All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
01:21:43
Federal Court DESTROYS Trudeau! Declares Emergencies Act UNLAWFUL! Live with John Carpay! Viva Frei
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, enjoy the nails on the chalkboard while we talk about the news of the day.
The federal government getting spanked judicially like a boss.
So, we are aware of the court decision.
We have discussed it with the Prime Minister, with Cabinet colleagues, with senior federal government officials and experts.
We respect very much Canada's independent judiciary.
However, we cannot agree with this decision.
And respectfully, we will be appealing it.
I thought you'd be appealing it disrespectfully.
I would just like to take a moment to remind Canadians of how...
Serious the situation was in our country.
Read the decision.
The public safety of Canadians was under threat.
Bullcrap.
Our national security which includes our national economic security was under threat.
It was a hard decision to take.
We took it very Seriously.
After a lot of hard work.
You awful, awful human.
We were convinced at the time.
I was convinced at the time.
It was the right thing to do.
It was the necessary thing to do.
I remain and we remain convinced of that.
And I'll now turn it over to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, and then we'll hear from my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety.
All right, people.
It looks like we are simultaneously live across the interwebs.
Let me go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
So for those of you who saw the earlier stream today, we're live everywhere.
Rumble Studios has been launched to the general public.
I was among the...
What do they call them?
The guinea pigs?
Who was testing it out in beta and making recommendations as to how they can improve it.
And I still got a few more because it would be very convenient if Rumble Studio would set up the live stream in advance.
On Rumble, it sets it up.
I can share the link to the Rumble live stream.
It doesn't do it for locals or for YouTube.
So they're going to work on that.
They're going to fix that because If I set up a live stream on Locals, I want to be able to share the link around, and I can't do that currently because it doesn't set up the stream until it goes live.
And then once it's live, I've got to go fish around for the thing.
So there's going to be a few kinks that we're going to work out here.
This is going to be my first time doing a live interview.
Hold on, I'm going to cough.
Now, where is that mute button?
Is it right here?
I'm going to go back to that clip in a second, just to let you know what's happening.
So there might be some kinks and some, you know, I'm going to learn things as we go along here.
We're live on YouTube.
We're live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We're live on Rumble.
And let me see this because they offer the option.
So I said, why not take them up on it?
We'll see if it's also streaming on X, formerly known as Twitter.
I think it should be.
Yeah, look at this.
I said, holy crabapples, we got 252 people watching on Twitter.
So share all the links around people because I didn't get much advance notice for this or wasn't able to provide much advance notice.
Okay, very cool.
I think...
Jesus, how do I put it on pause?
That was very loud.
I was just looking at myself on Twitter and it was much louder than I was anticipating.
Okay, so we're live across the interwebs.
The big news of the day is the...
A federal court judge, Richard Mosley, I'd say doing the Lord's work, but Richard Mosley is just doing judges' work.
There was a challenge to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
I can summarize some of it until John Carpe from the JCCF, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, gets here.
I'll summarize some of it.
Then we're going to get back to that clip from Chrystia Freeland, and we're also going to get...
We're also going to get to a couple of things that people talk too much.
What's his face?
Mr. Champ.
Champ Esquire, one of the lawyers representing Zexy Lee, put out a tweet, which I screen grabbed because I think it's going to come back to bite him in the ass in his representation of Zexy Lee, but we'll get there.
Whoever said we're not live on Rumble, we are.
We're live everywhere I checked.
Okay, so the big news of the day.
Federal court judge, it's the first instance, so the...
Federal court, it's going to go to the Court of Appeals because Chrystia Freeland and the Trudeau government, man, they'll fight to our last dollar.
They'll never admit that they were wrong.
She qualifies it now.
At the time, I believed at the time it was necessary.
Bullshit, first of all.
And second of all, that suggests that she's not quite so convinced now.
They're going to appeal it because they're gambling with other people's money and they'll fight for...
Till our last tax dollar to prove that they were right in the first place.
This is a smashing, smashing defeat.
It is a judicial spanking.
And it really, I mean, it might get overturned in appeal, you know, because there's going to be questions of law with which a higher court might find a way to disagree.
But Richard Mosley did the Lord's work, and by that I mean the judge's work, and actually...
Assessed the situation accurately, distinguished how he could come to his legal findings, notwithstanding Commissioner Rouleau's absolute rubbish report.
But I want to come back to Christa Freeland because I want to play this one more time here.
We're going to play this from the beginning.
Let's do this.
Replay.
So I personally believe that U.S. Americans have trouble finding countries on the maps because they don't have maps.
Decision.
Listen to this.
We have discussed it with the Prime Minister, with Cabinet colleagues, with senior federal government officials and experts.
Oh, experts.
The same ones who...
They're liars.
You understand that they're liars?
Marco Mendicino came out there and said that the RCMP asked them to invoke the Emergency Act.
He's a goddamn liar.
We respect very much Canada's independent.
Judiciary.
However, we do not agree with this decision.
It's a 190-page, thoroughly fleshed-out decision.
Now, admittedly, 20 pages are set to parties and facts.
Another 20-some-odd pages are for procedural stuff because they tried to raise mootness.
The abuser, Justin Trudeau, tried to argue that because they ceased with the abuse and because they declared the Emergency Act and then rescinded it, rescinded the invocation two days later, they've ceased with the abuse.
So moot, move on.
Forget about the frozen bank accounts.
Forget about the police rifle butts to your faces.
Forget about handcuffing Deerling.
What was his name?
Chris Deerling.
Ooh, that's not his name.
Someone's going to get it.
The veteran.
Who, 150 pounds wet, had his body destroyed in Iraq.
How he was assaulted, lost one of his awards, his medals, handcuffed, two hours hauled out of town like a sack of garbage and left in the snow.
And respectfully, we will...
Be appealing.
I'd love them to disrespectfully appeal it.
Respectfully?
I don't know if you know what that word means.
It just makes me sound smart and polite.
Will respectfully be appealing the decision with your tax dollars?
Because nothing's too good for us?
I would just like to take a moment to remind Canadians of how serious the situation was.
You want to remind us of something that is factually incorrect?
That's not called reminding us of something.
That's called lying to us yet again.
In our country, when we took that decision, the public safety of Canadians was under threat.
Bullshit.
Sorry.
Our national security.
Hold on.
I'm going to get my swears out of the way before John gets here.
Bullshit.
What did she just say here?
Let me just...
Under threat.
Sorry, hold on.
The public safety of Canadians was under threat.
Bullshit.
You pathological liar.
Crime actually went down in Ottawa.
The homeless were actually getting fed in Ottawa when the protest was going down.
The protest.
Liar.
Liar.
Ugly liar.
Our national security, which includes our national economic security, was under threat.
Liar.
So now any interruption to the economy warrants invocation of the Emergencies Act as opposed to, I don't know, petitioning the courts?
It was a hard decision to take.
Oh, it wasn't hard.
It was a foregone conclusion to invoke it.
You just needed to find the justification, even if it meant lying to the Canadian people.
We took it very seriously.
That means that it was a flippant...
They didn't take it seriously.
We took it seriously.
After a lot of hard work.
A lot of hard work.
All you had to do was come down to the street and talk to the protesters, Christopher Freeland, you pathological liar.
All that you're...
Blackface-wearing, woman-groping, abusive boss had to do was come down and talk to the protesters.
There were a lot of careful deliberation.
