Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 5, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:00:32

Interview with Donald Best, Talking Detective Grus "SIDS" Investigation, Coutts 4 Update! Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is the insurrection.
	I made a joke about this.
	This is Jacob Angeli, the guy who was jailed for...
	Hold on, hold on.
	Why do I hear this?
	Oh, son of a gun.
	Hold on one second.
	I've got this playing somewhere in the background.
	Hold on, hold on.
	I hear myself somewhere in the background.
	Nope, that's not it.
	Okay, look, I haven't done this in a while.
	Okay, so it's not here.
	I'm going to close this down.
	I still hear myself as I'm talking.
	I hear Double Viva.
	This is it right here.
	Found it.
	Okay, good.
	Oh, that's better.
	Gosh.
	Good evening, everybody.
	I'm looking at myself.
	I don't think I'm too shiny.
	I haven't put on powder, so my forehead looks like it's glistening a little bit.
	Sound is good.
	Sound is good.
	It wasn't that the sound wasn't good.
	It's that I had an open screen somewhere in the back that was playing the stream in real time, and I could hear it through my headphones.
	So, look, everyone's going to be a little disappointed.
	Maybe.
	Although maybe you're going to stick around and listen to this interview, which is going to be mind-blowing because I don't think people know what's going on in Canada.
	Barnes is traveling tonight.
	So the Sunday Viva and Barnes Law for the People is going to be on a Monday.
	It's like Taco Tuesday on a Thursday.
	Barnes is going to be here tomorrow night.
	We're going to have our show.
	We've got all our topics lined up.
	It's going to be amazing.
	I say I'm not postponing the Sunday show.
	We've got to keep this routine.
	For those who have a wonderful routine, I have an expression that humans are creatures of habit that get bored by routine, but when it comes to certain things, routines are good.
	The Sunday show, everybody knows, 1800 hours, and you'll get your dose of law.
	Barnes is traveling, so I said I'm going to find an amazing guest to talk about something that is of particular interest, one of two ongoing trials in Canada, and we're going to do it.
	The man's name is Donald Best, and they say Nomen is Omen, so there's something in a name.
	We've got Best and Freedom on the show tonight.
	And it's going to be amazing because there's a disciplinary hearing going on in Canada for an investigator who was investigating SIDS and apparently took her investigation in places that...
	I don't know if she's with the...
	I think she's with the RCMP, but she took her investigation in areas where the powers that be didn't like it.
	And decided to sanction her and discipline her for the manner in which she was conducting her investigations.
	We'll get to that on Rumble.
	And what else?
	We're going to talk about the Coots Four, because this man, Donald Best, is also following the Coots Four trial and the developments there.
	So this is going to be a Canadian-centric show tonight.
	And if you don't know who Donald Best is, you're going to know and you're going to love it after this.
	I'm glad you have Donald on.
	It's terrible what's happening with this detective.
	That's Detective Helen Groose.
	Before we get there, you may have noticed, as I'm sure you did, it said this stream, this episode, contains a paid sponsorship.
	And it does!
	And it's fieldofgreens.com.
	We're going to talk health tonight, and everybody should be very familiar and aware of what it means to be healthy.
	Don't have bad habits.
	Exercise, sunlight, vitamin D, especially in the winter season.
	Fruits and vegetables, you are supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
	Most people do not have that.
	I do.
	But I also have this wonderful thing called Field of Greens.
	A healthy habit.
	Twice a day, one spoonful.
	Gives you all the antioxidants, nutrients that you need.
	One spoonful is a serving of fruits and vegetables with all of the good stuff.
	Twice a day, you get two servings of fruits and vegetables if you do that.
	It is not a supplement.
	It is not an extract.
	It is desiccated greens.
	Pulverized fruits and vegetables.
	All of the antioxidant, beautiful stuff.
	USDA organic because it's a food.
	It is USDA approved.
	Made in America.
	Tastes delicious, if you can actually believe it, because it looks like swamp water, but the whole thing is that swamp water is rich in nutrients.
	It is the source of life.
	This stuff is healthy.
	It's a good habit.
	It's actually refreshing.
	It's got all the stuff your body needs.
	Twice a day, get rid of those disgusting diet soft drinks.
	They're not good for you.
	Don't do the disgusting energy drinks.
	This is what you need.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	It'll bring you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVA will get you 15% off your first order.
	The link is in the description.
	I've got two flavors.
	The lemongrass is actually the one I have in my cupboard right now, and it's delicious.
	So thank you, and shout out to our sponsors.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	15% off your first order.
	Now, link in the description.
	We're not going to wait much more time before bringing in our guest.
	And for those of you who don't know, let me do some standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no election fortification advice, no legal advice.
	These things here that we see super chats, Rumble rants over on Rumble.
	YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you don't like it, go watch on Rumble.
	I hope I pinned the link.
	I'll share the link afterwards if I don't.
	We're going to end after Donald Best does his intro, tells us who he is, and we're going to have an open, candid discussion about what's going on in the court systems in Canada.
	Because you never know.
	You can't have it on the platform that censors, deplatforms, you know, labels medical misinformation, advice and opinions of actual licensed medical practitioners, medical professionals, but YouTube knows better.
	Big Brother knows best, and I love Big Brother.
	So we're going to end on YouTube and go over to Rumble.
	And then after that, we are going to do the after show on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where I'm going to answer the question, answer the tips, talk to the chat, and the link to that is over here.
	Now, without further ado, The man of the hour, the guest of the evening, Donald Best, who's going to tell us who he is, what he's doing here, and what he's doing in Canada, because the man is interesting.
	All right, Donald, let's rock this.
	Well, good evening, Viva.
	How are you?
	I'm doing very well.
	How are you doing, sir?
	Up in cold communist Canada.
	Cold communist Canada.
	Thank you very much.
	We're a little bit punch drunk.
	I mean, we spent a week at this hearing.
	For Detective Helen Gruse, Ottawa Police Detective Helen Gruse, she's charged with a provincial offense of discredible conduct for having the temerity, sarcasm insert, to wonder, is there a connection, a potential connection, between the new mRNA vaccines and the sudden unexpected deaths of breastfeeding infants?
	That's what you wondered.
	Hold on, Donald.
	Before we even get there, who are you?
	Ah.
	Well, I'm Donald Best.
	I was born in Hamilton, Ontario.
	Son of a mechanic.
	And at 21 years old, I signed on to the Toronto Police.
	Became a motorcycle cop.
	I was only going to spend a couple of years doing that, just until I found my way into something I really liked.
	But I really liked it.
	I loved law enforcement.
	I loved intelligence work.
	And from riding a motorcycle, I launched a career that saw me go undercover against organized crime, investigate corrupt police officers, judges, crown attorneys.
	And then I did that and worked with various intelligence agencies in Canada, and I mean alongside them on joint projects, including the precursor to CSIS, the RCMP Security Service.
	And then I went on to, after 15 years of doing that, I found that I had to leave.
	Essentially, I love my work.
	I was doing well.
	I was at that time the staff investigator for the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, sergeant, detective.
	But I found myself with three teenagers and no wife, and you cannot work night shift and raise a family.
	So I had to do that.
	And then I ended up founding a private investigation agency.
	And I found I was doing the exact same work I was doing as a police officer.
	When my children grew up a little bit, I was infiltrating organized crime.
	My work took me all around the world, virtually every continent.
	I ended up dealing with many very serious crimes, frauds that were where what was at stake was a billion dollars, and there were millions of documents, and that's the level that I operated at.
	And it was all very interesting.
	And, oh yeah, I spent 63 days in prison every day in solitary confinement after being convicted of contempt of court in a civil hearing based on fabricated evidence.
	I'm vindicated.
	I'm thoroughly vindicated.
	But I spent 63 days in prison every day in solitary confinement before I was vindicated.
	So let me ask you this, just back it up a little bit.
	15 years plus with, is it the RCMP?
	No, that was Toronto Police.
	Toronto Police.
	Investigations.
	Let me just ask you this for the sake of it.
	Unblemished record, untarnished record as a civil servant?
	Award winning, yes.
	Okay.
	So this is now, for those who have the slightest understanding of who you are, not your claim to fame by any means.
	You made the news because you spent 63 days in solitary confinement, from what I understand, on a contempt conviction ex parte.
	This could be the subject of an entire episode on its own.
	It could.
	We've got two current cases to get into, but summarily, what was this lawsuit that was going on that saw you convicted of contempt of court and then put in jail?
	Just briefly the context.
	All right.
	The case involved an estate in the country of Barbados and a fraud, money laundering major, that happened internationally.
	And what was at stake was about 1 billion US dollars.
	I became involved in investigating that.
	My company launched a lawsuit in Canada concerning that.
	And the end result was that in Florida, Years later, just two years ago, we won.
	And I ended up, my clients ended up, with the largest civil RICO judgment in the state's history, $269 million.
	And that was all my work.
	And that was part of the case where I went to prison with.
	But what happened is simply this.
	2009, I'm traveling in Asia.
	I heard that I was supposed to attend for disclosure, just normal disclosure, even in a civil case.
	But I heard about it the day before.
	I had phoned the court, had not received any court order.
	But the lawyers who were involved on the other side, don't forget, there's a billion dollars at stake.
	Signed an affidavit that I had been personally served with that court order.
	Let me just stop you there.
	You're the plaintiff in this lawsuit?
	I'm the plaintiff in this lawsuit, yes.
	Your company, which is the investigative company, has filed a suit, and what was the nature of the suit that you filed?
	The nature of the suit was I had a very small piece of that estate that was at stake.
	At stake was a billion dollars, and more specifically...
	The client had $130 million, $150 million that they had a stake in.
	And I had part of that, a very small.
	So when I found that the level of corruption, and this is all documented on my website, and in fact...
	The U.S. court documented all the government corruption and court corruption in Barbados as part of that lawsuit and the awards that they gave.
	But when I found that, I knew that I couldn't launch a lawsuit in Barbados.
	The Chief Justice was one of the ones involved down there who had stolen, defrauded this little old lady of this 130 million U.S. dollars.
	So I launched it in Canada.
	And the courts up here said, nice try.
	That's not the venue for it.
	We understand what's happening.
