All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 10, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:18:31
Vaxxed to the Max! True the Vote Update; Twitter Madness & MORE! Viva Frei Live
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning.
When officers arrived here at the Pelosi home exactly a week ago today, they initially didn't have any idea exactly what was going on.
They knew they had a high-priority call on their hand.
What was unclear?
What was happening inside the property just behind me.
This morning, Paul Pelosi is home, back at the house that became a crime scene a week ago today.
NBC News learning new details about the moments police arrived.
Sources familiar with what unfolded in the Pelosi residence, now revealing when officers responded to the high-priority call, they were seemingly unaware they'd been called to the home of the Speaker of the House.
Memory hold.
The front door was opened by Mr. Pelosi.
The 82-year-old did not immediately declare an emergency or try to leave his home, but instead began walking several feet back into the foyer toward the assailant and away from police.
It's unclear if the 82-year-old was already injured or what his mental state was, say sources.
According to court documents, when the officer asked what was going on, defendant smiled and said everything's...
High priority call.
So he had not been struck in the head before that.
High priority call.
They show up and say, hey, how's everybody doing?
What we do know.
Is he brutally attacked Mr. Pelosi and attempted to kill him?
After spending several days in the ICU, Pelosi, who is recovering from a fractured skull and serious injuries to his arm and hand, is now home, where Capitol Police remain on alert.
Investigators have previously said Pelosi did not know DePap when the 42-year-old broke into his home.
Why Pelosi didn't try...
Fear takes over.
Fear freezes people.
That guy's name was David Fryhan?
That's interesting.
Okay, that's because my name is David Fryhan.
Freezes people.
Freezes people is much different than allows fear to open the door, say hey.
Hey officers, I'm just going to go back to the guy that is a high-priority assailant.
I'm just going to go back into his hammering arms.
The 82-year-old, lucky to be alive, after an intruder nearly killed him in his own home.
Memory hold, everybody.
It's important to remember what was memory hold.
That was taken off the air, deleted, by, was it NBC, ABC?
Because it didn't meet their journalistic standards, because it was extremely damning for a narrative that we have not heard again since we initially heard about it.
Recall that the day after this happened, it was immediately being blamed on right-wing extremists, right-wing MAGA Republicans, two weeks before midterms.
People had questions, as did I. Where were DePap's clothes?
Because he was initially reported as having been found in his underwear.
That was subsequently also walked back by initial reports.
But they ran this report.
This was about a week ago, I think.
Like, well after the incident.
After having spoken to sources.
After having read the criminal complaint, which we read on the channel.
And when I read the criminal complaint, which described the door as being opened when police arrived.
The door was opened to which I simply casually asked, who opened the door?
Well, NBC or whatever the hell that peacock company is, they answered the question.
Pelosi opened the door to a high priority call.
And instead of saying, hey, officers, and darting, dashing, hiding behind the officers or saying, shoot that guy.
Pelosi allegedly, according to this report, opened the door.
Let them in.
And then went back over to his assailant.
And the police, who knew by this account they were responding to a high-priority call, show up at 2.30 in the morning to a situation where a 42-year-old man apparently is holding a hammer with an 82-year-old man who apparently they didn't know was Paul Pelosi.
And they respond to a high-priority call with...
How you guys doing?
You guys playing a...
You guys playing, like, knifey-spoony hammer at 2.40 in the morning?
And gave the assailants enough time to strike Paul Pelosi in the head with a hammer?
Oh, yeah.
And then they pull it from the airwaves.
Because apparently they have journalistic standards that were apparently not met, allegedly, by this story.
Yeah, they were playing hammer-spoony, playing knife-y-spoony.
That's a Simpsons joke.
So it's good to remember what was memory hold.
That was memory hold.
And much like the 60 Minutes documentary about how all this money and weapons were being sent to Ukraine and virtually no accountability for it, which they had to subsequently stealth edit and pull as well, don't let them forget.
And don't let whichever company it was, ABC, NBC, CBS, don't let them forget what they pulled.
Because that report was answering obvious questions.
And apparently people didn't much like the answers.
The powers that be.
Did not like the answers.
Okay, people.
I've got a story.
It's a fish story.
And it's going to blow your mind.
And I'm buying a lottery ticket today is basically the punchline of that story.
But hold on.
Let's just make sure that we are live on the Rumbles.
Booyakasha.
And we're live on YouTube.
Now, let's just see if we've gone demonetized.
My Paul Pelosi story on YouTube has finally been remonetized after a cool...
I don't know.
10 days or 7 days, whatever it was.
Oh, Mark Marks says, Viva, did we get high winds?
So, schools in the area are cancelled.
And I'm stuck at home, not just with my kids, other people's kids.
They're not stuck.
It's actually been quite nice.
So, we were fishing this morning.
I'm going to tell you the fish.
Yeah, we're demonetized.
Apparently, you can't talk about that Paul Pelosi story.
Request review, because every time, YouTube...
You manually review it and you manually approve it.
But we know that they don't want people talking about Paul Pelosi and the questions that people have that are just not being answered.
So this is going to blow your mind.
This is a true story.
It happened this morning and we have the better part of it on video.
We're fishing in the pond.
I'm fishing with a bunch of kids.
One of the kids casts and hooks those stupid ducks.
You know those ducks that float in the Florida ponds and they're all attached by ropes to the shore?
You snag your line in the rope or whatever it is.
Very rarely are you getting it back.
So one of the kids hooks it into the duck.
Okay, fine.
I try to do the bow and arrow technique to release.
And it snaps.
I lose the lure.
It's like one of those divers with the three prongs, whatever.
It was a piece of crap of a lure anyhow.
Tie up another lure.
And the kid goes back to fishing.
My kid, in the meantime, like maybe two or three minutes later, hooks a fish.
And it's a big fish.
And then he hauls it out of the water.
And it's like, it's not a bass.
It's not a Mayan cichlid.
It looks like a sunfish, but a little wider, like a sunfish shape with massive spikes on its back.
And it's a big one.
I'd say a good two pounds.
Hauls it out of the water.
And then we notice in the fish's mouth is the other lure that we just lost.
To the line, to the duck thing.
But it's not just that the other lure is in that fish's mouth.
My kid didn't hook the fish in the mouth.
My kid hooked the fish through the hook of the other lure that this fish somehow found and ate and hauled it in by hooking the lure that was already in the fish's mouth hooked.
Mind-blowing.
So we took the other hook out and the hook that he hooked it with, which is like a little blood worm on a jig, fell out.
And we all freaked out thoroughly.
Tilapia?
It could be a tilapia, actually.
That's a good point.
It was big.
And it fought.
And it was...
That's...
I swear to you, Dice Hazard.
I swear to you.
I have it on video.
And the only question is, on the one hand, I can't put other people's kids on the internet.
And I need to see if I can zoom in and enhance to see it.
A crappy dollar store deep diver with a three prongs.
Hooked through one of the prongs in the fish's mouth.
Mind-blowing.
Tilapia is gross as fuck.
I actually heard that tilapia is like the best freshwater fish to eat.
But no, I don't think...
Is it tilapia?
Oh, look.
Hold on.
You know what?
Let's do it together, shall we?
Google.
Tilapia, Florida.
I don't think it was tilapia.
I'll have to find it out.
I don't think it was tilapia.
It looked more like the Mayan cichlid than tilapia, but it was greenish-dark and not red and beautiful.