Oh, yeah.
We were convinced at the time.
At the time.
I was convinced at the time.
At the time.
Those words are not in there by accident.
It was the right thing to do.
Which means that at this time, she's not so convinced anymore.
But they'll appeal it anyhow.
It's not their money.
It was the necessary thing to do.
Bullshit.
You resolved the Windsor blockade with a court injunction.
All of the criminal charges that had ever been issued, levied in this protest, existed under the criminal law.
It was a four-street protest in downtown Ottawa.
There was no national security, anything.
It wasn't necessary at all.
It was necessary to abuse the people who humiliated your tyrannical regime to the world.
I remain and we remain convinced.
That's because you're stubborn.
You remain convinced of that because you're stubborn, stupid, and you'll never admit that you were wrong.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, and then we'll hear from my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety.
All right.
Well, that's it.
Okay.
That's one link.
I'm just going to keep going back to the studio to see if I see John.
I don't see John in the backstage yet.
All right.
That's one thing.
Let me see what the other thing that I brought up was.
That's me.
Oh, here we go.
Paul Champ.
Paul Champ, people.
Screen grab this, people.
Because this will come back to bite Paul Champ in the ass in his representation of Zexy Lee in their class action lawsuit for $600 billion.
I'm exaggerating.
$330 million.
Listen to this.
Listen to this.
Go compare this to statements he's made in court.
Go compare this to allegations he's made in court filings.
The Emergencies Act was unnecessary.
And the chaotic and unlawful convoy protests in Ottawa could have been ended using other laws.
I said that in February 2022, and it remains my view.
But to be clear, this judgment is not the vindication that convoy supporters believe it is.
Oh, and he's citing Luc Lebrun, who I know that I've tipped with on the Twitterverse.
What's this thing here?
Editor, press progress, send tips and story ideas.
Okay, whatever.
Let's see why he says that.
But by the way, just take note of this.
Paul Champ is saying that the emergency act was unnecessary and did not need to be invoked.
And he said that back in the day.
Go see what he's alleged in his court filings for Zexy Lee.
Go see some of the warranties and go see some of the statements he made before Commissioner Rouleau.
I guarantee you he contradicted what he just said here.
I guarantee you this undermines statements he made before the court, presumably under oath.
What do I know?
It's just a guess.
Let's go to the conclusion, people.
Shall we?
There's a conclusion.
Hold on.
Now I got to go back to the studio.
I see myself here.
Good.
Okay.
We're still in.
Let's go back to the conclusion and see what he's talking about right here.
Conclusion.
Paragraph 370.
At the outset of these proceedings, while I had not reached a decision on any of the four applications, I was leaning to the view that the decision to invoke the EA was reasonable.
Yeah.
And it's amazing what happens after you hear the evidence.
I considered the events that occurred in Ottawa and other locations in January, February went beyond legitimate protest and reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order.
I had and continue to have considerable sympathy for those in government who were confronted with the situation.
I may have agreed that it was necessary to invoke the act, and I acknowledge that in conducting judicial review of that decision, I am revisiting that time with the benefits of hindsight.
And a more extensive record of the facts and law than that which before the government, the GIC, the, uh, shoot, what does that sound like?
Oh, I'm sorry.
I don't really think that's quite as damning as Paul Champ thinks it is.
But what I do think is damning, let me just go ahead and screen grab it.
It shall live forever, Paul Champ.
Too late to delete.
Okay, so that's one other take.
And then what else was there?
Hold on.
Well, I got the decision.
Okay, so let me go here.
Now, one of the other recommendations I gave to Rumble Studio was that they need to make the Rumble rants and the tips much more visible.
And the Super Chat.
So now I can see that we've got 1.6 thousand people on YouTube.
And I can bring up all comments from all platforms.
Is Wellington still closed?
Hey, look at this.
Is Wellington still closed?
Yeah, because you know, they went in and shut down downtown Ottawa for longer than the protest had occurred in cleaning up the protest.
Let's see where we go like this.
They did nothing.
So this is a comment from Rumble.
They did nothing.
Then, we got a comment from locals.
Look at this.
Trudeau is a threat, but not the only threat to Canada.
That's a comment from locals.
And then...
And then we got another one from YouTube, which says, the behavior panel would have fun analyzing that clip, for sure.
Okay, so let me see here.
I'm going to take that pinned comment out and see...
Hmm.
Where is John?
He said he might be a little late just because he was in...
He said there might be traffic.
Let me just see if I get my email here.
We're going to go through the decision because I know the JCCF was...
Involved in this.
I might get some of the details wrong.
Okay.
All right.
Nothing there.
Let me just check my email.
Well, I'll try to...
Let's get into the decision a little bit here, people.
Although I do want to do one thing.
Hold on.
I'm going to open up Rumble in the Backdrop.
Rumble.
And...
Oh, yeah, by the way, hit the thumbs up and the likes and, you know...
Get this to the front page.
We're there.
Okay, here we go.
Let me go and just open up rants.
Hashtag 338 for trees, and I don't know what that means, red pill mama.
Okay, so that's it.
Now I've got that open in the backdrop, and I'm going to just put it on pause.
And yes, for anybody who's looking at the pimple on my forehead, I'm going through puberty again.
It's very embarrassing.
Okay, let's open up the decision right over here.
So it's a very, very long, thorough decision.
And yes, the judge is being as polite as humanly possible to the decision makers and the government.
And I think the judge should issue the standard not feeling sad, not feeling lonely warnings.
Okay, so let's start with this.
It might be too hard.
Okay, well, we'll do the overview because we all know the facts, at least those who are watching.
I can fill in the blanks on the facts.
Introduction.
These are the reasons.
Oh, these are reasons for judgment in four applications for judicial review under Section 1818.1 of the Federal Courts Act of the decision by the governor and council, that was it, to declare the public order emergency, the POEC.
And then you had the POEC was the Public Order Emergency Commission and to approve additional measures in order to...
End disruptive protests in Ottawa and other locations in Canada.
Okay.
As the outcome of the four applications varies in certain respects, separate judgments will be issued for each application because some people were not entitled to sue because of lack of standing.
Others, they all basically conceded that it might be moot in theory, but there's an exception to mootness under the law, which is sufficient public interest to resolve the issue, potential for reoccurrence, etc.
The applicants in the four applications before the court, this is paragraph three, yeah, I'm trying to skip through this to make it, issued pursuant, also under, okay, so that's what's under view.
The Attorney General of Alberta responded to a notice of constitutional question in one of the applications.
All right, the Attorney General of Canada brought motions to strike the applications on the grounds that they were moot because they stopped the abuse.
They rescinded the invocation.
That's how necessary it was.
Imagine such a necessary national security issue.
They resolved it.
In two days.
Before the Senate could vote on it.
Because remember, they voted to invoke it.
It was in the House of Commons.
And then the Senate had to ratify the invocation.
The Senate looked like they weren't necessarily going to ratify it.
Furthermore, when they started freezing bank accounts or threatening freezing bank accounts, people started pulling their monies out of banks.
And there was a cash run.
And the banks, from what I understand, were calling up the Trudeau regime saying, what the hell are you doing?
We don't have this much money.
We don't have this much money in our reserves.
And they started panicking, and that might be one of the reasons why the Senate rescinded or did not ratify the invocation.
Now, hold on one second, people.
I seem to have just gotten an email, and I hope it's not what I think I just saw, because then this might quickly turn into a solo stream.
