Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 16, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:50:28

Canada on Trial - and FAILING! Tamara Lich Trial Update; Trump Trial AND MORE! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, hey there.
	What is this?
	Fishing lures in the back.
	Dollar store fishing lures.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	I was going to start with Dylan Mulvaney, but our guests are in the back.
	But don't worry.
	We'll be getting to a couple of...
	They are distractions.
	They're going to be like the sorbet in between meals that cleanses your palate so that we can have a bit of a laugh at the lamentable state of the universe while we internally cry at the lamentable state of the universe.
	Today's show, short notice as always.
	It's Monday and I was going to take the day off and just cut clips from yesterday's stream.
	The world does not cease to continue spinning.
	Jason Levine and Patriot Smoothie are in Ottawa at Tamara Leach's trial.
	So they have some time.
	I said we're going to bring him on right now to do an update in that trial.
	The witnesses of the day.
	This is Tamara Leach's and Chris Barber.
	Mischief.
	Incitement of mischief.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay, look.
	While everyone trickles in, share the link around.
	I'm going to blast it back out on Twitter.
	We got in the backdrop Jason Levine and Patriot Smoothie whose name...
	I don't know his real name.
	So we're going to have to find that out first.
	First and foremost.
	Okay.
	So starting off the show, Tamara Lich, Jason, and Patriot Smoothie bringing you in.
	Three, two, one.
	Gentlemen, how goes the battle?
	The battle's going awesome here, Aviva.
	It's a great day.
	The sun's out.
	Everybody's out.
	We saw Tamara.
	We saw Chris.
	We got to spend some time with them this morning.
	They're in great spirit.
	They don't seem to be worried.
	They did let us know that it looks like there's going to be additional days packed on again.
	So we're not sure how long this particular trial is going to last.
	But now we're on to Zexy Lee.
	Who seems to be the star witness for the Crown at this stage, especially with her class action lawsuit that she brought up during some of the testimonies.
	Hold on.
	Before we even get there, we're at day 16. That is day 16 of Tamar Litch and Chris Barber's mischief, incitement of mischief, obstruction of justice.
	Okay.
	And we don't even know how much is left because they're going to reschedule for next week, looking into December.
	First of all, Jason Levine, everybody knows who you are, but just in case, give us the elevator.
	Sure.
	I'm a podcaster out of Alberta.
	I do a podcast quite the day every day.
	Not on New York Times.
	I go and make sure that you're on as well.
	I cover a lot of the Coutts situation, the Alberta lawsuits, especially the Ingram decision.
	So I flew out here.
	I actually drove out here to catch up with Tamara and Chris to follow this trial.
	And mostly I'm going to stick around for the Pat King stuff later too.
	So I'll be around for a little while.
	Patriot Smoothie.
	Yeah.
	So my name's John.
	I know you were wondering there, Viva.
	So it's John.
	Go by Patriot Smoothie.
	I'm an independent reporter and a political commentator.
	I've been covering this trial since the first day, so I've witnessed a lot of the things that have happened here, and I'm happy to be on.
	All right, so Patriot Smoothie, you've been there since day one for 16 days of this trial.
	And the funny thing is, I was catching up on it this morning, and I watched your 18, or what was it, 12-minute video from outside the courthouse.
	Okay, so let's just summarize where we're at in this trial.
	This is Tamara Lich, Chris Barber.
	It's mischief, incitement of mischief, obstruction of justice.
	We're in day 16. Is it still the prosecution presenting its case?
	Yes.
	Yes, it is.
	So I'll just give you a brief synopsis of the situation.
	So yes, it is day 17 today, actually, just to get that out.
	And that's fine.
	And it's still the Crown's case.
	The Crown was supposed to originally have 10 days and the defense was supposed to have six.
	The trial was scheduled to end this last Friday.
	Clearly, that hasn't happened.
	Pertaining to dates, we know that we have the entirety of this week all set up.
	But after this Friday, we don't know where it's going from there.
	We don't know.
	We were thinking that it was going to be most of October except for a three-day break.
	And then the 1st of November, that's all out the window.
	So I'm not comfortable talking about dates anymore.
	It seems to change by the day.
	I suspect we're going to need more than just this week as the Crown against the defense has a six-day case to make.
	That was before the inclusion of these eight additional witnesses, which we are hearing from the six of those right now, Zexi Lee.
	We've got two more civilian witnesses today to hear from of that package.
	So I anticipate that it's a possibility the defense will end up...
	Calling additional witnesses other than the ones they may have intended.
	They indicated this earlier in the trial, that if they were going to have people come out and testify, "I didn't like the protest, I experienced terror, I had smells invading my property," and so on, that the defense indicated they would then potentially call other witnesses to speak to how they enjoyed the protest or how it made them feel hopeful at a time where they'd given up on everything.
	So for scheduling, it's very unclear what's going to happen from this point.
	As far as what we've seen in the trial so far, again, what I just kind of touched on, people speaking about the smell of things, about diesel and gasoline, and how one person literally said it invaded the church.
	One of the witnesses on Friday or Thursday said it invaded her church property.
	Invaded it.
	Like an invading army.
	That's the imagery in my head.
	And then a lot of the witnesses, and I'll let Jason speak to today's witness because I'll let him have that.
	But a lot of the witnesses using the word occupation and my space was occupied.
	Even on Friday, we had a witness from OC Transpo, Natalie Hano, who's an event coordinator.
	She's somebody there.
	I found the first part of her testimony before the afternoon break very matter-of-fact.
	It was just like, okay, we detoured these roads.
	We had to do it because buses need longer areas to turn.
	After that break, I found her testimony kind of changed a little bit.
	She used the word occupied to describe the corner of Rideau and Sussex.
	We've heard a lot about that corner.
	And that the LRT door was closed there because that space was occupied.
	What's LRT?
	So that's the light rail transit service here in Ottawa.
	And actually, funnily, you mentioned that.
	Greenspun had a little bit of a joke there.
	He's like, you are aware.
	He's like, you describe the LRT as a service.
	You are aware.
	You are under oath.
	So because we have a lot of issues in Ottawa with the LRT.
	I'm old enough to remember when Occupy Wall Street was a good thing and not a bad thing.
	I mean, it's so preposterous.
	Okay, but hold on.
	Back it all the way up a little bit.
	The prosecution has been presenting its case for 16 days.
	That is nothing short of astonishing.
	Have there been technical delays that have resulted in just wasted days in their entirety?
	Oh, for sure.
	We've had a lot of issues with the television system inside the court and getting it to sync up properly between the two or three television screens in the courtroom.
	That has costed hours of delays.
	We've had other issues, but that's the big one that sticks out for me.
	There's been issues because of the legal arguments.
	There's been a ton of legal arguments, which I'm not going to go into heavily.
	I'm not a legal expert, but there's been a lot of delays because of these arguments.
	Okay, and 16 days.
	Hold on, I just lost my window.
	Who has the prosecution brought up?
	I know that they had their investigator.
	He was there for, what, five days?
	Sure.
	They've called up quite a few police witnesses.
	They've called up from the top of my head, a homicide detective.
	OPS is Ottawa Police Services.
	That's correct.
	Ottawa Police Inspector Russell Lucas.
	Ottawa Police Service Officer Barlow.
	Sorry, I forget his first name.
	Sort of Quebec, Captain Martell, if I recall correctly.
	He was testifying about the guys in the olive suits and their actions during the police clearing.
	So he was speaking to that.
	So we've had police witnesses.
	We've had some city witnesses, including Kim Ayotte, the current general manager for the City of Ottawa when it comes to emergency services and preparedness.
	He also testified at the POEC, you may recall.
	We also had another city witness.
	We had the former chief of staff to former Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson, Serge Arpin testify.
	So we've heard from quite a variety of witnesses at this point, including the residences from Thursday and Friday testifying against the convoy leaders.
	And what is the bulk, without getting into the details, what's the essence of the testimony of all of these people?
	That there was a protest, it caused some obstruction on the streets, and that's about it?
	This is something the defense was admitting to.
	From the beginning, with the admissions too, they were trying to admit that there was a disruption of the enjoyment of property in Ottawa during the protest, and they've admitted that.
	They've admitted there was a disruption.
	The Crown, of course, has rejected that admission because they say they framed it to their benefit, and the judge agreed with them ultimately to lead their case as they see fit.
	But I think it's a good thing.
	But the testimony we're hearing, Aviva, is concerning the horns, the noises.
	This smells.
	A couple people testifying about urination and feces, including today.
	I'll let Jason touch on that.
	And other things, but no allegations of serious violence.
	In fact, I remember because I believe it was OPS inspector, Ottawa Police Service Inspector Russell Lucas was testifying, and he mentioned swarming constantly, the language swarming, swarming.
	My officers, he's in charge of bylaw services, not police.
	He's like, my officers felt unsafe, my officers were swarmed, and on cross-examination, I believe it was...
	Diane Magus, who said, when you say swarming, you don't refer to a violent altercation.
	No, there was a verbal exchange.
	So very important.
	There's a picture being painted with the language here that doesn't match the reality of what happened.
	We're hearing words like occupation, which is, of course, legally an armed takeover of an area and the transfer of power to that armed takeover by an armed force that completely takes over the area.
	That's the legal international definition we've heard in court several times.
	That's not what happened.
	They said they felt occupied the witnesses, that they felt like their space was taken from them.
	That's what we're hearing.
	Okay, so that's an amazing use of 16 days of trial time.
	The big question, so you have all your police force guys who are going to say that it was terrible, it was an occupation, they parked their cars and people couldn't get through, except we all know that they could get through with emergency services and everything.
	The debate of the day today was whether or not to allow eight witnesses to testify.
	Did that debate occur last week or did it occur this morning?
	You're talking about the debate of whether these eight civilian witnesses were allowed to testify?
	Yes.
	So that debate has been ongoing for the duration of the trial.
	The decision was rendered by Justice Heather Perkins McVeigh just this last Wednesday.
	She decided to side with the Crown and to dismiss the defense's application to have these witnesses excluded.
	So that's why we're having Zexi Lee testify today, for example.
	That's why we heard from the previous five witnesses.
	And then we have two more after her.
	So that argument's been heard throughout the length of the trial.
	Okay.
	And the basis of the defense's motion to exclude the witnesses, is that to not have them testify or to have them excluded from the courtroom?
	To not have them testify, basically, as I understand, and I'm fairly accurate, I'm fairly sure this is accurate, the defense's position was more or less that these witnesses' testimony is not legally relevant because they are tendering this admission that the enjoyment of property was interfered with.
	And they argued that these witnesses would have no more probative sort of value to add to this other than they wouldn't have a tremendous amount of specifics.
	They would speak to feelings or to impact.
	As we heard, there were concerns from the defense that these testimonies would divulge into what essentially is an impact statement, which would, of course, only be legally necessary if and when there's a conviction at the end of trial.
	So they were concerned about impact being introduced during the trial, impact evidence, impact statements, sorry.
	And that the evidence would have limited legal relevance in consideration of the admission that they've made.
	The judge does not agree.
	No, I mean, look, typically the judge would want to err on the side of allowing more evidence than dismissing or not allowing evidence.
	So, understood.
	You get these eight witnesses.
	They're civilians.
	Are they all members of the class action lawsuit that is currently pending?
	So, interesting question.
	The defense is...
	I've noticed a very specific line of questioning from the defense concerning these witnesses, and it will come...
	The first question they ask is, are you aware of a class action lawsuit in Ottawa?
	And then the second question, if they said yes, would be, without any details, because it's a privilege, I assume, have you taken any steps to participate?
