Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 26, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:55:21

Darrel Brooks GUILTY; Google CHICANERY; Nova Scotia Ban on Protest & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Day 74, being a girl, round of applause for the makeup.
	And I wore this outfit shopping today.
	And I thought that these might be my new shopping shorts.
	But I was walking around and everyone was staring.
	And I was like, oh, okay, what's going on?
	And they were all staring directly at my crotch.
	And I went, oh, I forgot that my crotch doesn't look like other women's crotches sometimes because mine doesn't look like a little Barbie pocket.
	And I thought, okay, Dylan, you have some options here.
	Number one, you can stop wearing clothes that fit like this and just find looser fitting items.
	Number two, I can do a tuck, which is going to have to be a whole other video, but it's very painful and involved.
	Or number three, I just normalize it and I wear clothes like this and we all just normalize.
	Women having bulges sometimes because we're coming up on bikini season, baby, and you might see a bulge or two.
	So normalize the bulge.
	We are normalizing the bulge.
	Women can have bulges and that's okay.
	We're not going to stare at their crotches while they're wearing their little shopping shorts at the mall.
	Thank you.
	Love you.
	Bye.
	I'm going to tell you this.
	F3Y Beckhart, I don't have a problem with this.
	But I'm joking in that I don't actually have a problem with this.
	I am actually now questioning whether or not this is one big troll.
	Whether or not this is one big Andy Kaufman-esque type troll.
	Whether it's an individual expressing themselves, but turning it into comedy content as well.
	Because of the sheer absurdity of it.
	There's one part in particular I have to focus on.
	Okay, what's going on?
	And they were all staring directly at my crotch.
	I'm going to stop right there.
	Nobody was staring at Dylan Mulvaney's crotch.
	I'll tell you why.
	I don't think it even happened in the first place.
	I could identify people who I might think are trans.
	There might be people who are clearly trans, and there might be people who are not clearly trans, who look like...
	Biological women.
	And even if they had a bulge in their groin, I wouldn't be looking there.
	I wouldn't be staring there.
	It wouldn't be noticeable that anyone would be staring at the groin crotch area of anybody.
	Trans, boy, girl, whatever.
	So I don't believe the premise.
	Second issue.
	And I went, oh, I forgot that my crotch doesn't look like other women's crotches sometimes.
	I forgot that my crotch doesn't look like other women's crotches sometimes.
	What does that mean?
	Dylan Mulvaney's crotch, insofar as it has a penis, never looks like another woman's crotch, and there's nothing wrong with that.
	But it has to be a troll.
	It has to be, how far can I push this before sensible, rational, tolerant people All the time.
	All the time.
	And there's nothing wrong with that.
	Normalize the bulge.
	Here's what you should normalize.
	Let me just take this out of the screen for a second.
	Here's what we should normalize.
	Not looking at other people's crotches, boy, girl, trans, whatever.
	But the idea that Dylan Mulvaney's purpose now...
	Having gone and met with the President of the United States, normalize the bulge.
	Normalize women having penises.
	There are women, by the way, who have protruding mons labia, the mound.
	There's women that have protruding mounds, flat.
	I don't know what the exact terminology is.
	Women's bodies are not all the same.
	So the idea that normalizing a bulge when some biological women have something of a bulge anyhow doesn't need to be normalized.
	That's just nature.
	Normalize women having penises, which is what Dylan Mulvaney is pushing right here, is erasing women from the planet.
	It is erasing what a woman is.
	It's erasing what a woman had to fight for for equal rights.
	And at some point...
	People have to say this is a comedy bit, and what makes it a comedic bit is its absurdity, despite being based in reality.
	I mean, we're talking about...
	Whatever happened with that teacher up in Oakville High School, in Oakville Trafalgar High School, whatever happened with that teacher?
	That fell out of the news real quick, and I'm still wondering whether or not that was a troll by a teacher who wanted to see, how far can I actually push this before...
	Sensible, tolerant, peace-loving people who would otherwise say, dude, do whatever you want.
	I don't care.
	Until they say, this is absurd.
	This is too much.
	A trans teacher coming into a high school doing woodwork, workshop.
	Where's my hair been?
	With a giant, two giant prosthetic boobs.
	Giant.
	But unhealthily, unnaturally giant with extremely protruding hard nipples.
	How long until...
	I'm thinking this teacher's like...
	How far do I have to push it before the board of whatever it is on the teacher's school, the board of school says, no.
	How far is Dylan Mulvaney going to push this?
	Normalize women having penises.
	Why don't you just tell me to normalize the erasure of the concept of a woman?
	Has anyone ever heard of it?
	You guys know who Reggie Watts is?
	Reggie Watts has that awesome hip-hop mock song.
	Called S-H-I-T-F-U-C-K Stack.
	It's a great song.
	You try to bleep out the swear words in that, there's nothing left of the song.
	There's a part where he says, I like women.
	I like women.
	I like the concept of a woman.
	And then in his rap parody, he says, I like to reduce that concept to an object.
	As if to make fun of rap music or hip-hop, which reduces the entity of the woman to jiggly bits.
	Waxing cars, etc., etc.
	This is a transgender individual, by all accounts.
	I mean, at any given day, Dylan can change Dylan's mind.
	This is a biological male now saying, normalize women with penises.
	Basically, normalize as women men who want to identify as women.
	It's the erasure of womanhood.
	Girls, girlhood.
	And I am now getting more and more convinced that Dylan Mulvaney is running a very long troll to see how long he can do this for, before which time ordinary, tolerant people who would otherwise say, do what you want and leave me alone, say, holy cows, you're not leaving me alone.
	You're rubbing it in my face.
	You're going to the president to erase the concept of a woman and do what you want on your own, but this has gone too far.
	Okay.
	I also figured I had to start with something that wasn't Justin Trudeau, that wasn't the Emergencies Commission.
	How is the audio?
	I got my installation, Matt.
	I don't know if it made it any better.
	And I'm not sure if this side of the office is any better.
	Good afternoon.
	Oh my goodness, I'm just wasting.
	I'm just wasting time.
	We're learning the lessons of what it means to displace temporarily, albeit long-term, to another country.
	Oh my god, the paperwork.
	And you go and you wait in line and you drive an hour and then they tell you to come back and...
	Sorry.
	Okay.
	MarioCarter13.
	Can't believe they convicted Daryl Brooks' lawyer.
	We're going to talk about that today.
	We're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about the inquiry, the latest updates.
	I'm running that stream simultaneously on...
	Viva Clips on YouTube where virtually nobody's watching it, but it's there for public service and not for viewership.
	And on a separate stream on Rumble, where interesting observation, there's like 1,300 people just watching the stream on Rumble.
	And it's much more convenient because you can't rewind the stream when watching it through the public inquiry website.
	You can't.
	There's no chat.
	There's no interactiveness.
	I pop in and out of that stream, but it's from 9.30 in the morning until...
	It went until 6 o 'clock last night.
	It's no Daryl Brooks trial in terms of the obscenity of the subject matter or the absurdity of self-representation of Daryl Brooks, but people want to watch it, so it's there.
	So you can go in.
	I'm going to pop in and out.
	I've been following the chat, engaging with the chat.
	If you're interested in that, it's running simultaneously all day, and I'm going to follow it as much as I can.
	But this is the non-inquiry stream of the day, and I actually should have made sure that we are successfully, simultaneously streaming on the Rumbles, which we are.
	So Daryl Brooks, guilty.
	Obviously.
	Now it's going to be sentencing.
	But we're going to go over something that happened yesterday.
	I was watching Rakata's live commentary because it's much more fun than just watching it on Law and Crime.
	You'll identify people with personality disorder.
	And I mean, I say it's more obvious in the case of someone who has run his vehicle and murdered people with his vehicle.
	Daryl Brooks clearly has personality disorder.
	Manipulative.
	I'll say mildly intelligent because he can learn rules and then apply the rules.
	Pathological.
	And you could see the judge in this, we're going to go over a clip, was dealing with it, but getting sucked into the pathological manipulative behavior of people with PD.
	Google.
	Oh my goodness.
	It's sick, it's insidious, and it's subtle.
	And what makes it so sick and insidious is how subtle it is.
	I got into a back and forth with Zuby on Twitter where, you know, he says, they're trying to gaslight us into thinking that they never said the Jibby Jab would prevent transmission.
	They never sold us on the vaccine would prevent transmission.
	And it's actually much...
	Now they're trying to gaslight us into thinking that they never said that.
	And then I was like, oh, no, it's even funnier than that.
	I wanted to go back and pull up Albert Bourla's tweet.
	100% effective.
	And I discovered something.
	It's actually sort of a black pill level, insidious, corrupt censorship.
	We'll get there.
	And we do have a white pill today.
	We're going to get back into it.
	We're going to have to refresh everybody's memory, but y 'all remember that injunction back in COVID in Nova Scotia where the lower court issued an injunction preventing outdoor protest.
	And I was vocal about it at the time.
	Not supporting that decision?
	Well, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has overturned it.
	We're going to read an article.
	The decision is long and tedious and I haven't gotten through all of it.
	But before we do that, we're going to start with one of our two sponsors for today's video because you may have noticed it says paid promotion in the video because Viva's got sponsors.
	Viva's got courageous sponsors who are not shy of supporting the fringed, hinged minority.
	With unacceptable views, who we're seeing from this inquiry are not so fringe, and their views are not so unacceptable.
	Field of Greens.
	Brickhouse Nutrition, Field of Greens.
	You've all seen it.
	I drink it.
	I use it.
	I get my vegetables, but for those who don't get their daily dose of vegetables, Field of Greens is a good, healthy substitute.
	It is powdered greens, but it's not a supplement, and it is not an extract.
	So it's not...
	An extract that you can, in theory, take way too much of.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's a food.
	Desiccated greens.
	They take the healthiest vegetables, the healthiest fruits, dry them up, pulverize them, and then you stir it in water and you drink it.
	It actually tastes good.
	It's sweet.
	It doesn't taste bad at all.
	One spoonful is...
	I don't have...
	Do I have my container?
	No, I don't have the container here.
	One spoonful is one serving of vegetables.
	You're supposed to have like five to six servings a day.
	Most people don't.
	Take a spoonful twice a day.
	You get two doses of vegetables.
	You get the antioxidants.
	You get all of the superpowers of the vegetables and fruits that people should be eating that most people don't.
	I do eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, but I still have my glass of Field of Greens a day, and it's good.
	And it's a better habit.
	I'm not doing the Red Bull this afternoon.
	It's a better habit than having a soft drink or something disgusting in the afternoon.
	You get a glass of water, you get a spoonful of Field of Greens, you wash it in, you drink it down, you get a cup of water and all of your nutrients, and it's delicious.
	Fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, 15% off your first order and 10% off a subscription.
	It's good, it's healthy, and people need their vegetables and their fruits and the antioxidants and all that jazz.
