pay a fine of $10,000 12 months.
	Costs were ordered against Pavlovsky's jointly $15,000.
	We get into the standard of review.
	Basically, they're going to start from scratch because they determined that the Chambers judge made a mistake.
	They're starting from scratch.
	Issues on appeal, the issues.
	Imposing sanctions that were excessive and disproportionate.
	We all said it at the time.
	Failing to follow a fair procedure with respect to the mobility of qualified speech provision.
	My understanding is that the Crown even abandoned contesting the qualified speech, aka compelled speech, imposing sanctions that were demonstrably unfit and unreasonably and disproportionately violated his rights to mobility and freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights.
	These are the best three paragraphs.
	Paragraph 31, 32, 33. By the way, there's something called a judge rendering a decision ultra-petita, beyond the conclusion sought.
	You can't do it.
	And I didn't actually, I don't know that I knew this at the time or fully appreciated.
	Nobody asked for that compelled speech paragraph.
	But this judge, he's doing God's work, and by God's work, his God's work, Justin Trudeau's work.
	So I'm going to throw in a paragraph, compelled speech, even though no one asked for it.
	The mobility and qualified speech provisions were not requested by AHS, nor were the parties invited to make any submissions before the chamber's judge imposed them.
	Appreciate what that means.
	You have the rule of adi altrum partum, the right to be heard.
	You also have the rule of ultra petita, not adjudicating beyond the conclusion sought.
	This was both.
	The judge goes out on his own for the greater good, people.
	for the greater good.
	Issues in order, including conclusions that were never sought in the absence of It will make sense when we see the political history of this judge.
	It will make sense.
	Shortly before the hearing of this appeal on June 3, 2022, AHS advised in writing that it would consent to an appeal order varying the sanctions order to remove these provisions.
	Oh, that's so benevolent of you.
	It might be.
	Because it was so preposterous that AHS, Alberta Health Services, drops contesting that.
	We're not even going to talk about it because it's so stupid.
	So that we can hopefully garner some sympathy, get in the good books of this Court of Appeals, so maybe they'll grant in our favor on other issues of this appeal.
	Maybe.
	Either it was so stupid that they knew it was beyond the pale to even assert before a panel of three appellate judges, or that...
	And they say, hopefully we'll get some brownie points with the Court of Appeals by dropping it so that they can, you know, find in our favor on other issues.
	We'll try to score some points.
	AHS acknowledged at the oral hearing of the appeal that the provisions offend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	That's very nice, AHS, you acknowledge at the oral hearing of the appeal.
	Why didn't you acknowledge that when it was issued by the judge?
	You cowards, beyond cowards, you're fascists.
	Because you knew that it was unconstitutional when the judge issued it beyond the conclusions sought, but you sat there on your hands and zipped up your lips, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, and you enjoyed the benefit of that provision at the time it was issued, even though you knew it was unconstitutional, you knew it was afforded beyond the conclusions that you sought, in the absence of the parties with no submissions, but you enjoyed shutting Pavlovskis up.
	You enjoyed shutting Scott up.
	You enjoyed compelling them to lick your boots in the interim because you knew that it was binding on them.
	Fascist cowards is what the AHS is.
	Because now they admit it.
	Brought before the principal, they admit that they knew what they did was wrong.
	Until they got to the principal, they reaped all of the legal benefits of that unlawful order that no one asked for, that the judge picked out of his hat, and that was issued in the absence of submissions by the parties.
	Terrible.
	I feel like an old man shouting, terrible, terrible, terrible.
	Really terrible, because you knew what you did.
	You knew that you were offending the Charter of Rights, Alberta Health Services, for months.
	And it's only when the ruler came out that you said, okay, fine.
	Sorry.
	We are satisfied that the mobility and qualified speech provisions should be set aside.
	Thank you.
	A judge sanctioning for civil contempt, like a sentencing judge...
	Should alert counsel before...
	By the way, it's not often...
	Let me just...
	It's not often...
	Does anyone mind this layout?
	Or should I just take this up when I go nuts?
	It's not often that you're going to see the Court of Appeals reprimand a judge.
	This is a judicial spanking.
	It's not often that it happens.