	And so of the five witnesses we've heard from so far, before Zexy Lee, which I'll allow Jason to talk about, the previous five witnesses, three of them have admitted that they've heard of it and that they are participating in some way.
	And not to say that it wouldn't contradict their testimony, but it would certainly make it motivated that they have to testify here in a way that supports and doesn't contradict their...
	For those who don't know, it's a class-action lawsuit against the protesters, the organizers, I think some of the businesses who participated, and I think it's a $350 million class-action lawsuit now?
	It's a lot of money, whatever it is.
	It's hundreds of millions.
	It started off as $10 million, and now it's...
	Much more.
	I think somebody's hoping for a payday.
	All right.
	And so today we had five of those witnesses, including Zexy Lee, who is the young federal employee.
	I was trying to find some information on her, not in terms of doxing, but rather potential political motivations.
	Federal employee.
	Jason, do we know anything about Zexy Lee as an individual, as a human, as a potentially political party in this lawsuit?
	No political party information, but we know she's a resident.
	She works for CRA, so she's a data analysis, and she enters in data for the CRA.
	CRA, for those who don't know, is Canada Revenue Agency.
	There's probably a lot of Americans watching.
	So she works for the government in terms of collecting taxes.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	We did hear from her, though, that she had difficulties working, she couldn't sleep, and it was interfering her work because she was a remote worker at the time.
	But let me set the stage for you there, Aviva.
	The very first thing that happened was she wasn't in the courtroom when she was called, and then she was escorted in by two large security guards who are police officers to protect her.
	So from the very, very, very moment she walked in, she's victimized.
	She's definitely going to be protected.
	And she went and sat down and started giving her testimony.
	Let me stop you there, though.
	Were other witnesses also escorted in with police?
	Is this protocol to bring them in, or was this unique to Zexy Lee?
	So I can speak to that question.
	The previous witnesses, typically the, I don't know what you would call it, but the officer who sits with the Crown would sometimes come and get them.
	But with this particular witness, I've noticed an additional officer, and the judge said herself, we have two officers with her.
	So there is an additional officer for her.
	But there is typically one, and he's a larger man who will go out and get them.
	Yeah, I think it's sort of like, not a bailiff, but it's a court dude.
	As I understand it, these detectives are just there for the Crown's case and that there isn't a regular uniformed officer at the back of the court who is acting as the court officer, to my understanding.
	That would be the bailiff.
	So Zexy Lee has extra security coming in because she perceives herself to be something of a target for whomever.
	That violent protest that swept up the sidewalks, insulted the sidewalks and fed the homeless.
	Okay, sorry.
	OK, sorry, Jason.
	So carry on.
	We were at Zexy Lee coming in to testify.
	Yeah.
	So what I noticed with her immediately is she was using the scary word.
	So occupation came up quite a few times.
	So many times that the defense actually objected to it, had a conversation in the absence of Zexy Lee.
	So she had to leave the courtroom.
	And the Crown was also kind of conceding that, yeah, we should be using demonstrators or protesters.
	So then when she returned, she was instructed to use those words instead.
	But what I also noticed there, Viva, is it sounded like the statement of claim from the fast-action lawsuit.
	So she hid all the major words.
	She said she saw an ambulance blocked, she saw roads blocked, she saw intersections blocked, she saw feces and urine everywhere.
	She saw jerrycans in the back of her truck.
	She even mentioned how she thinks there was an air horn.
	And then when the defense probed her on that one and asked whether or not she saw one, she said no.
	She just presumed there was one under her car.
	But it did seem like she was going through her statement of claim, making sure that all of the items that are in the claim are also mentioned during her examination in chief here.
	And the judge wasn't taken too kindly to some of the words she was using.
	So she did get reprimanded a little bit on sticking to non-inflammatory words, as the judge put it.
	So I did appreciate that the judge was looking for facts, not feelings on this one.
	She wasn't allowing narratives to enter into the conversation or into the testimony.
	So she was doing a good job on keeping the narrative out.
	And each time Zexy had trouble understanding the question and starting to getting into her interpretation of the question, the judge or the defense would clarify that for her.
	So I did see a lot of guidance from the judge to keep her on facts, not feelings.
	And there was some speculation that creeped in, but she was able to pull it back.
	Is she done testifying now?
	No.
	So we're in the middle of the cross-examination now.
	So the examination in chief is complete.
	We're now in cross-exam.
	I suspect we'll be done shortly after lunch, and then we'll get back into re-examination.
	But I've got to tell you, the defense is doing a great job.
	Well, I was going to ask what the cross-examination, how's that going?
	Has she had any sort of breakdown moments or a few good men moments?
	Well, we had a were-you-contradicting-yourself moment.
	So we were trying to clarify how often and how frequent was the horn honking.
	She said during her testimony that it was consistent every second minute or so it was going.
	But then she got her dates all mixed up to the point where the defense was able to say, well, you said on the 7th it stopped, it ceased after the injunction, but now you're saying all the way to the 11th it kept going.
	So when she was probed, she couldn't provide specifics on dates, specifics on durations, times, locations, types of sounds.
	It really started to fall apart under cross-examination, I gotta tell you.
	Has the cross-examination asked her about her testimony before the Commissioner Rouleau, where they recognized or admitted that they were dropping eggs on the protesters who were parked on the street?
	No, not yet.
	But one thing that did come in was she was being asked to clarify whether or not she understood what peaceful, safe, and legal protesting was.
	And then she tried to obfuscate it.
	Pretty close to the statement of the claim, if you read it.
	Trying to obfuscate it to be anything she felt it would be.
	This is where she was excused again.
	The judge had a conversation with the defense.
	The proper wording was agreed upon.
	She was brought back in.
	And then she was explained again to give the actual observations, not her understanding.
	And at that time, she had a hard time agreeing with the original injunction.
	Her lawyer argued and her lawyer accepted that peaceful, safe and legal was acceptable.
	And then after about three or four times of asking the question from the defense to Sexy, she didn't really confirm that she understood what that meant.
	So then that's when the defense did bring an affidavit that she signed for the injunction, the acceptance of the injunction, where she did say in her affidavit she understood what that meant.
	So that was the way the defense brought that into the record.
	Couldn't bring it in directly through her, but brought it in through her affidavit from previous court matters.
	Nothing from the POEC yet, though.
	I'm just sending out a tweet right now, just if anybody, if any of the cross-examination is watching, but what was the word that she used during the Rouleau Commission?
	She said...
	Some of the protesters had their little revenge or little reprisals.
	I forget the word that she used, but she admitted that they were throwing eggs at the protesters from the buildings.
	And from what I understand, those eggs were frozen as well, or potentially frozen, which might have caused even more damage.
	You didn't give me that testimony yet, but I'll let you know if we get to that this afternoon.
	Well, I just tweeted it out.
	So if anybody happens to see it there, because I'm going to look for the video, because I know that I commented on it at the time.
	Smoothie, you got something to say?
	I just wanted to add one thing.
	If you want to talk about the testimony concerning the truck incident, if you wanted to mention that.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I'll let Jason mention that.
	Yeah, so during the examination in chief, she said that there was a truck honking or something along those lines.
	So she was trying to capture evidence because she felt it was a violation of the injunction.
	She's capturing pictures for audible things.
	I don't get that.
	But in either case, she said she took a picture of a pickup truck with jerry cans in the back.
	So there's one of those magic words, jerry cans.
	So she got that in there.
	And then she said it backed into her.
	This was under examination in chief.
	Under cross-examination, the defense asked, you testified it backed into you?
	And she said, correct.
	He goes, did it touch you?
	And she goes, no, I moved out of the way.
	So the vehicle didn't touch you?
	No, it didn't touch me.
	Did you call the police?
	Yes, I called the police.
	Did you make a report?
	They took an incident number, but they didn't make a report.
	The examination in chief, she really laid it out.
	It sounded like they were trying to attack her with the vehicle by backing into her.
	But under the cross-examination, it was very clear that no, not only was she not touched, no report was made.
	And she also didn't specify the date of that when she was asked about that.
	Such a traumatic incident.
	You know what, now that I'm thinking of a second question to ask her, did they ask Zexy Lee if the feces and urine of which she was complaining was from the truckers or from the homeless people that were displaced from Ottawa downtown into the rural areas that upset so many people?
	Have they gotten to that yet?
	Well, she testified that she saw it everywhere all the time.
	She even complained about the snow banks not being moved, the trash everywhere.
	She's describing something we've never seen in video, Viva, and you were there.
	We've never seen the situation she's describing.
	I suspect the defense will get to that part after lunch.
	We're making our way through each of her statements, and we just basically got to the truck statement, and then we have a lunch break.
	Okay.
	All right, so that's fine.
	And then, I mean, when is the prosecution or the Crown supposed to close their case?
	Many days ago.
	So we're already in an extended time here.
	And after speaking to Chris this morning, and Natmar as well, they did indicate that they're expecting some more additional days from the Crown side.
	Go for a picture.
	As I was saying earlier, they had originally sounded like in the different...
	The JPTs that had happened and the check-in dates that they had had, that they had arranged a basic schedule that was tentative.
	I had received information that it was viable, that it was going to go ahead, as I told you it would, for the rest of October, last three days, and then November 1st.
	That's out the window.
	But again, as far as concrete, what I can say is that the Crown still has PLT witnesses to call.
	PLT is the power line, whatever.
	Plural.
	It was a legal issue.
	So I was under the impression that it was Officer Isabella Sear.
	And she was earlier in the trial.
	But as I recall, she never quite completed her testimony.
	And there was issues.
	And the big issue there, another legal argument, was the signal chat that these PLT officers had between themselves.
	There was a whole bunch of confusion leading up to this.
	At first, the defense thought it was a WhatsApp conversation.
	Then we learned, okay, it's a signal chat.
	It's a signal chat.
	All right, can we have it?
	Then there was this huge delay.
	In, like, from the beginning of the trial to now, where the Crown is trying to tender the signal chat, in fact, we're still having delays with this thing.
	So the signal chat in it is between all these PLT officers, police liaison team, Ottawa police, and they're having what is probably very important communications about the state of what's happening on the ground, which is probably very valuable to everybody and to the truth.
	But to get it out, it's been a mess.
	They tried to get this a long time ago.
	It's still not here.
	And they're still, so they now have the, the crown was like, okay, we'll, we'll give you it.
	We'll go through it.
	We'll make sure there's nothing important in there that can't be shared and we'll get it to you.
	So that happened.
	And as I understand, they probably disclosed most of that, but there's an issue because in those signal chats, there's other things coming up.
	The officers are sending each other links to emails or attachments.
	And then those things become issued to like a sub, um, disclosure.
	So, so now we know what that in regards to the email and that signal chat, there's, I believe somewhere in the 600.
	Emails in these signal chats.
	The Crown has disclosed a couple hundred of them, but are withholding 400 of them.
	And so the defense wants those 400 emails.
	They've made it clear, we want everything, give it to us.
	And Greenspan was arguing that last Tuesday, he made that request in writing for that stuff, because the judge wants everything in writing from this point, from a long time ago forward.
	And that the Crown basically came out, I believe it was on Friday, or yeah, it was Friday, and said, Well, we've looked over the request, and we've decided that those emails, those 400 emails, they're not relevant.
	So we're not giving them to you.
	And the defense is like, what?
	So they decided, the Crown, that these 400 emails, they say they're duplicates, whatever.
	The defense wants these emails.
	The Crown's like, they've requested them, and the Crown's like, no, they're not relevant, so we don't need to give them to you, therefore.
	And here's the case law.
	You don't have to give irrelevant disclosure, blah, blah, blah.
	The judge is like, okay.