Definitely not a perch, no.
It was totally, totally astronomical fluke.
Okay, with that said, people, standard disclaimers, because we're getting into some interesting stuff today.
There will be no medical information.
There will be no medical opinion, no medical advice, period.
What there is going to be are reasonably intelligent people asking reasonably obvious questions that a totally corrupt media simply refuses to answer.
Sorry, not refuses to answer, refuses to ask.
But I'm not drawing any conclusions.
I am not making any statements of fact, period.
I am just asking the question because nobody's asking it.
And at some point, it becomes not only negligent not to ask.
It becomes culpable not to ask.
And we'll get into it with the lawyer who collapsed during the Emergencies Act inquiry yesterday.
Because I had to do a little deep diving on the internet because apparently journalists don't do it anymore.
You know, they report lawyer collapsed, condition unknown.
And here's what else happened at the inquiry.
I've deep dived and we're going to talk about it.
What else?
Elon Musk.
This is not a question of ragging on Elon, and this is not a question of cherishing the blue checkmark.
This is...
I see Carly Ellison is back in the house.
You subscribe to this channel, Carly.
I'm convinced this is double-edged satire, so thank you for the support, Carly.
Carly is actually the biggest fan that I have, and this is...
I mean, it has to be double satire.
Elon Musk.
This is not a question of clinging to the sanctity of the blue checkmark.
It was always idolatry.
The only thing is it's idolatry that is a functioning trust system or at the very least operating system of Twitter that is being messed with and we're seeing the problems with it now.
Democratizing the blue checkmark is a great idea.
Monetizing the blue checkmark is an even greater idea.
But monetizing the blue checkmark in a way that causes It causes cracks in the foundation of what Twitter was always understood to be as a source for information.
We're going to get into it.
It's not a walleye.
It's not a walleye.
Someone said it's a walleye.
It's official now.
The corrupt Biden dictatorship is in control and our fake democracy waddles and lurches towards disasters.
Theophrastus, do not get blackpilled.
It's...
It takes a lot of time to change the direction of a big, heavy ship.
So we're going to talk about Elon Musk because there's some tech student, some computer science student, eight bucks, ten minutes, just showed the fundamental problem with the pay-to-play blue checkmark system on Twitter.
What else was there?
True the Vote update, by the way.
I posted the highlight yesterday from Sunday, but there's been development since then.
True the Vote, Engelbrecht Phillips have been released from jail.
By order of the Federal Court of Appeals, who said, error in law to jail two people on contempt.
We'll go over that.
And also, the latest developments, the criminal charges against Eugene Yu, CEO of Connect, dropped.
Just like that.
Dropped.
Okay, but now we're going to start with the collapse heard around the world, or at the very least, heard around Canada.
Oh, by the way, I'm sorry.
At 1 o 'clock, Keith Wilson is coming on, give or take.
And I think maybe towards 1.30, 1.40, the Democracy Fund are also coming on to talk about what's going on during the commissions.
The Emergencies Act Commission.
Then we're going to get into the American stuff after we move over to Rumble.
Many of you know, you should all probably know, currently in Canada, we are having what is referred to as the Emergencies Act Inquiry.
Public Order Emergency Commission, the POEC.
They're going over the circumstances surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act by Justin Trudeau.
It's a six-week commission after which they're going to come prepare a report, findings, conclusions, recommendations, etc.
Yesterday, it was shocking and upsetting to watch.
A lawyer for the commission just up and collapsed.
During his presentation.
I mean, and you can't ignore it because it becomes disingenuous to ignore.
I edited it at the end because it's distressing to watch, which is why people have a moral obligation to ask certain questions.
So you have a phone call at 1300 hours, I think, with Deputy Minister Rob Stewart.
He says that there are 300 commercial CMV, that's commercial vehicles?
Yes.
So you have a phone call at 13...
So that happens.
That happens during a commission into the...
During the commission to investigate this context, the circumstances surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was in response to massive protests protesting vaccine mandates in particular.
Mask mandates as well, but vaccine mandates.
The commission has been set up to investigate the circumstances surrounding which Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act.
In the context of protests that were protesting mandatory vaccines and you have a lawyer for the commission collapse.
He did not die.
And I have it on good sources that he is alive.
He is alive.
I think we would have known by now, but I have contact people at the commission.
He's alive.
I tweeted it yesterday as soon as I knew.
He was with EMS.
But you go to CBC and you go to MSM.
And they report.
Collapsed.
It set back the delay.
They had to go to break and then change witnesses.
Condition unknown.
And then move on.
Just talk about the commission.
And it's becoming outrageous.
It's becoming outrageous and egregious.
People are going to say, well, he might have been stressed.
He might have gotten nervous.
It did not look like it was his first rodeo as an attorney.
He might have had low blood sugar.
Maybe.
He might have had a number of things.
But you remember once upon a time, whenever anybody was getting sick and going to hospital, what did the CBC say?
What were the questions that everyone was asking?
Oh, don't trust me.
Don't trust me, people.
Viva brings receipts.
Where was it?
It was earlier today.
Do you remember these stories were running rampant?
Some unvaccinated people are going public after getting COVID-19.
Will it convince others to get the shot?
CBC News.
Here's another headline.
CBC News.
Calgarian drops opposition to COVID-19 after traumatic ICU stay.
When people get hospitalized with the Rona, first question, were they vaccinated?
That's the first question anybody asks when someone dies from the Rona.
Among private citizens.
First question people ask, were they vaccinated?
Oof, they weren't vaccinated.
They should have been vaccinated.
Oh, when they're on their deathbeds in the hospital, allegedly.
Then the media is interested in their vaccination status.
U.S. radio host, who regretted vaccine skepticism, dies of COVID-19.
CTV News.
August, this is barely a year ago.
Someone dies from COVID.
Everybody wants to know if they were vaccinated.
Oh, let me rephrase.
CTV, CBC, Global News want to know.
When someone's hospitalized, were they vaccinated?
So they can blame the hospitalization on the absence of vaccination.
Set aside for the fact that...
Go look at the stats as to vaccination status versus hospitalization now.
Global News.
I chose not to get the vaccine.
BC mom battling COVID speaks from her ICU bed.
In those cases, legacy Canadian...
Government-subsidized media is very interested in vaccination status.
When people are dropping dead at abnormal rates, when the leading cause of death in Alberta is unknown causes, when 18-year-olds are suffering cardiac arrest during tennis warm-ups, when New Brunswick is reporting abnormally high all-cause death, when people are collapsing on camera.
In a commission that was called to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Emergencies Act being invoked in response to a protest to vaccine mandates, nobody can ask.
You're a conspiracy theorist for even suggesting that the spate of died suddenly, collapsed suddenly, might have something to do with something.
They don't even ask the question.
So I ask the question.
And I'm to be made to feel bad for asking the question.
And I'm going to say this.
Until I'm blue in the face, even though it'll fall on deaf ears to the likes of the people who want to demonize me for asking the question.
This is not schadenfreude.
This is not you get what you ask for.
Period.
I find it extremely upsetting to see 18-year-olds suffering cardiac arrest playing tennis.
I find it extremely upsetting to see articles in the news suggesting that young people need to get their hearts checked.
Oh, don't young people urge to check heart.
What article was it?
Young people urged to check heart.
Don't trust me.
I mean, you'll grow to trust me.