	Usually, when the appeals court or a higher court disagrees with a lower court or a lower judge, they try to do it politely.
	And they try to do it deferentially and show respect to the judge.
	Usually.
	Every now and again, it's so egregious and so over the top.
	They're still polite in the way that they're doing it.
	Understand what a spanking this is.
	We're satisfied that the provision should be set aside.
	Normally, when judges abide by the law, they should alert counsel before imposing a sanction that exceeds or is significantly different from that sought by the other party and afford counsel the opportunity to address the proposed sanction.
	Normally, Judge Germain.
	When you do something like this, which is unheard of on its face, you should notify the parties.
	Give them a chance maybe to say, "Hey, whoa, that's absolutely unconstitutional and here's some case lots of that effect.
	That compelled speech is a violation of free speech." But Judge Germain didn't do it.
	Like a rogue, politically motivated judge, he goes to his chambers.
	And inserts a paragraph into the order that no one asked for.
	And then everybody, from AHS itself to the three-panel judge of the Court of Appeal, knows violates freedom of speech.
	No, but suggest that people might get politically motivated.
	Suggest that this environment where the rabble have infiltrated the fiefdom, and now the judges are coming down saying, you, you people.
	You come to my castle and you think that you get to speak in a way that you want?
	I'll show you who's who.
	You think that this political climate does not allow for judges to go rogue like this.
	This is how systems collapse.
	The failure to provide an opportunity to address proposed sanctions that were not raised by the party offends the rules of natural justice and the autum partum.
	I don't think that's right.
	All the Alternative Parton Principle.
	No crap, Court of Appeal.
	And thank you.
	And Germain, this is a disgrace.
	This is as rude as a Court of Appeal can get.
	I don't think the Court of Appeal can even impose sanctions on a lower judge.
	This is as much of a smackdown as you can get, lawfully speaking.
	And this is as rude as a Court of Appeal can get.
	They're telling the judge, you violated the rules of fundamental justice.
	What the hell were you thinking?
	Moreover, we share the concerns raised by the parties and intervener regarding the constitutionality of the impugned provisions.
	Courts have held that Section 2B of the Charter includes freedom from being compelled to express a particular message.
	You think Judge Germain didn't know that?
	And you think, by the way, if the Pavlovskis and Scott didn't have the support from Rebel News to fight this, that any other person, even though they're right, Like the sun is bright, would have the means to take this to the Court of Appeal?
	But for that, but for that, if it were anybody else, they would have been financially broken.
	They might have just been too goddamn bored.
	Forget it.
	I'm not going to say anything instead of saying this.
	I'm just going to live with it.
	We all, we all, 101.
	You think the judge didn't know that he was violating the freedom of speech by compelling speech?
	He knew.
	Take his chances.
	Where were we?
	In this case, the restrictions imposed on Mr. Scott by the impugned provisions were unrelated to his contentious conduct and, in the circumstances, unreasonably infringed on his freedom of expression and mobility rights.
	Okay.
	Let's get to some more stuff here.
	Those were just the best part.
	And I'll just get to some conclusion on the Scott of Appeal.
	The Scott of Appeal is allowed in part the mobility and qualified speech provision.
	He didn't impose the sanction itself.
	Not the sanction, pardon, the contempt fining.
	The sanctions imposed by the chamber's judge are replaced with the following sanction for the appellant's contempt on the injunction.
	He still gets a hefty fine.
	Three days in prison, already satisfied, $10,000.
	I think it's already been paid.
	Probation, eight months.
	The chamber's judge awarded costs to AHS, Alberta Health Services.
	This method of calculating costs was reasonable.
	Costs are allowed as follows.
	Calculate all the best.
	Okay, fine.
	So when you win, because they won on Scott, you get costs.
	Court costs, not legal fees.
	Big distinction, big difference.
	What do we got here?
	where the appeal involves a question of law, the standard of review is correctness.
	It's law 101, issues on appeal.
	The Poloskis raised several issues on appeal.
	The first of which is that the Chamber's judge erred in finding that the injunction was clear and unequivocal, such that it applied to them.
	You know what that means?
	It never should have gotten to the step one to get to the step 10. All parties agree that the chambers judge correctly outlined three elements.