	If you take that position, this was on Friday, Justice Heather McFay said, if you say it that way, what's going to end up happening is come Tuesday when the resident witnesses are done today, Tuesday tomorrow, come then, we're going to have to delay our PLT witnesses because this stuff's relevant to their testimony, to their time on giving evidence.
	This will be relevant to them.
	In order to have this discussion about yet another problem, a request for disclosure, a disclosure application.
	So the judge suggested it would be more efficient to just...
	Give it all over.
	Give it all over.
	Let the defense do what they will.
	And the crown, the most they were willing to concede was we'll give them a list of the documents.
	So we're having a lot of issues, I think, in the smoothness of it.
	Who's the judge?
	Justice Heather Perkins McVeigh.
	All right.
	Perkins McVeigh.
	Perkins hyphen McVeigh.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And what is your impression of how she is perceiving all of this?
	I'll let Jason answer the second part of this, but for the entirety of this trial, she's been evidence-oriented.
	She's been extremely fair to both parties, and I feel like she's really after the truth here.
	I feel like she has her sights set on having this thing, as she often says, stay on the rails.
	She wants the truth.
	She wants both parties to have a fair go, and she wants the evidence to be relevant and provident.
	So I'll let Jason speak through his experience today with her.
	And I would concur with that, Viva.
	She does seem to be very fair.
	She wants to use the correct terminology.
	She doesn't want to use inflammatory words, which is great to see.
	She didn't allow a delay from the Crown.
	The Crown asked to take an early break.
	She said, no, we're going to keep going.
	I already have my schedule for the day.
	And she's pretty adamant that we're going to keep going.
	Like you said, stay on the rails here.
	I've seen some judges where you can't tell whether or not they're going to be fair or not.
	I have a good feeling about this.
	But I think so far what I've seen, she's going to be a fair judge.
	And yeah, I'll absolutely pay attention and get some work to do on that one.
	I'm just trying to see, so I'm looking up McVeigh, or it's McVeigh, M-C-V-E-Y, not like Timothy McVeigh.
	And it looks like she was appointed to the bench in 2009, so I don't know if she's a provincial, no, no, hold on, she's a federal judge.
	Yeah, that'd be hard for them.
	Yeah, so not that politics explains everything, but it tends to be predictive sometimes.
	Although, I mean, to say she doesn't want things to go off the rail and we're 16 days into a bullshit mischief trial.
	But I feel also that there's a lot of stuff in the background that if it doesn't play out the way it is, that it'll create problems down the road.
	Someone with more legal expertise can perhaps speak to those potentialities.
	But that's the impression I get, that they're trying to run this thing as neatly as possible.
	I just say that if I want to embarrass the prosecution, if I'm a judge, I let him go for 16 to 20 days and make it look like an absolute gong show, as opposed to actually keeping it temporally circumscribed, which is what it should have been in the first place, but who knows?
	So Zexy Lee is under cross now.
	They're going to finish with the cross, then presumably have a redirect.
	That'll be it for the day, I imagine.
	Actually, we were supposed to hear from two more.
	Yeah, that's not going to happen.
	It's 1.30 now.
	We're on the same time zone.
	You're going to get back in court by 2, 2.15.
	Cross-examination will go until 3. If it doesn't go further, then there'll be a redirect after a break.
	So 4, 4.30, we're done.
	One thing I did want to highlight here is during her entire examination in Chief, I didn't hear her mention Chris did this, Tamara did this, I witnessed Chris do this, I saw Tamara do this.
	She's not testifying about the defendants directly here.
	She's just testifying about her experience.
	And another thing I want to highlight here is she was asked whether or not she was going out.
	Would she leave her place?
	She said, yeah, a couple of times a day, sometimes more.
	And where would you go?
	I'd walk around my neighborhood.
	I would go and get my groceries.
	I would do this and that.
	So she definitely is not painting a picture of someone who's afraid of the protesters, who was afraid about walking around.
	She was pretty nonchalant and pretty casual about being able to go ahead and do all of that.
	She also talked about wearing her mask frequently.
	She said people would bother her and shake their hands at her and stuff like that.
	But when she was under cross-examination, she couldn't specify dates, times, locations, or anything along those lines of these encounters.
	And she even kind of changed her testimony from shaking the hands to maybe just showing it once and not multiple times.
	So we're hearing some things like that change.
	She does not sound like somebody who was scared and traumatized walking around at all.
	And then when she was asked whether or not she used public transport or transportation, she said, yeah, normally does.
	If I look distracted, it's only because right now on my phone, I'm getting a clip where Zexy Lee hesitated for like, it was a good, I want to play it while we're streaming together so I can do this.
	I'm just going to go tweet this and I'm going to say, let me just go like this.
	When they asked, did you feel unsafe?
	Listen for the pause, dot, dot, dot.
	You can't ignore it.
	Oh, while you're on, can I add something?
	Oh, yeah, please.
	So, while you're on, since you brought it up, being in court today, a lot of the questioning she's being asked, there are significant pauses for her answers.
	There's other things, too, but there's...
	She's showing stress.
	She's showing stress.
	She's sighing, she's pausing.
	She's sighing quite a lot.
	Yeah.
	Now, whether it's stress because of the day or stress because she's, you know...
	Her multi-million dollar lawsuit can be on the table here.
	Who knows?
	But she's definitely showing some stress.
	Or the story is nice when you tell it in a class action lawsuit that you have Paul Champ or Paul Chump of a lawyer drafting, but when you get cross-examined, it's not exactly the most pleasant thing on earth.
	Here, hold on.
	Let me bring it up.
	Yeah, and that does remind me.
	There was one part where the injunction came up.
	So early on in her class action lawsuit, she's the one that got the injunction to get the horn solved.
	She didn't put in there fireworks, smell, or any of the other things she's complaining about today.
	So the defense brought that up and said, look, you had this injunction, you brought up your complaints, your grievances, and none of the stuff you're saying here today other than the honking is listed here.
	And she didn't have an explanation for that.
	What time do you guys go back?
	Lunch is over at what?
	2.15.
	Okay, you got a nice long pause there.
	Hold on, listen to this.
	I don't know if I cut the video properly.
	Second to the hallway, my bathroom was a little quieter, so I got some peace there as well.
	So would you say that you felt unsafe walking the streets?
	Listen to this.
	One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
	I didn't feel safe, but it's hard to describe it as unsafe.
	Yeah, because it would be a lie to do that.
	I was actively...
	Being so cognizant of my surroundings.
	I'm fast.
	I can move very fast.
	Sorry, there's so many jokes in here.
	Yeah, I'm fast.
	I can move fast.
	First of all...
	If you're walking the streets of Ottawa on any ordinary day, you don't feel safe.
	You see poo-poo and you see piss.
	I'm cognizant of my surroundings.
	As well, you should be always.
	I'll tell you, I was cognizant of my surroundings at the protest when the counter-protesters were around.
	I want you to see where this goes.
	I was always ready to, you know, take myself out of a situation where something might happen.
	But did anything happen?
	No!
	A lot of the times...
	When they're bouncing their trucks and their cars and I don't know how to describe it other than like roaring at us like roaring at me with like these large giant vehicles you know it's the idea was to move quick and get where you needed to go.
	I can't listen to any more of this.
	Well there's a contradiction right there so what she said there was the engines were causing the vehicles to shake and bounce.
	Testimony today was the horns that was causing it to shake and bounce.
	So there's a contradiction in her testimony.
	It's all a load of manufactured victimhood rubbish, is what it is.
	It's going to segue into one of the stories when you guys head back to court.
	Oh my goodness, I need to find, if anybody's watching now who can find the clip when she talked about having their little moment of revenge, I know that I commented on it when I was watching that and posted a video, but I can't.
	I don't know how to search on Twitter.
	Okay, so that's very interesting.
	It's a joke.
	It's a sick, sad joke.
	And Tamara Leach, just so everybody appreciates, this is the Crown.
	They can go as long as they want.
	Taxpayer dollars go to the judge.
	Taxpayer dollars go to the prosecution.
	The Crown, the only one who's not paying taxpayer dollars, Tamara Leach and Chris Barber.
	Well, let's not forget about her security too.
	Those are taxpayer dollars.
	Oh my goodness.
	Tamara and Chris, they're not talking.
	They're sitting there watching all of this.
	Have they made any public statements?
	But they're in good spirits.
	Yeah, I asked if they could come on.
	They can't come on.
	But they're in good spirits right now.
	They don't seem to be worried.
	They're just a little concerned that it's going to be dragged out and then the costs are going to keep ballooning.
	That's a feature, not a bug.
	I mean, that's part and parcel of the process.
	Sorry, smoothie.
	I can say that with Tamara, specifically having spent a lot of the days sitting behind her in court, she appears very optimistic and hopeful.
	And she's got this positive energy around her.
	And you could see that really shine through.
	Even when she's going through this extremely negative situation, she still manages to be positive.
	I've never seen her down in the court.
	I've seen her positive.
	And imagine just being drugged through this whole thing.
	Imagine the stress this is causing.
	She was put in jail for aggregate 59 days for this bullcrap.
	I mean, it's...
	I made a joke.
	Well, no, this was about what's going on with Trump.
	I don't know if it's like Banana Republic, Kangaroo Court, Kafkaesque, Orwellian, I'm going to create a new term, Vonnegutian.
	It's like from Venetian or you're Vonnegutian.
	It's a load of crap.
	I mean, anybody who doesn't see it and doesn't understand that this is the indication of a broken...
	A broken system.
	They probably, you know, think Hong Kong means Heil Hitler.
	Okay, so have we forgotten anything or is there anything you wanted to mention about the Leach-Barber trial that I forgot to ask?
	I'm good with that.
	So I have just one thing I guess I'll add.
	You know what?
	We've talked about all the major points.
	There's a couple of things that we've skimped over, but they're not as significant as the things we've talked about.
	But again, I just want to emphasize how the morale seems really good.
	The defense team morale is very good.
	Greenspun's always cracking smiles and jokes.
	And Tamara Leach always exuding that positive energy.
	It's an aura.
	It's an aura.
	It really is.
	I know that sounds strange, but she's got this way of carrying herself that exudes confidence and positivity.
	Chris as well.
	I've spent some time down here.
	I've been beside me.
	He's competent and funny as always.
	It's funny when we were watching his videos earlier in the trial and he's cracking his jokes and the whole courtroom would just, you know, he's a funny guy.
	So you're listening to this guy on his TikTok and he'll say something and the whole courtroom would erupt in laughter.
	So there's some positivity for you.
	So a lot of people in the courtroom, there's no protesters or counter-protesters here today.
	So it seems to be pretty calm and pretty relaxed.
	And people are just moving on with this trial because it seems to be dragging on for a long time here.
	No, no.
	The fact that they remain jovial and good-spirited and optimistic, that's more of a doom pill for me than a white pill because they've got no choice.
	They're stuck in this freaking system and they've got no choice but to make the best of it in the worst possible way.
	Okay.
	So, we're not done yet, if you guys have more time, but will you two come back on to give periodic updates as it progresses?
	We'll certainly give you more updates on this one, but if you don't mind, I can remind everybody what's happening on Friday in Alberta.
	Well, hold on.
	Before we even get there, though, also, you're there, both of you, during the day.
	Where can people, we'll say it multiple times, where can people find both of you, respectively?
	Well, you can find me at theleveneshow.com, so I do podcast twice a day, every day.
	And then you can find me on Twitter as JasonLevineMP, which stands for media person, member of parliament, or whatever you want to say, but JasonLevineMP.
	Levine is L-A-V-I-G-N-E for those who are listening.
	Okay.
	That one spells it like I do.
	Smoothie.
	She took it from you.
	You can find me anywhere.