Okay, hold on.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
Call.
Well, hold on a second.
Hold on, people.
Let me work through this.
Guys, give me two seconds.
I'm going to put it on mute and I'm going to call John.
Let me just see if I can do this.
Mute.
Hold on.
Mute.
I'm going to talk as though I might not necessarily be on mute.
All right.
Unmute.
All right, everybody, I'm going to ask John to talk.
John's stuck in traffic.
John, say something.
We'll do mic check and we'll see if the chat can hear us.
I'm really happy with the court ruling that came out this morning.
Can you hear me?
Okay, everybody, he just said he's very happy with the court ruling.
I think...
I'm going to do this.
Can we hear...
Let me go to the place where I'm most likely to get immediate feedback.
Hold on, hold on just one second.
One thing that's for certain, I'm not refreshing like I did earlier today.
Rumble Studio.
Okay, hold on, guys.
I'm going to go right here, and I'll go to my content.
And we're live here.
Let me see if the chat says they can hear you.
It's okay.
Yes, okay, they can hear you, John.
Okay, so here's what we're going to do.
We're going to put on pause, and I'll up the mic, and I'm going to keep it close.
Okay, John.
We're going to do done is better than perfect, and it's important that we do this.
First of all, how is everything going?
I haven't spoken to you in a while.
Well, things in Canada are...
The court rulings have been very disappointing, let me tell you that.
Although we have not truly lost any court rulings, according to the Oaks test, where the court is supposed to evaluate the government's evidence.
and the evidence of the citizens whose target rate Some freedoms are being violated.
We're getting this weird rubber stamp where, to quote one judge, and she's been quoted repeatedly, she says, I'm neither equipped nor inclined to resolve scientific controversies regarding COVID.
And then from there they take this quantum leap and say, well, the government produced a little bit of science on its side, so therefore I'm going to rule in favor of the government.
And this has become the norm in Canada in the last two years with court rulings pertaining to COVID.
So today's ruling is a breath of fresh air.
John, I actually, I asked my brother not to delegate work to him, but I was like, we should pull out all of the court decisions where the judges took as judicial notice the safety and efficacy of the jab, just to contrast that to reality today.
But no, the court rulings, especially out of the federal court in Canada, have been miserable.
Where they determined the government-designated quarantine facilities to be lawful, save and accept for being denied the right to counsel.
Do you know who Richard Mosley is as a judge before this?
No, I have not had a chance to do a search on his prior rulings.
But this, again, is just to have a judge actually rule against the government.
It was not directly about lockdowns.
It was not directly about vaccine passports.
But it certainly was about government action, the actions that the federal government took.
He said there was a violation of Charter Section 8, right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
That was in relation to the bank accounts.
He said it was not justified.
There was also an unjustified violation of freedom of expression.
He said there was not a national emergency that warranted invoking the act.
I mean, it was like, wow!
You know, just great to see that contrast with so many other court rulings the last two years.
I don't think we've met in person, but we've known each other now for a couple of years as this world descended into total madness.
And I remember your cautious optimism in the early days of COVID compared to the pits of hell to which we descended.
This is a breath of fresh air.
It's like a defiant judgment to the extent that it goes against Commissioner Rulo's findings, and we're going to get to that.
So tell us, JCCF was representing one of the parties to this?
Yeah, we were representing Mr. Jost and three other plaintiffs, two of whom had their bank accounts frozen.
And so the Justice Centre actually saw to it that we brought Canadians before the courts who were personally impacted by the emergencies order in terms of how they were treated in Ottawa, plus having their bank accounts frozen.
You know, that was good.
There are other groups to their credit also did good work, like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association came forward with, you know, legal and constitutional arguments as well.
And so there were about four different applications altogether were decided with one big long judgment.
And I think the fact that we had different applications from different angles was really helpful to getting this success.
So you were representing four of the, do we call them petitioners or plaintiffs?
Petitioners, applicants, if you would.
Were any of your four, because I mean, look, I'm familiar with the facts.
I'm not so much familiar with who represented which parties.
I do know that a couple of the petitioners were denied standing.
Were all of your clients had their standing recognized?
Two out of four were denied standing, and the other two were granted standing.
Okay.
And the two that were denied standing, they were basically said, tough noogies, get out of here, but you'll be happy with the decision anyhow.
out.
Precisely.
Okay.
So two of the four, my goodness, were granted standing because they had their bank accounts frozen.
Who were the interveners?
There was the CCF and there was another four-letter acronym.
So there's the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the CCF, and then there was the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the CCLA, which was another budget for sure because the Canadian The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been supporting lockdowns, supporting all of this oppression in the last three years.
And it was nice to see them come out against the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the violent, ruthless suppression of the protests in Ottawa.
It was nice to see the Canadian Civil Liberties Association come out against that.
He also participated in the Public Order Emergencies Commission and took a stance on the side of freedom and citizens'charter rights.
All right, now, actually, you can't see this, but I'm trying to hold my phone up so that people can read what's on the back of my case, which is the serenity prayer.
Let me just say it out loud.
It's God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
And my goodness, we're in the midst of that right now.
So you had two of the four get dismissed for lack of standing.
Two had standing granted.
The Crown, to be expected, argued for mootness.
They said, look, we rescinded the invocation.
There's nothing to debate here.
Am I understanding the decision properly that basically all parties involved accepted the mootness as a matter of fact, but argued that it should nonetheless be adjudicated for the exceptions to mootness under the law?
Yes.
They accepted...
There is a technical...
You see, you've got a technical mootness where a government might have a policy like the...
You have a technical mootness.
If the government withdraws the measure or if the measure lapses or expires, it's no longer enforced.
You have a technical mootness, which you more or less have to recognize that, okay, fine, this policy is no longer in effect.
But then there's a more substantive mootness that should not be recognized.
So far as it's still relevant to the parties.
And what the Justice Center has argued, unsuccessfully so far, except in this case, is that when the travel restrictions expire, it should not be ruled boot, even though technically it's boot because the measure has expired.
You have the reality that people's rights were...
They could not get onto an airplane.
They were second-class citizens.
There is no medical or scientific basis for this, and the government could bring it back tomorrow.
And one thing that was refreshing in this federal court ruling today was the judge noticed, he mentioned this argument that if he did not provide a ruling on the use of the Emergencies Act,
Basically giving a blank check to government to violate our rights and freedoms, whenever it feels like it, and then a week or ten days later, as soon as somebody follows a court action, they're going to reverse it, withdraw the actions, and it will never be held to account.
And so the judge took note of how, you know, it takes a court action months.
I mean, here, the Justice Centre filed a court action 23 months ago, right?
And now we finally get a ruling.
And so it takes court actions months, if you're lucky, and typically years.
And so we should not be agreeing with the government that it's moot, because then the government can just do whatever it wants without any accountability.
I'm trying to...
His name is escaping me right now.
Brian Peckford.
This is what people don't really understand, is that in the Peckford...
Challenging of the prohibition on unvaccinated people from flying trains and planes.
The government argued mootness, and after nine months of active litigation, the court granted the dismissal based on mootness.
And I'm sitting there saying, A, this is susceptible of repeating.
That's one of the exceptions in law.
B, it's sufficient public importance, obviously.
And C, or three, I forget what I'm at.
These should serve as guidelines on a going-forward basis as to when the government gets to invoke the Emergencies Act, so it'll serve as clarity going forward, even if it is moved.