Doctors urge young people to get heart checked, to bid tackle.
Sorry, sorry.
Doctor urges young people to get heart checked in bid to tackle unexpected deaths.
June 2022.
I've been alive for long enough to know.
I've never seen this before.
Oh, but no, I can't ask.
When I'm seeing people collapse in real time, I can't say, hey, dude, might it be related?
When there's a spike in neonatal deaths in Scotland.
Not only can you not answer the question, they rule it out.
Doctors have ruled out the jibby jab as a potential.
It's irrelevant.
Nobody asks the question, and I'm to be made to feel bad and mean for asking the question.
I'm not asking it to rub in anybody's face.
I'm asking it because it's about time people start not being shy about asking it, and if there's a problem, that people can adjust course to prevent this from happening to anybody else in the future.
Nobody asks it.
And I'm going to be the asshole, I guess.
I'm forced to become the asshole by asking the obvious question that everybody's thinking.
Everybody knows they're thinking it.
By the way, just to show you that I don't have any sort of proclivity to connecting dots.
Since it seems no one from government-funded MSM is going to ask the question of the lawyer, if the lawyer who collapsed yesterday during the Emergencies Act was jabbed, Double jab, boosted, double boosted, triple boosted.
Since nobody will do it, I will.
How many jabs has he had and as of how recently?
Well, it doesn't take long for the internet to do the job that journalists are supposed to do.
And I'll find the individual who found it first.
It's going to be somewhere in response.
Here we go.
So not only was the individual vaccinated.
But based on a hashtag, he was vaxxed to the max.
This is from June 30th, 2021, so a year ago.
Presumably, vaxxed to the max means boosted as often as you can.
So, by the way, someone has a public incident.
Someone has a public health...
Call it a crisis, because that's what it is.
After having...
publicly espoused and promoted vaccination and all of a sudden i'm to be the asshole for asking what his vaccination status was The individual chose to promote a medical procedure for himself, for others, publicly, publicly and proudly, vaxxed to the max, and then...
This individual, and there were more posts, by the way.
This was not the only one.
There were more posts.
Then this individual collapses during an inquiry, and I'm not allowed asking the question, and I'm the nutcase for expecting mainstream media to ask the question.
If this individual were recently boosted, say within the last two months, I think we're entitled to know that.
And not just entitled to know because of the public statements made by this individual.
We have the right to know.
To the extent that the government is currently still pushing this policy on citizens.
And by the way, the individual looks like a genuinely nice person.
You go through his Twitter feed.
He's a government employee.
I mean, whatever.
He seems like a genuinely, genuinely nice person.
He might have, you know...
Vax to the max.
Hashtag Vax to the max is an indication of something.
But he seems like a good person, not toxic.
Although some people might find it toxic for politicians to be publicly promoting getting vaxxed to the max.
There was another tweet where he said he got his daughter for her birthday a vaccine.
But this individual can publicly promote a medical intervention for himself and for others.
And then when this person publicly suffers, An incident that we have been seeing far too much of, we're not allowed asking the obvious questions.
But of course, if someone ends up in the hospital with the Rona, obviously they get to be asked that question.
It's the public's right to know.
Oh, and by the way, if you want to go sit in a food court, then they get to ask you your vaccination status.
Collapse during an inquiry after having publicly promoted getting vaxxed to the max.
Nobody can ask.
It's none of your business.
You're a selfish bastard conspiracy theorist for asking it.
You want to go eat in a food court?
Get into a Canadian tire?
Go to a movie?
Go to a coffee shop?
Well, then they get to ask you.
And don't be a conspiracy theorist bastard.
Show your QR code.
What was I going to say?
To show that I'm not a reflexive, it's all about the jibby jab.
Who was the musician that just passed away recently?
Not every sudden death is going to even have the shade of it being a relevant question.
When that, I forget his name now, I don't mean to be disrespectful.
The musician who just died, suddenly.
And, you know, all early indications...
Carter, thank you, Aaron Carter.
All early indications was that Twitter timeline was overdose, drug addiction, battling addiction.
I mean, some people mistakenly, reflexively went to die suddenly.
Jibby chat.
From what I understand, the individual was not pro-vaccine.
I don't know.
But from all indications, you know, it looked like something else.
By all indications, I don't know what this looks like, but the fact that nobody's asking the question, despite a very, very public profile on the issue, I'm not the a-hole for asking the questions.
People are doing a disservice, a negligent disservice to the general public by not asking the question.
So, that.
I still want to know the answer.
And people deserve to know the answer.
Let me just pull up a few things.
Just, you know.
I get accused of connecting dots that don't exist.
That's fine.
I expect the people who don't ask the questions to accuse people who ask the questions of connecting dots that they don't even want to know exist in the first place.
Death unknown causes Alberta.
I mean, we've seen this.
Let's see how the media spun it since we last saw this.
Let me see here.
So, Calgary News.
Look at this.
Calgary News.
Check out the date, people.
Check out the name tag.
You're in my world now.
That's Happy Gilmore.
What is this?
So, why am I not getting an article?
I don't want a video.
Death with unknown causes, now Alberta's top killer.
July 5. Deaths with unknown causes, now Alberta's top killer.
You know what I've been alive long enough to know that I've never seen?
Deaths of unknown causes being the top killer.
That's what I know that I've been alive long enough to know that I have never seen.
Oh, by the way, don't try to factor COVID into that because COVID is the third top killer in Alberta now.
I've lived long enough.
I'm pretty young, 43. I've lived long enough to know that I've never seen this before.
I've lived long enough to know that I've never heard of SADS before.
And I'm a hypochondriacal, neurotic, general anxiety disorder.
I know my problems.
And I've never even heard of that, despite knowing what my hypochondriacy would cause me to notice in life.
But by the way, that was July 5th, 2022.
I haven't seen this.
I haven't seen this article yet.
April, May, June, July to August.
A month and a half later.
Fullfact.org.
I haven't seen this.
I'm clicking on this for the first time.
We go July 5, 2022.
Deaths with unknown causes.
Now Alberta's top killer from Calgary News, CTV.
To Fullfact.org.
Let's see what they say.
No evidence rise in deaths due to unknown causes in Canada is linked to COVID-19 vaccines.
Thanks, Fullfact.
Oh, I want to say something else so that you're full of it.
It's not facts.
I see Keith is in the background and I cannot keep him waiting for too long.
Let's just...
No evidence, people.
Don't worry about it.
Don't even bother reading the article.
Just go along with your days and never mind.
In Alberta, Canada, unknown causes of death are causing even more deaths than heart-to-see strokes diabetes.
That's the fact.
That's not what was claimed full fact.
That's what they stated.
Our verdict, other ill-defined and unknown causes was the leading recorded cause of death in Alberta, Canada.
However, there's...
Oh, thanks.
Oh, thanks.
Yeah.
So what was claimed is true, but we, full fact, have decided there's no evidence these deaths were caused by the COVID-19 vaccine.
You know what?
They might have been caused by another equally incompetent, negligent, and arguably criminal government response.
They might have been caused by stress, heart attacks, inactivity heart attacks, loneliness.
Loneliness kills.
And if anybody doesn't know that, look it up.
Oh, no.
It might have been caused by stress, loneliness, unemployment, drug addiction, all other sorts of...
Still government-related.
But they've looked it up and don't worry about it.
Deaths from unknown causes have not been linked to vaccines.