	You can find me on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, and TikTok.
	You either just search up Patriot Smoothie spelled here, one word.
	Or if that doesn't work, search up, right blend.
	Like a smoothie gets blended in the right way, right blend also one word.
	Either one.
	Excellent.
	So you guys are doing live tweeting.
	You're there every day.
	So everyone should be looking at your stuff for the immediate, what's what I'm looking for?
	Contemporaneous updates.
	Now, the big, not the bigger, another big story is the Kootz Four.
	We've talked about this, Jason.
	You've been on, I've been on your show.
	Following it, there was, for those who don't, 30,000-foot overview.
	Four political prisoners, in my humble opinion.
	Maybe not everyone shares it.
	These are gentlemen who have been in jail for damn near 600 days now on conspiracy to commit murder charges of an RCMP officer.
	The evidence is scant, to say the least.
	One picture of some firearms, all of which, it seems, maybe with the exception of one, lawful under Canadian law.
	A big bad...
	Oh, hold on.
	The Diagalon.
	They had Diagalon patches on their things.
	I got my Diagalon merch that people sent me in the mail.
	They had a Diagalon patch on one of their vests, which apparently, you know, according to liar, liar, pants on fire Mendicino, was a far-right militia prone to violence, yada, yada, a load of crap, and we all know it.
	But one of the vests, which we don't even know if it was a ballistics vest, it could have been a fly-fishing vest for all we know, had a Diagalon patch, and that's what gave rise to the Diagalon militia nonsense.
	Those four gentlemen, Accused of conspiracy to commit murder have been in jail.
	No bail.
	No bail.
	Whereas that jackass who drove his car into four protesters in Winnipeg and attempted to commit murder, he was let out on big bail but let out nonetheless.
	Conditions horrendous.
	Most people don't even know about this.
	They don't know that they're still in jail awaiting trial.
	And there's been some scandals in this prosecution or I should say persecution because it seems that there might have been some change of direction of the prosecution or they might have...
	engaged in conduct that could potentially have been unlawful or knowingly unfair.
	Detailed in a letter which could potentially break solicitor-client privilege between the Crown and their attorneys as to strategy to prosecute these four men, and I hope that's not too brief or not too detailed of an overview.
	The content of that letter, which has been subject of a publication ban confidentiality order, will be opened on Thursday, Jason.
	If I forgot anything, let me know, but...
	What's the latest there?
	Sure.
	So the big thing here is crime fraud is the term being used, which is a lawyer who gives legal advice for commission of a crime.
	So this is what we're trying to determine, whether or not that is the case.
	It has been open, so I can let you know the judge has read it, and the Crown is trying to suppress it.
	So the arguments on Friday the 20th, 8.45 in the morning, are going to be whether or not the Crown will be successful at suppressing it.
	So I'm going to be flying out there on Thursday.
	So I'll be there on Friday to go ahead and see what happens.
	Now, I'll find out whether or not we can broadcast or we can publicize what's in the envelope at the time, because a decision might be made at that time to remove that ban.
	I don't know, but we'll find out.
	But what we do know is we finally got a date to find out what's going to happen next, what is going to be the next step about that envelope.
	So that'll be this Friday, the 20th.
	Okay, amazing.
	And now I think I'm going to have started rumors that I have...
	Diagon merch.
	That was gifted to me.
	It's funny.
	It's in the drawer underneath my computer because I keep everything that people send me.
	All right.
	That's amazing.
	Gentlemen, we shall keep in touch and I shall keep following you for the up-to-date stuff.
	One last word to sign off.
	Both of you, what do you want to say?
	Well, I can give you a quick update about the new convoy.
	So I went to the camp the last couple days.
	Check it out.
	Okay.
	I saw some pictures about this.
	Okay.
	There's more honking again in Ottawa.
	Yeah, they're not honking in Ottawa.
	There were some Palestinian protesters honking.
	I got a ticket.
	I witnessed that.
	But no trucker or convoy or even Chris Tamar-related protesters.
	There's a lot of Palestinian protesting going on around Ottawa the last few days, for sure.
	Yeah, I won't be attending either side protests in any event.
	I'll be spectating from my computer.
	But I'd be happy to give you an update about the camp.
	It's really peaceful.
	It's growing.
	There seems to be a good atmosphere there.
	It's very early stages.
	They're still determining what they want to do.
	I can tell you with all the other protesting going around here, it's complicated things for sure.
	But no more assaults from the police over the last little bit.
	I'm not even aware of tickets right now.
	But right now it seems to be like a good group of people coming together to be peaceful and they're trying to work out what the next steps are going to be.
	And I could briefly speak to that as well.
	I had been at the camp originally, I think it was either the first day they got here in town, maybe the next day after that, before the incident that a lot of people have seen.
	The drive over for the one?
	Sure.
	So it was smaller back then.
	There was a couple of vehicles.
	People were mixed.
	But I visited again for the second time Saturday evening.
	And I want to say I got there about 9 o 'clock at night and the experience was the best.
	It was a beautiful experience that I've had in regards to just recharging my soul and my hope in our country and community since the Freedom Convoy.
	It was a beautiful experience.
	There was at least 100 vehicles.
	Not that it matters, but the people were so positive.
	And so there was such a sense of hope in the air that it did recharge my battery a little bit.
	I was totally blown away.
	A total night and day from the first day that I went to Saturday night.
	I went back on Sunday.
	Crowd thinned out just a bit, but same spirit, same determination.
	I did have one criticism, though.
	Why does this always have to happen in the cold?
	Why can't we do it when it's nice and sunny?
	But it was beautiful.
	I loved it.
	The funny thing is, I stepped out of the house today, and it's the first time of the year where outside was actually cooler than inside.
	I'm like, holy crap, it's winter in Florida now.
	It was 78 degrees outside.
	It's freezing.
	Yeah, it's October.
	It's mid-October, and you guys are having shorter days and colder weather, although the trees behind you don't look like the leaves have started changing yet.
	Maybe a bit.
	Ottawa, they're a little bit slower here.
	No comment.
	I don't want to get arrested.
	All right.
	Amazing, guys.
	Fantastic.
	Anything else?
	No, but thank you very much for your time, David.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for coming on.
	I know you guys have a tight timeline and you've got to get this word out.
	So thank you for coming on anytime and come back soon.
	Please.
	Thank you very much, David.
	Alright, guys.
	Have a good day.
	Alright, I'm going to put their links up afterwards when I finish this.
	But what I want to do beforehand, I want to actually just play the entire Zexy Lee clip while I take that time to go see if I can find the other Zexy Lee clip, which is Zexy Lee...
	Talking about the reprisals.
	Where is it?
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	I know that I have it here.
	Let me just go back and get that clip.
	We're going to play that.
	If anybody out there has the Zexy League clip where they were talking about their reprisals, I would love to find that before they come back for lunch so that we can maybe get that in the hands of the defense.
	Although I suspect...
	They have all of their exhibits lined up for...
	We don't call it impeaching a witness, but, you know, for that process.
	Okay, this is mine.
	Listen for the pause.
	Okay, let's play this one more time.
	All the way through, and I'm going to take this time to...
	Also, everybody, we're going to go to Rumble after this, and we've got other stuff to talk about.
	Second to the hallway, my bathroom was a little quieter, so I got some peace there as well.
	So would you say that you felt unsafe walking the streets?
	I couldn't say that because it would be a lie and I would be...
	I...
	I didn't feel safe, but it's hard to describe it as unsafe at the same time because I was actively...
	being so cognizant of my surroundings.
	I'm fast.
	I can move very fast.
	So, you know, I was always ready to, you know, take myself.
	Such a hero.
	When they're bouncing their trucks and their cars.
	Bouncing like it's like gang members.
	I don't know how to describe it other than like roaring at us, like roaring at me with like these large giant vehicles.
	You know, the idea was to move quick and get where you needed to go.
	And you know, that was the intention.
	And that's what you really had to do, I think, to stay safe.
	Because when you didn't take your time...
	They would always get to you.
	Maybe not in the sense that you're thinking, but they would try and come up to you and convince you that they were doing the right thing.
	And they would say to me, like, on more than one occasion, I would try and plead with them because, you know, there's a certain desperation in being left in that kind of situation where the people that are supposed to help you weren't helping you.
	And it was just ongoing for really...
	It's going to be an unknown period of time, because really, every day I woke up, and I hoped that it was over, and it never was.
	Sorry, I lost my train of thought a little there.
	Yeah, that's what happens when you make up stories.
	Okay, now hold on one second, people.
	Hold on one second, because I believe I found, it's not my tweet, but it is the tweet.
	Hold on, hold on.
	I think this is it.
	And then we're going to go over to the rumbles.
	For the rest of this stream.
	And then we're going to go over to locals afterwards for the after party.
	Hold on.
	Let me bring it up.
	I think this is it.
	I think this is it.
	Here we go.
	Yeah, this looks like it.
	This is from the commission.
	Zexy Lee's testimony.
	And because of this closeness I had, I...
	I heard a lot of their stories and more so I heard a lot of their frustrations.
	And as egg-throwing began to occur from my building...
	Egg-throwing began to occur from my building.
	I'm so cute the way I describe it.
	Passively.
	It just started occurring.
	It's raining eggs.
	We weren't doing it.
	It just started occurring.
	Egg throwing began to occur from my building.
	I felt that, you know, we really needed a medium to at least express what was happening to us so that we could feel at the very least heard and maybe diffuse some of the tension.
	So we decided to throw eggs.
	Sorry, can you describe what you mean by the egg throwing?
	Yeah, please.
	Well, you know, there were very large trucks parked everywhere.
	Ah, so cute!
	In some of these instances, they were parked right next to some high-rise condo buildings.
	And as a result, some people may have gotten some cartons of eggs.
	That's so cute.
	And, you know, had their little retaliation.
	Their little retaliation.
	Because, really, what else could they do?
	Other than commit assault.
	Because throwing an egg under ordinary circumstances is assault.
	If they had their little cartons of eggs, and it's February, and they're on the balcony, and they froze solid, and then they said, I don't know if that happened.
	I can just reasonably anticipate it's a possibility.
	We just had our little retaliation.
	I'm so cute.
	And when that incident occurred, I remember the police actually came to my building to inquire about the egg throwing.
	Did you get arrested?
	Made by the truckers.
	Did any of you get charged, arrested, brought to trial for your little retaliation?
	Hell no, because that's mischief, but the right kind of mischief.
	And I remember...
	That I felt it as an affront and that a lot of my neighbors felt it as an affront as well when they were investigating something like this and everything that was happening to us and what they were really ignoring in a lot of their statements.
	Releases to the public.
	I'm sorry.
	And as a result, I decided to organize a meeting with a number of residents in my building with some Ottawa Police community liaison officers.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Just so we could have a recorded account of what our experiences were.
	Of throwing eggs.
	To, again, diffuse the tension.
	By throwing eggs.
	Really concretely say, you know what's happening here.
	We are telling you this.
	This is our experience, and we really desperately need help because things have gone on too long, and the residents, honestly, they had wanted to fight back because they felt that nobody else was doing anything for them.
	Your Honor, I'd like to present this exhibit TL3.
	Zexy Lee admitting that they committed assault.
	Hey, Zexy, when you say you felt unsafe, was that before or after you were throwing eggs from high-rise buildings onto park cars?
	I just want to know.
	Oh, okay, so here's the link to the tweet.
	I tweeted it out, so everybody can go get that as well.
	And I had the video, but I found it through someone else's.
	Canadian Riley.
	We'll see if this gets a little...
	A little bit of traction.
	Maybe it finds its way into the cross-examination.
	All right, with that said, we've been on YouTube for far too long already.