Oh, say that again?
Well, yeah, in the Peckford action, you know, the lawyers on both sides, okay, and there's four different actions.
The Justice Center provided lawyers for Brian Peckford in one action and Maxine Bernier in another action.
And then there were other Canadians as well.
And there were four actions were consolidated.
And there were hundreds of hours of lawyers' time, government lawyers and lawyers on our side.
And we cross-examined expert witnesses.
We had expert reports.
The government's experts and expert reports were not very impressive, but still time and effort went into that.
And after hundreds of hours of lawyers' time, after all of this evidence...
After all of these expert reports and the cross-examination of expert witnesses, the judge basically just flushed it all down the toilet with a mootinous ruling just because the time period had elapsed.
And that is so egregious because it basically, it's a signal to the federal government to say, you go ahead, you violate charter rights and freedoms whenever you want.
And, you know, as long as you do it for only 6 or 9 or 12 months, it's fine because it's going to take a year and a half to two years before the court gets to rule on it.
And so it's just atrocious because quite often these measures, whether it's lockdowns or vaccine passports, travel restrictions, these measures are not necessarily going to be enforced for 18 months.
And yet the court action is going to take more than 18 months.
So yeah, these mutinous rulings have been terrible.
Well, and not just that, like, forget the time, the precedent, the financial exhaustion, because the government's playing with our money.
Peckford in particular, Maxime Bernier, they're financing their own litigation.
And so after nine months, a year, quarter of a million dollars, moot, you just pissed away and burnt a quarter of a million dollars.
And that's, you know, it can bankrupt a plaintiff.
It can bankrupt the petitioner, and the government's just going to go dip into our back pockets to finance their contestation the next time and go to mootness again.
It's obscene.
It's obscene, John.
Okay, so...
One final point on Beckford.
As you know, David, and many of the viewers and listeners will know, the last stage of the litigation before you get your ruling is oral argument.
The oral argument was scheduled for Monday, October 31st, 2022.
I remember it well.
And so everything had been done.
The legal research, the factions, the briefs, the evidence, the testimony of witnesses, the cross-examination of witnesses, the expert reports.
Everything had been done except for the final icing on the cake.
The oral argument was the only thing left outstanding.
So this action had been, you know, literally 99% completed.
And that's when the judge said, oh, it's mooch.
And yeah, it's just terrible.
Well, we're beyond the point of swearing, John, so I'm going to do it.
But it's un-fucking-believable.
It's obscene.
That was in the Peckford Charter Challenge.
I mean, what's the state of that file now?
They've appealed the dismissal on mootness, correct?
But I think the Court of Appeal ratified it?
Yeah, that's correct.
So Brian Peckford is now going to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Which, as you know, is a two-step process.
So firstly, we're at the first stage asking the Supreme Court, will you hear our appeal, yes or no?
And we'll wait and see.
And then, you know, if we're fortunate enough to be part of this, you know, 5% or whatever of cases that the Supreme Court hears.
But our argument to the Supreme Court is going to be, look, do you really want governments to just violate charter rates and freedoms whenever they feel like it?
and then just walk away from it without any accountability by withdrawing the measure before, you know, it's taken 24 months to litigate it.
Well, I won't give you strategy, but the risk of asking a rhetorical question is that they might say, yeah, that's exactly what we want.
Thank you for laying it out for us.
Unreal.
No, if the Supreme Court does not hear the case, I mean, they're basically ratifying this type of episodic, sporadic constitutional abuse and leaving the citizens with no peaceful recourse, which is a very, very bad.
Well, this appeal as well.
We're not asking for a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada on, you know, lockdowns or vaccine passports or travel restrictions.
We're not asking for that.
But just the basic principle that when governments violate our rights from freedom...
I think even the pro-lockdown people and pro-vaccine passport people and pro-travel restrictions people, they do acknowledge our rights to mobility and freedom of association and religion and conscience and so on and so forth.
All these rights have been violated.
I mean, you know, the pro-lockdown people have to ask themselves, do we want a country where, you know, the next time it might be a violation that we disagree with?
And can the government just get away with it by withdrawing the policy as soon as a court action is filed?
All that I've noticed, John, is that invoking the Emergencies Act when they block bridges, the Windsor Bridge protests.
They didn't invoke the Emergencies Act when the pro-Palestinian or the pro-Palestine protests were blocking the Champlain Bridge.
I think it was, you know, blocking bridges, blocking streets, blocking arteries, financial, financial, financial security threats, which we're going to get into.
You were representing four of the petitioners.
Two of them were denied standing, but that's academic because two had standing acknowledged.
The interveners, if that's the right word, they had their standing acknowledged.
The judge actually thanked them.
I forget what paragraph, like 124, give or take, said, thank you, interveners, for your very valuable contributions to this lawsuit.
The government tries to go with mootness, and the judge says, no, we all agree it's moot because it's stopped, but this is an important decision that needs a ruling, so we're going to bypass or invoke the legal exceptions to mootness and render a decision.
And that brings us into about page 50 of the decision.
We don't need to go over the facts.
Everybody knows it.
I guess, look, I'll ask the broad question, and then I'll gather my thoughts and pull up a specific paragraph.
What's the most striking element of the decision that stuck out to you?
Well, after the mutinous thing, which you're right, David, the judge goes on and on and on and on, mentioning the federal government argued this, this, this, this, and the applicants argued this, this, and here's the test, and so on.
So it was refreshing to have it not be booted.
I was just impressed to see a judicial affirmation of what we all knew.
We all knew that a peaceful protest in one city, Ottawa, was not a national emergency.
When the Emergencies Act was invoked, the border disputes at Windsor, as well as Coots, Alberta, had both been resolved.
So when the Emergencies Act was declared, it was only Ottawa.
And a deal had been reached between the protesters and the city of Ottawa that the truckers were going to move out of Ottawa to...
John, if I can interrupt you there for one second.
Let me interrupt you there.
The Windsor had been resolved, you say.
We all know it.
And I'll ask the question to which I know the answer.
How had the Windsor blockaded?
I'll put it in quotes.
How had that been resolved?
Well, on February the 14th, two years ago, almost two years ago, the Coutts and Windsor borders were open and running, so the protests there were no longer causing economic disruption.
They had been Well, look, I asked the rhetorical question because I knew the answer.
They got a court injunction, which apparently ordered the cars to move.
My brother was there.
I'm going to have to...
Bring that stream back up to refresh everybody's memory.
They got a court order.
So they petitioned the courts without invoking the Emergencies Act.
There was an injunction issued, and the blockade, in quotes, had ended.
And I'm saying at the time, that is the evidence that the existing judicial remedies, the existing criminal remedies, were sufficient without invoking the extraordinary nuclear bomb that is the Emergencies Act.
And so, okay, so they then, you know, they invoke it for Ottawa.
This judge, well, we got past the mootness, and the judge basically said, this is the best part, actually.
Politely said they exaggerated the pretext for invoking the Emergencies Act.
Were you surprised at the manner in which Mosley distinguished from Commissioner Rouleau's findings to come to his own?
Because at the time, after Commissioner Rouleau came down and issued his...
Four-volume, 10,000-page report.
I'm like, okay, great.
No court in their right mind is going to come down against this because now you basically have...
It's a quasi-judicial precedent.
Was that the most shocking thing for you, that he actually said, look, Commissioner Rouleau, and he did it eloquently.