	Wow, nice.
	Look at this.
	They're treating this judge like he's an imbecile.
	All three, all the parties agreed that the judge correctly outlined the three elements that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt for finding of civil contempt.
	Thanks, man.
	They teach you that in first semester law class.
	The order alleged to have been breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done.
	If it's vague and ambiguous, you can't fault someone for not following it.
	Two, the party alleged to have breached the order must have had actual knowledge of it.
	That typically involves proof of service or something similar.
	And the party allegedly in breach must have intentionally done the act that the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act that it compels.
	The Pavlovsky's first argument of appeal is that the Chambers judge erred in finding the injunction clearly and unequivocally applied to them.
	Okay, let's get to this.
	Where are we?
	I want to...
	Here we go.
	Let's write it.
	Paragraph 52. An ex parte injunction obtained in the absence of parties, the defendant, can be validly directed at individuals who are not parties to the action, and those individuals can be found in contempt for violating the injunction.
	Fine.
	It's possible.
	When determining who is subject to an order, the words used in the order must be clear and, like the language of a statutory instrument, are presumed to have been included for a reason.
	Rules of, what is it, the canons of construct of laws?
	You don't put words in for no reason.
	If a word is in there, it's in there for a reason.
	So when they say the, you know, although it's not a law, it's a resolution.
	A committee shall have 13 members, it must have 13 members.
	If they say it may have 13 members, it need not necessarily have 13 members.
	Identifying the persons to which the injunction applies.
	Let me just go to rumble for one second.
	We're good still.
	Okay, fine.
	Identifying the nature of the prohibited conduct shall be restrained anywhere in Alberta from...
	There you go.
	It is the first aspect of paragraph 1 that is at issue here.
	Is it clear?
	The injunction does not state that it applies to all persons with notice of the injunction, nor to all persons with such notice, including the named respondents, which is essentially the interpretation of the scope of the order adopted by the chambers judge and AHS.
	Does it apply to everybody and anybody, or just the people named in it?
	Anybody who has knowledge of it, even though they're not named in it, or the people named in it.
	That's interesting.
	Rather, it identifies four categories of persons who are subject to the order.
	The named defendants, respondents, any other person acting under their instructions.
	The alternative to this interpretation is it applied to every Albertan citizen, and any Albertan citizen who defied the orders in that injunction.
	Could be guilty of contempt.
	That's the flip side.
	These judges, this panel of three judges, this court of three appellate judges, break it down properly.
	It applies to the named respondents.
	Any person acting under their instructions, that has a meaning.
	Any other persons acting in concert with them, that has a meaning.
	Any other persons acting independently to like effect.
	I think they're going to go for the fourth one.
	All parties would be the phrase "end with notice of this order" applies to each of the categories.
	The Chambers judge made the following comments with respect to the meaning of the phrase Of course he did!
	Everybody!
	Any Albertan acting independently to like effect, guilty of contempt of court of this court order.
	This is Germain's ruling here.
	The respondents further assert that the phrase independently to like effect found in the May 6 version of the Rook Order cannot be read to apply to church services in Calgary, but instead means similar.
	However, a plain reading of the Rook Order suggests the phrase like effect relates to the planning and participation in public events.
	I respectfully disagree with the respondents' interpretation of the Rook Order.
	A religious service to which the public is invited is a gathering.
	It was not necessary, in my view, for the Rook order to specifically identify religious services as a type of public gathering to which the order was directed.
	Further, the use of nominal respondents, Jane Doe and John Doe, in the style of cause of order make it clear the order was intended to cover individuals not specifically named in the order.
	One way of looking at this issue would be to consider whether such individuals would be caught by the Rook order if they objectively and acting reasonably could see themselves in it.
	Would it be objectively reasonable for them, on review of the order, to identify themselves with the conduct that was prohibited?
	If so, the order is unambiguous.
	Essentially, this is back to the court.
	Essentially, the chamber's judge interpreted the injunction as applying to the named individual respondents and any other person with notice of the order.
	This fails to give any meaning to the language in paragraph 1 that reads, acting under their instruction or in concert with them or independently to like effect.