That's why they're called unknown causes, you jackasses.
Okay, I'm sorry.
I'm going to finish this up later.
Yeah.
No, no.
We don't know the cause, but we know it's not the cause.
Write that down.
Propaganda 101.
I cannot attest to the truthfulness of this.
Dana M spent over a decade as an EMT, and the sad stuff was news to me when I heard about it.
I'm an erotic.
My mother, if you think I'm bad, my mother's worse than me.
If sads were a thing, I would have heard about it as of whenever.
Okay.
No, I got to stop because I see Keith is in the background.
Okay, Keith Wilson is coming in.
He's going to give us the latest today.
Everybody?
You may know Keith Wilson from such amazing interviews as Viva Frye interviews Keith Wilson.
I'm joking.
Keith is representing the convoy.
Amazing stuff.
Keith, welcome.
Okay, hold on.
You want to know how neurotic I am?
Can you tilt your camera?
I can move forward.
I'm in a limited mobility situation.
How's that?
That's perfect.
Is it crooked?
No, no.
It's good enough.
I'll live with it.
I'm joking.
It's great.
Keith.
What's going on?
What's the latest?
Well, I mean, it's a pattern here at the Inquiry in Ottawa, which is every government official, every police official, every political official that gets asked the question, you know, did you either request the invocation of the Emergencies Act or were you able to resolve the problem that you were facing without the Emergencies Act?
They all say, no, I never asked for it.
And we were able to clear our problem at Windsor without the Emergencies Act, or we were able to deal with the situation at Cootes without the Emergencies Act.
But there is some intrigue starting.
We keep getting large document dumps in real time.
So two days ago, we received an additional 1,000 records from the federal government in addition to the 5,000 or 6,000 records that we had already received.
And understand that a record is not...
A single-page document.
A record can be one page, but as you can appreciate, a record can also be thousands of pages or hundreds of pages.
So we're plowing through that, and each time we dig deeper, we find more.
So you're going to see some really interesting cross-examinations next week.
I'm not going to reveal some of the surprises, obviously.
But one of the things that is emerging is there...
Commissioner Luckey's testimony is going to be interesting because it really seems she's just an arm of the Trudeau government.
And one of the puzzles is they had these public order unit teams that are pre-trained to deal with civil disobedience situations or protests.
And they were ready to go, and then they were held back, and they weren't deployed until the 15th.
And the witness that just came off the stand in the last few minutes confirmed that the instruction was not given until the 15th.
And remember, they invoked on the 14th.
So it's just, we know, well, at least I do, that this Prime Minister is a man-child.
And it really is becoming more clear to me from all of the evidence and the testimony that he just wanted to retaliate so badly against these blue-collar, hard-working, diverse Canadians who in his mind had the audacity to come to the capital city and camp out in front of his office and the parliament and say enough's enough.
So that's sort of my higher-level update.
I'm going to get into some more detailed questions, but the curse of assuming everybody knows who you are already.
Just five seconds.
You're working with the JCCF, but you're an independent practitioner.
You're representing certain individuals from the Freedom Convoy and Freedom Corp itself?
That's right.
So very quickly, I'm a litigator lawyer of 27 years experience.
I run a boutique law firm.
I got approached by the Justice Centre just before Christmas to help with some of their cases.
And I took on the Premier Peckford Charter Travel Mandate Challenge.
And then on February 1st, I got the fateful call to fly on short notice to...
To Ottawa to represent the Freedom Truckers, Tamara Leach, Chris Barber, Danny Bulford, Tom Marazzo and others.
So myself and Eva Chipiuk, we were on the ground throughout the protest, advising, dealing with the issues, negotiating with the police, negotiating the deal with the mayor to de-escalate.
And on and on it goes.
And I represent, dealt with GoFundMe, Give, Send, Go.
I've been dealing with the seizure orders, the Mariva, defending the $306 million class action lawsuit against the truckers, as well as being counsel here for them in the public inquiry.
And I think we've been on the ground 24 days of 48 or 45. So it's a deployment.
It's nuts what you're doing, because these are...
You don't get a day at court that is ever this packed and this long.
Maybe sometimes, but never like what we've seen here.
And Keith, just so people can understand, in the context of this commission, you'll tell me if I've got roughly all the parties.
You've got the government of Canada, who are going to be partisan defending their decisions, so everything that they want to prove is intended to show they had no other choice.
It was a violent terrorist crowd.
You've got...
The Ottawa Coalition, which I think that is the class action group, people?
Yeah.
Well, it's supposed to be a representative group of the citizens of Ottawa.
And some citizens of Ottawa and businesses in the downtown core, but they happen to be represented by the same lawyer that launched, the personal injury lawyer, Paul Champ, that launched the $306 million class action lawsuit and brought the Mereva injunction to seize all of the remaining donations that weren't already returned.
So he's trying to do a shakedown on a number of our witnesses through the forum in the inquiry.
But if you keep going down your list, because there's a lot more parties, I can help you with that.
So you've got the Ottawa Coalition, the class action, they're there to say this was terrible, disastrous, it tortured us, we have tinnitus and all sorts of lingering PTSD, etc.
Wait a minute.
Let's be fair to them.
Some of them believed there was a delay in getting Uber Eats.
Now come on.
Some of them got microaggressions allegedly for wearing masks.
No, no, that's not quite true.
Viva, we need to be a little bit more precise.
Some of them got microaggressions, but others just felt that there might be microaggressions.
So there's two distinct categories.
We shouldn't discriminate.
We should give equal time to both.
And another one, some of them thought it was an act of violence for people to go into restaurants unmasked because there was a mask mandate at the time.
So that's the coalition.
That's the class action.
You've got the commission itself.
And this is the one that people have a little bit of difficulty understanding.
The commission is supposed to be totally neutral, right?
The lawyer, his name is not Wolf.
Is it Wolf, the lawyer?
He's an older gentleman.
Oh, you're talking about Justice Rouleau?
I know where you're going with that.
Sorry.
The commission is supposed to be totally neutral.
The commission is not supposed to be partisan for the government or partisan for the convoy.
They're supposed to get people to lay out the facts.
That's pretty much accurate?
Yeah.
Let's finish off the parties first.
You also have the city of Ottawa as a party there represented by two or three lawyers.
City of Windsor.
Government of Saskatchewan.
Government of Alberta, all represented by lawyers.
Then there's a legal team of three representing former Chief Slowly.
There's a legal team representing the Ottawa Police Service.
And then there's the lawyers, joint representation, public interest with the...
Canadian Civil Liberties Democracy Fund, and then the JCCF as its own entity.
So there's lots of parties.
When you put a witness up, so we had to prep our witnesses, and I had to prep myself to be a witness, as weird as that was.
We had to anticipate to be cross-examined by as many as 12 different legal teams.
So it's a pretty intense process.
There's a lot of lawyers in the room.
And in terms of the nature of the process, I know that we're getting so many questions about this, and I want to see if I can clarify it, and hopefully my Wi-Fi is not crapping out here.
And it's this.
This is not like a trial.
This is an inquisitorial process.
It's not an adjudicative process.
Okay, well, what do those fancy words mean, Wilson?
What they mean is, normally when you're in court, the judge trying to decide whether the police are right or you're right if you're dealing with a criminal charge, right?
Whether you've done something.
If you're in a civil case, you've got competing views.