That was a political commission, not a judicial one.
Mine is a judicial one.
Did that part strike you?
Yes, and I certainly liked it because there was such a crying need for it because the Reload Commission gave this.
This lukewarm, tepid, half-hearted, vague, ambiguous endorsement and said, well, the federal government, you know, was kind of sort of maybe right, but, you know, but, you know, maybe they weren't.
And, yeah, I like how Justice Mosley here has said, well, you know, that was what it was, but now we need to actually apply the act.
and it was especially surprising In the early pages of the ruling, you can see the judge is not sympathetic to the truckers.
And this comes across with his reference to hateful symbols, and he talks about Nazi flags, swastikas, and the threat of violence.
And he makes a whole bunch of comments that are kind of the, you know, following the Justin Trudeau narrative that these were, you know, dangerous, violent, racist people, when in fact they were not.
And so in the early parts of the judgment, this particular judge kind of tips his hat that he was not a fan of the protests.
He thought they were seriously disruptive.
It's called protests.
You know, he didn't buy into kind of the attitude that you and I might have.
It's, you know, come on, it was peaceful, there's no crimes, there's bouncy castles for kids, there was hot tubs, and it was all a big party.
You know, he's not sympathetic to that viewpoint.
And so, but he still, he did a very careful analysis, for example, by concluding that there is no serious threat of violence.
I mean, yes, there was maybe a vague threat of violence, possibly, but there wasn't a serious threat of violence.
There wasn't a national emergency.
There was a violation of our charter freedom of expression.
The bank account freezing was a violation of Charter Section 8 right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
It goes to show that the facts were pretty much on our side for this judge to rule the way that he did.
I read it and first of all, John, when you read a decision, do you go to the conclusion and then go back to read it?
Or do you read it through torturously anticipating what the conclusion is going to be?
I do a bit of both.
Today has been so crazy and I've had so many requests for media that it was a struggle to get through.
You know, I did skim read or speed read certain parts of it, but yeah.
It's a very long, very thorough ruling.
I'm looking forward to going through it again because I've been asked by a publication to get a column to them by 10:30 Ontario time.
I'm reading the decision.
I knew how it ended because my DMs were blowing up while I was live earlier today.
So I knew how it ended.
But I was the type of lawyer to read it torturously and try to guess where it's going to go.
This one started off as, I don't like the truckers.
I don't like the convoy.
It was very dangerous and scary.
Yada, yada, yada.
I'm going to give the government a little bit of a victory here.
Two denied standing, but the other two get their standing.
Although you know exactly where they're going from the beginning.
Now, hold on.
The thought that I was just having was, part of me feels that the judge just had to...
Give the government its small W's so it could give the government its big L. And say, okay, yeah, it was disruptive.
Oh, there were Nazi flies, which is bullshit through and through.
But to do that, so the government can get its...
It can give the government small W's to ultimately allocate the big W to the petitioners.
In appeal, though, and this is going to go to appeal.
I played a filthy face Christa Freeland's video there.
They're going to appeal it.
In appeal, the Court of Appeal gives a lot of deference to matters of fact to the lower court judge, but not the deference towards matters of law.
And it's going to be the matter of law here as to whether or not the matters of fact, which they might give deference to, justify the conclusions in law.
Are you skeptical about an appeal on this?
You know, I just, I was called to the bar in 1999, and I have won cases I should have lost, and I have lost cases I should have won.
I'm not going to make any predictions, and you're not asking me to, but I just don't know.
If I had to give it odds, I'd say 50-50 in terms of this ruling being upheld versus the ruling being overturned.
I just don't know.
What do you think, Dave?
You know, the Colorado court decision...
Out of the states where the lower court came to a finding of fact and then the upper, the upper, the Supreme Court came to a different finding in law.
I question whether or not of good faith or to throw people under the bus, the lower court judge Mosley gave enough fodder for a court of appeals to say, yeah, based on those facts, you're wrong in the law and it was justified.
I don't think...
I don't think they're going to overturn it.
I think that's less likely than it is likely.
I don't think a court of appeal is going to overturn it.
And we'll see what happens.
Someone had asked whether or not Pierre Poilievre would undertake to withdraw the appeal if conservatives get elected into power if there's an election.
Set that aside.
If this goes to appeal, I don't think a court of appeal is going to overturn it.
It's thoroughly justified.
It's thoroughly and meticulously motivated.
But holy crap, the judge had to have gonads of steel to come up with this decision.
And for those, I'll say for those who don't know, at some point, Mosley, the judge said, yeah, Commissioner Rouleau issued his findings.
That wasn't a court of justice.
That wasn't a court of law.
That was not susceptible to appeal.
This is a court of law.
There's evidence.
And if I get it wrong, as the judge, the court of appeal can come in and intervene.
Sort of an open-ended invitation.
I don't think they can get there, but the judge really distinguished between the political process of Rulo, which was political and politically biased, with the judicial process.
And finally, one freaking court Yeah, yeah.
Sorry, Joel.
What's the weather where you're at right now?
Well, Calgary, it was 10 days ago, it was 40 below.
It was really bad.
Then it got less and less cold.
The snow is melting and it's getting slushy.
You did just say 40 below.
Well, with windshield factor.
It was 30 below without windshield factor.
That's 30 Celsius or 30 Fahrenheit?
I'm talking, well, you know, 40 below Celsius and Fahrenheit are the same thing.
But this is 30 below Celsius, was approaching 40 below with the wind chill factor, and my car wouldn't start and I needed a new battery.
But it's warmed up just in time for Tucker Carlson is coming to Alberta.
He is speaking in Calgary in the morning or like 1 p.m.
And then he's got an evening event in Edmonton at 7 p.m.
And I'm introducing him and talking about how the Justice Centre and Tucker Carlson have a few things in common.
And so I'm happy for him.
He doesn't get the 40 below.
He gets sort of a warmer...
John, I'm just going to tell everybody who's watching right now, the chat in studio is frozen, so I'm toggling back and forth between Locals, Rumble, and YouTube.
In Locals, they're saying, I said get questions in, but I spelt it wrong.
I said GWT, questions with an M, in.
Get your questions in for John.
John, do I understand that you just said you're going to introduce Tucker Carlson at a public speaking event?
In Edmonton, yeah, tomorrow night, Wednesday the 24th at 7 p.m.
Shut the front door.
Is that going to be live streamed live?
I don't know.
I'll try and find out and we'll email you that.
I hope it'll be live streamed.
I have no idea what Tucker Carlson does.
Different people have different approaches.
Jordan Peterson does not, typically.
You know, all the events are kind of private.
Nobody's allowed to record it.
So I don't know how Tucker operates.
Well, that's going to be amazing.
And I had covered the Tucker Carlson Instagram post, which was quite funny earlier today.
Hyphen in our local community says, Just remember, Trudeau's father used it too.
Three times in history.
World War I, Second World War, and Pierre.
No, I think it was only Pierre during the FLQ crisis, during a prior war, and I think it's three times including Trudeau Jr.
I just want to get some questions if there's any in our locals community.
Let me see here.
While you're looking that up, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, we will forever debate whether it was justified or not to invoke the War Measures Act in October 1970.
I will say this.
Even if Pierre Elliott Trudeau was wrong in 1970, he had an infinitely stronger basis than what Justin Trudeau had 23 months ago.