	So, fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, 15% off your first order, 10% off a subscription, and I thank them very much.
	It's a good product, and I use it as I do my best to do with all sponsorships.
	And I spent a half an hour on the phone with the doctor behind the company to get my questions out, get my answers, and feel good and feel comfortable about the product, about consuming it, and about promoting it.
	Okay.
	What do we want to start with?
	Well, we're going to take Dylan Mulvaney out of the mix.
	What do we want to start with?
	Let's start with...
	It's not Soylent Green, people.
	That's made out of people.
	This is made out of vegetables and fruits, and it's desiccated.
	It's USDA-approved organic.
	It's food.
	It's made in America, too.
	It's not Soylent Green.
	It's made out of people!
	Y 'all, that's from the movie...
	Was the movie called Soylent Green?
	I haven't seen the movie.
	I only...
	Let's see what we got here.
	Eat food.
	Just meditate and suck your energy out of the ether.
	You've all heard about that story about the woman who went to one of those eating air camps and died?
	There are people who...
	It does not promote hair growth because I'm still bald as an eagle on my chest.
	But okay, so let's move on.
	Let's move on.
	I want to start with the insidious because I want this to be front and center.
	Oh, and we're going to get to, oh, the debate last night.
	So why don't I have the gosh darn, this is not funny.
	That's for me.
	I put it up on Twitter.
	Oh, for goodness sake, now I have to go get my Twitter feed.
	So Zuby put out a tweet.
	Zuby, you all know who he is.
	He's a musician.
	Very, very, very smart individual.
	He put out a tweet that said they really want to gaslight us into making us believe that they never told us the jibby jab would prevent transmission.
	Here.
	It's so weird watching people still claiming that no one said the C-19, I'm going to say jab at this point, would stop transmission.
	As if it's not on video, the gaslighting and projection is incredible, truly.
	He's responding to someone else's tweet.
	And to which I said...
	Because we've all seen, we've seen this tweet.
	We've gone over this tweet time and time again.
	They said they didn't just, there's not video, there's only video.
	They actually tweeted about it.
	And the they, the they is Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer.
	This is his tweet.
	And by the way, I want everyone to do this exercise to see if we all get the same results.
	This was his tweet.
	We've seen this, I don't know how many times, if you go and look at that tweet.
	You're going to see a number of my responses to that tweet.
	Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa.
	100%!
	There are some dishonest people out there.
	Who might say, "Oh, no, no, no.
	You misread it.
	You misread it." He meant 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases as in hospitalization cases, not transmission.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	No, no.
	Go down to the next tweet.
	800 participants enrolled in South Africa with zero cases of COVID observed in the vaccinated group.
	So don't let anyone gaslight you with a dishonest, disingenuous, and above all else, factually incorrect.
	Manipulation of Bourla's tweet.
	This was what he was touting April 1st, 2021.
	By the way, the best defense...
	Hold on, the dog...
	The best defense?
	was an April Fool's joke.
	Hold on a second.
	Someone's got to walk the dog.
	The best defense, it was an April Fool's joke all along.
	That's not, That's a joke tongue-in-cheek.
	Don't let anyone...
	Gaslight you, manipulate you into thinking, oh, he didn't mean transmission.
	He meant in preventing COVID-19 cases and hospitalization.
	No. 800 participants enrolled, zero cases of COVID observed in the vaccinated group.
	So it's clear what Burla, CEO of the company that sold this stuff, was saying.
	But this is what was shocking when I went to try to find that tweet.
	I went to try to find that tweet because I recently downloaded all the videos and all the photos off my phone to clear up about 125 gigs of space.
	So I didn't have the old tweet.
	So I went back to Google like I typically do to try to find it.
	And I put in the exact same search terms that I always put in.
	Albert Bourla 100% effective tweet.
	And I noticed something different that time.
	I noticed something different today.
	This is what I noticed.
	I posted this to locals as well.
	Here.
	This is what I noticed.
	I went in.
	Okay?
	Stop, stop, stop.
	Pause.
	Albert Bourla 100% effective Twitter.
	And these were the results I got.
	This thing right here.
	800 participants enrolled in South Africa with zero cases.
	Okay?
	That's not the first tweet.
	That's his reply to himself.
	The data also showed the vaccine was 100% effective.
	Against severe COVID defined by, as we see in the third result.
	You notice what's acutely missing from the top search results with these terms?
	The actual tweet itself.
	But maybe I said, oh, maybe I did something wrong.
	Tweet.
	Put in tweet instead of Twitter.
	Oh, what's the first one that comes up?
	800 participants enrolled in South Africa.
	I can't click on it.
	It's not a hyperlink.
	No, the other one's just not there.
	Here we go.
	That's the one that comes up.
	But then later on, under different search terms, under different search terms later on, oh, what did I just do here?
	It gets even worse.
	The original result that had been coming up since I've been searching this, every time I go to find that tweet, it's in Google.
	Apparently in DuckDuckGo, the result is still the original one.
	And then when I went to search Albert Bourla, Albert Bourla at 100% effective tweaked, the first result that comes up, the data also showed the vaccine was 100% effective.
	Oh, it's back up.
	The world is right.
	I'm not going crazy.
	The data also showed the vaccine was 100% effective against severe COVID as defined by the CDC.
	Now, this one is coming up as the first search result.
	Same date, April 1st, 2021.
	The data also showed the vaccine was 100% effective against severe COVID.
	100% effective from transmission of cases and 100% effective from severe COVID.
	But the search results today are not the same as what they have been up until today.
	And now the top search result is one relating to protection against severe illness and not protection against transmission.
	Let me just see what anyone in the chat thinks.
	Am I going crazy?
	Or is that exactly what I think it is?
	Which is Google manipulating the search results now.
	Oh, some people are going to say, it has to do with the links that people are clicking on, and that generates different search results based on hogwash.
	Hogwash, because I've been looking up that tweet over and over again, repeatedly, for months.
	And the number one that came up was the result that corresponds to those search terms the most.
	And it was his original tweet.
	Now the one that comes up, for anybody Googling it, oh, they're going to say, oh, they've always been saying it was only good against severe illness.
	They never said it was good against transmission.
	Hold on.
	Let me see this here.
	Yes, you're crazy, Diva.
	You shouldn't be using Google to begin with.
	But if I weren't using Google to begin with, and I didn't notice this, there would be no one documenting how in real time they are Orwellian memory-holding reality.
	They are manipulating the data.
	So that people who now search it up 100% effective, the first result they're going to get, and they're going to think it's the only result, is going to be 100% effective against severe illness.
	Memory holding, the original search result that came up, 100% effective.
	100!
	Google is doing Google things.
	Google gonna Google.
	And it's not the same in DuckDuckGo from what I've seen from other people's results.
	Here, let's see this.
	If it sounds like a duck, it looks like a duck.
	It's a duck.
	And DuckDuckGo is no better because they've had their Ukrainian-Russian censorship on that platform.
	But yeah, it's also very selective because I purposely went deep and it refuses to feed it back to me selective.
	I think I know what that means.
	And Google has been searched.
	So anyways, that's it.
	I just discovered that today.
	We're witnessing the memory-holing of reality in real time.
	George Orwell was not predicting the future.
	It wasn't predictive, what he wrote in 1984.
	The idea of memory-holding, he wasn't saying something that hadn't yet happened and was foreseeing how it would happen in the future.
	He was providing a context of a timeless iteration of what has always been, what always will be.
	Government.
	Memory holes.
	The way they memory hole it, it just depends on the era.
	It depends on the means and it depends on the technology.
	But the idea that the government or Google or private actors or whatever you want to call them, the media, would memory hole information.
	It's no different than book burning, just a different iteration.
	And George Orwell was not predicting the future.
	He was taking the past.
	And he was reformulating it in a timeless iteration that anyone at any stage in history could say, holy crap, this really applies today.
	All right.
	So there's that.
	No, get this out of here.
	Let me see what's in the rumble.
	In the rumble discord.
	In the rumble discussion.
	DuckDuckGo was good.
	Not anymore.
	That is from HoHoHo7.
	HoHo.
	Now I have a gun.
	HoHoHo.
	Movie?
	Everyone knows what movie that's from.
	It's the best action movie of all time.
	Die hard.
	Pre-search.org first result.
	That is from Scott351.
	Go do the test yourselves, actually, and let me know if you get the same results.
	New Scotland TV says, Viva, they've been doing this for years.
	I'm surprised you just noticed.
	It's called SEO slash SEF.
	Search engine optimization.
	Search engine, I think, what mechanism?
	You think Google exists for your benefit or theirs?
	No, no, but I know they've been doing it forever.
	This is just a particularly insidious one.
	Like, I know the one when you look up, I don't know, you looked up American inventors and it gave you a whole list of things that people said were politically motivated.
	I know.
	Okay, so that's good.
	What else?
	Before we mosey on over to the rumbles, let's just get another fun one.
	House of Cards was a great show.
	There I said it.
	You know, and it is on topic.
	House of Cards was a great show.
	The line that I remember was when, whatever her name was, what was Underwood, Claire Underwood, when she said, we don't, what did she say?
	We don't give in to terror.
	And then what's-his-face says, we are the terror, referring to the government.
	Well, let's just start with this.
	Let me get my headphones on.
	Oh, yeah.
	Listen to this.
	People are getting it.
	Good afternoon.
	I'm here today with my COVID team, as well as leaders from some of America's top pharmacies.
	Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, Albertsons.
	Remember everybody, we beat Big Pharma.
	Just remember that.
	And we're here with a simple message.
	Get vaccinated.
	We beat Big Pharma.
	And now go Big Pharma.
	We're going to give them money.
	We're going to give them immunity.
	And we're going to tell you to take something that we now say was never intended to prevent transmission.
	Go Big Pharma.
	Update your COVID vaccine.
	It's incredibly effective, but the truth is not enough people are getting it.
	We've got to change that so we can all have a safe and healthy holiday season.
	That's why I'm getting my shout updated today.
	What did he say at the end there?
	We've got to change that so we can all have a safe and healthy holiday season.
	Do you remember when he predicted a winter of death for the unvaccinated that never came to fruition?
	You better listen to him now.
	Get updated.
	But it's actually, it goes even one step further.
	It goes even one step further than that.
	We beat Big Pharma, and now let me go ahead and plug Paxilvid.
	Let me go plug the product.
	From the same company that made a product that doesn't work the way they said it was going to work.
	Do I have that clip?
	I don't have that clip.
	Let me see if I can.
	I won't find it.
	But that's not the point of it.
	If you want to avoid a winter of death for you and your loved ones, which never came to be, get vaccinated.
	This is an actual commercial.
	This is an actual tweet from the actual blue checkmark White House Twitter feed.
	Some of you don't live on Twitter or the social media as I do, so this is hopefully exposing you to what's going on out there.