Two people in a contract dispute, one guy says he's owed money, the other guy says no, he's not.
The judge adjudicates it.
Here, they're not doing that.
It's an inquisitorial process where they're seeking to discover facts, what happened, not place legal blame or assess liability.
So the questioning is done by the commission's lawyers.
So when you see the first set of questioning done...
It's done by the commission's lawyers, and they've reviewed all the documents.
We all had this huge document disclosure process.
We put in thousands and thousands of pages of documents that we had.
Everybody else has.
And then they interview witnesses beforehand.
I was in a three-hour interview with four of their lawyers the week or two before I testified.
And then the commission lawyer gets up and slowly tries to...
Reveal what they already know about your evidence and discover it for everyone to see.
Then all the other lawyers get to go up and test it and cross-examine and surprise.
And we get to cross-examine our own witness, which is so weird.
If you're a litigator, you're just like, what?
How can that be?
And it's not unrestricted.
Yeah, well, that's what I was going to say, because I noticed Commissioner Rouleau, even when you were cross-examining your own witness, he was still treating it sort of like, It was your own witness, so you couldn't really ask your own witness in cross-examination leading questions, so you were sort of still constrained?
You can ask leading questions, but you can't kind of cross over into the, I put it to you that the truth is, you know, you weren't on Wellington Street, and that's the truth, isn't it?
You can't quite go into that line, but he's okay if you ask leads, and you lead the witness a bit.
But as soon as you sort of cross over into a hard, tight cross, and it's your own witness, you'll get shut down.
So it's not sort of unrestricted cross.
But as you'll notice, most of the questioning by counsel for their own witness is rarely open-ended.
It's not like, were you ever on Wellington, right?
Or what streets in Ottawa were you on?
That would be an open-ended question.
So that's the process.
And then at the end of the questioning, it's the commission's witness.
The commission's lawyers, their counsel, they get to do the redirect and then Rouleau, Commissioner Rouleau then asks any questions that he might have if he can stomach you anymore because for the witnesses he doesn't, he appears not to have a lot of time for, he just sends them away and that's it.
Doesn't seem to ask some questions.
Now I had specific questions.
I want to see if I can find the video of Brett.
Dogs seem to be going crazy for some reason.
Brendan Miller, when he asked a question, I loved it.
I need to pull up the clip.
I showed it yesterday, but I want to show it again.
Sure.
He asked the question just for the sake of asking the question, and it was clear he was not going to get unanswered.
Gosh darn it, where was it?
It's not here.
Give me 30 seconds.
Take your time.
But one thing that's becoming clear to me, Keith, and you'll tell me if I'm not wrong, is that...
It became clear that Trudeau wanted, he wanted to provoke a response by declaring the emergency, by invoking the Emergencies Act.
Is that fair to say?
In my view, absolutely.
Absolutely.
100%.
Here's the video.
Just scroll down to page five, please.
That's a couple of minutes, but this is where Brendan is.
I just want you to see that.
So on that document there, on February 3rd, CESIS assessed, there is no indicators that known IMVEs, and I take it you know what that is.
Ideologically motivated violence.
Violent extremists, yeah.
And then if you scroll down to the other bullet points, it states on February 13th, CSIS advised that the implementation of the EA would likely galvanize the anti-government narrative within the convoy and further radicalize of some towards violence, referring to the increase in violent rhetoric following the declaration of the state of emergency in the province of Ontario.
Furthermore, CSIS advised the...
Thank you.
Furthermore, CSIS advised that the invocation of the EA by the federal government would likely lead to the dispersing of the convoy within Ottawa but would likely increase the number of Canadians who hold extreme anti-government views and push some towards the belief that violence is the only solution to what they perceived as a broken system and government.
Following the invocation of the EA, CSIS briefed cabinet and reiterated the potential for the EA To increase anti-government views and violent ideologies, including in those not yet radicalized.
Now, can you agree with me that you would never want to do anything that could create further radicalization of extremists within the city of Windsor?
Is that fair?
I'm going to object to this question on this document.
Withdrawn.
And object to this document being put to the mayor.
Withdrawn.
I'm done.
Thank you, sir.
Okay.
I love it, Keith.
So here's two questions.
Practically speaking, question withdrawn, is that document still evidence?
That document is still evidence for the Commissioner Rouleau?
Yes.
Okay.
And question withdrawn, because the question is not for anybody but the general public, and the answer is irrelevant, because it's so obvious.
Okay.
When things happen in real time, people forget what came first, the violence or the declaration.
What we have here is CSIS, which is Canadian Security Intelligence something or other.
I forget what it stands for exactly.
They knew internally, or at least according to their own intelligence, if they were to invoke the Emergencies Act, it would provoke the exact response that they were purportedly invoking the Emergencies Act to counteract.
And when it happens in real time, people will forget what came first, the invocation or the violence.
I see this.
And you'll tell me how right I am.
This was Justin Trudeau doing exactly what he knew would provoke the very response that he was purportedly trying to respond to, so that he could then justify it to say, look at the violence, it was justified, or look at the violence, we are now justified.
Accurate or exaggerated?
Well, I think the evidence is growing.
And at a high level, when you are the leader of the most incompetent, Government that Canadians have witnessed in a lifetime.
You need to take very dramatic actions to get people to focus on things other than the Trudeau government's and his cabinet's incompetence and the harm they've done to Canada and Canadians.
So if you can provoke a spectacular event on a divisive topic that you've made divisive earlier, him being, you there being the Prime Minister.
Then that's the political move.
I was in a discussion with Tom Marazzo last night, looking at some of the documents we're seeing and some of the moves, and I've said, you know, some of this stuff is actually quite brilliant that they've done, and we know it didn't come from the Prime Minister.
So he does have some very conniving, smart strategists around him that trigger these events.
And I haven't had a chance to follow it because, you know, I've been so busy day and night with the inquiry, but there was some controversy about him going to a drag queen thing or something.
Are you aware of this?
Keith, he's making a guest appearance on Drag Race Canada.
Okay, so let me tell you what I think that's for.
What's the best way?
He doesn't want the attention on this inquiry.
He doesn't want people tuning in or talking about the evidence that's coming out because it's so bad for him.
So best way is to go on Drag Queen Canada, whatever the heck that is, because as I was discussing with some of my team last night, look, those who love him won't care, right?
And those who are more supportive of him...
Well, whatever, right?
But those who don't like him are going to be completely fixated on it and go, I can't believe this, and be talking about it instead of talking about the compelling, credible evidence that's coming from all of the officials, police officials, senior government officials, demonstrating...
That it was a complete overreach of his authority to invoke the Emergencies Act, and now the pattern that's emerging is that he was doing it as a provocative move.
So that's what this is an example of, I say, where the people around him, they're like, okay, we need a distraction.
Hey, is there some drag event we can send the Prime Minister to?
Let's do it.
Not just that, but then, and again, people, if you're going to reply to Rachel Gilmore, be polite out of respect to me.
Rachel Gilmore, Global News, retweets it.
Guess who's making a guest appearance on Drag Race Canada?
Skip to the 47-second mark of the promo.
Congratulations, Justin.
I said, why do you think this is good?
This makes us look like an absolute joke.
And then she says, how so?
And I said, first of all, it's crap television.
Set aside the drag part.
It's crap television.
It's like those reality baking shows, fix it or leave it or whatever.
I said, it's crap television.