Because the Fonds pour la Liberation du Québec, the FLQ, the Quebec Liberation Front, was a violent Marxist terrorist group.
They planted a bomb in the Montreal Stock Exchange.
They put bombs in mailboxes.
They murdered Quebec.
Yeah, Pierre Laporte.
John, I went to law school with Pierre Laporte's grandson, Tom Aust, and he was the one who was the president of the Law Student Association before I was.
And he, six foot six, gave me the reins of the Law Student Association.
Yeah, there was real violence.
They put a pipe bomb in a mailbox a kilometer and a half from where I live in Westmount.
That was real shit where they killed people.
They actually killed people.
Not this bullcrap stuff.
Not like the bouncy castles and hot tubs.
Yes, the protesters did cause inconvenience to a certain number of Ottawa residents.
I don't doubt that.
But the gall of the federal government, when you're reading through the emergency order rationale, and they start talking about economic losses, I think you've got to be kidding.
You have destroyed so many businesses.
You've driven people into bankruptcy, into poverty, into unemployment.
Driven people to suicide, destroyed life savings, because not everybody has a cushy public sector pension.
For some people, your small business is your retirement fund, and you're hoping that when you're 55, 65, 75, you can sell your small business for a million or two million, and that's your retirement.
And so when the government destroys your small business, they're wiping out your pensions.
And then to have the government whine about relatively minor economic losses because of the truckers'protest, just the hypocrisy was.
It was two weeks after two years of lockdowns, and then followed by six months of locking down downtown Ottawa.
And followed by persecution of any business that remained open, the coffee shop in particular.
It was outrageous.
Okay, so the conclusion ultimately is that it was an intempestive, unwarranted, unjustified invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Didn't meet the criteria.
There were other remedies available, and it was not a national security.
And where do you go from here now?
How many cases are you involved in now where this is going to be relevant to the direction of those cases?
That's an excellent question.
I need to have some discussions with our Criminal Defense Council as to...
What impact, if any, this federal court ruling might have on the criminal prosecutions of people.
Like the Justice Center is paying for the criminal defense of Chris Barber, for example.
Previously, we were paying for Tamara Leach as well, although now she's getting funded by the Democracy Fund.
And a whole bunch of other people.
And we've secured a number of acquittals.
We've negotiated some very good favorable deals for people.
But I'm going to be talking with their criminal defense counsel as to whether this has a positive impact.
Or not, on these baseless, spurious criminal charges that have been levied against Tamara Leach and Chris Barber.
And, yeah, probably the criminal prosecutions are probably going to continue.
But if we win on appeal, there's all kinds of positive spin-off effects that sometimes you can't predict.
Like, we won a case in Alberta, the Ingram decision.
Where the court in July of 2023 struck down all of Alberta's lockdown measures as invalid.
And it's had all kinds of wonderful spin-off effects since July of 23. Yeah, that's amazing.
I was going to just say, hold on a second, the spin...
Oh, yeah, sorry.
So that reminds me of the question.
People are asking what impact is it going to have on the criminal proceedings?
And my answer is...
Probably minimal because the criminal charges brought against all of the Tamara Leach, Chris Barber, whomever, Pat King, they were existing criminal code violations.
It's not that they violated anything that was decreed under the Emergencies Act, which is the evidence for which the Emergencies Act invocation was useless.
Existing criminal law could have covered it.
I think it's all bullshit to begin with, so period.
All those charges are bullshit, but they exist under the existing criminal code, not under any invocation of the Emergency Act, which is evidence as to why it was useless to begin with.
But I do think this could be the beginning of the change of the political judicial tide.
Not necessarily public opinion, because any idiot in Ottawa who still thinks that this was an occupation that warranted this will never be convinced.
They're probably still wearing face masks, and I'm not asking you to agree with that, John.
You're a lawyer, and you've got to weigh your words, and I'm an internet guy.
I can say whatever the hell I want.
I can say what I think.
They can't lock us all up.
Although, who knows?
They've locked up a lot of people.
No, it's the power of one, you know.
It's like a schoolyard bullying situation, right?
If there's, you know, the bully is pushing this smaller kid around.
But if there's, the bully thrives on the unanimous silence.
The moment there's even one person, just one, who says, hey, stop that, that's wrong.
It completely changes the whole dynamic.
And often it's after one person says something, that gives the courage to somebody else who didn't have the courage to be the first person, but she does have the courage to be the second person, and then the second person speaks out.
And so it's good to see a judge like this that's bucking the trend.
We've had another one.
It was in Ontario.
I forget the name of the judge or the ruling, but it didn't blindly follow the government narrative on vaccines and did not blindly.
Just rule in favor of the parent that wanted to get the kid injected.
Although I think that ruling was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
But still, it's good to have one person.
You light one candle and it pierces the darkness.
Amazing.
John, I'm looking at some of the questions now.
I've gone over to Twitter just to see what's going on here.
Yeah, the OCA crisis might have been another good example where the Emergencies Act could have been invoked, but wasn't.
Have I forgotten to ask you anything that I should have asked you?
No, it's great chatting with you.
It's been too long, and I hope to chat with you again.
Since we're starting off January 2024, we're starting off the new year really good.
I'm really happy with this.
We had two other victories.
That we announced in the past week.
There's a nurse in Saskatchewan by the name of Leah McInnes and she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings because she said publicly on Facebook and social media and attending peaceful protests.
She was pro-vaccine.
She thought the vaccine was a good tool to fight COVID, but she was against mandatory vaccinations and she said so publicly.
She was prosecuted by this investigative committee of the College of Registered Nurses of Saskatchewan.
And to make a long story short, a week ago, the discipline committee dismissed all the charges and said she should never have been prosecuted in the first place.
So that was good.
The Justice Centre provided Leah McInnes with the lawyers so that she could fight this and not get personally bankrupted.
And then in Alberta, we had the College of Physicians and Surgeons stop its prosecution against a medical doctor who had given vaccine exemptions to patients.
And so that was another positive thing.
So we're starting off 2024 with great successes.
And I hope that'll stay that way the next 11 months.
My prediction, I think I said it.
I'll go back and check.
I said 2024 was going to be the year of vindication, and it's starting off that way.
Vindication and the changing of the tide of public opinion.
So, John, where can people find you, support you?
I'll put all the links in there and I think most people know, but let everybody know and I'll put the links up after.
www.jccf.ca.
So it's JCCF Justice Center Constitutional Freedoms.
We are sending out official tax receipts in February to all the people who donated in 2023.
So we rely 100% on voluntary donations.
If you're not yet a supporter, go to our website.
make a donation we're happy with any size some people give us $10,000 a year, $5,000 a year $1,000 a year, $500 a year $100 a year, $50 a year it doesn't matter Come on board as a supporter and we'll get you an official tax receipt as well for your donation.
John, I said it the first time we met and I'll say it every time we ever meet again.
You're doing the Lord's work and it's looking like...
Not to get too white-pilled and optimistic because it requires a fight to the bitter end.
This is damn good news.
I predict this will not get overturned on appeal.
May I not be wrong.
And continue doing what you're doing, because very few people are doing it in Canada.
And that includes me not doing it in Canada.
Well, continue with your Pro Freedom podcast.
It was great to see your remarks at the Vera Sharav event in Hamilton in June.
It was a really good event, and they played your videotape there.
So it doesn't matter where you are geographically.
If you're fighting for freedom, you're on the right side of history.