	Listen to this.
	This is an actual video put together by the government that they actually tweeted from their actual blue checkmark White House Twitter feed.
	coughs
	Be afraid.
	Stay afraid.
	Get your annual COVID vaccine.
	Oh, by the way, I'm going to play it again.
	Whitehouse.Washington.
	Be afraid.
	When you hear something talk, be afraid.
	Get your...
	Annual COVID vaccine shot before Halloween.
	Look at that, people!
	Just like that, it becomes an annual shot.
	It's discreet.
	It's subtle.
	It goes from being a subtle insert into a government ad to being government-mandated.
	Although I think some states are going to fight back against that if it ever gets there.
	But now it's just annual.
	Get it.
	Bi-annual.
	Bi-monthly.
	But the government produced, literally, a horror movie.
	Of a video that they ran on their website.
	I mean, it is actually...
	What was this?
	Frank.
	It's Frank Underwood.
	This is the meme.
	It's the government literally, literally making the terror.
	Trying to terrify you.
	Trying to make you afraid of your friends, your neighbors.
	When you hear someone coughing, be afraid and go get your annual COVID shot.
	Do it.
	And if you don't, it's going to be another winter of death for you and your loved ones.
	We beat Big Pharma.
	Let me go see if I can find the Paxilvid statement that he made.
	Joe Biden is out there saying, Get your vaccine!
	Get your vaccine and if you get sick, take Paxilovid.
	We beat big pharma people.
	We beat them so bad they're running to the bank with it.
	The heck is that 18 hours ago?
	Where?
	Oh yes, son of a beasting.
	Whatever.
	You'll have to take my word for it.
	Joe Biden's out there pushing Paxilvid.
	Pushing Paxilvid, pushing the jab, pushing money, immunity to Big Pharma while touting to have beat Big Pharma.
	This is the year they beat Big Pharma.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	Ah, yeah, I found it.
	Add to stream.
	This is another portion of his...
	Wonderful, wonderful presser.
	Virtually every COVID death in America is preventable.
	Virtually everyone.
	Almost everyone who will die from COVID this year will not be up to date on their shots.
	And by the way, notice he didn't say will not be unvaccinated.
	They will not be up to date on their shots.
	You know what that allows a dishonest government to do?
	To say, oh, even the double, triple vaxxed that died?
	It doesn't mean that the vaccine didn't work.
	They weren't up to date.
	Because they didn't get a booster within two months of their last shot if Walensky, the head of the CDC, is right.
	Or they will not have taken Paxlovid when they got sick.
	If they die...
	Virtually every...
	Oh my gosh.
	The levels of dishonesty here.
	Of wordsmithing of the devil.
	Listen.
	COVID death in America is preventable.
	Virtually every COVID death in America...
	Virtually every...
	So it's not every.
	Some deaths are inevitable.
	Is preventable.
	Virtually every one.
	Virtually.
	Almost everyone who will die from COVID this year will not be up to date on their shots.
	Not unvaccinated, will not be up to date on their shots, but listen to this.
	Or they will not have taken Paxlovid when they got sick.
	Or they will not have taken Paxlovid, a Pfizer medication.
	If virtually everyone who dies will not be up to date on their vax, a figure that is so bloody easy to manipulate in favor of supporting that foregone conclusion, or if you can't wiggle out all of the deaths, or they will not have taken Paxlovin when they got sick.
	Hey, you know what that's called?
	That's called setting up an argument that cannot be defeated because there is not a person out there who cannot wiggle all the data.
	To say, oh, that person who died, even though they were double, triple vaccinated, whatever, they weren't up to date.
	Oh, what's that?
	They just got vaccinated a fourth time a week ago?
	Oh, it wasn't the jibby jab that might have caused that.
	No way.
	No way.
	They didn't take Paxlovid because I don't know who the heck is taking Paxlovid.
	Paxlovid, whatever the hell that is.
	Oh, and by the way, if anybody, you know, happens to pass within a whatever timeframe of their second, third, fourth...
	Jibby jab, booster, up-to-date, whatever.
	Has nothing to do with that.
	That's not how stats work.
	If anything of that nature happens, totally unrelated.
	But, oh man, whatever.
	All right, let us bring this party on to Rumble.
	Did I put...
	Oh, you know what I didn't do?
	Because I'm an idiot.
	I'll put the links in afterwards for the sponsors.
	Or I might have to do it while I talk with you here.
	Oh, no.
	Actually, before we go, I got to do this.
	I got to do my second sponsor.
	Hold on.
	Where are we?
	Home title lock, people.
	Before we go on over to the Rumbles exclusively, link is over here.
	What happened?
	This mute works?
	Am I?
	You guys can hear me, right?
	Okay, maybe there was no audio on that.
	Home Title Lock is the other product which I actually use.
	Because I didn't know this, you know, moving countries, and Florida's a bit of the Wild West, things you learn.
	There is a very, not unique, but a very prevalent and not well-known type of fraud in America.
	And it's home title fraud, but not in the sense that people go and change your name off the deed of ownership of the property and then show up and say, hey, we live here now.
	No.
	Apparently, it's an extremely prevalent type of fraud where people borrow money against your house by pulling up the deed of sale from a local registrar's office or whatever they call it here.
	What do they call them?
	They pull up the deed and they borrow money against your house.
	Forge your signature, borrow money against your house so that what ends up happening is they don't show up and say, hey, we own your house now, but a bank shows up or a creditor shows up and says, hey.
	You owe us $50,000, which you borrowed against your house, pay up, and then you go to find the person who borrowed the money, and they're long gone, and you're holding a big bag of steaming dog poop.
	Home Title Lock basically watches your property, watches your deed, and not only notifies you, but freezes the ability to borrow if anyone goes to...
	What are they called?
	The local registrar.
	Someone's going to give me the name here.
	Oh, I can't remember the name now.
	The local person who has the deeds of all the properties, it's surprisingly easy to do.
	And I'm not just saying this actually at all because that's what the company told me.
	I called my insurance company and I said, is this type of fraud real in Florida, in the States?
	And they said, yes, and you have to protect against it.
	I was talking to a random dude as I was fishing on the Deerfield Pier who's into construction and home development.
	And I asked him, is this a real type of fraud?
	This is 100%.
	Home title lock is basically like 24-7 watching your deed to make sure nobody borrows against it.
	Anybody goes and pulls up your deed, tries to forge your signature, whatever, you get notified, they freeze it so that nobody can borrow against your house.
	$19.95 a month.
	And it'll probably be the best $19.95 a month you spend.
	If you never use it, you never use it.
	I have not yet used it, touch wood, but it gives me a very, very big peace of mind where I don't have to worry about it because I'm not going to watch the land registry myself.
	$19.95 a month.
	If you go to hometitlelock.com and you use the promo code VIVA, you get a $100 value assessment of title to make sure that your title is clean and good.
	And then for $19.95 a month, you get the protection.
	You get the 24-7 surveillance so that nobody's going to go borrow against your property and leave you holding a big steaming bag of financial duty.
	And I use it myself straight up.
	In fact, if you go to hometitlelock.com forward slash VIVA, I think there's a landing page with my beautiful face on it.
	Much shorter hair.
	But I'm there.
	And the links will be in the description and in the pinned comment right after the stream.
	So that's it.
	Real stuff.
	It's the Wild West out here.
	Florida is the Wild West.
	Yeah, there's Knockwood and there's Touch Gold.
	My kid's daycare teacher back in Canada was an elderly Indian woman who used to wear gold.
	So much gold.
	And then she actually was the one who told me that Touch Wood...
	Is a religious concept from touching the original cross, which is why some people have a superstitious reason not to use it.
	And touch gold is what she did, as it was her expression, so as not to invoke religious concepts, whatever.
	Now you know a little bit of a new interesting stuff.
	Did I have the link to rumble?
	I did.
	Here we go.
	All right.
	So, hometitlelock.com forward slash viva.
	You get a free $100 title assessment and fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, 15% off your first order and 10% off subscription.
	Now, mosey on over to the Rumbles because we're going to break down what personality disorder looks like.
	And I say Daryl Brooks made a mockery of his defense, but it's unfortunately a second type of abuse that you have to endure.
	In a functioning justice system.
	Whereas, you know, the injustice, even if you think Alex Jones is guilty, that Alex Jones experienced in a civil matter not exactly proper functioning of the judicial system.
	So mosey on over to Rumble, people.
	I'm going to end it in three, two, one on Rumble.
	Not on Rumble.
	Idiot.
	Ending it on YouTube now.
	And now, to satisfy my OCD, I'm going to go over here and see the numbers.
	There's a $2 rumble rant, and there's a $5 rumble rant.
	The $2 rumble rant says, the county clerk.
	Thank you.
	The county clerk is the word I was looking for.
	In Quebec, it's the registrar or the land registry.
	The county clerk.
	And Crash Bandit says, Google has been courting the data for at least three years.
	I showed that to a coworker years back using three different search engines to prove it.
	Sorry for my spelling.
	Don't worry about it, man.
	That's crash banded.
	Thank you very much.
	Oh, yes.
	Look at those numbers.
	They're going up.
	80, 90, 95. Oh, yes.
	Okay.
	And by the way, when I say that Daryl Brooks has personality, it's not a psychiatric definition.
	You deal with people long enough, and especially in the practice of law, you deal with a lot of people.
	And I know a lot of you only know me from the interwebs, but I did have a very flourishing, active, I will dare say modestly successful career as a lawyer.
	Just never liked it.
	Imagine that.
	Imagine being good at something you don't like.
	It's a curse.
	Oh, that flipping dog.
	Come on, let's go.
	Doop, doop, doop, doop, doop, doop.
	Oy!
	Yeah, this is Winston, the annoying dog.
	When you practice law enough, you meet people and you develop not a sixth sense.
	You just learn from error.
	You learn how to identify problem clients because there is nothing more destructive for a client's practice than bad clients.
	And I don't mean bad clients like bad cases.
	I mean bad clients who are manipulative, pathological, And who will end up causing you heartache, grief, and everything else.
	And the only thing that they will not cause you to benefit from is financial advantage.
	And by the way, even if they pay your bills, there's not enough money in the world for certain types of headaches of clients.
	And I've had my fair share.
	When you start off on your own, like the day I left the big firm and started on my own, You don't have the luxury of turning down clients.
	You also don't have the experience of knowing what a difficult client is, but you learn quickly.
	And your first reaction or your first reflex is to take every client.
	You don't want to say no.
	Saying no is hard.
	You don't want to say no because it costs you money.
	But you learn quickly.
	And boy, howdy, did I learn quickly.
	One day when I'm confident I can discuss the situation, all of which was public.
	I'll mention it, but I've had two devastating experiences as an attorney dealing with people who end up taking their own lives and, you know, in some cases, totally out of the blue.