	So there was a class hearing.
	I'm traveling in Asia.
	So I phone up the place where I'm supposed to be deposed, and I say, I'm here.
	And they say, did you get the order?
	I said, no, 12 times.
	I said, send it to me.
	They asked me some questions.
	They refused to get a court reporter in, these Ontario lawyers.
	And then they hung up.
	But the phone didn't hang up.
	And I kept recording.
	Yes, I recorded everything.
	And they discussed how they were going to falsify evidence, fake exhibits, tell the court a lie.
	And they did so without telling me in a secret hearing.
	I was convicted in absentia, sentenced to three months in prison.
	I just come back with my recordings and everything would be okay.
	Should be okay, right, Viva?
	I just play the recordings for the court.
	They understand that the lawyers have committed perjury and they lock up the lawyers and set me free.
	Does that sound like it should have happened?
	But it didn't.
	They refused to allow the judge and all courts refused to hear my new evidence, refused to admit the recordings.
	They all listened to it in the back room, of course, but they refused to admit it.
	Admit to it.
	I went to jail.
	Years later, former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, a couple of years later, found out what was happening, did an investigation, testified on my behalf, swore an affidavit.
	It's all online at my website, donaldbest.ca, wherein the commissioner of the OPP said that A, one of his staff sergeants, detective staff sergeant, had accepted a bribe from the lawyers.
	B, the lawyers fabricated evidence and testified against me.
	They purged in themselves.
	And C, the judge was in on it too.
	That's what the commissioner of the OPP said.
	I'm vindicated, but once again, I had to do 63 days in solitary.
	It's the only way they could keep me alive in prison as an ex-cop.
	I understand now.
	Okay.
	And when you say it's on the cost hearing, that's to say then that the case was dismissed in Canada, and so you had to pay some costs.
	Right.
	And they have a cost.
	Okay.
	And so you don't show up for the cost hearing.
	Okay.
	So they send you to jail on content for three months, and they put you in solitary because you're an ex-investigator who's put a lot of people in jail who's there, who's probably in jail, that would like to shank you.
	Not thank you, but shank you.
	That's right.
	And, okay, let me ask you this.
	It's the same question I asked, you know, when I had one of the January 6ers on.
	I said, you know, you go to solitary.
	63 days is enough to irreparably break a human being.
	It is torture.
	It's absolute torture.
	I did it in two periods because of what happened.
	30 days and 33 days, something like that.
	With an appeal in between that was disallowed.
	Long story.
	Not going to get into it here.
	But, yes, it is torture.
	They kept the lights on 24 hours a day.
	I watched men eat their own feces, run against their door a thousand times until they knock themselves out, fall down, bust their teeth in, and then do it again.
	And that's what solitary is all about.
	It's forgery.
	Now, look, I'm a very stable person.
	I'm a big guy.
	I have my family and my friends waiting for me.
	I have my God.
	I have my faith, my prayer.
	But many of these poor people, they're just at the end and they have nobody.
	And yes, there are some very bad people there.
	I mean, there are signs over every cell.
	Suicide or biter.
	Biter.
	Two guards, leg irons.
	Mouth protection.
	I mean, this is signs over, you know, who all my friends are.
	And when mealtime came, the slots would go down and everybody would get down on their hands and knees and try and talk to each other and encourage each other.
	And I mean, we're really talking people who are at the end here.
	They really are.
	And it is torture.
	Noise all the time.
	Lights on in the cells all the time.
	A concrete bed with a one-inch foam mattress.
	And this is your life.
	That's the way it is.
	I came out changed.
	Not because I was irreparably damaged or anything, but I just came out changed my opinions.
	Of everything and of, I guess, an appreciation of my fellow man.
	Even these terribly evil people, some of them, they're still human beings.
	And we torture them every day because of where we put them and how they're treated.
	And they react like that, which makes me think of these poor guys, these four coots, four.
	They've been in remand, which is not prison.
	Remand is terrible.
	They've been in remand now for 630 days or something like that.
	And almost two years coming up on it.
	And they've been in solitary too.
	I have had no personal contact with them, but I've spoken with some who have.
	And it's tough.
	Some of them are not doing well.
	And they are political prisoners.
	We'll get to that.
	I've spoken with a number of them.
	They called me when they had their prison calls.
	I say faith and belief in something bigger than us can only take you so far.
	They sounded good, but that wasn't yesterday.
	It was a little while ago.
	Let me ask you this before I forget.
	You didn't get any compensation settlement payment out of it from the government, not a 10 million like they sent to other people to compensate them for their torture?
	Had I been a Muslim No.
	No $10 million from Prime Minister Blackface.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Now, with that said...
	With that, YouTube, we go over to Rumble.
	Someone said my mic was low, but I'll bring it closer to my face.
	I'm going to copy the link one more time, give it to everybody, come on over to Rumble, and then we'll talk locals afterwards.
	There it is.
	Ending on YouTube in 3, 2, 1. Also, for all those who are watching afterwards, the link is pinned up there, so you can come after if you're watching late.
	Okay, on to the free speech platform, Rumble.
	Okay, we're going to get into the Coutts 4 afterwards.
	My audience, or at least the people who watch regularly, know a whole heck of a lot more about the Coutts 4 than they know about Helen Groose.
	Okay, we're going to start from the beginning on this.
	First of all, how did you get involved with the Helen Groose case?
	Tell us, give us the overview.
	I get mistaken between OPP, RCMP, all of the various law enforcement entities.
	Tell us how you got involved in this, who Helen Groose is, and let's start talking about the case, the disciplinary hearing that's now going on however many weeks.
	Start from the beginning.
	Well, first of all, Detective Helen Groose is an Ottawa police officer, and she is a detective assigned to SACA, the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Unit.
	She has 20 years of experience on, and boy, is she good.
	She is top drawer.
	Top drawer investigator.
	Everything that we've heard in evidence about her previous assessments and annual reviews, top drawer.
	She was slated for homicide and to be promoted prior to her COVID situation.
	So she's been doing this for two-plus decades prior to this incident.
	Yes.
	She started in uniform like everyone else does, but soon, very soon, because she's just so talented and energetic and diligent, and she was assigned to SACA.
	Now, this is a very difficult unit to work for.
	I have investigated sexual assaults.
	And of children and sudden infant deaths.
	And it is a very, very demanding unit to work in.
	They only put the best in there.
	They only put the best in there.
	And so she had done this for a number of years.
	She was about to be promoted, about to go to homicide, and the whole COVID lockdown vaccine thing starts.
	There was a period when the Ottawa police were discussing, should we mandate vaccines or not?
	And Detective Groose, along with some other people, did some work on that.
	And some people on the Ottawa police, police officers and personnel, civilian personnel, had already been injured.
	So in September and August...
	Of 2021, Detective Groose went to a meeting with the chief where she and others expressed the opinion that these vaccines shouldn't be mandated.
	They're experimental.
	They probably will be found to be doing harm.
	You shouldn't mandate them.
	The word Nuremberg was used, too.
	Let's back it up just before we get to the modern day.
	Two-plus decades.
	I presume her record was not only clear and clean, but exemplary as well.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Award-winning.
	Promoted soon and often because she was so good.
	And it's very interesting.
	And you'll realize the value of this later.
	She has taken initiative to launch investigations on her own.
	And we all do.
	All police officers every day.
	Thousands of investigations.
	You launch on your own.
	You don't tell anyone.
	You don't ask permission.
	You don't have to notify anyone.
	Even if someone else is investigating somebody, there's no property in a witness.
	There's no property in a criminal investigation.
	So she had launched an investigation, and everybody does it every day.
	But she launched an investigation into an historical child rape charge.
	And she did that without notifying anybody, without notifying the investigating officer or her superiors.
	Police officers have autonomy to do this.
	This is the way we structured policing in North America.
	So because of that and her work in that, she solved that crime.
	And the perpetrator went to jail for 25 years.
	And she did that on her own with her diligence and her initiative.
	And that is the same situation she faces now where she's facing charges because she launched an investigation without telling anyone, which she didn't have to.
	But it was an investigation into a forbidden subject, you see.
	What did you say the name of the unit was again?
	SACA.
	The Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Unit.
	S-A-C-A.
	Do you know what year it was that she started working in that unit?
	I think she has seven or eight years in there.
	A long time.
	Pre-COVID.
	So it predates COVID.
	Oh, yes.
	And so she's doing good work in that unit.
	And it's a horrific and horrible unit to have to...
	I mean, as far as it goes, I don't know what is worse in terms of crimes.
	They call her Mother Groose, like Mother Goose, because she looks after everybody.
	She looks after the new police officers who come in there.
	She trains them.
	She mentors them.
	She's always a team player.
	You should hear the annual reviews for her.
	I didn't even get annual reviews like this that were entered in evidence.
	Top drawer.
	And then something changed.
	Okay.
	And now, so she had always...
	So among the crimes and sexual assaults, etc., she also...
	Historically has looked into sudden infant death syndrome.
	It's not like that became a new aspect of her career post-COVID.
	So she had always looked into things like SIDS?
	That's correct.
	The unit is responsible for investigating sudden infant deaths.
	And I know there are some that will say that's a specific medical term.
	But colloquially, we think of it as any unexpected sudden death.
	And that's what her unit looks into.
	Now, these cases are assigned as are rape cases, as are child abuse cases.
	So she has helped on some of these investigations in the past.
	But she noticed a cluster of nine sudden infant deaths or nine unexpected infant deaths in a short period of time.
	And she wondered whether...
	Whether this might be something to do with the COVID vaccines.
	Now, she was not assigned any of these cases.
	Eh, so what?
	You look into anything you want.
	So she looked into the police files.
	If I may stop you there, just so I understand this, I've never had any experience with this.
	Like, files in a law firm, one lawyer will be working on case A, and then another lawyer on case B, and everyone gets their mandates from the...
	Mandating attorney who handles a bunch of files.
	Is this to say, like, she has her own workload and her own investigations by name, and then she just starts incidentally seeing a number of SIDS cases and says, I'm going to sneak, you know, just not sneak in a bad way, but just I'm going to look into what's going on there because I noticed a lot come up, although none of them are formally assigned to me.