Second of all, it's pandering of the highest order to distract from what everyone now is seeing as outright government abuse.
And he's got the media behind him.
Oh, stunning and brave, Justin Trudeau.
Go.
You've dressed in blackface.
Why not go on a show where they dress men as women?
It's nuts.
And I don't want to give it more attention than that because I did.
And now we go back to this stuff.
They knew by invoking the Emergencies Act, it would or could provoke a violent response, or at the very least, further solidify anti-government sentiment, further divide the country.
Fine.
We're now seeing, because the last few days have been Windsor and Coots, and I've got a...
You froze on me.
I don't know if I'm frozen on you.
Yeah, hold on.
Sorry, my internet.
There you go.
Now I know that it might be the storm, although the storm has passed us now, but it might glitch out again in a few seconds.
Sorry, people.
No worries.
He's talking to Ford, calling the protesters not very intelligent or not smart people.
And I know in what sense he means.
They're acting against their own interests by causing hardship for regular citizens.
I think he's wrong, but whatever.
But then he says to He says to Ford privately, you shouldn't need anything more than what you already have.
You should have enough with your police, have enough with your laws.
You got an injunction that freed up the blockade.
You shouldn't need any more.
And then five days later, invokes the act.
How do you reconcile what he does publicly with what he says privately?
I don't know.
I mean, maybe they hadn't yet realized how they could utilize the act in a way.
To really punish people?
I'm not sure about that.
It is a little bit of an anomaly, for sure.
That's actually a good point.
At some point, he realized we can invoke the Act, punish people hard, without bringing in the military, freeze bank accounts.
Keith, there's a lot of people who believe the only or the ultimate purpose of invoking the Emergencies Act was to test out freezing bank accounts as the ultimate act of lawfare, government warfare.
What do you have to say about that?
Well, it was a test, and we saw how quickly they could do it.
You know, what's really remarkable, Viva, is remember, the Economic Measures Act had three components.
Financial institutions, so banks, right?
And then the second one was insurance companies.
And then the third one was securities.
So, you know, RBC, Dominion Securities, your RSPs, your stocks, your GICs, all that stuff.
And of the three, Only one of them jumped into action and immediately acted, immediately withdrew all banking services.
And remember, it wasn't just that my clients couldn't use their debit card when they were checking out at the grocery store and couldn't substitute that with a Visa or MasterCard.
They couldn't then go into the bank and withdraw the cash out of their account.
They were locked down.
And any automatic payments for mortgage, for insurance, you know, automobile insurance or utilities or car payments or whatever, daycare, whatever, weren't coming out.
But what happened was the insurance companies were under the same restriction that they were supposed to immediately cancel insurance policies.
Automobile insurance, home insurance, life insurance.
And I think the insurance companies, and it would be interesting if they were ever called to testify here, as, well, why didn't they do it?
And it was like, I think they looked at it and went, we're going to do what?
Like, what is that going to do to our relationship with our customers?
What is that going to do to the trust of our industry, the trust in the brand of our particular companies?
And then same with the stock investment houses.
Like, they didn't cancel and terminate.
All of the investments to the extent that these various clients head them.
So it's really interesting.
You know, we've got the big five banks, the chartered banks in Canada.
Not six, not four, but we've always said five.
You know, there's these meetings you see where Freeland goes into the room with their leaders.
So it's really frightening the extent to which we now see the government can really control the bank and therefore control your bank account and your ability to live day to day.
Now that you mention it, why didn't the insurance companies do it?
We have that Supreme Court decision, Banque Nationale contre Sousis, where the bank called the loan liquidated assets and were deemed to have acted in bad faith even if they had any sort of a right to do it in the first place.
Someone asked this question and I came back now.
Are there any representatives of the banks or insurance companies testifying at the commission?
Not as of yet.
Just looking at what we've got coming up next week, because the schedule's set.
I don't know if it's public yet, so I probably won't name names, but there's some very high-profile names on there.
And then we're into the home stretch, so all the cabinet ministers have to appear, and Trudeau himself, still looking like he is going to appear.
I don't know whether he's going to get COVID or get a paper cut or what, but...
We'll see.
All right, excellent.
And then one more question.
Coots.
So I saw, I watched the, it was the mayor, or I don't know if it's the mayor of Coots.
I was only listening to his voice and he reminded me of someone from a Western movie.
I loved his voice.
I sort of loved his demeanor through and through.
What are the conspiracy, I'd say conspiracy theories, what are the theories about Coots?
Because there are a lot of people saying in as much as they seized any weapons, weapons Could be hunting rifles.
I mean, and this is a very hunting-oriented part of the country.
What are the non-sinister explanations for the potential non-sinister explanations of the issue at Cootes, the seizure at Cootes of firearms?
Well, he made some allusion to the guns being fake, the mayor of the village.
And what I need to emphasize is because...
As you know, Viva, like you, I know where you were during the protests in Ottawa.
You were largely in Ottawa, and I was here too.
So I had no time to pay any attention to Coutts.
And everything I've learned about Coutts has been long since I left Ottawa on the 21st of February, after the protests were shut down by police violence.
So I'm really...
I'm not a good person, a good source of authority on coots.
I'm learning what I'm learning along with everyone else.
But what I can say, which is sort of related, we learned, was it earlier this week or late last week?
It all blurs together now.
That the police here were considering a tire iron, you know, or the bar that you use to take...
The lug nuts off your tire if you have to change a flat or to work the jack, that that was a weapon.
So every single vehicle had a weapon in it because they all had emergency tools to assist in the removal of a flat tire.
So desperation reigns at times.
But the overall themes...
The number of witnesses that so confidently and calmly say, no, we didn't need the Emergencies Act.
No, we had the problem fixed before the Emergencies Act.
No, we had tow trucks without using the Emergencies Act.
As if the Emergencies Act was to get tow trucks.
Because the tow truck companies wouldn't do it allegedly out of intimidation or potentially out of loyalty.
So they had to be compelled to.
Can I answer a question that we're getting a lot on social media?
Absolutely, please.
It's died off a little, but the number of emails we get, all of us on the legal team, because people find our emails and it's fine, we welcome them, but why aren't you asking about this and why aren't you pursuing that?
Or how come...
This was said wrong and you didn't challenge it.
So first of all, this is not a process like a normal trial where if incorrect evidence comes out, we need to knock it out.
We only need to knock it out if it's relevant.
So for example, there was an issue about whether or not the fuel and propane tanks were stored properly at Coventry, the Coventry location.
Not only were they stored properly, like it was brilliant.
They had it in a meshed cage so it wasn't airtight.
They had it locked.
They had the full and empties labeled.
Like it was like some of these guys...
Like a gas station, a quality control.
Well, these guys, they're all certified in fuel handling.
You know, like who delivers the gas to your gas station?
A trucker.
Some guy doesn't pull up in a pickup truck and he's a service technician and he knows how to do it.
The trucker does it, right?
In any event, they even went as far as getting electrical permits for the...
Because they set up a whole electrical system through the tents and the kitchens and everything else.
They got permits in the name of the Freedom Convoy and they had it inspected.
And so somebody, some government official, some...
City official was saying, oh, it was a very serious situation because they had all this fuel and it could have exploded.
Well, first of all, it didn't.
But in any event, so someone was upset with us.
Why didn't we talk about that?
And the reason is, as you've seen, sometimes we get five minutes.