	And in other cases, you say, my goodness, the only silver lining in this case is that the person took their own lives but didn't take anybody else's life with them.
	But one day we'll talk about that.
	For today.
	Suffice to say, Daryl Brooks is pathological.
	But obviously, he's an actual murderer.
	Oh shoot, my computer's on.
	Acquittal or not, he could have had an OJ acquittal.
	I would have still believed what I believed, but now I get to say, in law, convicted murderer.
	Pathological.
	Pathological, and it's an interesting thing.
	The type of manipulation, you'll notice for anybody who spends enough time on the internet, you deal with what people typically call trolls, and you see the same type of manipulation where you're never going to make headway because it's a perpetually moving goalpost.
	And it's a question of stringing along a person so that they end up saying something that they can then pick up on and manipulate and twist so that the person has to say more.
	And this is what Daryl Brooks was doing.
	It was the highlight from what I saw yesterday.
	The highlight is actually interesting.
	The judge was telling Daryl Brooks he could not raise the issue of jury nullification with the jury.
	I am no expert, and I'm going to talk about this with Barnes on Sunday because I do know that I have my own questions about why it is that you're not allowed talking about jury nullification with the jury.
	I understand there's precedent, there's case law that says a defendant cannot tell the jury that they have the power.
	To disregard the law.
	I mean, I think I understand the essence of the restriction.
	Bottom line, jury nullification, we all talk about it.
	It's when the jury basically says, we know what the law says, and we don't care.
	And we're going to acquit or convict, regardless of what the law says.
	Typically an acquittal, basically saying, we know what the law says, we know that otherwise this person should be found guilty, but we, for moral reasons with the law, moral reasons with the case, we're disregarding the law, we're disregarding the facts, and we are acquitting where there should be a conviction.
	Jury nullification.
	Very superficial understanding from a Canadian lawyer with no expertise in the area, but talk about it more with Barnes on Sunday.
	What's-his-face?
	Daryl Brooks, in his closing arguments to the jury, in which he displays another pathological form of personality disorder manipulation.
	And we're going to get to that, too.
	The judge says you can't...
	He apparently started raising jury nullification.
	He says, jury, get out.
	You cannot bring up jury nullification directly or indirectly with the jury, citing case law in which the defense was not even specifically saying jury nullification.
	They were basically alluding to it, and they were sanctioned.
	And they said it's not something you can raise in your closing arguments that you can put to the jury.
	And then this exchange occurred.
	Now, we're going to walk through it just so you can see.
	You're going to know.
	The judge is simply not going to make headway with this guy.
	And this guy is going to pull out all of the tricks to manipulate, confuse, and hope in so manipulating and confusing that he gets the judge to say something that would be an actual bona fide error.
	Listen to this.
	I don't know if we're going to go through the whole...
	So my son got me this weird new tool for Father's Day.
	And at first...
	What is this?
	I thought it looked kind of crazy.
	I didn't really understand what the benefits would be, but I figured, well...
	In this particular case, you are...
	And by the way, yes, I was watching it on Arcadia because...
	If you're going to watch a live trial, A, there's no point watching it without commentary.
	And, you know, Ricada's channel is fun to watch.
	Let me see something here.
	I didn't realize someone called me.
	Someone called me a racial epithet on YouTube.
	On YouTube!
	Huh!
	The nerve.
	Okay, here we go.
	Let's watch it.
	Let's watch it.
	I'll skim through it.
	...very clearly telling me you are going to disregard...
	What I told you about notifying the jury about nullification, you have absolutely no right to raise that in front of the jury.
	It is improper reference jury nullification.
	I want to get to his responses.
	Inform the jury of their power.
	Okay, boom, right there.
	You forfeited your right to do closing.
	End it, end it, end it.
	And this entire discussion resulted around whether or not the judge basically says, if you're going to break the rules, if you're going to do something I'm telling you you can't do, You have forfeited your right to closing arguments.
	Your privilege.
	I never stated anything like that.
	And every case law that you just stated made no reference to closing arguments.
	It was all pertaining to being present for the proceedings of trial and for testifying.
	So by the way, this is what I said.
	The man's not stupid.
	You know, intelligent enough to be able to pick up on certain distinctions, but not necessarily even understanding distinctions, or maybe he does, and that's why he does it.
	Arguing with the judge.
	Sir, what I'm telling you- Now, one time did you- Hold on.
	Your Honor, with all due respect, I let you make your record.
	I didn't interrupt you.
	That would never go.
	This is...
	They're laughing because this would never fly with...
	Imagine a lawyer saying this to a judge.
	But manipulation.
	Over in court, if you're a lawyer...
	In case you decided, made any reference whatsoever to a closing argument.
	Not one.
	So how is me merely...
	I am kind of surprised she doesn't have a forfeiture of closing argument case somewhere.
	Very clearly requiring me to address this issue and to tell you...
	Very expressly.
	And that's the rule for your closing argument.
	When does he take off his mask?
	Hold on.
	To use the words jury nullification would run afoul even more.
	And so I am telling you that given my inherent authority in controlling the mode and order of this court to ensure courtesy, the quorum, and civility, and to ensure that this jury is presented with arguments that are proper under the law, I am hereby telling you I am in creating a rule.
	For your closing argument that you may not raise the issue of jury nullification in any way.
	Your Honor, hold up.
	Hold up now.
	Oh God, this is like...
	I'm the only one that has to be made ruse for closing arguments.
	Can you imagine the type of...
	I mean, obviously, this man's a murderer, so it's very, you know, type of personality.
	Hold up.
	Hold up.
	Perpetual victim, by the way, and we're going to see this in a portion of his closing arguments.
	Perpetual victim, which is pathological tell number one.
	Things happen to him or things just happen.
	He doesn't do anything.
	Perpetual victim, hold up.
	You're making rules for me and not for others.
	And my goodness, just to talk to the judge like that is...
	But not the prosecution?
	How is that?
	How's that down?
	Hold up.
	Mr. Brooks, I'm squarely faced with your defiance regarding the issue of jury nullification that is requiring me to address this issue and to tell you very expressly that that's the rule for your closing argument.
	This is the state of the justice system.
	May I ask for a legal reconsideration of your ruling?
	That request is denied.
	May I respectfully ask for...
	Matter of fact, I reject that ruling and take exception to that ruling.
	Okay.
	Take it to the appeals court.
	For the record, may I request a legal or factual basis for your rule.
	Not one pertaining to being present in the courtroom or testifying.
	Don't think this person deserves much more time than this.
	Who's got a guy behind him?
	What's this guy up to?
	Okay, so then the other judge, the other lawyer proposes a, you know...
	Kick him out of the room if he does it again, as if that would have solved anything, but to give his closing arguments in another room, but hold on.
	Proceed, but I think we should try that or something similar to that in an effort to get through this next step.
	I don't agree.
	I didn't notice what the copyright cucks over the law and crime.
	At this pace forever.
	No, you don't have to continue at all.
	She's trying to interrupt the bickering here.
	I'm certainly willing to try that.
	No.
	Control your own courtroom.
	That's what we can come up with, Your Honor.
	That's what we can come up with.
	I take exception to that ruler.
	For the record, may I respectfully request a written judicial finding of facts and conclusion of law on this issue, Your Honor?
	No.
	For the record, may I respectfully move for interlocutory declaratory appeal on this matter?
	Not with me.
	I'm not the court to address that.
	For the record, may I move to stay these proceedings until this instant matter is edicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, which this court has no subject matter jurisdiction.
	Denied.
	Based on what law of fact.
	Based on what law of fact.
	With this type of personality disorder, it's continually asking for more explanations, continually asking for more details, continually carrying on the discussion, the argument, so as to get you sucked into it.
	And the judge did well, and I think there's like, Watching it, there was so much pressure on the judge to not look like she was prematurely denying this abuser of his rights.
	On the one hand, I had this pressure not to cut him off too early so that he says, I was denied my rights to whatever, but on the other hand, not ending the discussion.
	When the only purpose of engaging in it and carrying it on by the interlocutor was just to try to get someone caught up in something.
	Just get her to say one thing that you can then seize on.
	But it was pathological.
	But this, that was just...
	Oh, you don't...
	Hold on, I don't have the link anymore.
	But, you know, you can go watch...
	You can go watch a hundred hours of Ricada's stream.
	The most, the most pathological part of it.
	And it's just, it's disgusting to watch.
	And it's, you know, some stuff is just...
	Unwatchable because of how upsetting it is.
	This.
	Perpetual victims.
	And in his closing arguments, you'll just notice, nothing is Daryl Brooks' fault.
	How do you take responsibility for killing?
	Running your car into dozens of people?
	How do you take responsibility for that?
	Beg for forgiveness.
	Acknowledge the wrongdoing.
	It was never the basis of his defense.
	But listen to this.
	Pathology.
	Mistakes that I myself have made in my life, I've made peace with God.
	I've made peace.
	I'm happy to say that my conscience is clear.
	His conscience is clear.
	This is where I understand Barnes thinks that there's a good argument that this guy's just not there.
	Because I believe, I trust him with my life.
	Victim.
	Having faith.
	Feigning emotions.
	I mean, it's just too easy just because this individual is an actual murderer, but like...
	Feigning emotions.
	Sympathy.
	Faith.
	Appealing to the things which are core to actual God-loving people.
	It's the ability to happen.
	Oh.
	Oh.
	A lot of lives were changed that day.
	A lot of lives were changed that day.
	Including mine, he said.
	Mine included.
	Mine included.
	It's not him.
	It happened to him.
	God's way is not our own.
	It's God's way, not our own, by the way, which is the narcissist part of this, which is he's basically attributing God acting through his own actions.
	He's basically equivocating himself with God.
	No matter how much sometimes we want to question, you have to have faith.
	He had his moment in the sun.
	And, you know, going back, you know, thinking back to my experience in law.
	With a client who I said is going to kill themselves and they're going to kill somebody else in the process.
	But for the grace of God, the individual only took their own life.
	Just atrocious.
	He's not mentally ill.
	He's evil.
	Ho, ho, ho, seven.
	There are going to be people out there who say that evil people are just mentally ill.
	The human part of the brain didn't develop.
	But setting aside all of the circumstances, watching his demeanor, it was pathological personality disorder.
	Things happen.
	Things happen to him.
	Equivocates himself to supernatural forces, God acting through him, crying, feigning the most core human emotions.
	Appealing to the most important beliefs that people have.
	Belief in God.
	Anyhow.
	Does Viva see anyone else other than ho, ho, ho?
	Says Ren is gayed.
	Yes, I do.
	Rob A. says narcissistic sociopath.
	I would tend to agree with that informal not diagnosis categorization.
	Nature lover freedom says he knows right from wrong.
	Ergo, sane enough to be put away.
	Oh no, he's definitely sane enough.
	Ho Ho Ho says, hey, I'm popular.