	Well, first of all, it's different in the police and a law firm.
	In a law firm, lawyers are very private about their individual cases because you don't want to violate any privacy and there's issues of Chinese walls and such.
	But in the police forces, in the police services, the reports are open.
	They're put on a computerized system so that...
	Police officers can look at them, and they have conferences about cases that they don't even are involved in, to look at trends, to look at perhaps, I mean, when we think back to the Bernardo Homolka, Carla Homolka serial killer cases, they could have solved that case.
	They could have saved.
	They could have saved.
	At least one victim that I know of had the police been talking and been exchanging files and such.
	So that's the way these computerized files are set up so that individual police officers can look at them for not personal reasons, but professional reasons.
	And she did this and she testified, I'm sorry, there was testimony from the prosecution, from prosecution witnesses, that it was known.
	In the unit that they were having a high incidence of sudden, unexpected infant deaths.
	I say that you go for the, or your reflex is to look at, you know, the confidentiality Chinese wall of what separates a law firm from a police firm.
	I look at the, to me, the distinction is the billing.
	You know, like, nobody wants anybody working on another file without telling them because of the billing.
	But when you're in an investigation where you're, there's no billing except for the billing of solving the crime.
	So in theory, the more interaction, the more interconnectivity, you know, you might say, hey, X is working on one file, and this other one's looking, and they might have the same perpetrators because of the same, you know.
	So, okay, so that's fascinating.
	Yeah, but even before we get into noticing the SIDS, and then her deciding to independently investigate what a lot of people might, you know, think is reasonable, you did mention that she used the word Nuremberg and was opposed to the vaccine before this stuff.
	So, you know, what was her history like post-COVID and then certainly at the time of the jab?
	And was she known for being that person such that when she did this stuff on her own, well, that's just the rebellious anti-vaxxer conspiracy nut.
	Well, of course, that's what they tried to do, and that's what they tried to portray her as.
	But the fact is, she had written an email to the chief which listed...
	Her concerns, her professional concerns, and also questions about the liability.
	As police officers and police employees, if we inject this and we're injured, who's going to compensate us?
	Who's going to look after our families?
	And all of this was there.
	But she also had set up with the chief that she was doing an investigation into the potential.
	Connection between breastfeeding babies dying and the mRNA vaccine.
	She had two meetings with the chief, and he knew that she was working on this project.
	So it's all very professional.
	But that was Chief Slowly, and then he left on day two, February 15th of the Emergencies Act.
	I know we both know who Chief Slowly is, but for those who...
	Might not know.
	Chief Slowly had an integral role to play in the Ottawa...
	What are we going to call it?
	The Ottawa protests and the response and whether or not he did a good job, he ended up resigning or leaving.
	Chief Slowly is a player that we should all be familiar with.
	Okay, but so she's a skeptic.
	She's a bit of an outspoken skeptic about COVID in general.
	From the beginning of the...
	And I'll put it in quotes, the pandemic.
	Her office knows this.
	Okay.
	She starts noticing an uptick or a cluster of SIDS.
	Not just her.
	The entire office did.
	It was discussed that there's an uptick.
	Yes, there's a cluster of sudden infant deaths.
	Now, these nine cases have been assigned to officers.
	And she looked into the files.
	To see if those cases were properly investigated or what she could learn from them.
	Do we know any details about these cases?
	We sure do.
	We sure do.
	It has come out in evidence.
	First of all, it's not nine cases.
	It's seven.
	Why?
	Because one was a drowning.
	Unfortunate.
	Homicide drowning or accidental?
	Just an accidental drowning.
	And the other one was a homicide.
	So now we're down to seven.
	Well, and also, just to illustrate this, and I know you mentioned it to me privately.
	I don't remember when, though.
	But, you know, ordinarily, the parents of a child that dies unexpectedly wants answers.
	So they're not going to object to people asking questions unless it's homicide, in which case asking the questions, if it leads to a reduction of one because it's homicide, will mission accomplished in terms of what your job is.
	But the question that I had was this.
	The SIDS.
	Oh, sorry, just a spoiler alert for everybody.
	She ends up facing a disciplinary sanction from her department, and that's what's being, it's not litigation, that's what's being, what's the word right now?
	I don't want to say litigated, but that's what the hearing is about, her disciplinary action.
	Correct.
	She's charged with discredible conduct in that she launched an unauthorized, unauthorized, investigation.
	Into this potential connection.
	And she looked at other people's files, other officers' files, without notifying them and without permission.
	And that's a nonstarter, but hey, it's what she's charged with.
	The cluster of SIDS.
	Yes.
	If it was nine at first, but one was an accidental drowning, one was a homicide, you're down to seven.
	That's right.
	Over what time frame and what would be a normal?
	A normal, expectable SIDS figure for the size of their department, the size of their geography, I don't know, whatever it is.
	We have heard evidence under oath in court at the hearing that whatever the time frame was, and you know, I'm not going to go off the top of my head which month to which month, but it was at least double and maybe triple the normal sudden infant deaths for this time frame, for this police force in this community.
	Okay.
	And now we're going to end up getting into the evidence in a bit.
	But so she is independently saying, oh, look, there's nine sudden infant death syndromes, and I'm going to go look into them.
	And for whatever reason, she's an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist.
	She says, I want to go verify the vaccination status of the mothers.
	So how does she go about doing that?
	Because I know what people...
	I'll play devil's advocate.
	It's a none of your business type thing.
	And how does she go about getting that information on the mothers?
	Well, I suppose she could have gone to McDonald's and asked the 16-year-old at the door because every 16-year-old at McDonald's was asking to see your personal medical files.
	I guess she should have done that.
	But there's nothing off limits when we're talking a police officer investigating a sudden death or a death.
	Is there?
	There's nothing off limits.
	And I can go into that about how we've set up the police service and the powers and the authorization that each individual officer has.
	And I will go there.
	But let's talk about what she discovered in the files when she went into the files.
	Now, she went into the...
	Police files.
	That's very different from going into the coroner's office and going into the coroner's files.
	Okay?
	And if I may, different also than calling up the mothers and saying, hey, this is Detective Gru.
	Did you get vaccinated?
	I don't know if she did that, but what she did right now is just go into the computer files of the police files to look over the information included in there.
	And here's what she learned.
	She learned that none of those nine sudden Infant deaths had been properly investigated either by the rules and procedures of the Ottawa police or by the World Health Organization that have rules and about including asking the parents about their vaccination status.
	That's all part of it.
	Not once was that done.
	Furthermore, she determined that two of the infants Two of the seven infants now, had died in their mother's arms.
	They picked up a live baby, they were breastfeeding, and the infants had died in their mother's arms.
	Now, how common is that?
	Well, we learn through testimony from an expert, which was her supervisor, Sergeant Mark-Andre Gee.
	And he was Detective Bruce's supervisor.
	And under questioning during cross-examination, we heard how he was part of a provincial team that looked into hundreds of sudden infant deaths.
	Remember I said we all got together, the police now, and they talk about, you know, trends and look at individual cases because we don't want another Homolka-Bernardo situation to come.
	Come to the fore if there are trends and if there are people involved, the same people, we want to know.
	So out of 500, we heard out of 500 investigations of infant deaths that this officer did, how many died in their mother's arms?
	You can think of one, maybe, not sure, maybe two.
	Give it the benefit of the doubt, one in 250.
	How many died in this cluster?
	Two out of seven.
	Let me back up for one second.
	When you say, in an ordinary run of SIDS, set aside COVID pre-2020, is it a normal question, a standard operating procedure question to ask the vaccination status of the mother?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And now we're finding out that post-COVID, or at least post-JAB, of these nine cases, that question was not asked.
	Not asked.
	Do we know of...
	Oh, I guess, no, there's no other number of SIDS cases.
	Okay, very interesting.
	So now...
	Now, don't forget, we're also not talking about sudden infant deaths in the hospital.
	These are non-hospitals.
	So there's more, but this is just what we have.
	These are the statistics from the Ottawa police, from the unit that is assigned to investigate these and has been for a decade.
	And as we're going to like, you know, draw some parallels between your particular persecution and this now, once it's one thing to break protocol when investigating, but it's another thing to actually have that investigation turn on the investigation.
	Well, hold it.
	She didn't break protocol.
	Detective Bruce did not break protocol.
	The investigators, who were her compatriots in the squad, they broke protocol.
	They were not diligent in their work.
	They didn't do a good job.
	Well, do we know why?
	Did it ever reveal why they did not ask the vaccination question?
	Was that revealing some deeper internal corruption?
	Yes.
	Now, it could have been laziness.
	It could have been.
	Some people aren't very good.
	It could have been competence levels.
	It really could have.
	Because many of these preceded September of 2021 that I'm about to tell you about, where...
	The Staff Sergeant, Staff Sergeant Rossetti in the chain of command over Detective Bruce and Sergeant Marc-Andre Guy, her immediate supervisor, put out a memo to everybody that COVID and the vaccines were simply not to be discussed in the office.
	Not to be discussed or not to be considered?
	Both.
	Okay.
	I mean, I guess we're going to culminate with the disciplinary hearing regardless, but this is what she's doing.
	She independently investigates.
	Nothing counter-protocol in that.
	Discovers that they're not asking this particular question for reasons that, I guess, at that point were unknown to her.
	When does Detective Gru discover?
	The directive or the internal directive not to ask the question?
	September, I think it was in September of 2021, she had been ordered to not talk about the vaccine in any way, shape, or form in the unit.
	She had been ordered to not talk about it.
	She alone or office-wide order?
	Everybody.
	Okay.
	If I may just be the neurotic individual, there's a memo that says that, that has been adjuiced as evidence in the disciplinary hearing?
	There is.
	It's an email.
	An email to Detective Groose, yes.
	And the prosecution is fighting like crazy to not let anything like this in.
	So, as evidence.
	But Detective Groose saw these bodies, did some work, found out that these...
	These cases were not properly investigated.
	And she also knew from the files that there's no information at all as to indicate whether the mothers were vaccinated or not.
	So on January 30th, 2022, she phoned up one of the fathers.
	The police didn't know about this call until Detective Groose revealed it in an interview in May.
	She has nothing to hide.
	She was doing a good job.