Sometimes we get 15 minutes.
If we put in a request for an hour and a half of cross-examination...
The most we're going to get is 20 minutes.
So then we got a triage.
We got, okay, is this relevant to the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
No, it's not.
Because whether or not the fuel was stored properly or not...
Is not one of the legal tests for invoking the War Measures Act, which is the Emergencies Act.
It's not an act of insurrection, you know, etc., etc.
So those of you who may be getting frustrated with us for not knocking out every incorrect point, we would love to.
But we just don't have that luxury.
We have to be very strategic in the time that we have, given the nature of this inquiry.
And I'll add to that, Keith.
It's not like the judge.
It's the commissioner who's the bottom line appreciator of the facts.
So it's not as though some people in the public are going to be misled.
To the extent that Commissioner Rouleau understands and probably does, you don't need to quibble back and forth on every detail that Rouleau has already gotten but might be useful for social media bickering.
So I always say Rouleau is going to get the essence of it.
It doesn't need to be made all that obvious in real time, and it could be argued or presented later on in closing.
Right, or we know that there's something we want to hit, and we go, okay, wait a minute, we don't got a lot on witness number seven coming up.
That's within this guy's knowledge, so let's move that point up to him.
So there's a big complex chessboard we're playing here, and it's not usually obvious what we're doing.
In fact...
Sometimes it shouldn't be obvious what we're doing because we're trying to get these guys into a checkmate.
All right.
Awesome.
Keith, now I see I got Mark Joseph from the Democracy Fund in the backstage.
What do we expect this afternoon?
Just more of the same, exploring what happened in Alberta and more of the relationship between them.
I'm trying to remember who the next questioner is.
I think we might be getting a federal witness.
I'm losing track here.
I'm actually working on, right now, I'm back at our FOB, our Forward Operating Base, monitoring virtually.
It's the beauty of this thing being live-streamed, communicating with my team at the table.
And then I'm also working on preparing for the witnesses next week because we have to do everything three days ahead of time.
So I'm actually more focused on what's happening next week than I am what's going on in the room right now.
And last question, to the extent that you know the lawyer who collapsed, we know that he's alive.
We don't know anything other than what long-term, short-term effects cause it, but he's alive and he's not deceased.
That's right.
And I was in the room when it happened.
It was pretty dramatic, especially given all the videos that we've seen of this new phenomena that I know you were talking about earlier, which troubles me as well.
This sudden, what are they calling it?
They're calling it sudden adult death syndrome, but he didn't die.
Now it's just sudden cardiac issues.
Yeah.
So this gentleman was probably running on very little sleep, as we all are.
And it appears that he fainted.
He did become conscious fairly quickly and was taken away in ambulance to be checked out at a hospital.
But my understanding is he's fine.
Justice Rouleau confirmed that this morning and that he expects to be back on his feet, back into the hearing room probably later next week.
Okay, fantastic.
Keith, you'll come back soon and give us the latest.
A hundred percent.
Whenever we can make it work.
And I'll put all your links.
I know what they are already.
So I'm going to put the links in where people can find you and support you at the JCCF.
And Godspeed.
Keep it up.
Thanks, man.
Take care, everyone.
All right.
From one lawyer to another people.
Now we've got Mark Joseph from the Democracy Fund, who's also going to give us the latest.
It could be exhaustion, dehydration.
Could be a number of things.
We've been noticing a lot of it these days.
So, okay.
Bring it on, Mark.
Get ready.
Three, two, one.
Sir, how goes the battle?
Hi, David.
How are you doing?
I'm doing very well.
How are you doing?
Good.
Thanks for having me back.
My pleasure.
So, we got, I think, the latest from Keith, but let's get the latest from another interest in this.
For those who don't know, who do you represent in the context of this commission, and what's the latest news of the day?
We're a party together with two other civil rights organizations, and we don't represent a specific party where they're just there to hold the government accountable for it, which we think is an unreasonable invocation of the Emergency Act.
All right.
And now we've been seeing the latest.
Are you familiar with the incident in Coutts to inform our audience, or you're not the best person to talk about Coutts?
I mean, Keith Wilson, your last guest is probably better informed than I am.
I'm just, you know, we were aware as everyone was, as it was happening, and then we're hearing more about it during the commission.
So I just know that there was a blockade and it was cleared, I think, prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
They didn't need the act or the powers to get it cleared.
So, you know, I know there were some charges arising out of a seizure of weapons, and I think those are still to be adjudicated in court.
But, you know, that's about it.
All right.
And now, as far as the, if we can get into a bit of the timeline, to the extent that it's, you'll know it offhand, there is some confusion out there as to when the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge had been resolved in relation to when the Emergencies Act was invoked.
It is correct to say that they got a court injunction and had resolved the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge before Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act?
Yes, I think that's the evidence that we heard at the commission, yeah.
And we're going to have our mini-commission here, but it's also true, Mr. Joseph, to say that they had gotten court orders to resolve one.
I mean, what is the government's rationale thus far in this commission as to why they could not get equally or similar court orders in Ottawa to deal with that issue?
That's a good question.
I mean, all I can do is read the Section 58 explanation the government put out that set out their reasonable basis for the invocation.
And I encourage your audience to go to it.
It's up on the Government of Canada's website.
And they reference the threat, security threat.
And that's defined in the CSIS Act, which is referred to in the Emergencies Act.
So that's why everyone in the Commission is going through that test.
They're referring to that test and they're being asked, well, were there any other laws?
One part of the test is that there's no other laws in Canada able to deal with this situation.
And so your reference to the laws that were in place, the injunction or the Municipal or Provincial Emergencies Act that allowed them to clear these protests is relevant because clearly they had laws and tools available to the government to clear the blockades.
That was mentioned, I think, in a letter that came out a couple days ago that Alan Hauner of TDS put to one of the witnesses about Exactly that, between Trudeau and Premier Ford.
That was the point.
Trudeau said, well, you already have the tools you need, Premier Ford.
So, you know, that goes to the test, is the point I'm making.
All right.
And now, I have been told that yesterday there was something of a bombshell of a document that was disclosed.
I didn't follow the entire day yesterday, but what was the big news of the day yesterday?
Yeah, so that was the letter I just mentioned.
That was between...
Sorry.
I'm sorry, it wasn't a letter.
It was a transcription of a call between Premier Ford and Trudeau.
And in that transcription, Justin Trudeau said to Premier Ford, you already have the tools you need to clear this.
And he wanted Premier Ford to take some action to have the protest cleared.
And the interesting part was that Premier Ford said, well, I can't actually direct the police.
You know, our system is set up.
Politicians can't tell police who to arrest, when to arrest.
You know, it's kind of fundamental.
So that had to be explained to the Prime Minister, which we found amusing.
But more importantly, you know, Trudeau himself acknowledged, I think your past guest mentioned, I think you mentioned that they already had the tools in place they needed, the legal tools.
So why the invocation of the Emerge Act five days later?
And I asked Keith, I mean, it...
Everyone is coming to the same sort of conclusion, perception that Trudeau was doing this?
A, for retaliation, but B, to also provoke a response that he ultimately never provoked, but for the grace of God and the patience of the protesters?
I don't know.
I mean, that's speculation.
I would love to speculate, but I'm a lawyer.
I have to be a little circumspect here.
I don't know.
I mean, all we can do is point out as we go through the evidence that there was...