	One does not need to watch more of that trial.
	These people do not deserve infamy.
	They don't deserve fame.
	They deserve to burn in hell.
	And the victims of their evil deserve whatever peace they can possibly get in life.
	But the trial's over and he was convicted.
	That was the bottom line.
	I don't even understand what the purpose.
	Convicted.
	And may he rot in jail for the rest of his life.
	But very important, by the way, to be able to identify trouble in people.
	What was the book?
	It was the six-minute X-ray by...
	One of the behavior panels that we had on...
	Read a book on how to identify personality disorder.
	Set aside the issue of judgment.
	Set aside that.
	Identify people with personality disorder and you will avoid a lot of heartache in life and in your profession.
	You might end up effectively a total loner like myself who has no...
	I got friends now.
	I think I've got a few friends.
	Learn how to identify...
	Problem clients?
	Oh, I think I did it.
	I will close out with that video.
	Learn how to identify problem clients.
	You will save yourself grief in your life, in your professional, personal, and overall, you'll save grief, ton of grief.
	Just learn how to identify the important telltale features that are highly indicative of individuals who are going to bring nothing but grief to your life.
	All right.
	What do we got here?
	I've got caps but no gowns, says stick in the pud.
	He seems like a full dark triad psychopath, narcissistic Machiavellian.
	I've never heard of Machiavellian as a psychiatric disorder, but anyone who has not read Machiavelli's Prince must read it.
	But yeah, just awful, just evil.
	Just disgusting.
	Anyhow, he abused of the system after committing his crime on the people, and he's had his moment of spotlight.
	See what he thinks about his appeal.
	Okay.
	Other things.
	I just want to see what we're doing here.
	There's still 1,120 people watching the Emergencies Act livestream.
	Fantastic and fascinating.
	Okay, I've got more in the backdrop here.
	What were the other stories of the day?
	So, Rob, hold on.
	I'm just going to close this because we don't need it in the backdrop anymore.
	And I don't know who's going to remember this.
	Let me see if anyone's going to remember this story.
	But back this summer, the government got, I believe it was an ex parte injunction.
	Banning outdoor protests against COVID restrictions.
	Ex parte injunction, Nova Scotia 2021.
	Let me see if I can find an article from The Time.
	Not an article from today.
	Okay.
	See if I can find this here.
	COVID.
	Because I covered it amply at the time, and it was an absolute outrage.
	Here we go.
	Well, here's the article.
	Here we go.
	There we go.
	I got an article about it.
	Perfect.
	This one's from...
	Oh, good.
	It's very fitting.
	It's an article from the CBC not complaining about the injunction, and it's going to be an article from the CBC today not saying that there was a very big problem with the injunction, which there should have been to anybody with half a brain and half a conscience.
	Okay, can we get the article, please?
	Here we go.
	Province gets injunction to block all anti-public health orders protests.
	This is Nova Scotia.
	This is when I said our Constitution, our Charter of Rights, is being shredded and the courts are complicit.
	Because it's one thing for the government to ask for an abusive injunction.
	It's another thing for the lower courts to issue that injunction.
	Let me just make sure we're looking at the same thing.
	For anybody who's been around the channel for long enough, I covered this at the time.
	And it's, you know, we're living through, at the very least, a writing of the ship at the judicial level.
	And I said at the time, look, lower-level courts, it's not that they're dumber, it's not that they're more corrupt or whatever, it's that there's more of them.
	And the ones who make it to the higher levels, you got your lower-level courts, which are Superior Court in Quebec, they call it the Supreme Court in certain provinces, but it's the first level, one judge.
	Then you get your appeals level, which is typically three judges.
	And then you get your Supreme Court, which is for all of Canada, and that's seven judges.
	Lower-level judges tend to get things wrong, and that's why you have the appeal.
	Not ten, I'm sorry, let me rephrase that.
	When they get things wrong, it goes up to the higher level, and more brains are better than one.
	And also typically the judges that get appointed to the appellate level have shown that they're good judges at the lower level.
	So you get a bit more consistency coming out of the top.
	Province gets injunction to block all anti-public health order protests.
	May 2021.
	Ban prevents groups from staging illegal gatherings in defiance of public outdoor protests, people.
	I'm not going to go through the whole article.
	The provincial government has been granted an injunction that will put a stop to all anti-vaccine and anti-public health order protests, including an anti-mask rally that was planned for Sunday, Saturday in Halifax.
	Can you imagine?
	The government went to court to get an injunction to deny the citizens of their charter right to peaceful assembly.
	How?
	How can that happen?
	It's an emergency.
	It's unsafe.
	It's dangerous.
	That was their argument.
	Outdoor gatherings were dangerous.
	This is the same...
	No, I'm sorry.
	This is a year after the summer of love.
	Outdoor gatherings to protest the COVID measures?
	Illegal.
	A lawyer from the province appeared before a justice of the Supreme Court on Friday to make the argument for the ban.
	Urgent request for the ban.
	The ban prevents...
	Freedom Nova Scotia and similar groups from staging illegal gatherings in defiance of Nova Scotia's health orders.
	Now, I think they also got it ex parte, if I'm not mistaken.
	Yeah.
	Here we go.
	Friday's court hearing is what is called ex parte application, meaning the organizers of the protesters weren't notified ahead of time that the court action was taking place and they did not attend the hearing.
	Can you imagine that?
	It's not just that they're shredding your charter rights.
	They're doing it by denying you another one of your charter rights, the right to be heard.
	Actually, I don't know the rule of adi alter impartum, the right to be heard.
	Is that in the charter specifically?
	I'm sure it's in there implicitly.
	It's not just that they shredded the charter rights.
	Peaceful protest, peaceful assembly in the charter.
	They did it ex parte.
	In a hearing that didn't involve the affected party.
	Nobody was there to present the opposite side.
	And when it's an ex parte hearing, the party presenting...
	Let's take a pause right here.
	That's all we need to know.
	Ex parte hearing.
	Typically when something is an ex parte hearing.
	Urgency.
	Absolute urgency.
	If we don't get it this afternoon, the house is going to be bulldozed this evening.
	It's probably not a good example.
	But it's close enough.
	If we don't get it urgent and so urgently that we can't even notify the other party, it will become academic.
	It will become without object.
	That's one basis for the ex parte.
	Another basis for the ex parte is that if we notify the defendants, they're going to do something to frustrate the injunction, and so we can't notify them for the sake of justice.
	Not this case.
	This case is, it's so urgent, we can't even notify the other parties and allow them to be present to make opposing representations.
	To present their own position.
	To be heard.
	And typically, by the way, when parties do that, if they're on an ex parte application without the other party being present, they have a very positive obligation to present the arguments that the other party probably would have presented.
	Full disclosure.
	And so the court did this.
	They got the injunction.
	And now, finally, the Court of Appeal has stepped in and said, no.
	We are highly critical of this 2021 injunction.
	Does anybody hear the dog?
	Can someone stop the dog?
	I don't know if you can hear that Pudge is whining because it's 3.30 in the afternoon and she wants food.
	This is also from the CBC.
	By the way, it's Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, highly critical of 2021 injunction to prevent protests against COVID-19 vaccines.
	Decision released Wednesday said the province should not have applied for such a sweeping ban.
	Oh, no SHIT.
	Nova Scotia's highest court, that's the Court of Appeal, after that it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, says the previous provincial liberal government went too far.
	In its efforts to contain an anti-vaccine protest in May of last year.
	In a decision released Wednesday, the Court of Appeals said the province should not have applied for an ex parte injunction and a lower court should not have granted such a sweeping measure.
	No crap.
	But at the time, by the way, you had judges taking away visitation rights of parents if they weren't vaccinated.
	You had judges saying, if you go to an unlawful gathering...
	And then you come back and get somebody sick and they die?
	That's as good as manslaughter, in my opinion.
	It wasn't even an obit or it was just what a judge said in British Columbia.
	We were at peak insanity where judges felt morally justified in doing this.
	Ex parte desecration of our charter.
	Ex parte.
	The injunction was sought and made, was aimed at heading off planned protests, yada, yada, yada.
	As an ex parte application, the province did not notify anyone ahead of time that it was seeking the injunction, although it named some groups and individuals, including Amy Brown, Dina Churchill, and Freedom Nova Scotia as respondents, the defendants.
	Ex parte is a legal term, meaning action is requested by and stands to benefit only one side of the dispute.
	That's not what ex parte means.
	Ex parte is a legal term meaning an action is requested by and stands to benefit only one side of the dispute.
	Wrong.
	That's not what an ex parte means.
	Ex parte means it's presented in the absence of the interested party or in the absence of the opposing party.
	Ex parte is...
	I don't think I'm wrong on this.
	I think CBC is wrong.
	Ex parte means the other party is not there in the absence of the other party.
	The injunction was...
	It was eventually lifted.
	Moot.
	They don't have the right to go to appeal anymore.
	And the province tried to argue that the court action should end there.
	But the Court of Appeal agreed to hear an appeal by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association saying the case raised important issues of rights and freedoms that did not die with the lifting of the injunction.
	My goodness, we're at a point in time now, for anybody who's paying attention, where Peckford's federal charter challenge was dismissed for mootness.
	Where Maxine Bernier's case and others was dismissed for mootness.
	Well, you know, the Court of Appeal here said, no, we're going to hear it.
	And this should set the precedent for the Federal Court of Appeal to say, yeah, no, for the exact same reasons.
	They agreed to hear the appeal saying it raised important issues of rights and freedoms that did not die with the lifting of the injunction.
	Good.
	You know what?
	Maxine Bernier, Brian Peckford's Charter Challenge?
	Let me just use the exact same words.
	It raised important issues of rights and freedoms that did not die with the suspension of the impugned measures from the federal government.
	In their decision, the three members of the Court of Appeal panel ruled the province's original injunction request was too broad and should have been limited to three specific protests.
	The injunction not, quote, The injunction not only applied to those who were anticipated to contravene the public health order on May 15, 2021, but also to everyone in the province at any time in the future, the court wrote.
	And I said that at the time.
	Vindication, people.
	Vindication.
	Although this is not about me.
	It was obvious.
	The only question was, does someone appeal?
	And does a court say, yeah, mootness is not going to fly this time around.
	The judges said the province could have given at least some of the respondents a chance to respond to the injunction.
	Yeah, it's just a fundamental right of law called adi alter impartum, the right to be heard.
	The attorney general cannot be coy about material facts, the judges wrote.
	Oh, that's not good.
	That's what we call a judicial spanking.
	Cannot be coy.
	You cannot be dishonest.
	Moving parties who proceed without notice control the record because they invite no one else to court.
	It was not balanced or accurate to allude to but not describe the crucial evidence necessary to weigh whether an injunction was justified.
	Oh, who's this?
	Oh, that's the premier.
	Hey, look at that.
	Okay.