	But in January, January 30th, 2022, Detective Bruce called up one of the fathers.
	Hi, Detective Bruce here.
	I'm sorry to hear what happened to your son.
	I'm looking into the death.
	And I just wanted to ask you, do you think this, first of all, has the mother been vaccinated at all for anything?
	And they had what the evidence is, was a very nice talk.
	Very cordial.
	And the father appreciated the call.
	Of course he appreciated the call.
	You know, someone cared about what happened to my son when he died.
	We have no answers.
	And so the parent appreciated that call.
	And that's in evidence.
	And he didn't complain.
	May I ask the obvious question?
	What was his answer to the question?
	We don't know.
	We don't know.
	And we don't know the names of the parents.
	There's a publication ban on the names of the parents and the deceased infants.
	And I agree with that.
	That's fine.
	And also, there are some medical details that the court is ordering that will be withheld.
	Don't speak about that, etc.
	Some of those I'm in disagreement with because it's...
	It's very valid.
	Excuse me.
	Very relevant.
	But, I mean, look, we could just go with standard statistics demographics.
	This is the greater Ottawa area that is her geographic area?
	It is the area that is policed by the Ottawa Police Service.
	And that includes Canada to the west and such.
	We could just assume the vaccination rate.
	Is 85 to 90% of at least one shot, probably more.
	And so chances are that eight and a half or nine of the parents, or it'll be seven or eight of the parents, were vaccinated.
	Just by absolute math.
	So she's doing this.
	She calls up the father.
	This is unknown to the investigative team or her superiors until when?
	I presume they discover that and then start disciplining her?
	No, no.
	No.
	As a matter of fact, they never knew that she phoned up a parent until May when they interviewed her, and she said everything that she did.
	What happened was, in late January, some of her colleagues, that's a guess on my part, but it's not too far, too much of a guess, complained about her, saying that she had...
	That she had looked at their files or was launching this investigation and somehow they discovered that and they complained about it.
	Now on February 3rd, 2022, Detective Bruce was suspended by the Ottawa police without pay for refusing to declare Her medical status, her vaccination status.
	She refused to say.
	She said, that's my private business, and I refuse to say whether I'm vaccinated or not.
	And for that, she was suspended without pay.
	The next day, she was suspended with pay because they had launched this internal investigation against her.
	And the investigation was about two things.
	One, That she disobeyed a lawful order.
	And two, that she had self-initiated an investigation unauthorized, which is almost hilarious to any police officer.
	Who hears that phrase?
	She's suspended without pay for not getting the jab, but suspended with pay for the investigation.
	Does that mean that the suspended with pay trumps the suspended without pay, or is she just not getting paid now?
	The suspended with pay trumps the without pay.
	At least she gets a fringe benefit of being paid while they investigate her.
	Well, it's interesting.
	She was paid for the end of the winter.
	And the summer.
	And then they charged her and they started having hearings in August.
	And in September, and I do have a little bit of inside track on this because police officers, they let me know.
	I have some sources.
	They let me know what happened.
	They've got a wonderful detective, top-notch, who's going to be promoted, sent to homicide, and she's sitting at home managing the hockey team.
	Her kid's hockey team.
	She's forbidden from doing anything.
	And they said, well, let's get her back to work.
	So in October, even though the charges were still happening, she was ordered back to work.
	And I think she's in maybe, I think I heard robbery squad.
	I can't remember.
	Something like that.
	So she's still a detective, still doing these cases, still doing a wonderful job.
	But I guess somebody caught into the fact that Hey, she's sitting at home and maybe, well, there's a feeling.
	There's a split in the upper level executives of the Ottawa police.
	We shouldn't have charged her.
	We should just let it go and just get on with her life.
	But there's also in the upper level people who are of very high rank pushing this.
	That much we know.
	So when does she formally get, I don't know, not charged is not the right word, when does she face disciplinary actions formally?
	On May 12, 2022, she had a compelled interview.
	She had to talk, she had to reveal, and she had no problem.
	We heard the entire recording, first day of the trial, first day of the hearing, August 14, 2023.
	We heard this.
	Three-hour recording where she explained to the interviewing sergeant, Sergeant Arbuthnot, who is the professional standards investigator who laid the charge against her.
	And he told her a couple of things happened there.
	It was an amazing interview.
	First of all, he told her that she was going to be charged not with the disobeying an order because she didn't disobey any order.
	She simply didn't.
	Police are allowed to look at these files.
	They do it all the time for professional reasons.
	If you do it for personal reasons, well, that's something else.
	But both the professional standards and the trials, the hearing officer have already declared that she didn't look at these files for personal reasons.
	They said there's no evidence to indicate that she looked at them for personal reasons.
	I don't think so.
	She was preparing an investigative report for the chief.
	And she passed that report over to the professional standards officer who was interviewing her in May.
	And it has the Pfizer documents in it.
	By what we heard in court, and I haven't seen it, I'm trying to obtain it, it's quite the report detailing why this is a criminal investigation.
	So that's what happened.
	Nonetheless, she was charged with one count of discreditable conduct for launching an unauthorized investigation and for calling that parent, that one parent, which they didn't know about until she said...
	And I called the parent on January 30th.
	They must have been licking their chops when she revealed that.
	Why?
	She was allowed to do it.
	There's no property in a witness.
	You know that, Viva.
	I've never done any criminal, so this is, as far as jurisdiction goes, new to me.
	But there's a basic amount of logic in all of this.
	She's investigating the death of the kid.
	An infant.
	The parents want answers unless they're in on it, and then that's part of the investigation as well.
	If they don't want to answer, I presume that's a red flag.
	She submitted the report.
	Do I surmise or do I understand that we don't know the...
	She has not disclosed the results of her report, and that is definitely confidential for the time being?
	Oh, we know the results of the report.
	We absolutely know it.
	We know that that sergeant, Arbuthnot, Put it in his drawer, informed nobody, and did nothing.
	He is in neglect of duty, as far as I am concerned.
	Were I his supervisor, and I supervised people like him, and I supervised internal investigations, and I did them myself, were I his supervisor, I would be looking to charge him with neglect of duty for receiving evidence about sudden infant deaths, And doing nothing about it.
	We don't know what the answer was for the parents.
	How many of them took the jab within what proximity?
	That information is not known.
	We don't know that.
	It would be in that report.
	Okay.
	So she finally faces one charge, one count of discreditable conduct.
	How many days has this hearing been going on for?
	First of all, she served with notice of increased penalty.
	They want to fire her if she's convicted.
	The hearings, which were the discovery hearings, started in August of 2022.
	They moved into the fall.
	They were all online.
	And when they went online so that the public could see it, none other than famous New York Police Department detective Frank Serpico.
	took an interest in this case and he proclaimed that this was a wonderful thing that the Ottawa police were being so transparent with this case as to broadcast this internal hearing to the world on the internet.
	That stopped in January of 2023 and Frank Serpico now says that there's a cover-up going.
	And that his quote, words to the effect, that criminality and incompetence will go to any length to cover up, quote, even at the expense of innocent infant lives, unquote.
	That's Frank Serpico.
	You know, Al Pacino played in the movie.
	They didn't make a movie about me.
	How about you?
	Not yet.
	Our respective lives are not yet over.
	We'll see what happens.
	Okay, so hold on.
	So they give her one disciplinary charge, a heightened sanction that she gets fired if convicted.
	That's right.
	The evidence, and we started, excuse me, there were hearings throughout the spring of this year, 2023, and they started, they, the police, started.
	To hide evidence and file documents from journalists and the public.
	They even lied about a decision by the hearings officer.
	There was a motion filed in December 2022.
	In January 2023, the hearings officer made a decision and published that decision to all included.
	As late as April of 2023, the Ottawa police were denying that the motion had been, or that the decision had been reached, and they even put on their website that it hadn't been reached.
	What was the motion?
	The motion was a motion about what evidence would be allowed.
	It was just a regular discovery motion, but there were a couple of things in it that were very contentious.
	One was, during the convoy in February of 2022, the Ottawa Police Service wiretapped Detective Groose and her family.
	They did it under the urgent emergency provisions of the criminal code.
	Now, there's two ways of doing a wiretap.
	I spent a year after a motorcycle accident down at Intelligence with the OPP and RCMP in Toronto doing nothing but wiretaps.
	And there are two ways of getting a wiretap.
	You get all your evidence together.
	You swear affidavits.
	You go before a judge and you swear this is all true.
	We want to do a wiretap and the judge will give you the order and there are parameters which you can and cannot do.
	But there's another way.
	Urgent emergency.
	This is designed for when we have a hostage.
	When we have an abduction, when we have a murder that's going to happen and we desperately need to wiretap these vicious criminals, you go to a judge and you say, just that, Your Honor, we have a murder, we have something very important going to happen.
	Here's the wiretap we need.
	Please give it to me.
	I'll be back in 36 hours with the evidence.
	The Ottawa police used that.
	They used the convoy as an excuse to wiretap Detective Groose and her family and then never came back with the evidence.
	They just did it for 36 hours to see what they could see.
	But wait, there's more, Viva.
	They knew.
	The Ottawa police knew that at the end of the wiretap...
	Detective Groose would be receiving a formal notice that she and her family had been wiretapped.
	It was intimidation.
	It was punishment.
	It was nothing less than that.
	It was distrusting.
	It was illegal.
	And they did it.
	Boy, they sure don't want her looking at any relationship between the jabs and infant deaths, do they?
	Was the date of the tap...
	Did it coincide with the emergencies invocation or did it have nothing to do with the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
	I don't recall the exact date, whether it was before or after the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	I'll let you know for next time.
	Just wondering if they abused of that as to say, look how urgent it is.
	Now, the other thing is...
	We use the term colloquially wiretap, but very few people have landlines that get tapped the way they used to do it back when it was called a wiretap.
	Do you know what they did to surveillance?
	Cell phone, email?
	Oh, sure, sure, I do.
	I know all about it.
	I lived this life.
	And I've even been associated with some wiretaps as a civilian.
	So here's the way it is.
	A wiretap these days is everything.
	If you have a landline, that's there.
	If you have an internet phone, that's there.
	Your texts.