	This is more time than YouTube deserves after my re-education.
	Let's go to Rumble.
	I'm going to give everybody the link.
	There are 553 people here that should be migrating over to the Rumbles.
	I'll wait for it to go down in number once, and then we're going to end it on YouTube.
	Go over to Rumble.
	If you want to come over to vivabarneslaw.locals, If I can find the link, it'd be much easier to share.
	Let me give that to you as well.
	So you can just come straight to Locals.
	We have our winner for the new Locals Convo.
	That is a local supporter who doesn't mind having an interview with me.
	Talking about their lives.
	It's going to be on the internet forever.
	Why is the number going up?
	The number went up to 558.
	The number needs to go down on YouTube so we can leave here and then go over to Rumble.
	Come on over to Rumble or vivabarneslaw.locals.com or the rest of the stream.
	We're going to talk Trump, Dylan Mulvaney, and some other stuff that's going on in the world.
	I need to see the number go down on YouTube in order for me to leave in good conscience.
	I'm getting ready to remove it.
	550, 503.
	We're done.
	Adios, YouTube.
	You can get the leftovers tomorrow when I post the entire stream.
	Uh, replay.
	As I do on Twitter as well, but let's go.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com or VivaFry on Rumble.
	Three, two, one.
	Boom!
	Oh.
	My.
	Goodness.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	Who looks at YouTube anymore?
	Says, here's Johnny.
	CarniverseVegan says, F 'em.
	Darth John says, thumbs up.
	Mechanic1908 says, here.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay.
	So yeah, that's it.
	That's the latest of what's going on in Canada.
	It's crazy.
	It's crazy.
	The systems have been weaponized.
	The country is in political, social, economic, moral decay.
	And the impact of that does not just remain limited to Canada internally.
	I thoroughly believe that the instability and conflict that we see across the world results from The West having lost its moral authority to lead, to stand, to lecture anybody.
	When Putin sees Justin Trudeau sicking his abusive police, beating the ever-loving piss out of war veterans, and then Justin Trudeau gets up and lectures Putin on what he can and cannot do, there are two fingers to which will be shown to the Trudeaus of the world when they try to lecture other people for doing basically what they're doing.
	When Joe Biden Basically finances terrorism across the world, whether it's directly or indirectly, as we discussed yesterday, or tacitly through incompetence, negligence, or impeachable recklessness by surrendering billions and billions of dollars in a debacle of a withdrawal from Afghanistan.
	Where the hell do you think those weapons go?
	So you got Canada saluting Nazis in our parliament, funding Nazis because we now know that it's a real problem, over in Ukraine.
	You got Biden abandoning weaponry that finds its way into the hands of terrorists.
	If it's not directly, indirectly financing terrorism through third-party entities, what happens worldwide?
	Things go to hell.
	In a handbasket, as we're seeing right now.
	But alas, that's what's going on in Canada with Tamara Leach's trial and Chris Barber's trial.
	Not to forget him.
	Tamara Leach has got the name that goes with it, but Chris Barber.
	It's also in there.
	Pat King.
	Oh jeez, I have to find out what's up with Pat King's trial.
	We saw what happened with Artur Pawlowski sentenced to time served for his mischievous misconduct.
	But meanwhile, throw some eggs off higher sky-rise buildings.
	All is cool in Amsterdam, people.
	Alrighty.
	Let's see what else is going on in the news.
	I just got...
	Hold on one second.
	I just got a tweet from Chris Pawlowski, the CEO of Rumble, and it's interesting.
	It'll be a good segue into the Scheiser show that is American politics.
	Hold on one second here.
	Let's see this.
	Chris Pawlowski, I will say, and I've been saying it for a long time, truth social is far more influential and important than most people think.
	I'd also put Rumble in the same category.
	People are starting to wake up.
	And this is a Fox News article.
	I don't read Fox News anymore because they are sucky sucky.
	Biden campaigned to launch a count on Trump's Truth Social.
	There's very little truth happening on Truth Social, but at least now it'll be a little fun.
	Biden campaign tells Fox News Digital.
	Yeah, because Biden can't string a sentence together to say it himself.
	Ooh, I've got a Truth Social account.
	Dude, I might have to get on there.
	I've been getting notifications, but I just haven't been posting.
	I might have to.
	Will this bring me to truth in order to troll Biden?
	I've got at Viva Fry.
	I'll just make sure there's no confidence.
	I have not yet posted on Truth Social, so maybe I'll get going with that.
	Okay, ow, ow.
	We're going to have the...
	Sorbet cleansing of the palate.
	For those of you who don't know, this is totally irrelevant news.
	I know some people say don't.
	They like pull that thing from The Simpsons.
	Just don't look.
	Just don't look when you want to beat the media.
	Just don't.
	Just don't watch it.
	And eventually the mainstream media will just wither away.
	For those of you who don't know, Dylan Mulvaney just won.
	The Woman of the Year award, it was offered by, oh, some magazine.
	And it brought me down a little bit of a rabbit hole.
	Attitude Magazine.
	Okay, here we go.
	Attitude Magazine named Dylan Mulvaney there Woman of the Year.
	Attitude Magazine, it was sponsored by Virgin Airlines or Virgin, one of the Virgin, ironic name, but, you know, Virgin Mobile or Virgin Airlines, whatever.
	They named Dylan Mulvaney, Woman of the Year.
	I guess, actually, before we do that, let's go to Dylan's speech.
	The whole thing is just, it's just such a, the emperor has no clothes.
	You can only butt laugh at this.
	But it's a real thing.
	Here we go, here we go.
	Look at this.
	I mean, it's almost more fun to watch it without audio.
	Oh my god!
	Jeez Louise, we're not watching the entire thing.
	That scared the bejesus out of me.
	Look at this.
	Let's go here.
	Virgin Atlantic.
	Is that the phone or is that the airline?
	Oh, whatever.
	The Woman of the Year Award, supported by Virgin Atlantic, goes to Dylan Mulvaney!
	Hello, London!
	I am so honored to be here with you all tonight.
	And, you know, some see me as the Woman of the Year.
	Some see me as a woman of a year and some change, as I only publicly came out online 560 days ago.
	And some people don't see me as a woman at all.
	I know.
	Which is why receiving this honor from a queer publication-like attitude means so much more to me.
	Because here's what I've realized.
	You ready?
	Okay.
	You guys can go watch it.
	So that's what happened.
	And I gotta tell you, I don't care.
	I don't care in the best possible sense.
	I don't care what any grown adult wants to do with themselves.
	I don't care.
	Live your best life.
	Be happy so long as it doesn't impact other people.
	When you start having awards that were intended to be for a specific demographic for obvious reasons that are now being given to...
	People not of that demographic.
	Now, some people are going to say, it's a queer magazine, Viva, why do you care?
	I don't care, except for the absurdity of the entire situation that you have a crowd of people looking at someone that they know is a man, that they know has the man bits, that they know for the better part of his life lived a man,
	and will always live a man despite what he identifies as, now taking an award, accepting an award, basically laughing at women out there and saying, "Hardy Hard jokes on you, now I get your award." And if you don't go along with this gag, you get canceled, you get vilified, and the people who say live and let live will not let you live your life and let live.
	They will cancel you for not to live.
	I mean, it's outlandish and preposterous on its face.
	It is the emperor walking around naked and everyone's like...
	Beautiful robe, Mr. Emperor.
	And you got one kid who states the obvious, and it shocks the conscience of the adults who are playing along with the gag so they can all seem virtuous, tolerant, yada, yada, yada, and so on.
	So, having seen that video, I don't know how I fell into this rabbit hole, but I came across another video, which was Dylan Mulvaney.
	I mean, it's just...
	Another video from a year ago.
	This is from April when I found it.
	April 2022.
	And again, this is not making fun of any adult who wants to identify as me.
	We grew up, there were cross-dressers when we were kids.
	There were transvestites when we were kids.
	What is amazing about the culture in which we are currently living is that it is being used as the pretext in the search for victimhood because victimhood has become a social currency of sorts that people are vying for.
	And when they don't have victimhood, they've got to manufacture their victimhood.
	So much so, I'm going to play this one all the way through because this illustrates it.
	And ironically enough, it illustrates the quest for victimhood not even through the purported struggle of...
	Identifying as thinking you're a woman when you're not.
	In another way, which I want to see if everybody can astutely observe the patent insanity and hypocrisy of this short 45-second TikTok.
	I recently told my parents that I may be a little bit romantically interested in women.
	And that was a big shock for them, considering the past 10 years of coming out as gay, then queer, then non-binary, then trans.
	And I think it was just a bit of a shock.
	So I tell my dad and he goes, well, I would love to see you get a woman pregnant.
	And I said, oh, no, no, no.
	She would be getting me pregnant.
	The emperor has no clothes.
	And I said, never say never.
	And then I tell my mom and she goes, I would just love to see you own property one day.
	And in California, that's sort of, you know, a parent's dream.
	It's not having kids or getting married.
	It's it's are you able to own a house?
	Wouldn't that be nice?
	Yeah.
	I recently told my parents that I'm...
	This is not...
	I mean, I'm sure Dylan thought this was a shtick back in April, and now the world has taken seriously what could only have been intended to be a shtick.
	So I recently told my parents I'm attracted to women, despite the fact that I came out as gay, which means that I was a man attracted to men, but now that I think...
	So if he's a woman, is he not still gay?
	If in his own mind he thinks he's a woman and wants to be regarded as a woman and trans women are women and he's attracted to women now, doesn't that still make him gay?
	I mean, maybe it does.
	Maybe that's the whole double-fakey irony.
	In order for him to remain being gay as he was his entire life, because he says he's a woman now, well, then he can't be attracted to men because that would make him heterosexual, trans-hetero.
	Anyhow, try to piece it together, but listen to this.
	I recently told my parents that I may be a little bit romantically interested in women.
	And that was a big shock for them, considering the past 10 years of coming out as gay.
	Gay because I'm a man attracted to men.
	Then queer, then non-binary, then trans.
	And I think it was just a bit of a shock.
	Yeah, to everybody with half a brain.
	So I tell my dad, and he goes...
	Well, I would love to see you get a woman pregnant.
	I would love to see you get a woman pregnant.
	I would love to see you have a kid.
	That's what his dad just said to him.
	Son, I would love to see you get a woman pregnant, have a kid, and a life that most people consider a happy life.
	Maybe, if that's not a happy life for Dylan, all the best.
	His dad says, I wish you would have a kid.
	I said, oh, no, no, no.
	She would be getting me pregnant.
	Can you imagine this?
	Father gave birth, he didn't give birth until, had a kid who's a boy and a gay man at that, now telling his dad, no, no, no, dad, she's going to get me pregnant.
	I mean, is it a shtick or is it antagonism for the father who says, I just want you to have a kid, I want you to be happy in life, based on my traditional understanding of happiness.
	No, dad, she's going to get me pregnant.
	Okay, son.
	And then he said, what, do you have a vagina now?
	And I said, never say never.
	As if having a vagina would enable Dylan Mulvaney to get pregnant.
	A neo-vagina, I believe, is the word.
	And then I tell my mom, and she goes, I would just love to see you own property one day.
	And in California, that's sort of, you know, a parent's dream.
	It's not having kids.
	I'm sorry, was it a parent's dream?
	He's hard done by.
	I'm stopping there.
	It's hard.
	He's a victim.
	It's a parent's dream that all they want their kid to do is own property.
	They don't want their kids to have children.
	Oh, I'm sorry, did your dad just not say five seconds ago that he just wished you would have a kid?
	When I was in high school and I had to read a book as part of a detention called Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl.
	Man's Search for Meaning.