	Bottom line, they come to the conclusion it didn't apply to the Pawlowskis regardless.
	But you're not going to get more of the spanking than we've already seen.
	Where there's ambiguity in a phrase that purports to identify a group of individuals whom an ex parte injunction applies, the injunction may not be sufficiently clear to found contempt proceedings against such individuals for breaching the terms of the order.
	Bottom line, these are quasi-criminal proceedings.
	If there's ambiguity, it goes to the benefit of the defendant.
	As all elements of the contempt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, we conclude that the injunction here was not sufficiently clear and ambiguous when it referred to other parties acting independently.
	In fact, it should have arguably been struck from the beginning because it was broad, ambiguous, so much so that a judge said it basically could apply to anybody and everybody.
	The contempt finding against Pavlovskis must therefore be set aside.
	Set aside, he awarded costs to AHS payable by the Pavlovskis.
	The cost award is set aside, and the Pavlovskis are awarded their costs payable by AHS, and it doesn't matter.
	I mean, I can only hear vindication.
	They were awarded to pay $15,000 to AHS for this court order.
	And also, by the way, The judicial spanking typically comes in the way of the nominal court costs, where they say losing party pays court costs.
	AHS, great, it's a government entity.
	They're going to pay the court costs with taxpayer dollars, so taxpayers get spanked a second time.
	And I haven't been reading the chat, by the way, but I'll go back.
	It's Saturday, you're breaking my brain.
	No, this had to be covered.
	This was the most atrocious...
	The Germain order was the most atrocious thing I had ever seen.
	I remember walking the streets during my Viva on the Streets at night saying, this is...
	By the way, I'm reading that court order where we have an Alberta judge compelling speech from an individual found in contempt of an injunction to which they were not a name party or even related while I'm under curfew for five months.
	This was 2021, so maybe I was only under curfew now for one month.
	No.
	That was the five-month curfew.
	I was under curfew for five months, allowed to go out at night only because I had a dog to walk, and I'm reading about compelled speech in Alberta thinking, yeah, Canada is not a fascist police state.
	I'm just a baby for complaining about it.
	Does this Court of Appeals evisceration of compelled speech set precedent in regards to compelling the use of preferred pronouns?
	We have always had rules about compelled speech.
	The issue is not going to be...
	Interesting question.
	I'm going to have to mull that one over.
	If a law says that you must use preferred pronouns, we've always had...
	It's law 101.
	Compelled speech is as much of a violation of free speech as restricted speech.
	Good question.
	Okay, now we get back to Steve Golson.
	Steve Bannon, nor all other parties, including Tamalich, who you argue is not following the law.
	The Jan 6th is getting all the goods.
	So, okay, I don't know.
	I'm not sure what to make of this.
	First of all, the congressional hearing, the contempt, I don't think Steve Bannon was breaking the law because I think that that service was deficient.
	Now, I would never tell someone to violate a subpoena.
	I would never tell someone who's been duly served not to respond to a lawsuit.
	Someone who's been doing this?
	In fact, never.
	I don't think Tamarilich was in contempt.
	I think that the terms of release for Tamarilich themselves are beyond the pale unconstitutional.
	They should, and if they ever get to the higher levels of court, I'm sorry, I hope that they do get overturned, and if they ever get to a higher level of court, they should, because everyone has to appreciate, even when...
	You issue bail terms.
	They necessarily have to violate your rights, but to the minimal degree necessary and to be directly correlated to the accused crime.
	Tamara Litch, to describe them as excessive is an understatement.
	I think if they ever got tested or if they ever got to an appellate level, they would be struck down and I would hope that the lower level justices of the peace or whatever they're called would get...
	The judicial smackdown that Judge Germain got.
	Olympian Jamie Saleh of Canadian skating fame and former NHL or Théo Fleury with Canadians for truth.
	Get it.
	Convo would make A-plus screen grabs, and I will get to that.
	Put the feeler, by the way.
	If you tweet and tag, and I can do it.
	Okay, here we go.
	I got that.
	Thank you.
	But now, people, let's just try to make sense of it.
	Let's just try to make sense of it.
	Pull up a tweet from Rebel News.