So kudos to you as well for your good work.
All right, awesome, John.
Thank you very much.
This was as good as it would have been had we seen your face, but we'll get you back on here later on.
We'll talk about it, and we'll do it viva voce, but with a video.
But thank you very much, and drive safe.
All right.
All right.
Have a good day.
Take care.
Bye-bye.
Well, that worked out surprisingly well, people.
Holy cows.
I was going in periodically to listen to what it sounded like, and that worked?
Okay.
Woo!
I'm schvitzing like a pig here.
Oh, by the way, in case anybody didn't notice, I got a pimple on my forehead.
I got one here too.
Look at this.
A pimple here and a pimple here.
This is what happens when you get your second childhood when you hit like 80 years old, but you get your second puberty when you hit 45, apparently.
I'm not 45 yet!
What month is it?
January?
February?
January to February, March, April, May.
I'm four months out of being 45. 45. And if I see a bullet hole in a window and 45 with a little afro, I would say, yeah, that was directed at me.
Okay, so what I've been doing, by the way, this is not a criticism, period.
It's just I'm noticing the glitches.
Chat, live chat in Rumble Studio hasn't updated since 53 minutes ago.
So what I've been doing, I've got all the windows in the backdrop open.
We are on Twitter.
And I'm watching it there, but there's not really much to watch it, and I don't care about Twitter for live streams.
We are on...
I'm going back to the locals, and I'll pull up a locals tip.
It's T-Beck says, thank you so much for covering this.
Oh, son of a...
Just disappeared.
T-Beck says, thank you so much for covering this.
John Carpe is amazing.
Met him at an event in Waterloo.
Basement of a little restaurant, snowy night during COVID days.
Very wise man.
Looking forward to hearing its opinion.
How will this ruling help Tamara and Chris?
Excuse me, I think we got to all of that.
It might help them politically, regardless of what happens.
It's not decisive.
It doesn't end the criminal prosecution, the criminal proceedings, as far as I'm concerned, regardless, because none of those criminal charges were brought under the Emergency Act.
They were brought under existing legislation, which was the exact reason for which It was evidence to the effect that invoking the Emergencies Act was unnecessary.
Okay, we got...
And now I'm back in rumble.
Upon the horizon, mean Tucker as Gandalf from Lord of the Rings charging down the hill with the...
So now we understand.
I said Tucker's coming to Canada.
He's trolling Justin Trudeau.
Justin Trudeau is having a bad day.
Okay, there's an article from the Gateway Pundit.
Which says, breaking leak audio confirms Rhino Asgop chair Jeff DeWitt tried to bribe Carrie Lake.
Lake tells DeWitt they're going to have to fucking kill me to stop me.
Okay, so first things first, by the way, that's the ruling out of Canada.
I don't think we can offer anything more to it.
I'll do a bit of a car vlog tomorrow.
Highlight.
The bottom line, the decision is 190 pages.
The last 40 pages are exhibits, the Emergencies Act parameters.
The first 15 pages are the parties and standing.
The next 20 pages are mootness.
The judge goes through it meticulously.
Doesn't want to get overturned on mootness.
Doesn't want to get overturned on unsubstantiating with facts.
And then, like you said, about 40 pages are straight-up important.
The bottom line, it might be moot.
It needs to be addressed.
As serious as it was, it did not warrant invoking the Emergencies Act.
Notwithstanding Commissioner Rouleau's findings, that was a political tribunal.
This is a judicial one, one that actually answers to evidence, one that is actually susceptible of appeals.
Actually, I do want to bring that up, just so that people know that I do my flipping homework.
In as much as it...
Is this the one?
Here we go.
This is it.
In as much as I live the life of Ikigai good fortune, I'd be doing this for nothing, and it's a blessing from the heavens that I can do this as a profession, as absurd as that sounds.
But I'm going to bring this up because I'm sitting there reading this damn decision all afternoon.
Kids sitting there saying, daddy, daddy, daddy.
I'm like, I'm reading a damn 190-page decision.
Will you leave me alone?
Okay, I'm joking.
I'm joking.
Here we go.
A judge with courage, integrity, and the willingness to stand up to the obvious political pressures.
The way he politely distinguished his judicial ruling from the political sham that was the P-O-E-C.
Magnificent.
I was going to throw in a meme, but I'm told that if you put in memes, it suppresses the reach of your tweets.
This is the judge.
Writing at paragraph 144, I agree with the applicants that neither the public inquiry nor the special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate required by the act to examine the declaration of emergency are substitutes for judicial review.
Nice!
Take your political procedures and shove them up your Freeland without dismissing in any way the importance of those procedures.
My God, if I were going to write this sarcastically, And to try to give, you know, superficial importance to these jackass politicians, this is how I do it.
Without dismissing in any way the importance of those procedures, their roles are not to adjudicate upon the legality and constitutionality of the measures adopted under the Act.
Rather, their roles are to consider the events which took place and to make recommendations that, without legislative or other action, have no legal effect.
Bam!
While they are both important accountability mechanisms, they are legally and practically distinct from the court's adjudicative function.
Mother effers!
The present proceedings are thus not duplicative of the work done by the POEC or that being undertaken in parliamentary process, contrary to respondents' submissions.
I am conscious of the reality that as a single preside...
I have to look up that.
Prezine.
No, I got to look it up right now.
I got to look it up immediately.
Prezine definition.
Younger, inferior in rank, junior in appointment.
Okay, I like this guy.
It might be true modesty.
It might be fake.
Hold on.
Excuse me.
As a younger prezine judge, I may err on the findings I make in these reasons.
However, such errors can be cured on appellate review.
Neither the commission nor the parliamentary committee process are susceptible to appeal.
You know what I'm saying?
Bitches!
I operate under the rule of law.
You don't.
MFers.
That's what I...
Hey, I make a mistake.
Someone's going to come in and correct me and spank me.
You rouleau!
Nobody's going to come in and spank you.
There's no review.
You just got to pat on the back and get a nice back massage.
Go to Epstein's Island with Justin Trudeau.
I'm not making any accusations.
I'm just making a joke.
Now, the bigger question is this.
That's done.
That's done.
That's the ruling, people.
It's a small day for victory.
We shall take it for what it's worth and be very happy with it.
By the way, The member of our locals community who sent these to me knows darn well.
I got two phones.
This is the phone I shoot my vlogs on with the Serenity Prayer, and this is the one I edit on.
The Serenity Prayer on both.
One day!
One day I might get a tattoo.
Maybe.
We'll see.
Never gotten a tattoo before.
So that's what's going on in Canada.
That's the federal court spanking down that tyrant and his sycophant.
Nazi-saluting MFers, Chrystia Freeland, Justin Trudeau.
They're taking it on the chin today, but they're going to fight to our last taxpayer dollar.
Okay.
Done.
Let's go to the chat in Locals, just to see what's going on here.
David, I'll be 45 in July since Denise Ann, too.
45 is a good number.
45. I think that's a midlife.
That's a midlife crisis.
I'm allowed to have a midlife crisis.
Let me go to the non-tipped.
In locals.
Don't get a tattoo.
I want to remove mine.
It says Maria R underscore D. We got Tramp Stamp Viva.
Can you imagine that?
The Serenity Prayer on the bottom of my back.
How gross would that be?
Disgusting.
Terrible.
That's from RocketboyTY.
We got Whom Amongst You is Willing to Spank Viva?