	How do people survive through the most atrocious...
	We live in an era where it's now man's search for victimhood, because that's the only way, and it's the cheapest, easiest, most accessible way for anyone to attain social status, social currency, not through accomplishments, not through overcoming adversity, but through fabricating adversity, fabricating victimhood, so that you can then claim to be a victim of it, to overcome victimhood that you manufactured for yourself.
	And it's such victims.
	All that his parents wanted him to do is have a kid.
	That's what his father said.
	I'm a victim because all my mother ever wanted me to do was own property.
	That's all parents in California care about, except for my father.
	Now that we've cleansed our palate on that, people, I think we've cleansed our palate enough.
	That's the distraction.
	I appreciate, you know, people say, this is the distraction, people.
	First of all, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
	In a two-hour episode, we can talk about the importance and the...
	Not so important at the same time.
	But we've cleansed our palate on that distraction, so let us move on to the two Rumble rants that I just noticed in the chat.
	ThinboySlick, good to see you again.
	And even the crowd sounded like it was straining to remain enthusiastic about Dylan.
	And since I haven't mentioned a mullet in a while, Samson interview Wen Viva.
	We've been in touch.
	He follows me on Twitter.
	I follow him on Twitter, so stay tuned.
	God, it's going to happen.
	I love Samson.
	I'm just waiting for Samson's new song.
	Do we call it a song?
	Samson, if you guys don't know, I don't want to compare him to Tom McDonald.
	I just sing.
	They're both awesome.
	Samson's lyrics and Samson's format is just a notch more original in an odd sense because I'll have to play Samson a little clip afterwards.
	Samson's videos.
	They're all basically unedited.
	One take, he sings the lyrics, but he sings the lyrics.
	In reality, it looks real.
	The lyrics are amazing.
	There's not a wasted word.
	There's not a pretentious, phony word.
	There's not...
	It's amazing.
	And so I can only praise Samson.
	That sounds very biblical.
	Okay, anyway, so stay tuned.
	It might happen sooner than later.
	Barbara Ariane.
	Barbisa Ariane.
	Nice to see you again.
	Viva.
	Listen to Leonard Cohen's The Future from 92. The one that just comes to mind.
	Everybody knows what's going...
	Is that the...
	Hold on.
	Is that the song, actually?
	Google.
	The Future.
	Leonard Cohen.
	Lyrics.
	Is that the one everybody knows?
	No.
	Give me back my...
	Oh, that's a good one.
	Give me back my broken...
	Oh, that was from a movie...
	That was from a David Lynch movie, wasn't it?
	I don't want to play it, because then if I do that, it's going to get copyclaimed when I put this back on YouTube.
	I remember with some of the lyrics, give me crack and blank blank sex.
	I remember that.
	Jeez, I just had a memory of childhood.
	My father, still alive, so when I say used to, it's not because he's no longer with us.
	My father loved Leonard Cohen.
	And I remember listening to this when we were kids.
	This is 92, so I was 13 years old at the time, 12, 13. And none of us liked Leonard Cohen at the time.
	I don't like his earlier stuff, but some of his darker stuff I very much like.
	Yeah, okay.
	I'm going to go back and listen to it afterwards.
	All right, so that's what's going on in the Dylan Mulvaney world.
	Let's go to Trump.
	There's been news, by the way.
	Now, I'm sure that it's been updated even since the time that we've been live.
	Oh, I don't want to go to Fox News to get it.
	I'm not going to.
	Julie Kelly.
	Julie Kelly tweeted it out.
	She said, Julie underscore Kelly too.
	If everybody is not following her, everybody should be following her.
	Let me just make sure I just gave the...
	Yeah, it's Julie underscore Kelly too.
	Jokingly put out a tweet that said, I don't think Trump's going to be able to talk about the gag order under the new gag order.
	So there's been a limited gag order issued by Judge Chutkin.
	Chutney?
	Chutkin or Chutkin?
	I forget which.
	Let me see if I can find the...
	Where is it?
	I had it here.
	Freedom Convoy, the government, statues, Donald Trump gag order.
	Here we go.
	CNN.
	It's always important to know what your enemies are saying, people.
	Trump does not have the right to say and do exactly what he pleases.
	Judge Chutkin says, issuing gag order.
	Let's refresh and just see if this hasn't been changed.
	Seven minute read.
	I don't have seven minutes, man.
	What do you think I am?
	A novelist?
	Alright, here we go.
	So he's been issued with something of a limited gag order.
	Apparently he can't disparage the court staff or something.
	Let's just see it.
	Federal judge on Monday, Judge Chut...
	Is it Chutney or Chutkin?
	Chutkin.
	Federal judge on Monday issued a gag order on former President Donald Trump limiting what he can say about special counsel Jack Smith's federal prosecution.
	Can you imagine this?
	They prosecute you mercilessly with endless resources.
	They then try to shut you up in terms of what you can say publicly to defend yourself.
	And then they pretend that this is somehow due process.
	But what he can say about his prosecution into his alleged attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
	The order restricts Trump's ability to publicly target court personnel.
	Why?
	I said it before.
	It's not even predictive anymore.
	That last gag order issued by Arthur Engoron, where he issued a, oh, it's just a limited gag order.
	Well, that's going to serve as the groundwork, the foundation for all subsequent gag orders.
	It's not, you know, the Georgia indictment was not the anomaly.
	It was the new normal.
	And then every other indictment just got progressively more and more absurd until we got to the Georgia indictment, which literally is attempting to criminalize literal lawful activity.
	Okay, the order restricts Trump's ability to publicly target court personnel, potential witnesses, well that's everyone on earth, or the special counsel and his staff to target.
	I don't know if you know what that means.
	Can he identify who they are so the internet can go do their research into the political bias and potential offensive social media posts?
	Who knows?
	I'm sure they won't.
	I'm sure Judge Chutkin will not hesitate to put him in jail if she thinks...
	Or to find him in contempt.
	The order did not impose restrictions on disparaging comments about Washington, D.C. Oh!
	Can you imagine CNN is like touting this as objectivity and like a victory?
	Oh, he can still shit on Washington, D.C. He can still criticize Washington, D.C. They didn't go that crazy.
	For now.
	Until it comes to the day that he can't criticize Washington, D.C. Where the jury will take place.
	Or certain comments about the Justice Department at large.
	Oh.
	Both of which were requested.
	Can you imagine?
	Jack Smith asked in the gag order that he not be allowed to make disparaging comments about the cesspool, dank, urine-soaked hellhole that is Washington, D.C. That he can't comment on the partiality bias of a jury pool that will invariably be at least 95% Hillary Clinton support.
	They asked for it.
	But the judge, that's how objective she is.
	No point in recusing yourself from the trial.
	She said, no, Jack Smith.
	I'm putting my rubber foot down here and now.
	He can still insult Washington, D.C. He can still insult geographic locations.
	We have freedom of speech in America.
	This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses, Judge Tanya Chutkin said.
	This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.
	Well, yeah, when he says to protest peacefully, and that's insurrection, Everything's on the table, people.
	His presidential candidacy does not give him carte blanche.
	Oh, she speaks French now.
	To vilify public servants who are simply doing their jobs.
	Yep.
	Simply doing their jobs is probably not the right way to describe it, Judge Chutkin.
	Oh, the judge added.
	Chutkin noted that any violation could result in sanctions.
	Oh, yeah.
	Strip him of his grounds for a defense.
	Alex Jones, the president.
	Strip him of his defense.
	Give him a verdict, a default verdict, and then just have a trial on how long he goes to jail for.
	Following the two federal indictments.
	Oh, let me see.
	Where are we?
	I just lost this.
	Following the two federal indictments against the president, Trump has lashed out against prosecutors, potential witnesses, a judge, and the judge overseeing the election subversion case in Washington.
	Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith's office say these comments are enough to warrant a narrow restriction.
	Bullshizer.
	Is that a narrow restriction?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Oh, okay.
	Let me see here.
	Troubling posts targeting Smith.
	pushed Laurel over Trump's public posts targeting Smith's office, saying that his highly charged language pushes the bounds of what a criminal defendant can say publicly about their legal case.
	The judge said Trump's troubling posts may encourage harm against Smith and his team, and questioned Trump's attorneys as to why he should not be restricted from publicly attacking prosecutors during the case.
	Why?
	I could think of a number of reasons, one of which is the First Amendment, one of which would be the right to publicly criticize your tormentors.
	One would be just the right to publicly bring to The public's awareness?
	The fact that, I don't know, maybe Judge Chutkin also has some partisan hacks as chief, what are they called?
	Clerks of the law office, much like Arthur Angoran, who's got a Schumer-loving legal clerk working with him.
	Oh, let's see this.
	Chutkin specifically pointed to a truth social post in which the former president referred to Smith as a thug.
	Oh my goodness.
	Gag him.
	punish him, remove his tongue.
	Asking Loro, in what case, in what kind of case do you think it would be appropriate for a criminal defendant to call a prosecutor a thug and stay on the streets?
	Every criminal case?
	Every single one?
	Judge Chutkin would have been my answer.
	Will no one This meddlesome priest?
	What the heck does that mean?
	Okay, whatever.
	Politist stops at the courtroom door.
	Oh my goodness.
	Do you know the exact opposite is true?
	During the hearing, Chutkin took issue with Laura saying, what you have put in place is working.
	The judge laughed loudly in response to Laura's statement and told the attorney to stop making political arguments in her courtroom.
	Arguments put forth by Laura have prompted Chutkin to cut him off several times.
	As he argues Trump should not be restricted on what he can say while campaigning for president.
	Lauro at one point accused the special counsel's office through the proposed gag order of trying, quote, to prevent President Trump from speaking out about the issues of the day.
	Yeah, it's election interference.
	I mean, I guess Lauro can't call it that while in court.
	It's election interference.
	But Chutkin made clear that she wouldn't tolerate such...
	Politics stops at the courtroom door.
	Excuse me while I gag and vomit on my vomit.
	We have no special...
	Chutkin also reminded Laurel that Trump is a criminal defendant with restrictions on him that he can't intimidate witnesses or jurors while awaiting trial, while Joe Biden is not.
	Oh, okay.
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	So that's it.
	Limited gag order issued in New York fraud trial.
	If Chutkin does decide to place restrictions on what the foreign president can say, she won't be the first.
	Oh, look at that!
	It's almost like the bullshit precedent.
	Now serves as bullshit precedent to justify further bullshit.
	That's just how it works.
	It's the cycle of bullshit.
	I'm sorry to swear.
	In early October, the judge overseeing the New York civil trial fraud issued a gag order against the former president after he attacked a member of the...
	Attacked?
	After he called one of the members of his staff names on social media.
	Oh, that's attacked.
	Yeah, because the world might know that you're a political hack, have bragged about being a political partisan hack who has all the tools in his book to get to the judicial results that he wants, and has political hacks serving as his chief principal law clerk.
	Yeah, of course you'd want to gag someone from bringing that to the public awareness.
	Judge Arthur Angoran.
	Said after Trump accused his clerk of being Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's girlfriend and calling for her to be dismissed on a social media post.
	Failure to abide by this will be a result in sanctions.
	Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions.
	They love it.
	They want to shut him up so they can conceal the truth like they did in Roger Stone's case where it was only after people discovered who the chief jury foreperson was, political hack who had lied on her.
	formulaire questionnaire.
	What the hell is that thing?
	The questionnaire.
	The jury form.
	It's only when the spotlight of the interwebs does the research that the partisan hacks themselves not only will not do but will knowingly conceal.
	That's when they want to limit your speech.