	This was part of Ezra's thread yesterday.
	He was letting it rip.
	Remember this liberal patronage appointee, Justice Adam Germain?
	He's the partisan bully who ordered Pastor Arthur to read a statement denouncing himself any time he criticized the government, whether in a sermon, in a media interview, or online.
	Overruled.
	Firethejudge.com.
	My goodness, the world needs people like Ezra.
	I'll share that link with you.
	Fire the judge.
	Hold on.
	What did it say there?
	Fire the judge in a shocking court order more suited to communist China than a liberal democracy.
	A Canadian judge sentenced a Christian pastor to a bizarre form of censorship.
	When is this from?
	Well, we've covered this.
	Okay.
	If anybody wants to go support that, I'll put the link in.
	Go donate.
	I gave a big super chat, a Rumble rant to Rebel News yesterday because I could have given 100% and gotten a tax-deductible thingy thing, but I wanted to support Rumble as well.
	Now, this is not the good room.
	I'm getting sound treatment for the room downstairs, but it's under construction for other reasons today.
	Yes, I appreciate the audios.
	Bad, and I apologize.
	The judge, people.
	The judge.
	Gonna all learn together.
	From Wikipedia.
	Yes, I know it's not a good source, people, but when they tell you stuff that's not in the interest of the narrative or the party, you know you can place a little more credence on it.
	Adam Germay is a former provincial-level politician, lawyer, and current Court of Queen's Bench Justice from Alberta, Canada.
	He served as a member of the Legislative Assembly from 1930.
	Okay, good for him.
	Political career.
	Germay was elected to the Alberta Legislature in 1983 Alberta General Election.
	He won the Electoral District of Fort Murray, picking it up for the Liberals.
	Germain did not run for a second term in provincial office, instead choosing to run in the 1997 federal election.
	He ran against incumbent Reform Member of Parliament David Chatters and finished a distant second, taking 30% of the popular vote.
	So my understanding, my understanding, he's a liberal politician.
	He's a former liberal politician.
	I believe he's a donor.
	I'm going to check that up in a second.
	And he ran what was not a Hail Mary, not a kamikaze.
	He ran in an election for the Liberals that he had no chance of winning.
	Some might hypothesize that, you know, that garners some good graces, politically speaking.
	Now, how did he get appointed, actually?
	Let's just see that.
	Here we go.
	After his provincial political career, Germain continued to work as a lawyer in Fort McMurray, Alberta, and was later appointed as a Justice of the Court of the Queen's Bench in Alberta.
	In 2007, he was awarded...
	Okay, I don't care about that.
	He was appointed.
	Okay.
	Who appointed him?
	Who appointed...
	Was it Adam Germain?
	Germain judge.
	Who appointed him?
	Let's see if this is going to give us the answer.
	Germain was elected...
	Okay, this is just the Wikipedia.
	I don't know who elected.
	I can imagine.
	One can see how it works here.
	A liberal politician...
	Adam Germain, liberal donor.
	Let's just see what this brings up.
	Thank you.
	It must include donor.
	Okay, let's try "donation." Well, I'm not finding anything.
	Oh well.
	Nonetheless, political.
	A political judge on the bench, former liberal, probably thinks Justin Trudeau is proud of what he did.
	And I bet you Justin Trudeau was proud of what he did.
	And I'd like to be a fly on the wall.
	I don't know.
	There's probably no discussion amongst the two of them.
	It's not like Trudeau calls him and says, hey, screw Pavlovsky.
	That's not how corruption works.
	Everybody knows what the other party wants.
	And it's just a question of the spiritual wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
	Oh, someone says, Viva, go back to that last paragraph.
	Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Hold on, people.
	Was it on the Wikipedia or was it on the...
	Now let's go here, let's go here, let's go here.
	Adam Germain.
	Was it on the Wikipedia chat?
	Let me know.
	The third paragraph.
	Hold on.
	Chat, was it...
	Let me see where it was.
	Was it here?
	Third paragraph.
	Hmm.
	Oh, now I'm getting the spinning wheel of death.
	Oh, now I'm getting the spinning wheel of death.
	Okay, whatever.
	We'll find it later.
	But the one good thing is, look, I like to do this every time.