	Your cell phone, your mobile phone, both your work and your civilian phone, your own phone.
	But, you know, I did this for more than a year.
	And I can tell you there were some real surprises for me.
	I was so naive, 23-year-old.
	You don't know that across the street and two doors down, that neighbor that...
	You wave to every day when, you know, they go to work and everything and they put their kids on the bus.
	Then they go inside and they plot murder.
	I mean, you just don't know that.
	But you get to know the family too.
	I knew on one case where we were listening, I knew that the daughter was pregnant three months before she told her parents.
	I knew in another case that a grandmother kept a bottle of vodka in the garden shed.
	For those days when she couldn't meet up with her methamphetamine dealer.
	I mean, I heard people discussing, send their kids off to school and then they would discuss how they're going to rape a baker's daughter to get him to pay the protection money that he has refused to pay.
	So, I mean, this is really intense.
	So, think of...
	Your family and the people who are watching now, think of your family.
	Think of your kids.
	Think of your friends.
	Think of all the things you say on the phone or sitting at your kitchen table.
	We even had a wiretap over a couple's bed one time.
	All authorized.
	But think of all that.
	Everything laid there.
	We listened as a son.
	Told his father that he had caught the mother in bed when he came home early from school with the neighbor.
	Okay?
	That's what wiretaps are all about.
	And that's why they are so closely controlled.
	And they did that to Detective Groose and a lot of people on the Freedom Convoy.
	And not in one case did they...
	Find any evidence that led to charges for either Detective Groose or anyone else.
	But also, not in one case did they come back with evidence to extend that warrant.
	Or to even justify it.
	It was just sheer intimidation and a police state.
	And yeah, they seized bank accounts too, but hey, how about them Blue Jays?
	So they wiretapped Groose.
	This comes out during the disciplinary hearing.
	That's right.
	And that motion that they didn't want the public, the police didn't want the public or journalists like me to know that Detective Groose had been wiretapped.
	And finally we found out.
	But they actually lied to us and posted it on their website.
	They lied to the people of Canada by posting it on their website.
	The trials officer had not yet made a determination and it was coming in March or April.
	Incredible.
	Incredible.
	It's all political.
	Well, I don't think there's much doubt about that.
	When they're building their Moderna Gigafactory in Laval and they don't want anything that might put a stick in the spokes of that gravy train for the pharma company.
	How many days has the hearing been in total so far?
	Okay.
	I'm going to leave out all the hearings that led up to what we call the trial portion.
	If there's anything specifically important in all of the pre-hearing hearings, was anything more important than the discovery that she had been wiretapped?
	Yes, there were a lot of things that happened in those hearings.
	The overview is...
	The prosecution is doing everything it can to deny the defense team the ability to make an effective defense.
	And they're doing that in a number of ways.
	But prior to the hearing starting, one was denying evidence.
	Oh, here's one for you.
	You're going to love this.
	When Detective Groose, well, you know, all police officers have memo books, right?
	They write every day what they do.
	They go to a crime scene.
	They flip open the memo book.
	Just the facts, ma 'am.
	You know, they write it down.
	Those are your personal notes.
	I had hundreds of memo books.
	And they're kept every day, even if it's just to say, 8 a.m., arrive office, work on reports all day, 4 p.m., go home.
	But you can imagine a homicide.
	You can write 100 pages at a homicide investigation.
	So these are your personal notes.
	Detective Groose had personal notes that are around the time of when she was doing these investigations and specifically when she called this one parent on January 30, 2022.
	The hearing officer is denying Detective Groose her memo books from those days.
	How can she make an effective defense?
	Without the memo books from those days.
	Sounds like maybe even a perjury trap where they're going to get her to contradict based on not remembering something in the book and then say, look what you wrote here, even though we didn't give it to you so that you could refresh your own memory.
	It's insanity.
	Holy crap!
	I mean, this is funny.
	I imagine the CBC, I know that there's been some coverage, but has there been any meaningful coverage of this hearing?
	The CBC.
	How many hours do we have here, Viva?
	All right, look, I'll tell you about the CVC and what was called the Shemini Shakedown.
	Shemini Yoguretnam is...
	A journalist with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CDC, in Ottawa.
	And she's on the police beat, has been for years.
	And so she has reported on these disciplinary hearings and has done so.
	And that's her beat.
	So here's what happened.
	Detective Groose was suspended.
	And around March 24th, Shamini Yogaretnam, the CBC, came to the Ottawa police and said, I know all about Detective Groose and the internal investigations.
	I know that she went into the coroner's records, and I know all this because I have internal sources.
	Now, she later revealed that she had two police internal sources, and don't forget, These officers, corruptly and illegally, provided to her confidential police information, provided to CBC and the reporter Shemini Yogaretnam, and she eventually...
	Published two articles, one on March 28, 2022, a Monday, and then a couple of days later, another article.
	And she was also on a radio show Monday morning, which I recorded.
	And all of those are evidence.
	Believe you me, they are evidence of criminality.
	And not against Detective Groose, but against these corrupt officers who betrayed their oath of office.
	We have a feeling one of those officers is, but we'll get to that.
	There is some testimony.
	But what happened is a few days before that article was published, Shemini comes to the police, Ottawa Police Service, and she says, I'm going to publish this article in 24 hours.
	Have you contacted all the involved parents?
	Which is to say, you have 24 hours to contact All of the parents of these nine sudden infant deaths, or they're going to find out from my article.
	That's a threat.
	It is extortion.
	It is completely taking over the police investigation.
	Don't forget, there was an internal police investigation against Detective Bruce.
	They were interviewing witnesses.
	They had their plan.
	They had their timeline.
	And then the CBC came in and said, you jump, and the Ottawa police said, how high?
	But you said that they had internal information that she accessed the coroner's reports of the babies.
	Not that I will judge one way or the other.
	Did she?
	Okay.
	That's what...
	Excuse me.
	That is what the police sources told to Shemini.
	And that is the false information that they published at the heart of their entire story.
	It was false.
	It was defamatory.
	They said that Detective Groves had gone to the coroners and had illegally, improperly accessed coroner's records, and that was an absolute failure.
	Lie.
	And so, the CBC has not written a word about the case since, I believe, March 29, 2022.
	All of the hearings leading up to they didn't attend.
	Oh, well, we'll finish this topic first.
	All of the hearings they didn't attend.
	In August, when the trial, The hearing, the trial portion of the hearing started.
	Monday and Tuesday, CBC didn't attend.
	We called them out.
	I'm going to tell you, this is absolutely, I'm just, you know, and as much as I can not fact check, but just, you know, verify my own as you speak, Donald.
	Detective tried to uncover vaccine status of dead children's parents.
	Sources say March 28, 2020.
	I put in Helen Groose.
	CBC.
	You got True North reporting on this in August.
	March 31st, 2022, CBC.
	And then I go down and don't find anything as of March 2022.
	Go to cbc.ca and type in her name and you will get three hits.
	I did this just two days ago.
	Three hits.
	There's the two articles and the radio show.
	That's it.
	Since March of 2022, they've done nothing.
	So we called them out.
	We said, you're cowards.
	Where are you?
	You throw this journalistic hand grenade into the room.
	You falsely accused this wonderful, diligent police officer.
	You can at least come and cover the story and correct your errors.
	And they never came.
	So on August 16th, 2023, just this past August, on the third day of the hearing, A nice young man from CBC showed up driving a CBC car.
	He stayed for a few hours.
	We tried to interview him.
	He said, I was told not to give any interviews.
	Ha!
	Yeah.
	And then he went away and wrote and published and broadcast nothing.
	So again, we just went through another five days starting October 30th and just ending this past Friday.
	The 3rd, November 3rd, and the CBC were once again absent, as was the Ottawa Citizen.
	They had written, also published.
	Mainstream media was not there.
	Who was there?
	Well, there was Rebel News, True North, Jason Unraw.
	Rebel News was Robert Kresick.
	I was there.
	Jason Levine was there.
	A couple other people.
	All independent journalists.
	Not one mainstream propaganda media attended.
	it.
	Amazing.
	Okay.
	Can I tell you why this case is so important and why it's getting attention internationally?
	Beyond the obvious, I mean, A, the correlation...
	Well, let me take a guess.
	I don't think internationally people are going to care about internal Canadian corruption, although Canadians should.
	Internationally, I mean, it's going to be the correlation between the jab and a spike or an uptick in infant mortality.
	That's one, yeah.
	But really what it's about is this, Viva.
	In our society, are police officers going to be free to investigate whatever, whatever person, whatever situation, whatever they want to, without interference, according to their oath of office and their duty and their professional judgment?
	Are they going to...
	Be able to do that because that is the bedrock.
	That is the absolute way we have set up under the Peelian principles of policing.
	The police are the community, the community are the police.
	The police are independent agents of, in our case, His Majesty the King.
	But they have great autonomy because the other way of doing it is doing it like India, where a police officer...
	Wants to investigate a local business for whatever crime or offense is happening, and you have to go up the chain of command to see if that person is politically protected.
	So in Canada and the United States and the United Kingdom and Australia and throughout the world, there is great interest in this case because it goes to the central question.
	Are police going to be free?
	To investigate crime as their duty and their authority dictates and their professional judgment?
	Or will they be controlled by corporations and politicians?
	And that's exactly what we have here in the Detective Bruce case.
	How many days has the hearing on the merits of the disciplinary, the discipline been?
	How many days now, give or take?
	Ten days in two five-day periods.
	One in August, one that just ended last Friday, November 3rd.
	What we've heard is all the prosecution's case is in now, but there were two witnesses that the prosecution did not call.
	Hold on.
	It took 10 days to get the prosecution's case in?
	Yes.
	Now, there were some arguments.
	Yeah, yeah, for sure, for sure.
	There were some arguments, and there were days which were caught up in arguments.
	And also, I mean, oh, okay, here we go.
	On the last day of the August hearings, the visitors gallery and the journalists were, it was just jaw-dropping.
	We heard that the prosecutor...
	Who had recently been put on this case in, I think, January of 2023.
	Everything before that was another prosecutor.
	Now, the Ottawa police, they have a stable of prosecutors.
	Some are employees.
	Some they just bring in to prosecute these cases.
	And that's the way it's done.