	The court also criticized evidence presented by Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Robert Strang, saying he went too far in his affidavit in describing the potential risk of these outdoor gatherings.
	You know why?
	I pulled up the articles at the time.
	The risk of outdoor transmission was virtually nil.
	There had been only two cases of outdoor transmission at the time, and I think it involved heavy kissing.
	Offering an opinion on future risk flowing from disregard of the public health order on which the judge relied for an irreparable harm finding was a bridge too far the judge's road.
	Dr. Strang should not have even been qualified to offer an opinion on that risk.
	The decision by Justices Duncan Beveridge, Peter Bryson, and Joel Fischot was unanimous.
	But the justice offered different reasons for reaching different questions.
	We can go on for that.
	Don't be coy.
	Don't be coy, government.
	You lied.
	You went ex parte.
	You didn't present any evidence that the other side would have presented.
	But hold on.
	Outdoor transmission.
	Don't take my word for it.
	COVID.
	It was in the Irish Times, I believe.
	Let me see here.
	I don't want to pull up just anything.
	Pretty sure it was Irish Times minimal.
	Let's see if that does it.
	Here we go.
	God darn.
	It's good, man.
	I have something of a memory.
	Outdoor transmission accounts for 0.1%.
	Now, admittedly, when was this article from?
	April 2021.
	It's old, but I don't think it's changed.
	0.1%, but outdoor transmission is such an imminent risk of harm, we had to ban your charter right of peaceful assembly.
	Well, thank goodness.
	Silver lining, white pill of the day.
	The Alberta, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal struck it down.
	Harsh words, because a court of appeals still has to be respectful to the government that they think was lying to them.
	And calling them coy, saying that their experts should not have been recognized, and it's an ex parte application, that's as much of a smackdown on the judge, actually, as it is on the government.
	So, yay, whoop-dee-doo.
	Viva's still using Google?
	KMK's here.
	Look, what else?
	Yes, I'm using it knowing that it's corrupt.
	I use Wikipedia knowing that they're totally biased.
	They're not totally useless.
	And by the way, thank me.
	I'll keep uncovering it and eternalizing it via these streams.
	All right, what else do we got?
	Because there's more.
	So that's the good news out of Canada.
	And it will serve as a good precedence because the logic applies perfectly mutatis mutatis mutatis to the federal court who pulled the chicken move.
	It's moot.
	It's moot.
	I don't need to hear it because they suspended the unconstitutional restriction on unvaccinated Canadians being allowed to travel on plane or train.
	They restrict it's moot now.
	No.
	Court of Appeal, it raises important questions of charter rights that do not disappear with the suspension of the impugned measures.
	Good.
	What else?
	What else did we have?
	Well, let's just...
	While we're on it, I didn't bring it up with Biden, but while Biden is pushing the jibby jab...
	This is the clip we saw earlier today.
	Get it.
	Got to do it.
	It's the only way you're going to avoid a spooky...
	I don't know what the hell that commercial was.
	I'd like to see Joe Biden.
	I'd like to see the government of America's order forms for the vaccine.
	This is from the Slovenia vaccine order forms between the member state Slovenia and Pfizer.
	And in it...
	Look, I don't know whether or not it's Pfizer that insists on the clause being in there, whether or not it's the government that wants it to...
	The government could not want this provision to be in the sales agreement, in the order form, given what the government's been saying to the people.
	So this has to be a requisite term that is compelled by Pfizer.
	As I would insist if I were Pfizer's lawyers, which I would never be because I'd rather...
	I'd rather not accept...
	I would not be able to work for them.
	So this is a condition that Pfizer, in all likelihood, insisted be included in the order forms for the vaccine with a capital V, because it's a defined term, where the member state, that being Slovenia, is forced to acknowledge certain realities about the product that they're about to buy.
	This was released, allegedly, according to a Gateway Pundit article.
	And various Twitter tweets.
	It was released under a FOIA request.
	The entire PDF of the order is out there.
	But this is what Pfizer insisted or negotiated or contracted or had included in their order forms for member states.
	The participating member state, capital M, capital S, because it's a defined term, and it's Slovenia in this case, acknowledges.
	That the capital V vaccine, it being BioNTech whatever, and I'm glad it's a defined term so I don't have to call it something that other people don't think it is.
	The capital V vaccine and materials related to the capital V vaccine and their components and constituents, constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the vaccine to the participating member states under the APA, which is the Something Purchase Agreement.
	It's going to continue to be studied as it's administered to humans.
	You know what that means?
	It means I was duped into inadvertently becoming part of a test.
	I shouldn't say...
	I'm not that stupid that I appreciated at the time.
	It hadn't been around long enough to know the long-term safety.
	Just hadn't.
	That much I took into consideration when...
	Effectively being browbeat into whatever.
	I'm weak, I'm a coward, and I'm whatever.
	We're part of the test now.
	The participating member state further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known, and that there may be adverse effects of the capital V vaccine that are not currently known.
	We don't know if it's...
	We don't know.
	We can't.
	We compel you to acknowledge that we don't know the long-term efficiency or safety.
	Thank you for your purchase.
	Tax dollars well spent.
	And now continue to promote it as though it's the be-all and end-all of the cure to everything that's related to this pandemic.
	Let's do a little update on the Canada...
	Emergencies Act inquiry, it's a load of crap.
	Anybody watching it knows it's an absolute load of crap.
	It's a behemoth of a load of crap.
	This inquiry, and I want to think that the judge is actually getting it, is showing that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was absolutely gratuitous, absolutely unnecessary, absolutely abusive, and absolutely unconstitutional.
	That's what's being revealed.
	But don't trust me.
	I mean, you can trust me, but verify me nonetheless.
	This is a highlight from today.
	And there's just endless, endless highlights to this effect.
	Listen to this.
	We heard from Deputy Chief Bell that the Emergency Act was helpful in allowing the police to establish exclusion zones.
	What's your view on that?
	I would agree.
	It was helpful.
	Although that we were planning under the common law authorities to...
	Planning under the common law authorities, which is existing legislation, legal framework.
	Create a zone where we could operate safely for both the police and the public.
	The secure zone...
	Options that were offered through the Emergencies Act was a benefit.
	It was a benefit.
	It somewhat provided a framework.
	Somewhat provided a framework.
	A legal framework that would be a lot more understandable.
	Understandable.
	For our members.
	Helpful.
	Understandable.
	For the community.
	And for the protesters.
	And in fact, the protesters as well.
	Because they know why we were arresting them.
	What was taking place when we were going to put that secure zone into effect.
	It was helpful.
	It was useful.
	So I said, this is how I described it.
	It was helpful.
	As opposed to, you know, the objective criteria of absolutely necessary because existing legislation is incapable of dealing with a national crisis.
	And someone said, Viva, you know, English, please.
	So, bottom line summary.
	The Emergencies Act, we all know this, it's the Predecessor?
	It follows, it replaced the War Measures Act, the nuclear weapon of Canadian legislation, to be invoked when there's a national crisis, a national emergency, a threat to government structure, to national infrastructure, to public health, a national emergency for which existing legislation is inadequate or incapable of dealing with.
	That's what it's for.
	When existing legislation is incapable of dealing with a national emergency.
	The Ottawa protest was, at best, a local problem.
	Some of you are saying, well, what about not the Coutts, but the other one there, the Windsor blockade?
	The Windsor blockade was over by the time Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act.
	Even if you want to argue that that was national emergency because it was infrastructure, which is still a very specious argument and untenable in my belief, or whatever.
	Nuclear option.
	When there's a national crisis, a national emergency, and provincial legislation or existing legislation is incapable of dealing with it or resolving it.
	One example could have been the ice storm back in 96. Provincial national emergency, where you could have said, look, the province can't deal with this.
	We're going to invoke the Emergencies Act and bring in the military.
	That might have been one.
	People were out of power for three months.
	People were freezing to death in their homes.
	That might have been one.
	A protest in downtown Ottawa that might be going on for a little too long, when this guy, by his own admission, is saying, yeah, it was helpful.
	No S-H-I-T.
	It was helpful.
	I mean, that's like Kim Jong-il saying, yeah, it's helpful to compel people to get haircuts to maintain.
	My power.
	Oh, Cuba, yeah, it's helpful to take people's passports to make sure they can't leave the country.
	Helpful is not the criteria.
	Useful was not the criteria.
	Essential was the criteria.
	And even the side asking the questions, asking, was it helpful?
	Oh, yeah, it was helpful.
	Thank you.
	You know what else would have been helpful?
	Tanks.
	So it's a joke.
	It's a joke.
	And the longer it goes on, the more the evidence is incontrovertible to the effect it was absolutely abusive, absolutely unnecessary, absolutely unconstitutional.
	And more importantly, the provinces weren't asking for it.
	And more importantly, the RCMP wasn't asking for it.
	And more importantly, freezing of the bank accounts afterwards, which some now believe, and I'm really on this, getting close to this boat.
	Was the only purpose of invoking the Emergencies Act?
	To flex your big muscle and show everybody out there, we can freeze your bank accounts.
	We can tell banks to freeze your bank accounts.
	Tell them we're going to immunize them to do it.
	Martial law is in an event of war.
	Martial law would be useful in quelling the Nova Scotia protests.
	I'm sure declaring the Emergencies Act would have been helpful in quelling protests anywhere.
	Oh, so now the criteria just went from the Emergencies Act, nuclear weapon of legislation, national emergency for which existing legislation is incapable of satisfying, resolving, to helpful.
	Thanks, Justin Trudeau, for shredding.
	For shredding and then desecrating our Charter of Rights.
	Hold on.
	On that note, on that note, I do want to show one clip from a movie.
	Let me see here.
	It was Harold Kumar interrogation.
	Harold has one R. Harold Kumar interrogation scene.
	Is it this one?
	Yeah, I think.
	Let me just see.
	I got to see if I can get this for you because it's the best scene ever.
	Thank you.
	Oh, no, no.
	It was the brothers there.
	Brothers.
	Here we go.
	The Rosenbergs.
	Lead the fifth.
	Okay, people.
	It's potty humor coming your way.
	But if anyone has not seen Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay, it's actually a classic.
	Here.
	Brothers are being deposed.
	Thank you.
	Five, right?
	Five alive.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	You want to know what I think?
	Here.
	Oh, okay, that's funny.
	Beecher, give me a copy of the Bill of Rights.
	The Bill of Rights?
	Fine.
	Just do it!
	Alright, you know what?
	The punchline is dirty potty humor.
	I can't do it.
	I can't do it.
	The crowd's going to be too angry if I do this.
	Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay.
	The Rosenberg interrogation scene.
	Go watch it.
	But all that to illustrate.
	Illustrate what our government has done with our Charter of Rights was very similar to what the interrogator there did with the...
	I think they pled the fifth?
	Yeah.
	It's a classic movie, by the way.
	Foul, nasty humor.