No reasonable basis for the invocation of the Emergency Act in reference to the test that the legislation sets out.
And if the test can't be met, I think there's going to be problems.
I don't know what Justice Rouleau is going to write in his report, but that's a problem, I think.
Oh, I just totally...
Oh, I'm sorry.
You're not representing a party, but you're representing interests, sort of like an amicus in the context.
Do you get to call witnesses or do you get to ask for witnesses?
That you want to call?
Well, the commission sets out witnesses, and then interested parties get to cross-examine.
We don't have a lot of time.
Sometimes it's five minutes to cross-examine, but we can put in a request as between the three parties, you know, who wants to go up and cross-examine.
Of course, everyone wants to cross-examine the big guys.
But even some of the, I guess, the less, I don't know.
The lesser fish can reveal interesting things because they get the same emails that some of the bigger fish get.
I want to be a witness, but I missed the October 31st deadline to submit my own candidacy.
There's no more room for witnesses?
I don't think so.
I've heard they want Premier Ford to testify, and he's resisting, I think, in court.
So I don't know how that's going to play out.
If four doesn't go and there's room for one more, I'm publicly announcing it.
I want to testify.
I don't know if I could go down in person for time constraints.
I want to testify.
I could walk through 60 hours of live stream documenting of the protests.
Oh my goodness.
What do you have coming up on your plate for this afternoon for the coming days?
Well, I mean, Alan is there working on cross-examinations for upcoming witnesses.
So I'm not exactly sure what we've got coming up.
Part of the problem is there's a document database that's confidential.
All the lawyers are, we sign confidentiality agreements with respect to it.
So it's just a trove of documents.
And in that treasure trove, there's sometimes little nuggets.
The problem is you've got to find them, right?
So you've got to go through thousands of pages of documents and find these interesting nuggets that you can then introduce to a witness.
You've got to get an empty, and that is public, right?
So you can't even crowdsource...
What's the word I'm looking for?
Not ciphering through, but you can't even crowdsource the breakdown, the analysis of these documents because they're confidential until used as exhibits.
That's right.
Yeah.
I mean, you know the legal process.
So that's actually a brilliant idea as to crowdsource.
I would love there to be more transparency here.
But, you know, we do have a legal process and you can't just, you know, make confidential documents public.
So unfortunately, we have to go through it ourselves.
And that is time consuming.
Yeah, that's it is odd, though, because even if to the extent the documents are already filed, if it were ordinary court proceedings.
They would be public, to some extent, just a mass filing of documents.
And we're going to pull up what we want to draw attention to.
And it sucks that you have very small teams and thousands and thousands of pages.
Okay, interesting.
Is there anything specific you want to tell the world before this resumes for the afternoon?
Well, I mean, I can say, I can announce that the gentleman charge with respect to the fuel storage at Coventry that some of your guests have been referencing and the commission actually and I mentioned this several times, the Crown has stayed those charges.
There were three gentlemen TDF represented for mischief charges arising out of that fuel storage, and the Crown has decided to stay those charges.
That's good news, I guess.
Have you heard any news about the lawyer that dropped other than what Rouleau said this morning?
No, that's all I have.
I, like Keith Wilson, watched as it happened and we were obviously shocked and then scrambling around the office to figure out what exactly happened.
So I'm glad to hear that the gentleman is okay.
And then I'm not sure if he's going to be back, but can't speculate.
As to the cause, it appeared that he fainted.
EMS came on site, took him to the hospital, and he expressed his gratitude for people sending support.
So that's all I know.
All right.
Amazing.
There was one here.
I actually want to bring up one super chat.
This is a decent point.
See Maverick Buckley's video clip.
Canadian protesters sing we love you to police before two flashbangs.
That's my video.
Isolated 16-second clip from Viva's February 19th stream.
No question.
It was all about provoking a response.
Thank God it failed.
So I was there on the day when they put an end to all of this.
And they detonated.
I don't know if they're flashbangs, concussive grenades, whatever.
And I was like...
It's wrong, but it's dangerous because there's a bunch of people there.
I thought it was a gunshot, and it could have caused a stampede at the very least and crushed some people or, you know, provoked them to attack the police.
In hindsight, it was all provocation, and thank goodness it didn't work, and that's why we're here now.
They have the evidence of the provocation, but not the evidence of the retaliation, and they're not going to have the evidence of the retaliation.
As an experience, Mark, how does this experience compare to Your practice as an attorney up until now.
Well, look, I gotta be honest.
I thought this was gonna be fairly dry and a little bit boring as all Canadian sort of bureaucratic exercises are, but it's been a rollercoaster.
I don't know if your experience has been the same, but we're just watching it.
I mean, there's been ups and downs and thrills and chills, you know, drama, interesting cast of characters.
So I had no idea that it would be this zany.
I've been watching it, not all day long, every day, but I'm watching it with one goal and one goal only in mind.
It's to get the most damning clips to show what an outrageous buffoon and tyrant Justin Trudeau is.
Because I know the truth already, and nothing's going to change.
Not my truth, but the truth.
Now it's just a question of the level of depravity of the government, the level of corruption, and we're seeing it.
I didn't realize that that was the bombshell document.
I talked about it yesterday.
The transcript of the discussion between Ford and Trudeau, where he says, you have everything you need.
You shouldn't need any more police or whatever.
And those protesters are not very smart.
But we all know he's, we all know, you can't say it.
We all know that he's a scumbag in the political sense.
Yeah, look, I will say, David, just that the problem for the government is this.
Their claim is that this was a terrible, violent, oppressive protest.
And so far, the witnesses, That have come forward for the convoy, they have not been that scary and terrifying.
And so the more that the commission looks like it's just a group of average Canadians that were protesting, the harder it is for the government to claim that this was some sort of mass terrorist event.
And you had the lawyer for the Ottawa citizens in cross-examining, I think it was Pat King.
Where Pat King said millions were there.
He says, well, I don't think it was millions, maybe thousands.
Well, great.
If it was only thousands, then it doesn't justify invoking the Emergencies Act.
And even the scariest of the witnesses, McKenzie and Pat King, I tell you, if anybody watched that and doesn't like them more now than they did before, they're not watching it with an objective eye.
I was skeptical even of how Pat King was going to testify, and he did pretty well.
I certainly did not come off as a big, bad, dangerous man.
And certainly McKenzie did not either.
I think a lot of other people came off as a lot more dangerous witnesses than McKenzie and King.
Yep.
All right, man.
So you're going back in 13 minutes, Mark.
Yeah, that's right.
We're back.
Anytime you want to come back on and let us know the latest and give us an update, you're more than welcome.
Well, thanks for having me, David.
I appreciate it.
My pleasure.
Talk to you soon.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
That's the latest from the Canadian side, people.
That's the Canadian.
We're going to get to the American stuff after we go over to Rumble.
The, um...
Um...
Yeah, that's it.
Let's just see what we've got in the chat here.
Thanks, Mark.
Oh, thanks, Mark.
That's Mark Joseph.
All right, we've got some super chats before we mosey on over to the Rumbles.
The big and heavy Titanic went down in a few hours.
Yeah, but it didn't...
Okay, that...
True.
That's the bankruptcy analogy.
Slowly than all at once.
But changing the ship, changing the direction of a big, heavy ship, fried tilapia is pretty good, though.
That's what I've been told.
▲
Export Selection