	Justin Trudeau.
	Just play these games, people.
	Look at this.
	Are we seeing this?
	Yes, we are.
	Okay.
	Justin Trudeau.
	Amazing.
	Let me just do it.
	I'm doing it in real time.
	I don't know.
	Adam Germain.
	Let's see.
	Let's see.
	Oh, no.
	No, no, no.
	Okay.
	So no WF.
	Let's just go to Christia.
	How do we spell her name?
	Ah, yeah.
	There she is.
	Nice.
	By the way, people, reject cookies.
	I don't think most people know this.
	She's a member of the Forum's Board of Trustees.
	I mean, I know I've highlighted it many times.
	Let's play the game in the chat, people.
	You throw in a Canadian politician's name and let's see if they come up.
	I can't really even think of that many.
	Oh, let's see.
	Jason Kenney.
	Haven't done this one.
	Oh, is this him?
	Yeah, okay.
	So he's there.
	I don't know what the extent of his...
	Let's try Bonnie Henry?
	Amy, is that her name?
	Introducing speech a lot.
	Yeah, let's get out of there.
	Oh, let's just take...
	Kieran Moore.
	This is the doctor from Ontario.
	It's a fun game.
	Rob Ford.
	Okay, let's do Rob Ford, people.
	Let's play the six degrees of WEF.
	Rob Ford.
	It's the participants.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Doesn't look like Rob Ford comes up.
	Okay, let's go back to the chat and see what else we got.
	Dina Hinshaw.
	Let's see Dina Hinshaw.
	Dina Hinshaw.
	This is a fun game, people.
	This is a fun game.
	Oh, hold on.
	Let's see what this says.
	CBC.
	Premier urges Albertans to look at safe data.
	Okay, it says he's not in quotes.
	World economics.
	Okay, fine.
	We'll stop with the game.
	It's not going to work.
	And sorry if I missed Doug Ford.
	Okay, no.
	I'll do Doug Ford offscreen and just see him.
	Doug Ford, W-E-F.
	Doug Ford, W-E-F.
	This looks like a tweet from Doug Ford.
	No, it looks like Doug Ford way back in the Wayback Machine was once on it.
	Okay, people.
	But there were a few more things I had in my footnotes.
	Oh, I saw this doctor's tweet the other day.
	And the doctor was talking about lamenting his bout with COVID, despite being double-vaxxed and double-boosted.
	And I couldn't figure out which way he was going because this is the doctor, he says, 15-thread tweet with himself.
	Double vaxxed, double boosted.
	We still have to take this disease very seriously as we do.
	And, you know, science should be, medicine should be apolitical and amoral, although I think he's using the word amoral improperly.
	And I couldn't figure out which way he was going with this.
	Is he saying that, you know, we need to speak out against the fact that...
	I don't even want to venture into any medical advice.
	Couldn't tell which way he was leading.
	Then I saw this tweet, and then I became convinced it was a parody account.
	This is in response to a tweet that says, look down at the tweet below it, I'm paying my daughters $2 a day if they wear their masks all day at school.
	Peer pressure is huge.
	By the way, I agree peer pressure is huge.
	We're coming from an environment where peer pressure is to wear the mask and not to not wear the mask.
	Nine-year-old is excited as there are 10 weeks in this term, and that is a lot of money.
	She came home today and asked if she gets more if she convinces other kids to wear their masks.
	That's the definition of a cult, people.
	Hey, if I get other people to do it, do I get more of this?
	Do I get pushed up higher in this Ponzi scheme?
	That's the definition of a cult.
	And the doctor responded, and I thought it was a troll.
	Great idea.
	If you have the means, this is one way to get your kids to consistently wear a mask at school.
	You may adjust compensation.
	I thought he was joking right now.
	Based on child's time on earth and perceived needs, local cost of living, etc.
	You may also barter Wi-Fi time or device time instead of money.
	This is a doctor.
	This is a doctor.
	Just...
	Great idea.
	I mean, this is the doctor who says medicine should not be political and should not consider morality.
	Bribing a child to wear a face mask all day.
	No comment further.
	Oh, this was just a fun tweet that they had summarizing the Bannon case.