	Haven't seen it only because I never watched the sequel.
	The sequel was better than the original.
	Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay is objectively funnier than Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.
	The one that was terrible was a very special, you know, the Christmas Harold and Kumar.
	That was just terrible.
	Everyone pledged to use Rumble whenever possible.
	Remove fear of being YouTube banned.
	Then people start speaking freely.
	Ask Rackets.
	No, I'm just not sure.
	He takes the page and he rubs it in his butt and then he's like, this is what I think of your fifth.
	And then shows it to them and then they say, Why the heck is your ass so dirty?
	He says, don't ask questions you don't want the answer to.
	So classic, classic, classic scene.
	You can go watch it.
	All right, so there's that.
	But I know that there's more because I have more in backdrop.
	Hold on one second.
	What were the other remaining stories of the day?
	Something that was good?
	Oh, okay.
	Well, we're going to do this.
	This is not funny.
	Fetterman debated Oz last night.
	Fetterman debated Oz, and again, this is not a question of making fun of anybody.
	Period.
	Fetterman had a stroke last May.
	We did a whole segment on this.
	Oddly enough, it was a month after he had tweeted about getting the jibby jab and the booster jabs and whatever.
	It was a very serious stroke.
	Dr. Sanjay Gupta...
	CNN propagandists testified to how serious it was.
	They allegedly had to remove a clot.
	Apparently Sanjay Gupta was wrong about where they removed the clot from, but whatever.
	Fetterman had a stroke and it was a serious stroke.
	And a lot of people have been saying, oh my God, is Fetterman all right?
	His speech, it's all messed up since then.
	I did not know at the time I was reading a lot of these tweets and comments that he had had the stroke.
	He had.
	He agreed to debate with Oz yesterday.
	And it was...
	Unpleasant to watch.
	It was sad.
	And sad and not like pathetic loser sad.
	It was upsetting to watch.
	And more shocking still is how blue checkmark media types are saying he sure stuck it to Oz.
	This was his closing statement.
	Listen to this.
	Mr. Fetterman, you are first.
	90 seconds.
	Once again, I would just like to say that I...
	My campaign is all about fighting for anyone in Pennsylvania that ever got knocked down that had to get back up again.
	I'm also fighting for any forgotten community all across Pennsylvania that ever got knocked down that had to get back up.
	And I've made my entire career.
	Dedicating to those kinds of pursuits.
	I started as a GED instructor back in Braddock over 20 years ago because I believe it's about serving Pennsylvania, not about using Pennsylvania for their own interests as well.
	So to me, careers are refilled by Your underlying values.
	And my values have always been about fighting for forgotten communities all across Pennsylvania.
	All right.
	Thank you, Mr. Fetterman.
	Mr. Fetterman.
	It's not to make fun.
	There is obviously.
	And this is not Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
	I'm not a doctor.
	Your assessment is bullcrap.
	There is cognitive impairment here.
	There is processing impairment here.
	This is not a question of having difficulty formulating sentences but having clear thought.
	No.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	This is serious.
	And it's sad in that this man needs protection at this point in time.
	This man needs to, despite whatever life aspirations he had to be a politician or be a, what is it, a congressman, a governor?
	A congressman.
	There's an issue here that requires love, time, and recovery.
	Not political exploitation because it would be too politically compromising to either withdraw or find a substitute.
	Or as some people are hypothesizing, there are other players behind the screen, behind the strings, that have their own political aspirations and Fetterman is just the body to get them there.
	And it highlights the fact that politics is just disgusting.
	Disgusting exploitation.
	And when it comes to politics, and some people might say this is, you know...
	They'll say the left is more prone to this than the right, at the very least.
	For the time being, I don't know of any issues among, you know, clinical issues among people on the right.
	You got Fetterman and you got Biden.
	You got people who are saying Joe Biden is clearly, clearly demented, was clearly in cognitive decline before running for office, but politics being what it is, jack him up with whatever he needs to stay upright and formulate quasi-coherent sentences because you can't lose an election.
	Sacrifice the elderly.
	Sacrifice the infirmed.
	Sacrifice the vulnerable.
	Exploit the vulnerable for political purposes because politics over people.
	You are first.
	It's 90 seconds.
	Once again, I would just like to say that my campaign is all about fighting for anyone in Pennsylvania.
	That ever got knocked down, that had to get back up again.
	Everyone's making chumbawamba jokes there, but whatever.
	You know, I'm also fighting for any forgotten community all across Pennsylvania.
	Forgotten community across Pennsylvania's.
	Pluralizing the second word and not the first as intended.
	They ever got knocked down, that had to get back up.
	And I've made my entire career.
	Dedicating to those kinds of pursuits.
	I started as a GED instructor back in Braddock over 20 years ago because I believe it's about serving Pennsylvania, not about using Pennsylvania for their own interests as well.
	To me, careers are revealed by...
	Your underlying values.
	And my values have always been about fighting for forgotten communities all across Pennsylvania.
	It's like the episode of The Simpsons when Mo just needs Homer to stay upright for one round against Frederick Tatum so that he can collect his check.
	Something is really rotten here and someone is being...
	People think Fetterman, he's in this stubbornly because he has aspirations of being a politician, whatever.
	I don't think so.
	There's something awful, disgusting going on here.
	And it's exploitation of a human being for political purposes when they need the protection of their family and friends and not the exploitation.
	Just a warm body, a warm body.
	And that people would say, I mean, apparently the polls now show Oz at like an 83% favorite.
	But the fact that this doesn't even shock Democrats, and they're not saying, like, dude, okay, what do you want us to do?
	You want us to vote for someone who can't formulate a complete, coherent sentence?
	The fact that even Democrats are not saying, this is too much.
	We have some dignity as voters.
	Treat us accordingly.
	You got blue checkmark politicians saying he stuck it to Oz.
	You can expect his campaign to say that, but people who are supposed to be purveyors of truth?
	Disgusting.
	Just disgusting.
	Oh, but what was this one?
	Oh yeah, here, let's just talk about politics.
	Purveyors of propaganda.
	I don't, well, Amar Moussa, okay, rapid response director at the Democrats.
	You'll expect partisan chicanery.
	But look at this.
	This was a highlight from the debate with DeSantis.
	And Ron, Ron, you talk about Joe Biden a lot.
	I understand.
	You think you're going to be running against them?
	I can see how you might get confused.
	But you're running for governor.
	Manipulative, condescending, demeaning, hateful.
	Because despite all his rhetoric about being a unit, Chris has hate in his heart.
	That's why he sees it in everybody else's heart.
	And I'm aware of confession through projection.
	I do not have hate in my heart.
	I have great disdain for filthy, hypocrite politicians, but whatever.
	This is the punchline.
	You're running for governor, and I have a question for you.
	You're running for governor.
	Why don't you look in the eyes of the people of the state of Florida and say to them, if you're re-elected, you will serve a full four-year term as governor.
	Yes or no?
	Yes or no?
	Yes or no, Ron?
	Will you serve a full four-year term if you're re-elected governor of Florida?
	It's not a tough question.
	It's a fair question.
	He won't tell you.
	It's a fair question.
	He won't tell you?
	It's not a fair question.
	Because the rules, you liar of a politician, were that the parties don't get to ask each other questions.
	Not a fair question.
	It was actually an unfair question.
	It was against the rules.
	It was chicanery.
	It was cheatery.
	And then to break the rules, to be deceitful, to be dishonest, and then try to hold it against him for not having answered a question that he had no business answering in the first place by the rule.
	Break the rules?
	Break the...
	What is the word I'm looking for?
	Not quorum.
	Break the decorum?
	And then you got your foot soldiers.
	What a moment that tells you where Ron DeSantis' priorities are.
	Chris, Ron, will you serve a full for your team?
	Yes or no?
	Awkwardly stands it.
	It might have been awkward.
	But it was not the rules.
	It was specifically against the rules.
	And, you know, it might have been a fair question.
	Because it might be a realistic concern.
	I'm sure DeSantis would have a very, very good answer prepared.
	I cannot predict the future.
	And if Trump runs, I will probably leave it to him to run.
	But I cannot commit myself to that which has not yet occurred.
	But nonetheless, I will always be steadfast, loyal for Floridians and continue doing the amazing job that I've been doing for the last however many years.
	I'm sure he'd have a very good answer to that effect.
	Let me see something here, because there was...
	Someone tweeted...
	Not the response, rather, but the follow-up video.
	Not here.
	Twitter has found out that they don't let people scroll too far.
	Incognito, there you go.
	Whatever.
	Yeah, just, you know, politicians being politicians.
	Dirty dog chicanery.
	La Banque des Tulipses.
	It was...
	An irrelevant question says DVR down mark.
	Excellent, Viva.
	Excellent.
	He did answer.
	They cut him off.
	Hold on one second.
	I don't think he answered.
	Let me go to my ordinary Twitter feed because I know that...
	Here, hold on.
	I got to take these off because I still hear the inquiry commission through these headphones and it's actually surprisingly distracting to hear people talk.
	And listen to two videos while trying to talk and trying to re-chat.
	Some call it multitasking.
	Others call it pouring water on a blow dryer.
	Don't do that, by the way.
	Okay, it's not funny.
	It was here.
	Okay, there was this.
	There was this.
	Okay, here it is.
	Now, I'm fairly certain in response to my tweets, someone had responded.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	Let's see what we've got here.
	I haven't seen this yet, so I don't know if this is accurate or not.
	Okay, so we're watching...
	Oh, dude, what are you doing?
	18% on your battery?
	Okay, here we go.
	Not allowed asking questions.
	Oh, you're not seeing the video.
	I'm an idiot.
	My apologies.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	There's nothing better than watching...
	Okay, here we go.
	Oh, it's a fair question.
	He won't tell you.
	We did not agree on the candidates asking each other questions.
	Yes, thank you.
	Well, listen, I know that Charlie's interested in talking about 2024 and Joe Biden, but I just want to make things very, very clear.
	Here we go.
	The only worn-out old donkey I'm looking to put out to pasture is Charlie.
	Charlie, I saw that.
	So I did see that, but that's not really an answer to the question.
	Because that's technically true.
	He could still have aspirations.
	Of running for president.
	And then he'll say, well, in 2024, now my aspirations are to put out another old donkey, that being Joe Biden, who I don't think is going to be running in 2024.
	Joe Biden's not going to be running in 2024.
	All right.
	Let's see.
	I think we got everything that we wanted in the backdrop.
	Do we want to do a little stream inception?
	Hold on.
	Let me make sure that I got all of my notes and stories for the day out.
	Emergency Inquiry Live.
	Good.
	Daryl Brooks.
	Yeah, we did that.
	Nova Scotia decision.
	Twitter feed, Albert Burla.
	We've done it.
	But let me see if we can do this.
	How can I...
	Maybe if I do this?
	No, that's not the right one.