	And so this is an employee, this new prosecutor.
	Her name is Vanessa Stewart.
	And she was brought in in January to prosecute this case.
	And in August, on the last day, after a week of horrendous misconduct on the part of the prosecutor, and we can get into that in another show, she uses objection as a weapon.
	She has weaponized objections to prevent the defense from putting in their case.
	But we heard that one of the main prosecution witnesses on the stand who was being cross-examined and that the prosecutor was objecting to every 30 seconds, sometimes even before the defense team got a question out of their mouth, objection!
	It was her sister-in-law.
	It's a family member.
	Now, people in the audience, they might not realize how...
	How incredible this is.
	It's an incredible conflict.
	Because when you have a prosecutor who is a family member to one of the main witnesses, it means that that prosecutor, instead of having justice in mind, wants to protect their family member.
	And that's exactly what happened.
	And then we were even more horrified to learn that the trials officer...
	Had known about this and had actually issued an order that this was okay.
	And that she promised the prosecutor...
	Promise to be objective.
	No, she promised that she wouldn't discuss the case with her sister-in-law.
	You know, like, when they're over for a barbecue, they promise.
	They won't discuss.
	And that she wouldn't have anything to do with the cross-examination of her sister-in-law.
	So they had another lawyer, Bonnie Cho, in there.
	Very nice lady.
	Respectful and polite.
	And so they had that in there.
	But in the middle of that, this...
	Her sister-in-law gets up and starts objecting and interfering, contrary to even the order that the hearings officer had made.
	Who's the judge in this?
	He's not a judge.
	Sorry, it's a commissioner.
	It's an administrative regulatory tribunal.
	So there are no rules.
	That's pretty well the way it is.
	The hearings officer is Mr. Chris Renwick.
	He used to be a superintendent with the Ottawa Police.
	I want to tell you about him.
	Now, first of all, the fact that he reached a superintendent rank means he's politically connected.
	And by that, I mean, you don't get up that far.
	I mean, that's only a hop and a jump from...
	Deputy Chief and Chief.
	I mean, you don't get up that far, unless you're one of the guys and girls.
	Okay, so that's it.
	But how was he as a cop?
	You know, I've looked into that.
	And I have received absolutely the best reports on this officer.
	As a street cop, he was superb.
	As a leader...
	You know, as a sergeant, as a team leader, as he worked his way up as an inspector and then a superintendent, absolutely top-notch, so well-respected.
	And, you know, there's a few people in the hierarchy of any organization or business.
	Or a law firm who got there not by merit, right?
	They got there because they're one of the boys.
	You know, they're a ring knocker.
	That's a mason.
	Or they're a Catholic.
	Or a member of the hockey team.
	Whatever.
	However people leverage their way in.
	But this guy was good on the street.
	A copper's cop.
	And so I've got nothing bad to say about superintendent, retired, Chris Renwick.
	But he has absolutely no legal training.
	None.
	And the cases that he usually handles are police officers who are pleading to neglect of duty because they fell asleep drunk behind the police station in a police car.
	I mean, that's the level of case that we usually have here.
	This is a case that is tremendously important.
	The case law, the evidence, I mean, we have the defense trying to get expert medical evidence in, expert legal evidence about the regulatory regime behind approval of purchase and approval of vaccines.
	We have expert police evidence about a police officer's authorization and what it means, everything I've been speaking about.
	And by the way, none of that has been allowed yet.
	We heard arguments, and the hearing officer is not...
	But the bottom line is, this hearing is out of control.
	Superintendent Renwick, whatever great cop he was, is totally out of his depth here for the legal issues and also to control this prosecutor who is violating every rule.
	Just to let you know, the defense counsel, who is very respected, both of them, it's Blair Ector and Bathsheba Vandenberg.
	And you may have seen them, especially her, at the National Citizens' Inquiry and the Emergency Inquiry.
	I mean, they are top-notch.
	If I got charged, I'd want them.
	Really, what I've seen is just incredible.
	They are the best.
	They're respectful.
	This prosecutor is disrespectful to the trials officer, saying things like, I know you have no experience in this.
	I mean, it's just direct contempt.
	She's contemptuous of everybody.
	I'm not exaggerating.
	When I write some articles next week, they'll have quotes in it.
	I know you'll just be...
	Be aghast at some of the conversation that went on.
	But the defense counsel, he's trying to cross-examine one of the main witnesses who, by the line of questioning, we can tell is suspected for being one of the corrupt cops who gave the information to the CBC.
	I won't go into the details, but I will in one of my articles next week.
	I mean, It's all there.
	Anyway, he stands up and he says to the hearing officer, sir, you know, you can disallow prosecution's objections.
	You don't have to side with her every single time.
	That's how frustrating it was.
	So, prosecution, or the prosecution has Made its case.
	Now it's going to go into the defense.
	First of all, how much time is scheduled for the defense?
	Four days.
	In January.
	What has been, in your view, the most incredible piece of evidence that has been allowed as evidence thus far?
	Well, first of all, the prosecution has no case.
	They have no case.
	They really have no case.
	It's all innuendo.
	It's all trying to say that the officers' intent...
	Oh, and they had a wonderful discussion that the prosecution introduced an element of mens rea, guilty mind, into the offense, which is not...
	It doesn't depend on the mind.
	It is a strict liability offense.
	They either did it or they didn't.
	To read the charge paper, You would know, Viva, there's no offense laid out.
	It just says that she was discreditable because she launched an unauthorized investigation and called one of the parents.
	Well, what's discreditable about that?
	And one of the defense lawyers asked the man who laid the charge.
	He says, and that was Sergeant Arbuthnot, he says he decided that on his own.
	I don't buy that, but he laid the charge and defense said to him, what is discreditable about what Detective Groose did?
	And he opened his mouth and the prosecution yelled, objection!
	And objection calls for legal opinion.
	Oh, and one of the, I mean, incredible, when Detective Anderson, the one who's suspected of, you know, turning the information over to CBC, it was incredible because she wrote a report that contained the almost exact language that appeared in the newspaper.
	I mean, phrase by phrase.
	It was just so...
	Oh, and by the way, it was her case that was mentioned in the newspaper.
	So Detective Anderson investigated one of these infant deaths, and it just so happened that that case was mentioned in the newspaper, and that the specific comments that appeared in Detective Anderson's report about Detective Groose...
	We're repeated almost verbatim.
	And that's what the defense was asking this officer.
	So ask them about that.
	And the prosecutor got up and stormed out of the court.
	What?
	I mean, this is out of control.
	Yeah, I mean, these administrative hearings typically go...
	Donald, I had a régie du logement, a rental board hearing that ended up going on for 20 days, give or take, over a year.
	I want to say 20-some-odd days over 18 months.
	Out of control.
	And these administrative justices, they don't have to be lawyers by training.
	And it's what it is.
	Okay, and we'll tie a bow in it before, because we've got to get to the coots four.
	Sure.
	How is Helen doing in all of this?
	She doesn't make any public statements?
	She doesn't.
	She and her lawyers do not talk to the press.
	I've tried.
	Rebel News has tried.
	Everybody's tried.
	They simply don't talk to the press.
	Probably the better.
	Yeah, probably the better.
	There's a wonderful photo, which is now on her fundraising site, and it's on my website, too.
	DonaldBeth.ca.
	The first day of the trial portion, August 14th, she had 20 or 30 people, citizens and fellow police officers, gathered in front of the place where the hearing was going to be held.
	It was the prayer photo, wasn't it?
	It was the prayer photo.
	See, you know the one.
	Here, this one right here.
	That's it.
	And that's sort of a condensed version of it.
	But that's the one.
	And, you know, the judge, the trials officer, walked by at that very minute.
	And everybody just kind of thought, yeah, well, you know, that was arranged.
	Say what you will about God.
	Say what you will about it.
	That was such a powerful moment.
	And frankly, one of the most powerful photos it's ever been my honor to take.
	And there's no talent there.
	I just let her rip on multiple photos.
	There it is.
	And before I share this and before I give to this, let me just make sure this is the right one.
	This is the correct one for anybody who wants to help with Helen's legal defense.
	That's it.
	Right there.
	I'm going to put that in the...
	So it's actually just forward slash Helen Gruse.
	Let me just do that again.
	Yep.
	Yep, perfect.
	Giveshengo.com forward slash Helen Gruse.
	And I'll share that in the chat.
	Do we ever find out what the content of the conclusion of her investigation was as to the status of these parents?
	Are we going to get to find that out, do you think?
	That could be leaked.
	If there's anything that gets leaked, that could be leaked.
	Well, first of all...
	Yes, we have to worry about the parents.
	And the parents are being re-traumatized now that all of this is in the public.
	Who did that?
	Not Detective Groose.
	But the CBC and Shemini Yogaretnam, they, in conjunction with their corrupt police sources, are solely responsible for the re-traumatization of the parents.
	Who now have to think of what happened again and their child's death is caught up in this controversy.
	There was no need of that.
	No need of that at all.
	But somebody broke the law to make that happen.
	And Detective...
	Oh, we heard this.
	Detective Groose wrote a request, an email.
	Please investigate this crime.
	Of who leaked this information, this confidential information, who broke their oath, who interfered, obstructed police and interfered with an ongoing investigation.
	Please investigate that.
	And the professional standards wrote back and said, no.
	That's it.
	Rules for thee, but not for me.
	Or rules for some, but not for others.
	Obviously.
	They're protecting friends.
	Look, I've been around.
	They're protecting friends.
	All right, well, we're going to have to do a part two to this when the defense closes and when the commissioner, whoever the judges, the administrative jury guy, is going to take a year to write a report, write his decision.
	There's going to be no question about that.
	It'll take forever.
	Oh, I believe the decision's already written.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	I'll see you.
	Hold on.
	Actually, before we move on, let me get to some...
	There's three Rumble Rants here.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to put it on pause and then bring these in.
	And then you're going to give us the update on the Coots 4. The crowd will know more about the Coots 4 because I've talked about it a bit.
	Sad Wings Raging says totalitarian thugs is what they are.
	Digger88 says the best things only to come from Canada are Viva and Rush.
	Well, BTO, what is that?