Okay, what's up with the chat in locals?
This is crazy.
Okay, so there's a lock here.
Okay.
Streaming from Rumble Studio should say streaming via Rumble Studio software.
Yes, you're right, Mart Swan, because that sounds could be misleading.
Okay, that's actually, there's a funny story there, which I'll say one day.
Okay, so now I'm going to go, because it's a big day in the primaries.
How badly, speaking of spankings, how badly is Nikki Haley going to get spanked?
I'll go to, what can I do here for a live broadcast to see?
What's going on?
Oh, I just heard the door open.
So someone just came inside.
We're going to go to New Hampshire.
New Hampshire Primary Live.
That's what we want to do.
Live.
Let's see.
I'm going to pull up a random live.
NBC.
Ooh, they got 35,000 watching.
Let's see what's going on.
It looks like Nikki Haley is going to...
Jesus, that's loud.
Sorry, geez, that's loud.
Okay, what's going on here?
That put her as close as it did here in New Hampshire.
But this is the best state for her.
Independents can vote here.
Moderates are a significant percentage of the Republican voters.
Her message is so attuned to them.
She cannot forget Donald Trump's attention.
We're not looking at anything.
You're looking at my ugly face.
Yeah, sorry, I thought I thought Lodging them is pretty darn hard and clearly she hasn't succeeded to the level that she wanted to do Frank, is it frustrating to you as somebody who's worked with so many Republicans that close to 15%, maybe more, maybe a little less, of Republicans don't want former President Trump and yet he's going to be the nominee?
I don't think the word is frustrating.
I do want a positive message.
I do want someone who's hopeful.
I want someone who's focused on the future.
The governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, just walked into the room right across to me right here.
You can hear the noise as he's walking in.
He's the kind of Republican that this country needs to look and find a more positive approach.
Donald Trump understands his voters, gets them, and he knows how to deliver the kind of speech and the kind of message that they're looking for.
It's a little tougher.
Because, quite frankly, the Republican Party of 2024 is not the Republican Party of 10 years ago.
Frank Luntz, we appreciate that.
As you continue to count votes there in Milford, New Hampshire, on the left side of the screen.
Milford?
Is that where Nikki's from?
Sorry.
Okay, that's terrible.
All right, so Nikki's going to lose, projected.
Looks like it's a big enough margin that it's not going to be something where they're going to have a premature calling.
Premature calling from Milford!
All right, everybody, that's it.
So I guess, look, there's three of, oh my goodness gracious, Barnes had a white pill of all white pills today.
We're going to end on this because we got the white pill from the Federal Court of Canada.
We got a white pill from Nikki Haley taking a spanking and not in the way that she, you know, presumably likes.
So we got a judicial spanking coming out of Canada.
We've got a political spanking coming out of New Hampshire.
Barnes had probably the biggest white pill of the day.
Legality, one thing, principles and whatever, lawsuits.
When you're dealing with a human being's life in your hands and you're not responsible for it, but you've been entrusted to defend it to the fullest extent of the law.
Reuben King, the Amish farmer who had a collection of firearms.
that he apparently was selling to interested people who wanted to acquire unique firearms was prosecuted and persecuted to the fullest extent of the law for violating whatever the unlawful unlicensed firearms trade provisions of the law.
We've talked about it at length during our Sunday Night Streams.
Reuben King was facing five years in jail for his unlawful Sale of firearms.
Unlicensed, whatever.
And Barnes has been putting together his brief.
Barnes has been representing this guy since he got sort of shafted on initial representation.
And let me just make sure that I'm not disclosing anything that's not public.
I'm fairly certain I tweeted this.
Yeah, Barnes, okay.
Shit.
This is how neurotic and dreadfully so I am.
The sentence came down.
They were doing the sentencing and it didn't look promising.
It looked like the courts wanted to make an example out of Reuben King, an Amish farmer.
Hey, you always hurt the ones you love and you always pick on the ones who are least likely to fight back.
That's just the way it works.
Barnes put out the tweet earlier today.
Just make sure that we're seeing it.
Studio.
We're seeing it.
The tweet is right here.
Nope, that's not the right tweet.
close that one good news today out of federal court on the amish farmer facing five years in federal prison for not obtaining a license when selling firearms judge granted full probation with no prison time pleased to represent reuben king and glad to see this outcome for his First of all, I love Robert Barnes.
Period.
Second of all, I love Robert Barnes.
He has what I lack.
Which is the ability to continue operating in that cesspool of a system.
Call it a weakness, call it a strength, call it a life decision.
I did not have the capability to continue dealing with what Robert Barnes deals with on a daily basis.
He's got the audacity, he's got the perseverance, and he's got...
There's a word when you do not respond normally to the...
Frustrations and threats of normal life.
Barnes is a freaking machine.
And he got something.
He saved a man's life today.
So he should sleep well knowing that he saved a man's life.
And the system needs more of the Robert Barnes's and not everybody can be it.
And everybody has to find their own path and their own strengths in life.
But the world needs more Barnes's and the world is blessed to have a Robert Barnes in it.
Okay.
So now I'm done.
I'm gonna go eat dinner.
Maybe I'll go live again in an hour.
I'm joking.
We're done for the night.
We're done for the night.
But stay tuned for tomorrow.
So that is the news of the day.
I hope you understand it better.
If I can serve one practical purpose in life, I hope this is it.
I hope you understand the world around you.
Rumble Studio is great.
A couple of things to tinker with.
I'm gonna go let them know that...
Chat stops.
You know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to try to refresh it again.
This is going to end the stream, people, because I'm not going to be able to get back in.
I'm going to refresh and it's going to end the stream or I'll be able to come back in to say a proper goodbye.
If I do not get back in in 30 seconds to a minute, the stream is over.
If I get back in to say goodbye, the stream is over.
Either way, I'm going to cut the stream.
But I'm going to try to refresh it and just see what happens.
Because maybe they've tinkered with this and I'll be able to get back in.
Everybody, if I do not get back in for the night.
Enjoy the nights.
Like a boss, we have three white pills of the day.
Trump wins New Hampshire, projected.
Barnes, victory with the Amish farmer Reuben King, and a victory out of Canada for the time being.
We don't know how it's going to work out in the long run, but for today, we can sleep well.
Thank you all for being here.
Let me make sure I didn't forget anything in locals in terms of...
Wait, we got another tip here.
Hold on one second.
Tipped.
David, can you ask about getting multiple speed play on live streams and locals?
I think they have that.
Right now, you can only rewind, not catch up.
Okay.
Screen grab.
I'll ask that.
Viva, the entire read was in Audible as you are.
Some sort of reverb mode.
Please do it again.
The entire read.
Ursula, I hope that's a joke.
David, I'll be 45. Okay.
I listened to the audio, so I don't know if that's the read of a specific portion, but can't do it.
And I got called an effing K-U-N-T by Lemon Drop.
I'll be sure to...
You say it a lot, but you took the fucking jab, Lemon Drop.
You're a very nice person to judge people based on their bodily decisions.
I'm not entertaining the trolls.
We have an above-average community at Rumble.
But there are some people who come over to troll us.
Which is good.
It's a good sign.
We're reaching new markets.
So what I was going to do here was refresh.
Thank you all for being here.
I will see you tomorrow.
I'm going to refresh.
If I can come back to say goodbye again, I'll do it.
If I can't, peace out, peeps.
▲
Export Selection