	Can't have the president highlighting the fact that this is a political persecution by political actors with politically motivated hacks working for them in an attempt to subvert The elections interfere with the elections and weaponize an entire system to ensure that democracy cannot be had in the Democratic Republic of the United States of America.
	These United States of America.
	All right.
	What else do we have in the backdrop?
	So we got that.
	We're going to have some fun stuff.
	Oh yeah, we'll talk about some Canadian stuff.
	Hold on, but let me just go to the chat.
	So we've got...
	Oh, I'm going to make fun of Nilly KM.
	I'm not going to make fun of her because she got this unhinged doctor.
	I should say, unhinged doctor out of Canada.
	Doesn't seem to be learning from her mistakes, but we'll get there in a second.
	Canada, I wanted to talk about it yesterday and I think I forgot.
	Supreme Court overturning or ruling as unconstitutional the bulk of a law called Bill C-69, which was the Impact Assessment Act.
	We'll get to that.
	Justin Trudeau is a hack, and then what else?
	Okay.
	Yeah, we'll get to that.
	And then some stuff from POTUS.
	They lie.
	When they tell you something is true, you know that it's false.
	But first, let me take a selfie.
	That's a joke.
	Hrumble rant.
	Astro Sweat says, in certain eastern countries, the event would be called altitude.
	Sad but true.
	All right, now, President Trump announces he will appeal the gag order only approved by Judge Chutkin today per Truth Social Posting.
	That's from Semana.
	Yeah, damn well better.
	It's an absolute political judicial outrage.
	Period.
	Potential witnesses?
	What the hell does that even mean?
	Everyone's a potential witness.
	Smash that like button, says Snoopy on the ground.
	Yes.
	Smash it hard.
	In fact, just click it once.
	Or more than once if you have more than one account.
	Oh yeah, we're all seeing these comments coming up in real time.
	Okay, good.
	What was I going to say?
	Just read a few more comments and then we're going to head to the story.
	U.S. Law Judges Rule 2.3, Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment.
	Coder 182.
	Coder182.
	You're stealing Blink182 is half of their name.
	3,000 people in the stream.
	Hit that like button.
	3,000 people for a no-notice Monday stream.
	That's not bad.
	People need to laugh, make light of, and dance in the rain.
	Even if that rain is the acid rain that is destroying all of the infrastructure around us.
	You can either laugh or you can cry, and it feels sometimes a little better to laugh, even though every now and again, you need to go sit in a room, Put on a Sigur Rós song, Hopi Puli, or one of those awesome songs, and just have a good cry.
	Then you come out refreshed, rejuvenated, to go laugh at the madness of the world.
	Part of which, if you don't know what's happening in Canada, I used to have Montreal Mondays back in Montreal, where I wanted to celebrate Montreal for its beauty.
	How the world has changed.
	Out of Canada, it's the most...
	The Supreme Court ruled against this piece of legislation called the Impact Assessment Act.
	I'll just pull up the decision.
	We're not going through the entire decision because it's a long, long decision.
	And look, the Supreme Court issues their rulings.
	They have their summaries, but their summaries are pretty thorough summaries that get the essence of the decision.
	And then if you want to go into the judicial rules of procedure, then you go read the 100 or whatever, 72-page decision.
	This was a Supreme Court ruling declaring unconstitutional, not in whole, but for the better part of, a piece of legislation that sought to impose federal requirements on provincial resource projects.
	It was called Bill C-69, which is going to be even more hilarious when we get to some of the language of Bill C-69.
	Cue the Billy Madison.
	69. When you hear some of the language in there, the 69 is going to be even funnier.
	But listen to this.
	So this is just the summary.
	I'll just get to the big paragraph.
	In 2019, paragraph 1, everybody, following a review of the existing federal environmental assessment process, Parliament enacted the Impact Assessment Act, and the Governor and Council made the Physical Activities Regulation under the Impact Act itself.
	The regulation established a complex information gathering and regulatory scheme, which is essentially two schemes in one.
	First, a discrete portion of the scheme, contained in sections 81 to 91, the only portion declared constitutional, deals with projects carried out or financed by federal authorities, which would leave it in their jurisdiction, on federal lands, Or outside of Canada.
	Hence, it would be within the federal jurisdiction to have a process governing those projects which are on federal lands and financed by federal authorities or existing outside of Canada, which would be federal jurisdiction and not provincial.
	Second, the balance of the scheme made up of the Impact Assessment Act's remaining provisions and regulations deals with designated projects as defined in the Act.
	Okay.
	Just let's get to the Judge Wagner.
	Very smart man.
	I want to get to the good part of it here.
	In the instant case...
	We don't need to read the whole thing, people, but this is going to be more detailed than you're ever going to get on any news outlet out there.
	In the instant case, a careful analysis of the purpose and the effects of the Impact Assessment Act and regulations reveals that the scheme they establish has two different components, one dealing with designated projects and the other...
	Okay, we did this.
	The intrinsic and extrinsic evidence reveals that the...
	The scheme articulates a broad array of purposes, including protecting the environment and fostering sustainability.
	Wait until you see what the Act does.
	Facilitating the participation of Indigenous peoples and the public.
	Throw in the word Indigenous into any legislation if you want to attempt to justify your federal overreach.
	Cloak your tyranny in benevolence.
	I'm not doing it because I want to control provincial powers.
	I'm doing it for the Indigenous people.
	Justin Trudeau loves the Indigenous.
	And establishing an efficient process.
	The legal and practical effects considered together reveal that the scheme establishes a comprehensive information-gathering regulatory process.
	The pith and substance of the...
	Oh, it doesn't matter.
	Okay.
	There is no doubt that Parliament can enact impact assessment legislation that is directed at federal aspects of projects.
	Okay.
	Let's just get to the part...
	Let's just get to the part that was good.
	The designated project scheme is ultra-virus, meaning beyond the authority of the government, as its pith and substance exceeds the bounds of federal jurisdiction.
	This is so for two overarching reasons.
	First, the effects within federal jurisdiction do not drive the scheme's decision-making functions.
	Consequently, the scheme...
	It's a legal term and I hate it.
	There are four decision-making junctures embedded in the scheme.
	Designation of the physical activities, the screening decision, the delineation of the scope of the impact assessment and the factors to be considered therein, and wait until we get there.
	The public interest.
	The scheme requires the decision-maker to consider a host of factors but does not specify how those factors are to drive the ultimate conclusion.
	The scheme's decision-making mechanism thereby loses its focus on regulating federal impacts.
	Instead, it grants decision-makers a practically untrammeled power to regulate projects qua projects.
	Just regulate all projects.
	Regardless of whether Parliament has jurisdiction to regulate a given physical activity in its entirety.
	In this respect, the screening decision are constitutionally problematic.
	Okay, whatever.
	Let me just see something here.
	Is the word gender?
	Yeah, there you go.
	Okay, it's in there.
	How would gender find its way into the environmental impact analysis of a federal or provincial project?
	So the decision basically says, in pith and substance, That the government basically gave itself unbridled power to interfere with non-federal jurisdiction approval process.
	It was so outrageous, so ambiguous, so broad and ever-reaching, some fake news propagandists argue online, oh, this regulation never interfered with any provincial project.
	Yeah, probably because nobody would be stupid enough to get involved in a process when the factors to be considered include And I'm quoting...
	Is this it?
	There you go.
	Look at this.
	So, preamble.
	This is the actual law.
	Or it was the actual law.
	I mean, I guess sections, whatever, are going to remain in effect.
	My goodness.
	This is like...
	Hey, guys, why doesn't anyone care about the law?
	Because it's ridiculous.
	Amended to...
	And we got the Impact Assessment Act.
	Okay, here we go.
	But let's just go to the word gender.
	Why would it be in here?
	You tell me.
	Preamble.
	Wait until you see this, people.
	Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing an impact assessment and regulatory system that Canadians trust and that provides safeguards to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians.
	Well, that's a very, very laudable, praiseworthy, honorable objective, Mr. Trudeau.
	We want to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians.
	How are we going to do that?
	Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing Canada's global competitiveness.
	How are you going to do that?
	By building a system that enables decisions to be made in a predictable and timely manner.
	Everything that they describe in the preamble is the exact opposite of reality.
	Providing certainty to investors.
	Bullshit!
	And stakeholders.
	Driving innovation.
	Bullshit!
	And enabling the carrying out of sound projects that create jobs for Canadians.
	Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations.
	Bullshit!
	This Trudeau is going to talk about reconciliation?
	I have to Google how many still need to boil their drinking water on reserves, but never mind that.
	The Metis and the Inuit through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, and cooperation and partnerships.
	Yep, that's when...
	That's when Justin Trudeau is not skipping National Truth and Reconciliation Day to go boogie boarding in Tofino.
	Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to using transparent processes that are built on early engagement and inclusive participation under the best available scientific information and data that the Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous peoples of Canada are taken into account in decision making.
	Let's get to the good one here.
	And whereas the government of Canada is committed to assessing how groups of women, men, and gender diverse people may experience policies, programs, and projects and to taking actions that contribute to an inclusive and democratic society and allow all Canadians to participate fully in all spheres.
	What in the name of sweet holy hell does that even mean?
	But let's just go here.
	When they're talking about what the factors are to consider here, the impact assessment of a designated project, this is section 22.1, whether it is conducted by the agency or a review panel, must take into consideration the following factors.
	Scroll down to S. The intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.
	What?
	In the name of sweet holy hell, does that mean?
	Factors to consider.
	I mean, I don't even know exactly what part of the process these were intended to apply to.
	Factors to consider.
	The Commission must make its recommendation taking into account, in light of, among other things, any indigenous knowledge that has been provided to the Commission and scientific information and data, all considerations that appear to be relevant directly to the pipeline, including the health Congratulations,
	Justin Trudeau, you have made Canada a laughingstock of the world and understandably, predictably and rightly so.
	The intersection of sex Yeah, that should go into environmental impact.
	The court struck it down.
	The court struck it down, and you still have partisan MSM political hacks like Dale Smith, journo underscore Dale, saying, the better part of the pipeline is still constitutional.
	This is a victory for Justin Trudeau.
	It's not a humiliating defeat.
	Slapping gender identity issues in impact assessment acts.
	And it gets laughed out of court.
	I mean, this was five to two, so there was actually two dissenters in there.
	I'm sure they said, yes, it's very important when assessing the environmental impact.
	You have to take in people's sociological, psychotropic...
	Do we have enough trans oil workers?
	If you don't have at least 10% trans oil workers, we are going to shut this project down.
	And Dale Smith and other hacks out there say, this hasn't impacted one project.
	Yeah, it probably hasn't impacted one project because nobody in their right mind would invest when that is the criteria for determining whether or not a project is going to get authorized by the commission.
	So, good on the courts.
	Good for Justin Trudeau.
	You've made Canada a laughing stock.
	I hope you have a long, healthy life so you can see the way history laughs at you and assesses the disastrous impact you have made on Canada.
	As they say in 300, may you live forever in the actual literal sense so you can see people laugh at you and...
	Spit on the legacy that you have left on Canada.
	The damage that you have done, which will last for generations.
	If it can ever be remedied.
	But speaking of people who are also, you know, laughable in the saddest senses.
	Let's do a test out there, chat.
	Nikki, her name is Nilly Kaplan Mirth.
	It's Nilly KM on Twitter.
	Everyone in the chat, go see if you're preemptively blocked by someone who you have never even interacted with.
	Go see if you're preemptively blocked by NillyKM on Twitter.
	I guarantee you, many of you out there are going to say, I'm blocked by Nilly, and I don't even know who this person is.
	NillyKM is a doctor.
	She's a doctor.
	I don't know if she's a pediatrician.
	She's a practicing doctor.