	Oh, Backman Turner Overdrive is okay, but that's it.
	I was going to say Jim Carrey, but he's gone off the deep end.
	And Finboy Slick says, it must be so hard to be a good cop when you just know at some point you're going to become inconvenient for the bad ones.
	Makes me think of Serpico, and then we ended up talking about Serpico.
	Yep.
	Okay, and you're covering this day in and day out.
	You're going to every day of the hearing?
	Every day of the hearing.
	I've been there.
	I'll be back in January.
	I think the case, this Detective Bruce case, is just so vital because at stake here is a fundamental concept of how we run police in this country.
	Do the police, the individual officers, do they act according to their duty, according to their oath, or are they bought and paid for and directed?
	By the politicians and by corporations.
	And if they don't comply, they'll be punished like Detective Groose.
	Can you imagine wiretapping her and her family knowing that she would get that notice and her family would get that notice?
	It was just sheer intimidation and it was nothing but the system.
	Punishing her to deter any other police officers who might want to draw a connection, who might think that there's a criminal case to be made.
	And believe you me, there is a criminal case to be made.
	And it's coming.
	But there we go.
	I've got to ask the...
	I'm going to ask, I mean, how can people support you?
	Because you're doing this and...
	People are entitled to survive, make a living off the hard work that they're doing.
	How can people support you?
	Well, thank you very much.
	On Twitter, X, you can subscribe to me for $3 a month.
	And for $3 a month, once a week, you'll get a little something that someone doesn't.
	You'll get some pre-notice about major articles and investigations that I'm covering.
	And it helps me out.
	You know, we went through...
	On each of the trips to Ottawa, it was about $2,000 in hotel fees and gas.
	And $3 once a month would really help with things like that.
	Are you the naughty book on Twitter?
	Because I'm following you, if I'm not mistaken.
	I know that I'm following you.
	Yes.
	But when I put your name in the search bar, I put in Donald?
	And Trump comes up, Byron Donalds, Donald Trump Jr., Heather McDonald.
	Then I put in Donald Best.
	You're still not up there.
	And there seems to be an unofficial, it says CA underscore not 66862, which says Donald Best do not comply.
	And I got to put in Donald Best CA, and you still don't come up.
	Well, that do not comply is me.
	That's my motto.
	But my Twitter handle is at Donald Best CA.
	Okay, it doesn't come up without...
	Without substantial search.
	So I'm going to put that in the...
	Well, they kicked me off Facebook, too.
	I didn't really have a presence there.
	I just had a placeholding site.
	But apparently what I was saying on other venues bothered them so much that they permanently shut down my account.
	Okay.
	Facebook is...
	I understand people make good money off Facebook, but it's a bad place.
	Sure.
	Okay, now, so we're going to follow up on that.
	You'll come back for the part two.
	I guess briefly, I don't know.
	The crowd is up to speed with the Coots Four.
	The Coots Four are the men who were charged with a plot to commit homicide, conspiracy to commit homicide against an RCMP officer.
	I've showed that picture of the stash of firearms multiple times.
	I just realized how that article said they found firearms and a machete.
	And I was like, my goodness, I got like multiple machetes lying across the house.
	Everybody knows the Coutts Four.
	There are four men.
	They're on remand.
	They're not even in jail.
	They haven't been convicted.
	Pre-trial detention.
	Denied bail for the conspiracy to commit murder against an RCMP officer.
	The evidence consists of no notes taken from this apparently young woman officer who met with one of the dudes over beers.
	They may have talked a big game and then they get charged with murder.
	Attempted murder.
	Conspiracy to commit murder.
	This was the basis that served as, you know, the linchpin of the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	It certainly served as the foundation to Commissioner Rouleau ratifying Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	The mystery envelope is where we sort of left off the last time.
	And I, let me see, I hope the chat is, that's enough of a summary for the chat.
	What's the latest?
	I mean, you're following that as well.
	Well, okay.
	First of all, there's coming on, I believe it's November 8th, very soon, a decision to be made as to whether there is enough fresh evidence to review the bail of one of the men.
	So, it's not a bail review, but it will be a decision as to whether there's enough fresh evidence.
	Okay.
	Now, about the envelope.
	Here's what I can tell you about the envelope.
	When the envelope first came on the scene, it was because in court the defense lawyers came in and the Crown prosecutor, who had been Stephen Johnson, I think is his name.
	I might be subject to correction there.
	He was not there.
	And we heard that there was an accidental disclosure of information from the Crown to the defense.
	And that what was disclosed is in this sealed envelope.
	And there were questions about privilege between the Crown and the RCMP.
	The word crime fraud was used.
	The word corruption was used.
	One of the lawyers stated quite clearly that the Crown was at the very least a witness.
	In a criminal proceeding.
	And may well be an accused.
	A defendant.
	What?
	Holy smokes!
	And that's what we heard.
	And then there was a series of hearings that were not published, that were closed, that were behind closed doors, where the accused were not even allowed to be present.
	Only the defense lawyers.
	And then, and here's where I get into trouble, a number of independent media were in and around the courts that day, and apparently there is some sort of a prohibition, maybe, with talking about whether there's been a decision or not.
	And somebody published something.
	And because of that, the very next day in court, there was a warning that people were in contempt of a certain court order.
	And now all of us are frightened to talk about what that decision might have been.
	Even though I know that decision, other people have been cautioned for Well, frankly, even saying that a decision had been made, maybe it hasn't been made yet.
	I just don't know.
	I don't know what to tell you.
	It's especially, and now, full loop back to your history, having been locked up for 63 days for contempt, you don't want to faffle, as we say, F around, find out.
	Holy crap.
	But you know what?
	Actually, it's...
	Yeah, the publication ban on the potential.
	Justice dies in darkness.
	But there was actually a big question, Donald.
	And I saw it on Twitter this morning.
	Jeremy McKenzie raising the issue about the legal defense funds that have been raised in the name of the four defendants.
	Seems that a substantial amount of money has been raised for the defense fund for the four defendants.
	Three of them seem to be represented by legal aid.
	Correct me if I'm wrong on that number.
	And the question is, what the hell happened with all the money?
	Where is it going?
	And are people being whamboozled out of their donations that are not necessarily going to where they thought they were going?
	I know nothing about this other than the fact that I saw Jeremy McKenzie's tweet, your response, and I don't even know what the controversy is.
	I didn't know there was an issue in the first place.
	So flesh that out for those who really want to know the answer to this.
	Okay.
	And once again, this is a bigger story than just the coots.
	It's a bigger story.
	Because we have dozens of political prisoners in Canada, even if they're not in jail now, they were charged politically.
	I think the last count that Jason Levine, by the way, Jason Levine, I do the Levine show with him every morning, Monday to Friday, and he was really responsible for bringing my attention to the fact that at that time, The four coups accused had been in prison, in remand prison, for 490 days at that time when we started looking at it.
	And Jason came to me and I said, I just can't believe this.
	I mean, we have an alleged cop killer out on bail in Toronto.
	And these four decent men, and really, I mean, I've looked into the whole thing.
	And I have an article on my website, donaldbest.ca.
	Type in coots there in the search bar and you'll get it.
	But as a result of examining all the information and evidence that's available to us, including that table of firearms that you have, I have grave doubts about the quality of the RCMP investigation.
	And further, I believe that the investigation, the charges, the denial of bail to the coots, They are motivated by, impacted by, a political agenda.
	These are political prisoners.
	Make no mistake.
	It was necessary because it was the basis that served as the justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	Absolutely.
	And the government knew.
	Days ahead of time that this investigation was trying to get this evidence.
	And of course, we heard about the hate gate, where the intelligence reports that were given to the government were all based on a Canadian anti-hate network that was government funded.
	That said there was this network of terrorists, right-wing, redneck terrorists throughout Canada, which doesn't exist, never existed.
	But it was convenient.
	They desperately needed this arrest at Coutts, outside of Ottawa, in order to declare the Emergencies Act.
	And just hours after the press conference at Coutts on February 14, 2022, The government declared the emergencies, axes, bank accounts, destroyed businesses, lives, homes.
	That's what they did.
	And the whole Kutz thing was based on lives.
	It was based on, I mean, that table of evidence.
	There was no, they're supposedly looking for a hierarchy of this terrorist group.
	And they didn't protect each of the exhibits.
	For fingerprints or DNA or against DNA contamination.
	It was just a lark.
	Donald, Donald, I don't know if you can see my cursor.
	I've literally got this machete.
	Sure, I can see it.
	Let me see the one.
	I know I had a shotgun.
	It was a 12-gauge.
	I don't see that on the table here.
	Oh, no, right here.
	Right over there.
	Okay, and we talked about the fact that they didn't individually bag each of these, that they show it to the public day two of the investigation or day two after the charges.
	It was preposterous, outlandish, and I can go on forever.
	It was needed so they could invoke the Emergencies Act.
	It was needed so Commissioner Rulo could come to the finding that he came to.
	And if they admit now that it was a sham, well, then that makes Commissioner Rulo look like a fool, now doesn't it?
	Come back to the legal fees, though.
	What's going on with the legal fees?
	Okay, here's the deal.
	This controversy, this questioning, has been going on for many months.
	And I was asked by certain people if I would do a report, if I would look into it.
	I said I would, and that report is pretty well complete.
	I've been hanging off because there's been important court dates.
	And I didn't want to interfere.
	I didn't want it ever said that my reporting on this issue, the funding for the Coutts case, that it did anything or interfered with any of the court case and court decisions and things that are happening.
	Well, that was fine.
	But a few weeks ago, people started talking about it.
	And, of course, Jeremy McKenzie, he's not the only one.
	As a matter of fact, he's Johnny-come-lately to the party.
	This has been going on for a long, long time, months.
	And so I started earlier to write that report, and I delayed it.
	But because of what's happening, I've now decided that I will publish my report on or before next Sunday, November 12th.
	Now, who am I to write a report like this?
	I am an award-winning fraud investigator.
	And a decent independent journalist who might have information to share with the public.
	I might.
	I was also accredited as a certified fraud examiner.
	And I've handled hundreds and hundreds of cases.
	Big one, just a couple of years ago in Florida, where we got the largest civil RICO judgment in the state history, some 269 million U.S. dollars.