	That might be the right one.
	Ah, whatever.
	I'm not going to do it.
	If you want to go watch the inquiry...
	I'm going to go pop into that stream over there.
	Get to the chat and let's see if there's any questions, any chats that I missed.
	Bill C11 will allow them to ban Viva and other Canadian patriots.
	DJ ColorZone.
	Yeah, not ban, just downrank.
	Or ban.
	It's only a matter of time.
	Bill C11 is the online streaming act or whatever they call it.
	It's the act by which they want to govern the internet.
	The same way they govern radio and television, by applying it, by subjecting it to the CRTC standards.
	Yeah, they want to control the internet.
	Let's see what we got here.
	I don't think he will be breathing in 2024, says Sabercat0.
	I think he'll be breathing, but he's...
	And that's what we got here.
	Podcast purveyor.
	Remember, everyone, Christ explicitly said he didn't want your vote.
	He did.
	If you've got hate in your heart, keep it there.
	I don't want your vote.
	I want to be a unifier.
	I want to bring all Floridians together.
	Except for those bastards with hate in their heart.
	Those bad Republicans.
	Ontario Bill 100, Viva.
	I'll check out what that is.
	That's coming from Jay Babalit.
	Hiroshima says that would be political suicide.
	I don't know what that's about.
	So that's it, people.
	I think that's good.
	If anybody wants to follow us, support us, Locals is the best place to do it.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com Sponsors again, thank you very much.
	You've got fieldofgreens.com Promo code VIVA.
	15% off your first order of powdered greens.
	Desiccated.
	Not defecated.
	And 10% off a subscription and HomeTitleLock.com forward slash Viva, you get the free title assessment worth $100 and then $19.95 a month for peace of mind.
	And merch.
	I always forget to show the merch.
	Show us the merchandise, Viva.
	We have merch as well.
	Let me go to...
	The merch store is VivaFry.com.
	That's my beautiful, my wife, me back in Canada when I used to have shorter hair.
	And you can get whatever you want here.
	There's a ton of good stuff.
	It's made as responsibly as clothing can be made.
	I asked specifically that it not come from bad countries.
	So you can get a bunch of good merch there if you wanted.
	But I'm going to mosey on over to the...
	Emergency's Act Inquiry stream.
	Maybe go for a jog first, because as much as I ducked out earlier yesterday to do it, I didn't actually go for the jog.
	Oh, kid didn't want to go fishing with me.
	You know what it is.
	Okay, go.
	Viva Clips, we got the stream going, but it's better on Rumble.
	I'm going to mosey on over there.
	Everybody, as always, thank you very much for spending an afternoon with me, for spending time, for the support.
	Silver Lining today.
	The courts are coming around.
	The higher courts are going to get it right, hopefully more often than not.
	And today's decision out of Nova Scotia should apply mutandis mutandis to the dismissal for mootness of Peckford and Maxime Bernier's charter challenge and made the federal court of appeal say, gosh darn right, that was not a one-off.
	And we're not entering a realm where all the government has to do is abuse you indefinitely.
	And so long as they stop abusing you by the time you get to court, moot.
	Dismiss for mootness.
	So we're witnessing a real white pill.
	We're going to talk about it again Sunday night with Barnes and some other stuff.
	So don't lose faith, but don't allow your faith to make you passive and think things are going to be done for you.
	Get smart.
	Get wise.
	Talk with people.
	Continue to conduct yourselves civilly with dignity.
	There is no point winning a battle if you sacrifice your dignity in the process.
	Do not stare into the abyss for too long.
	Wait, when battling monsters, do not become the monster because when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares right back.
	Conduct yourselves in a way that would make your parents, your children, and your pets proud and you can do no wrong.
	With that said, go enjoy the day.
	I will see you on the other stream.
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	I got to play us out with a video.
	So what I'm going to do here is I'm going to go to YouTube.
	I'm going to play the video.
	How to identify problem clients.
	How to identify problem clients.
	Viva Fry.
	Good video.
	It's my parents' dog that died since then.
	I'll play a fair bit of this.
	And it's going to be cringe to watch.
	So I cannot change.
	Who I am or who I was.
	I can only watch the old videos cringe and revel in how far we have actually gone.
	Here we go.
	Let's watch this.
	Can you focus on my face?
	Tap the screen instead of focus.
	Must keep hands on 10 to 2. Have a good afternoon, people.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Crystal clear.
	Today I am doing my most important law vlog ever.
	But this is not just a law vlog.
	This is going to be my most important vlog ever.
	It applies to law and to life.
	Any service where you service the public.
	Any profession where you interact with the public.
	How to identify problem clients.
	I gave a speech on this at a law symposium before you two.
	This advice is applicable to any service-based industry and it's critical not just from an economic perspective but from a spiritual perspective.
	There's a saying that 20% of your clients are responsible for 80% of your revenue and 20% of your clients are responsible for 80% of your heartache.
	So pick your clients wisely.
	Think about it when you're working with your tadpoles.
	20% of your tadpoles are going to be responsible for 80% of your search results.
	Is that true or is that true?
	I don't even know what you do for a living.
	Have fun.
	Booyah.
	Kiss.
	Yeah, baby!
	We got it!
	Can we answer that?
	Please!
	Somebody help!
	My t-shirt!
	Put it back on and get on the table.
	What?
	Jokes aside, I do know what my wife does for a living.
	She's a postdoc in neurophysiology.
	Hello.
	She works at mapping the brain and determining which neurons control which eye movements.
	Yeah.
	Do you know how to identify trouble clients?
	No.
	Very honest.
	Generally speaking, the three big red flags.
	Urgency, flattery, and responsibility.
	And now I shall elaborate.
	Urgency.
	Whenever a client comes to you and it's an emergency, a flag should go up.
	The first question I ask is, is it a real emergency or a perceived emergency?
	Real emergency, they have to be at court tomorrow and they need a lawyer.
	Perceived emergency, they need to be in court in a few months, but it's important to them that day so it's an emergency to them that day.
	If it's a perceived emergency, beware because there's a reflection on judgment.
	If it's a real emergency, I then ask the next question.
	Why is it a real emergency?
	Is it a real emergency because they were served with documents the night before and they need to be in court tomorrow?
	Or is it a real emergency because they've gone through three lawyers over the last two weeks, had fights with all of them, and now they're down to their last lawyer the night before a hearing game?
	If it's a real emergency through no fault of their own, okay.
	If it's a real emergency through what can be suspicious behavior and an indication for future behavior, a flag should go off.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	to our next point What a life!
	Flattery.
	Flattery is the next behavior that raises a red flag in my soul.
	And you'll notice that flattery and urgency tend to go hand in hand.
	The difficult client will come to you in an urgent state, perceived or real, and flatter you, letting you think that you're the only person who can possibly...
	That you're the only lawyer in the world that can resolve their problem at this point in time.
	And there is a difference between coming highly recommended and being the only lawyer who's smart enough, young enough, aggressive enough to tackle this person's problem.
	If someone tries to tell me that I am a savior, I'm a great many things, but I'm not that, and I get suspicious.
	Okay.
	Oh, gosh.
	Oh, my God.
	Most often, excessive flattery is strictly to distract you or to lull you into a sense of confidence for some other purpose that you have to be asking yourself right from the get-go.
	And if someone thinks they know you sufficiently well to shower you with flattery based only on your website bio or a picture they saw of you in the paper, it goes to a question of judgment that, in my experience, will come back to bite you in the butt later on.
	Which brings us to the third red flag: responsibility.
	So this was a peculiar one because at least in the practice of law, you sort of expect every client to say that nothing is their fault.
	Oh, how's it going?
	But with the potential trouble client, you're going to notice that nothing is ever their fault.
	Everything is always somebody else's fault in the most conspiratory manners and in the most subtle manner.
	All three of these red flags play together to some extent.
	It's an emergency.
	You are the only lawyer who's right for them.
	And everything that's happened to them up until that point has never been their fault.
	And you need to be especially careful when the exculpation of responsibility is coupled with flattery.
	When they say, my other lawyers were great and smart, but they were just too busy for me.
	Or...
	I was too small a client for the big law firm.
	When someone tries to pass the buck while complimenting the person, bells should be going off.
	The flattery is a distraction.
	and sure as sugar you can bet on it they'll be saying the same thing about you to another lawyer somewhere down the line with a diesel gladiator and twenty thousand dollars cash this one-of-a-kind jeep is loaded with 17 you I'm going to go to the next one.
	I didn't slow anything down there.
	This is literally how slow the dog walks.
	Alright, we're taking a little break here because apparently it's a little hot outside and the dog doesn't want to walk anymore.
	Some other red flags, but less big red flags than the three we've gone over already.
	My personal favorite, the promise of future business.
	When a client now is promising me business in the future, like with flattery...
	There's a car coming.
	Hold on one second.
	Like with flattery, it is a distraction from the present.
	The promise for future business generally leads to negotiations over payments for current business.
	That can be a problem.
	Excessive name dropping.
	Also, like flattery and the promise of future business, it's intended to elevate someone.
	Flattery is intended to elevate you.
	Excessive name dropping is intended to elevate the client in your eyes.
	Look at all the fancy people they know.
	I find that excessive name dropping goes hand in hand with the promise of future business.
	Take me on, give me a discount now, and I will connect you with all of these fancy people that I know.
	Generally doesn't lead to good places.
	And lastly, Retainer.
	Any client who fights you for your retainer is going to be a problem client.
	Period.
	Period.
	Anyone who doesn't think you're worth your retainer at present is not going to think you're worth your payment in the future.
	Anyone who has difficulty remitting a retainer to you in the present is going to have difficulty making a payment to you in the future.
	The mentor I respect the most, my father, always told me that you are going to get stiff from time to time regardless of all the precautions you take.
	You are going to get stiffed on a payment from a client from time to time.
	The beauty is that you can sort of select which clients are going to be more likely to stiff you.
	If you knowingly take on a client with financial difficulties, you're going to be doing someone a Service.
	Knowing the risk.
	And so you just have to calculate what the risk is, what the benefit is, how much fulfillment it's going to give you as a lawyer, knowing that it's going to be more likely with that particular client that they are going to end up not being able to pay you.
	So that's it.
	And the most important takeaway, all of this advice applies mutatis mutandis to all service-based industries.
	Replace the word lawyer with contractor, agent, marketing company.
	This applies to all service-based industries where you are taking on clients from the general public.
	Anybody coming up to you with an emergency.
	Everyone they've tried in the past hasn't worked and it's always been the other person's fault.
	You are the right person for them.
	They need you at this very moment in time.
	Flags should be going off.
	And if they don't want to give you a retainer for the work that they absolutely need you and only you to do, you have to make a decision.
	Is the potential money worth the potential headache?
	20% of your clients are responsible for 80% of your headaches.
	Never forget that.

▲