	Gaston is the...
	Prosecution.
	Wraps up closing in 28 minutes.
	This is what they said, or at least, you know, the quote from John Hoggy who was there.
	This case is not complicated, but it's important.
	Oh, we agree.
	This is a simple case about a man.
	That man, Steve Bannon, she said, nodding to the defendant who didn't show up.
	Oh, this case is about that man, all right.
	And they want to make an example of that man.
	And then there was one more.
	I brought up the wrong window here.
	One more, then we're going to call it a day, and we shall all go and get some fresh air, exercise, sunlight, and talk with other humans.
	What was this one?
	Oh, this was just another one.
	Closing arguments.
	Bannon didn't want to play by the rules.
	Okay, that's not the last one.
	This is the last one.
	AOC, people.
	I was getting...
	The messages the day it happened.
	Did you see AOC pretending to get arrested?
	And there was an internet pileup on AOC.
	But AOC never wanted to stop chewing when she puts her foot in her mouth or never wanted to stop lying when she gets caught in a lie.
	Nancy Mace.
	Politics has become performative art.
	This is from AOC who knelt and wept in front of an empty lot.
	Purported to be in front of a detention center, which contained cages that were built by somebody else.
	Faking about that.
	Lying about where she was on January 6th.
	Now, a video of her being escorted.
	And I think she got arrested for the protest.
	Blocking a street, by the way.
	That's insurrection in Canada, AOC.
	In the arrest, putting her hands behind her back in a very peculiar, unique manner, as if to feign having gotten arrested.
	Politics has become performative art.
	I agree.
	So, of course, AOC fakes being in handcuffs.
	Performance, not policy, is the name of the game here.
	And then, oh, AOC.
	No faking here, people.
	AOC is going to tell you how to survive your encounter with the police.
	No faking here.
	Putting your hands behind your back is a best practice while detained.
	Handcuffed or not, to avoid escalating charges like resisting arrest.
	But given how you lied about a fellow for points, as you put it to me, I don't expect much else from you.
	You notice how it went from an attempt at a response, and then it has to go to the ad hominem, as if that proves a point.
	I don't know what this quibble is about in the second paragraph.
	No faking here.
	Putting your hands behind your back is a best practice while detained, handcuffed or not, to avoid escalating charges like resisting arrest.
	This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
	I've never been arrested.
	I've never been detained.
	But I don't think putting your hands behind your back when a cop is arresting you is the best thing to do.
	I'm pretty sure a lot of people, when they carry firearms, might carry it tucked around in the back part of their pants.
	I'm fairly certain this is the most idiotic advice on how to get shot if you're actually in a bona fide detention or arrest situation.
	Put your hands behind your back.
	That'll make the officer feel really calm.
	There's a reason why they say show me your hands.
	Hands up.
	Hands on the ground.
	Not hands behind your back where I can't see them.
	You buffoon.
	But it's not just that it's buffoonery.
	It's the dumbest advice possible.
	Almost as though AOC would like to see people get shot.
	For doing the dumbest thing possible when getting arrested.
	Put your hands behind your back.
	Put your hands behind your back where the cop can't see them.
	It's not just that it's dumb advice.
	It, too, is a lie.
	Because if that's her advice, and if it's best practice to put your hands behind your back to avoid escalation, my goodness is AOC lucky she survived this escalation.
	What do we do?
	What do we do?
	I mean, It's not just performative art.
	It's pathological, disingenuous dishonesty.
	Well, I guess dishonesty is genuine, but...
	Google seems increasingly registered to provide results that question globalist dogma.
	Thank you for your work, Ralph Peterson.
	It's my pleasure.
	It is my pleasure and my honor to be doing this on a beautiful, sunny day, on a Saturday.
	I'm not being sarcastic.
	It is an honor.
	And I won't say privilege.
	But it's an honor.
	Because I don't like the word privilege.
	It implies exclusion that there is none here.
	But this is a privilege and an honor to be able to cover these stories and to keep it real, as we say.
	Alex Jones' Flat Earth Cruise with the Steve Bannon Freedom Fighters Band sets sail 2024.
	The Jan 6th Spine Finders comedy show is canceled.