	She's also what we would call a mask fascist, or we would call a maskist, a fascist maskist.
	Who believes, I don't know how many times she's been jabbed.
	She literally wears double masks.
	She literally berates everybody who doesn't wear a mask.
	She has me blocked on Twitter.
	But I got my moles on Twitter.
	And also, you know, alternate accounts so I can still see people.
	I mean, I'm transparent about having an alternate account so I can see these tweets.
	Nilly Kaplan, I don't know how many times she's been boosted, but multiple times.
	Walks around wearing a mask.
	She's had COVID.
	And announces it.
	Like, if you've been seven times jabbed and you get COVID twice in a month, you should be ashamed of yourself to some extent, because clearly whatever the hell you're doing is not working.
	But not only not ashamed, she goes on to Twitter to blame it on other people.
	Nillie Kaplan.
	Damn it.
	It has been one month since last infection.
	To nitwits out there who say, quote, aha, so masks don't work, end quote.
	Masks work.
	Meetings, groups of unmasked people put those of us being responsible at risk.
	500 patients coming for COVID-19 vaccine and flu shots next week.
	Hashtag mask up.
	And she then replied to her own tweet with this and doesn't understand.
	not medical advice people.
	Symptoms are worse this infection than last month.
	I've been off work for the last three days.
	Staff is asking what's the likelihood that I'll be Able to return to work on Monday.
	Slim to no chance.
	This is what happens when people do not care about making others sick.
	Can't even finish a sentence or make any sense.
	Can't even contemplate the reality that maybe, maybe everything that you're doing to, in your own twisted, demented mind, to avoid a certain outcome is actually exponentially increasing the likelihood of that outcome occurring.
	Don't ask questions.
	It's everybody else's fault.
	It's the non-maskers.
	The masks work so well that despite her two masks everywhere...
	Maybe it's because she took her mask off during that gay pride parade, which she did.
	Maybe she should go blame the gay pride parade.
	Anyone ever thought...
	You know, now that I've thought about that, I'm going to...
	I'm going to go float that idea on the interwebs after this stream.
	But that's not the last of the humiliation coming out of Canada.
	Listen to this.
	The world is on fire.
	And people can't call...
	Terrorism, terrorism.
	There's black and white in the world in some circumstances, and then there could be a grey zone as to what the response to the black and the white of the world is.
	One can have a differing opinion on what the proper, correct, humane response is for Israel under such circumstances, but there can be no relativizing to say that what occurred a week and two days ago was anything other than The most atrocious atrocity imaginable.
	There can be no black and white on that.
	Someone can say, and you can look for explanations as to how things have occurred, and people need to be sensitive not to confound explanations with justifications.
	That being said, when we cannot call terrorism terrorism, And when state-funded media is actually circulating internal memos, we've got a problem.
	When they're saying, and this is CBC, this is from the National Post.
	I didn't get a response to my tweet from the guy who issued this memo.
	This is from the National Post.
	CBC tells journalists to not call Hamas, quote, terrorists in leaked memo.
	You don't want to call terrorism, terrorism.
	Directive says that even when quoting others, we should add context to ensure the audience understands this is opinion and not fact.
	This is from the CBC leaked memo.
	Quote, do not refer to militants, soldiers, or anyone else as terrorists, end quote.
	The memo states, emphasizing, quote, do not, end quote, with bold type.
	Quote, the notion of terrorism remains heavily politicized and is not part of the story.
	Even when quoting Clipping, a government or a source referring to fighters as, quote, terrorists, end quote, we should add context to ensure the audience understands this is opinion, not fact.
	This includes statements from Canadian government and Canadian politicians.
	It's a matter of opinion as to whether or not killing children and women and raping women is terror.
	It's a matter of opinion.
	It's not a matter of fact.
	Because if you ask the people who don't want to call it terrorism, well, they'll say even those children in occupied territories, they're legitimate military targets.
	That's not moral relativism to the black hole of depravity.
	That's CBC.
	And I tweeted out at the guy who issued that memo.
	Is this for real?
	Tell me this isn't for real.
	As far as I know, I haven't gotten a response.
	That's the absolute state of Canadian media.
	It's a matter of opinion.
	Whether or not killing women, children, and civilians is terrorism.
	It's not a matter of opinion.
	It's literally the definition of terrorism.
	And you can call Hamas a terrorist group.
	And you can call that terrorism.
	And nonetheless have moral qualms with Israel's response as to whether or not it's...
	Whether or not it itself also qualifies as some form of a war crime.
	But no, we're living in a world where...
	Can't even do that.
	Can't even do that.
	That is CBC.
	Defund the CBC.
	Don't cancel them.
	They will cancel themselves because no one will pay for that shit.
	If they weren't surviving off our taxpayer dollars...
	Oh, I shouldn't include myself in that anymore.
	If they couldn't survive off...
	Let me rephrase.
	If they didn't get taxpayer dollars, they would not survive off their own merits.
	They should be shunned.
	They should be mocked.
	They should be humiliated.
	They should be demonized.
	Because they are literally acting like demons.
	But yeah, it's not part of the story.
	I'm sorry, by you not making it part of the story, you're making it part of the story.
	By saying it's not part of the story, you are interjecting yourself in the news.
	The Canadian government recognizes Hamas as a terrorist group.
	For you, CBC, to say it's a matter of opinion and to say it's not part of the story, you, CBC, are making yourselves part of the story.
	Defund the bloody CBC.
	In a meaningful way, support and condone terrorism by refusing to call terrorism terrorism.
	All right.
	And I think that might be getting close to the end of it.
	We got one more.
	We got one more.
	Hold on.
	I feel like we've seen this.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, no.
	This is...
	Okay, this was the bill.
	This was going back to Bill C69.
	All right.
	That's a lot.
	One last story, people, before we head on over to Locals and have the Locals after stream pate where I see some tips that I will get to there.
	Here.
	Boom shakalaka.
	There we go.
	Yes, sir.
	Julie Kelly seems to have posted.
	Hold on a second.
	I see tweets here.
	Okay.
	I was going to go to Rumble and just see.
	Are we?
	Takeshi69 got arrested.
	Yeah, we could have.
	I don't care about Takeshi69.
	Alright, last story of the day.
	What you know, as a predictive method, when liars tell you something and they are, what is the word?
	Not pathological liars, they are habitual liars.
	Like, liars as in, they will tell you things that are not true.
	Like, I've never discussed my son's business dealings with him.
	Lie.
	I've never been in business with my son.
	Lie.
	The Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation.
	When habitual liars tell you something, you can pretty much predict it's a lie.
	Now, I talked about it briefly yesterday.
	And I just want to remind everybody.
	Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Don't, don't, don't get, don't get.
	Oh.
	Well, the POTUS administration is saying that, I went over this yesterday, but no specific evidence that Iran was involved in the Hamas attack.
	Kirby.
	John Kirby comes out and says, you know, they are in general culpable for supporting terrorism because Iran finances Hamas.
	But we don't have any specific evidence that they knew of, partook in, financed this specific well-orchestrated terrorist attack.
	They are lying.
	And I'm telling you now, it's going to come out that they are wrong and that they knew that what they were saying was wrong when they said it because they said it before.
	Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
	They even had their intelligence come out and say it.
	Their intelligence.
	Remember this and never, never let it be forgotten.
	Intelligence who knew that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true and accurate at the time they said this came out and said It bears the earmarks or the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
	Fifty former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the providence of the New York Post.
	They knew it was accurate and true and authentic at the time that they lied to us.
	When your current and former intelligence lied to you, when your president lies to you over and over and over again and gets caught over and over and over again, And then they, let me just see, I want to get the, here we go.
	More than 50 senior intelligence officers signed a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden's son, quote, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.
	And you'll notice how it's a lie without being a lie.
	Because they might be right.
	Yeah, it has all the earmarks of Russian information operation.
	Because disinformation, information operations kind of look the same.
	So it's not a lie.
	It has the earmarks of Russian information operation, except it's true.
	We know that it's true, and we know that it's true as we are casting doubt on whether or not it's true.
	And now you have John Kirby, habitual liar, of the Joe Biden administration, habitual liar, Press Secretary Karim Jean-Pierre, habitual liar, telling you something, and I'm predicting, that they knew, know, or have evidence.
	Of direct involvement.
	And that's not because I know anything other than the fact that the people who are telling me this are habitual liars.
	And therefore, I'm predicting that this, too, is a habitual lie.
	Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy.
	Okay, so we got...
	That's it.
	We've done it.
	People, I dare say we've done it all.
	Judge to consider gag order.
	Oh, from the New York Times?
	Eh, who cares?
	We've done this.
	So, everybody.
	With that said, thank you all for being here.
	Let me refresh in our...
	Ooh, if I refresh here.
	Hold on a second.
	So on Friday, by the way, I don't know the time yet, but I'm going to have an interview with the CEO of a company called Public Square, Chris Seifert.
	I hope I didn't make a mistake on his first name.
	I remember his last name because I spelt it correctly.
	Let me just make sure.
	It's coming Friday.
	It's going to be in the morning.
	Just have to hammer down the TAM.
	Let me see here.
	Oh, it's Michael Seifert.
	Sorry, not Chris Seifert.
	I'm thinking of Chris Skye, who I want to interview as well.
	Michael Seifert, CEO of Public Square, an interesting company that is congregating like-minded businesses on a website so that you can shop and spend your money with companies that you ideologically either are aligned with or whom do not engage in this bullshit cancel culture.
	Boycotting of advertising.
	So it's a great company.
	It's going to be an interesting...
	I have no relation to it yet, other than the fact that I met Michael at the TimCast event, and we were talking.
	I was like, this is amazing stuff that you're doing.
	Wednesday, there might be something interesting.
	I don't know if I can confirm it yet, so stay tuned.
	And that is all.
	I'll be live tomorrow because Poopoo's going to continue hitting the fan because we're living in a world of endless, endless crap.
	Oh, see, awesome.
	Public Square is great, says Corona Macabre.
	There's vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Oh, and no bones to you, says, you also save a lot of money this way.
	No, I was at Walgreens yesterday, and I was going to buy emergency, those citric packet things with the middle.
	I was like, oh, wait a minute, that's right.
	Pfizer owns them.
	I know this now.
	I'm going to buy the generic version.
	Now, someone's going to ruin this for me and say, well, Walgreens is owned by a company that also does crap.
	I don't know, man.
	At some point, I'm not into boycotting, but I most certainly am into voting with my feet and voting with my dollar, as I will continue to do.
	Honor 234 says, great show.
	I like hearing that because I'm very insecure and I have lost the ability to self-assess.
	Now, with that said, we are going to go because I've got children that I can hear screaming.
	They want to play.
	We're going to do the locals thing, so get your butts on over to locals, but stay tuned, people.
	I'll be live tomorrow.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Clips are on Viva Clips.
	The podcast is on Viva Barnes Law for the People on Podbean, Stitcher, all over there.
	Yesterday's stream is up with audio, so that's it.
	Oh yeah, people.
	Go.
	I bought an Electrolux vacuum bags and filtered 25 bucks off.
	I grew up, my mother had Electrolux vacuum cleaners.
	I remember that.
	Walgreens sucks.
	Well, there you go.
	Someone just rude to see it says second chain.
	All right.
	Come over to Locals.
	We're going to end on Rumble.
	If you want to support the channel, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I forgot to plug the merch, but you know what to do.
	vivafry.com if you want to get the best merch on earth.
	vivafry.com.
	V-I-V-A-F-R-E-I.com.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending it.
	That's it.
	Enough rambling.
	Ending on Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Come on over to Locals.
	See you all on Locals in 3, 2, 1. Did I do it?

▲