	And that was all based on my undercover work in four continents.
	Many of the cases I handle have millions.
	I've learned how to handle that, implemented systems, and this is the level that I usually work at.
	So I guess I feel I'm pretty qualified to look at the available evidence and what's happened here and give a professional opinion, which is why I try and keep arm's length and independent.
	So there are several people involved in the fundraising for the For the Coots Four.
	Primary is Margaret McKay.
	And I want to say right here, first of all, nobody should ever infer from anything that I say that I have substantiated criminal crimes regarding this fundraising, either now or in the past, should never think that I've substantiated that.
	But there are significant red flags, and I call them to be kind red flags.
	If we were sitting in the fraud office at 52 Division right now, we'd call them badges of fraud.
	Doesn't mean fraud happened.
	There's a lot of reasons why it could happen.
	But I want to say that Margaret McKay, she deserves this.
	What I'm about to say is that if it were not for her efforts, for her tireless work, To represent these four accused and bring their stories to Canada and the world, I wouldn't be here at day 490 when they were in jail.
	I wouldn't have heard about it, except for her tireless work.
	So there's that.
	But my report is titled, Questions, Doubts, Lack of Accountability, Undermine Cootes Fundraising.
	And in short, and this is two paragraphs from my report, one, your money didn't go where you thought it did, or where some of the family members thought it would or should or hoped it would go.
	The current accounting records are, to be polite, incomplete, and they are probably incapable of being audited with any confidence.
	Public confidence, and this is my mission here, is to restore public confidence in the donating to not only the Couths Four, but all these other political prisoners.
	We're in Canada.
	Because right from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there are questions about raising money.
	Who raises it?
	How is it accounted for?
	What's happening?
	And I think, though, and back to the coots, there's a situation now where there is, as you pointed out, Viva, all kinds of talk online.
	This has been going on for a long time.
	And it's undeniable now.
	So something has to be done.
	And there's a way of doing it.
	Public confidence can be quickly restored, and it's through a process that has proven successful time and time again in many similar situations where people of good intent have either made mistakes or been overwhelmed by the success of their efforts.
	Now, there are also some...
	I'm going to say pieces of evidence and I'm not going to get into them here.
	People have been asking me to detail them, why I came to my opinion.
	No, I'm not going to do that.
	I'm going to do it in writing.
	That's only fair to everybody.
	People have been talking to me.
	Witnesses have been talking to me.
	Family members have been talking to me.
	So this is, as far as I'm concerned, I'm doing the best I can to write a report that does justice to The oath that I took when I was a police officer and my duty to my fellow Canadians now as I act as a journalist, but here I am back with my investigator shoes on.
	So there are problems.
	They can be fixed.
	They need to be fixed right away.
	A new start.
	Needs to happen, and that needs to happen soon.
	And that includes independent oversight with members of the families, plus some esteemed, arm's-length people from the community.
	There must be accounting, professional, independent accounting.
	And that's just to go forward.
	There must be a new start.
	There must be an agreement between the families and the accused, the four accused, as to...
	Who gets what?
	How much is given where?
	And I can tell you that these funds were not distributed as the people who gave the funds intended.
	So, look, we've all seen hockey fundraisers or bingo at the church go sideways.
	We've all seen that and things happen and that's the way it is.
	But there are rules.
	There are standards.
	And oftentimes when people come forward with good intent, they want to organize something to help that man who was hit in a car accident and can't walk and he's got a mortgage or whatever.
	Whatever happens.
	Someone got burned.
	We want to help people.
	But unless the infrastructure is already in place, professional, independent oversight, receipts, Transparency, all the things which, by the way, in Alberta are mandated.
	It's mandated for fundraising efforts.
	All those things have to be in play or it can get away.
	And even the best of intentions.
	Was that cash that we got last night, was it $525 or was it $575?
	I can't remember.
	Didn't you use $50 for gas?
	You can just see how it happens, okay?
	Now look.
	At any hockey fundraiser in any church in Canada, everybody puts money into the Home Depot bucket with the slit on the top.
	And then at the end of the night, after the speeches or during the break, everybody gathers around the table.
	We rip the top off the bucket.
	We dump the cash out.
	People stand around.
	They put it into piles of 100.
	It's written on the blackboard.
	A receipt is made, everybody claps, and everybody knows how much was in that bucket at that cash donation.
	It's not put in a kitchen cupboard with the promise it'll be counted tomorrow.
	Right?
	So, let me say this.
	There are problems.
	Confidence has to be restored.
	That's easy.
	And then there has to be an independent audit of the backstory so that people have, whatever mistakes were made, people have a record of what happened as best as can be happened.
	But there has to be a clean start.
	It has to be independently supervised.
	It has to be with rules.
	There has to be professional accountants.
	Invoices, I'm sorry, receipts that have numbers on them.
	Numbers, okay?
	It's pretty basic.
	So I hope all of that, and it's my intent that after my report and after the discussion and questions like Jeremy and Mackenzie raised, it's my hope that very soon this clean start will be presented to Canadians because let's not forget what this is all about.
	Jerry Morin, Anthony Olenek, Christopher Carbert, Christopher Lysak, they are political prisoners in Canada, and their families, their children, they're being punished too.
	And I hope God blesses each of their families and gives each of them the strength and the wisdom that they need.
	But we have to have that clean start, and then people will be happy to once again contribute.
	To these men who did nothing except stand up to a tyrannical government.
	Legally, I believe.
	I just don't believe that the evidence is there.
	I don't believe the evidence is there.
	I'm going to bring this one up and then I'm going to bring one last thing up before we wind this up.
	Alex Davyduke says, Thank you, Mr. Best, for advocating for Detective Groose and the Coots Four.
	And I was just looking it up in real time while we did this.
	Hold on.
	Present, share, screen.
	Here, look at this.
	What do we got here?
	Kingsland Media release number two.
	Miami Jury awards record RICO damages after hearing evidence of endemic and systemic corruption in Barbados courts and government.
	And here we go.
	Miami Jury in Florida found the plaintiffs in a civil RICO lawsuit awarded substantial damages, yada, yada, yada, trebled $269-plus million, a record for this type of suit.
	And if we go to the bottom, I did notice.
	Scroll all the way down.
	Come on, where is it?
	Where's the evidence that had your name?
	Hold on.
	Best.
	There we go.
	Trial exhibit, March 15th, sworn affidavit of Donald Best.
	So, very, very, very cool stuff.
	I'm going to put all of the links in there, Donald.
	To you, to Gru's fundraiser, to the Coutts 4, and as much as I can find it.
	I'm going to put all the links in there.
	They're going to be there.
	But remind everybody one more time before we head off.
	Where can people find you?
	And by the way, I'm going to continue on at Locals afterwards.
	I told Donald ordinarily I'd end this and we'd say our proper goodbyes, but I'm going to go over to Locals and have our after party there, so if anybody wants to go, go there.
	But where can people find you, Donald?
	My website, donaldbest.ca, donaldbest.ca.
	And my X, or Twitter, is at donaldbestca, at donaldbestca.
	And there you can subscribe.
	That's it.
	That's where you find me.
	Oh, hold it.
	Hold it.
	Hold it.
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	On Rumble, The Levine Show.
	Jason Levine.
	The Levine Show.
	That's really important.
	That's where I hang out every morning for an hour or two.
	And we have wonderful guests.
	And we've talked extensively about these two cases.
	And tomorrow, I think Jason has promised.
	He's going to reveal something that I promised I wouldn't say right now.
	And everybody here knows who Jason Levine is.
	He's been on a few times.
	He was on with Patriot Smoothie.
	Hold on, there's one more rum-around just came in.
	Alex Davyduke says, Mr. Best, why don't you start a give-send-go and you can disperse?
	That's a punishment.
	No, I'm not going to have anything to do.
	I presume they mean for Detective Groose.
	Detective Groose has her own give, send, go.
	And boy, she's doing really well.
	She needs more because you know how expensive this is.
	But for a long time, nothing was happening there.
	But really, thanks to you, Viva, and a bunch of other people, this is getting the attention.
	That it deserves.
	That's Detective Groose.
	Now, I don't know what's going to happen with the Coots 4. I hope, I pray, that within 10 days, what, it's now Sunday, really, if they were just starting again fresh, because that's all you have to do.
	Everything that went behind, you can freeze that and do an audit on.
	But let's start fresh.
	I think they should be able to have that in play 10 days from now.
	I really think that they should be able to have that in play.
	If you were starting a new charity to help someone and put in all the independent oversight they need, all the records keeping, a separate bank account, not in with your personal bank account and someone's personal bank funds.
	Yes.
	Let's set this up right.
	Let's get it going again.
	Because these four accused, these four good Canadians, they deserve our assistance.
	And with that, Donald, I'm going to carry on.
	Thank you very much.
	We're going to do the part two as soon as...
	We'll do the part two promise.
	So long as you want to come back on, we'll do it.
	Thank you for everything that you're doing.
	It's been amazing.
	Thank you, Viva.
	See you next time.
	Absolutely.
	Enjoy what's left of the weekend.
	We'll see you soon.
	Everybody else out there, we're going to end this.
	I've been plugging the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to go over there and do the after party until my wife comes in and nags me to go to bed.
	Tomorrow night, we will have the Sunday night show of Viva Barnes Law for the People on a Monday.
	So, did I miss anything?
	I haven't missed anything on the Rumble France side of things.
	Thank you all for being here.
	I should probably plug my own merch stuff.
	Viva Frye.
	I broke my mug, everybody.
	But if you want to get a mug or the best shot glasses of all time, wanted for president.
	That's the shot glass.
	That's the mugshot shot glass.
	I need to get a new mug.
	They're the coolest things on the block.
	All the kids walk around and saying, where'd you get your mug?
	That's awesome.
	They don't say that.
	All right.
	We're going to end this on Rumble.
	Come on over to avivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	See you all tomorrow night.
	If you're not coming, 6 o 'clock with the Barnes, and we've got a Trump gag order.
	It's Trump, Trump, Trump, and then a bunch of other good stuff.
	So, ending the stream on Rumble now.
	See you, locals.
	I'm coming.
	I'm coming, locals!

▲