	So I don't know what that is.
	And I hope...
	Oh, hold on a second.
	I think I might have missed a super chat going back.
	Here we go.
	Can you keep an eye-opening regarding deaths last week of Dr. Sawicki, Seagal, and McKenzie employed by Trillian Health and Dr. Hannah's sudden cardiac arrest?
	Can't ask questions.
	There was another 27-year-old football player?
	Drop dead.
	I think best practice is to not break the law.
	No, no.
	AOC and the pro-choice...
	Protesters, they can block streets.
	She got arrested, but when they do that, when they block traffic and when they impede Congress or whatever, it's not an insurrection, it's justice.
	It's not an insurrection, it's civil rights when they do it.
	I've been trout fishing my entire life today.
	I finally get to try fly fishing for the first time.
	Fly fishing is fun.
	I once got a fly hook stuck in the back of my calf because when I whipped it behind, it got stuck and Fun story.
	But yeah, that's it, people.
	Let me see if I didn't miss anything on the Rumble rants.
	I think I just got a nudge from my kid that said, wow, look at the beautiful pictures we took at the beach, because I think that's where they want to go.
	Okay, so I might have to call it tonight.
	Oh, man.
	When school starts, when school starts...
	There's ants everywhere in this house.
	And there are little small ants all over the place.
	Okay, people.
	Thanks, chat.
	It's been very...
	And it's funny now, by the way, you notice the bots are not here now.
	Like, it's only in the beginning.
	The bots come in, try to disrupt things.
	I haven't seen any Russian sex bots in this stream, but Adam Germain was nominated by Chrétien.
	If I'm not mistaken, this is how bad I am on Canadian politics at times.
	Jean Chrétien was liberal.
	Let me just make sure before I do this.
	Liberal.
	Hey, Jean Chrétien went to my university.
	Liberal party.
	Okay, so there you go.
	Paid off.
	Jean Chrétien, I knew that.
	He graduated from Université Laval, my university.
	Viva Ana, Viva Ana.
	We're gonna do, oh, we got one here.
	Viva Frye, what was the straw that broke the camel's back?
	For me, it was when the truth was not a defense.
	Viva Frye, what was the straw that broke the camel's back?
	For me, it was when the truth was not a defense.
	In what context do you mean?
	For me, politically, in Canada, it was Quebec passing Bill 15, eliminating parental supremacy as the guiding principle of the Youth Protection Act.
	Politically nationwide in Canada, it was Justin Trudeau freezing the bank accounts and violently suppressing the protest.
	And it was the fact that too many people still support that, measure that decision.
	Too many people are not outraged about that.
	In the Bannon trial?
	I don't know.
	I don't know if that was about the Bannon trial.
	Okay.
	So glad you took the ramp.
	People, yeah, don't worry.
	I'm not going to do any pesticides with the dogs around.
	Thank you, Viva.
	This was a wonderful stream.
	I listened to the whole two hours.
	Thank you.
	Sorry about the audio, people, but couldn't do anything else today.
	I'm lucky I got it started on time because it was the last minute getting booted from what has turned into my office.
	You can't handle the truth.
	Truth.
	Truth.
	Okay, those are the infamous tiny death ants of Florida Run.
	I feel bad squishing them, which I'm not, but they're everywhere.
	They're everywhere.
	Okay, people, go!
	Rumble, I think...
	I think my kid wants to go to the beach.
	Okay, I don't think there's any more on Rumble.
	I think we've done what we came here to do today.
	Some predictable news.
	Bannon convicted.
	Some glimmer of hope from Canada.
	Pavlovsky acquitted.
	And we got one more.
	MSM CPA.
	July and August heat can be cured with AC and a pool or the beach.
	When January arrives and you're standing in front of your barbecue grilling, you'll forget about it.
	Thank you very much for the Rumble Rant.
	MSM CPA.
	Maybe that's the Mainstream Media Chartered Accountant.
	Okay, go, people.
	Get out of here.
	Have a good day.
	Get outside.
	Talk to people in real life.
	It feels good.
	Feels very good.
	And tomorrow night, it's going to be a banger.
	Barnes Viva, Sunday Night Stream.

▲