All Episodes
Previous
Feb. 20, 2026 - Viva & Barnes
01:19:17
Trump Tariffs Struck Down & Lutnick Fam to benefit? Canadian Trans Madness! Strickland Tirade & MORE

SUPPORT VIVA! GET MERCH! www.vivafrei.com BUY A BOOK! https://amzn.to/4qBXikS SEND ME SOMETHING! David Freiheit 20423 SR 7 Ste F6319 Boca Raton 33498 TIP WITH CRYPTO! bc1qt0umnqna63pyw5j8uesphsfz0dyrtmqcq5ugwm THAT IS ALL!

|

Time Text
Sean Strickland Debates 00:09:55
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, in light of tomorrow night's upcoming UFC fight, Sean Strickland versus I forget whom, we will begin today's show with some insights from Mr. Sean Strickland Esquire.
I'm not sure if he's a lawyer.
Just kidding.
Behold.
Like, I mean, look at the NFL, dude.
You had that.
I didn't even want to say that's name because, like, it's just like, somebody give me his name.
You can say his name.
I don't want to say it.
You know what I'm talking about?
The halftime go.
The halftime show guy, the Puerto Rican, right?
Puerto Rican?
Bro, yeah, that.
Like, dude, it is so crazy that this is America now.
Like, back in the day, dude, the NFL was like, the NFL was the standard of being a man.
And now every fucking year, the NFL, I think they all get together around a table and say, you know, guys, how do we ruin this sport?
How do we get it up?
How do we ruin it?
Well, I'll tell you what, why don't we bring a gay foreigner who doesn't speak English and have him perform it?
Like, get the f ⁇ ing.
And then you have like, yeah, dude, it's like the NFL is like pathetic these days.
So even like the NFL players probably hate it.
Yeah, no.
NFL is.
I think we all agree the NFL got real gay lately.
I don't know why they have to bleep out the word gay.
I mean, the F word, both the four-letter F-word and the six-letter F-word, I think I could understand that being bleeped out.
Bleeping out gay.
And first, does everybody know who Sean Strickland is?
He's a UFC fighter.
It's quite funny, quite entertaining to watch, and has a tendency of going off the rails during press conferences, post-fight, or whenever.
One other such example where he went off the rails, also kind of hilarious.
I won't play the whole thing.
Oh, no, no, hold on.
That's his response to this because now there's been calls for the UFC to drop Sean Strickland, which might happen if he loses this fight.
Who knows?
But another classic time where Strickland went somewhat off the rails when it came to a Canadian issue.
And it's fun, for goodness sake, I just pulled it up here.
Where is it?
Here we go.
Oh, sorry.
I was wondering what Dinesh D'Souza was the one who retweeted this.
Back in the day, MMA fighter Sean Strickland is a force and not just in the ring.
Watch him go toe-to-toe with left-wing Canadian journalist first-round KO.
When was this from?
Well, this is an older video.
Welcome.
Glad to hear it.
It's been great.
Are you Canadian?
Of course, I am.
Are you part of the fucking opposition?
Are you?
I don't know how to phrase that.
You.
I mean, you got like fucking.
Well, I did want to ask you.
Did you vote for Trudeau?
You know what?
I'm not going to say.
First of all, they hear that.
You hear that?
If it was a no, it would be a no immediately.
I'm not going to say.
God, I don't want to cut off my.
Well, you know what?
It might be a no, but he doesn't want to lose funding.
Okay, fine.
Tell you something right now.
The man says he's not going to say.
Like, if you ask a motherfucker, did you vote for Biden?
He's like, well, I'm not going to say that's none of your business.
He voted for fucking Biden.
So hey, Sean, I'm glad you had Grace Pierce.
So this is what I'm talking about, you guys.
The enemy, the enemy of Canada.
All right.
That's what it's got to be.
It's got to be.
We've got a pretty supportive gay and lesbian community in this city.
I did want to ask you about something you wrote a couple of years ago.
You said, if I had a gay son, I would think I'd.
Oh, look, another, another, I'm Sandy in the swamp, you guys, a swamp.
You've become a champion, you become a star, and then someone says, let me ask you something.
Are you gay?
No, are you back with a more diverse?
Are you, let me know?
Are you gay?
Well, no, I'm asking.
This is a part of the, are you, are you a gay man?
I'm an ally of the community.
Okay.
If you had a son, then he was like, you know, you know, son, he was gay.
You'd be like, oh, man, you don't, you don't want a grandkid?
No problem with it.
Oh, man.
Well, dude, you're a weak fucking man, dude.
You're like, you're part of the fucking problem.
You elected Justin Trudeau.
Like, would you fucking, when he sees the bank accounts, like, you're just fucking pathetic.
We're going to stop it there.
The one thing that I just love in this is that I don't know who entertains the idea that if you have a gay son or a lesbian daughter, that it's anything other than a genetic predisposition for preferences that you can't retrain.
I don't even like the, yeah, you know, ideally, you know, in terms of reproduction, I guess it's more effective to be heterosexual.
There are ways to get around the gay aspect of it.
Not everybody likes those ways, but the idea that you would say, like, okay, if you had a gay son, I'd rather he be straight.
It's as much as like, if I had a son that I don't know, it was short, you'd like him to be tall, but not.
Anyhow, so that's Sean Strickland.
He came out and called Bad Bunny, Bad Bunny, an effing effort.
The effort was the six-letter 2G F-word.
And the only reason I don't say it is not because I believe that there's anything wrong inherently intrinsically about that word.
When we were kids, we used to call each other that all the time.
I'm not saying it because I'm not going to have someone have the audio clip and just, you know, make like a Joe Rogan audio clip of putting all the times together where Dave said the F-word.
But he came out and made that statement and then got into trouble where people were actually saying he should be cut.
And Dana White should cut Sean Strickland from the UFC for speech.
For speech, which is not only not really truly offensive, if you get offended by it, you might just be what Bad Bunny's saying in there.
You might just be the problem.
You might just be the sissy who's looking to get outraged.
You might be one of those weaklings who actually says, you know, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will forever destroy me.
Listen to what Dana White had to say when asked whether or not he was going to do something about Sean Strickland's off-the-cuff, off-the-rail remarks.
I don't tell anybody to do anything.
I don't try to control any other human beings in any way, shape, or form.
I do it this way.
I say it all the time.
We're in the fight business.
And, you know, if you get your feelings hurt that bad, you probably shouldn't ask the type of questions when you know the answer you're going to get from Strickland.
Let's start there.
Well, let's start there.
If you're going to get offended by him referring to someone as an F-A-G-G-O-T, you might not want to be covering UFC.
I'm like, goodness, if the sounds of those words are going to shock the conscience, imagine what's going to happen when you see blood pouring out of someone's face after they get kicked in the forehead or have their skull crushed in with the guy.
I forget.
It was, it was, oh, geez, Louise.
I'm totally blanking out on both fighters when he got the flying knee and caved in his skull.
Michael Page did it too.
I forget who.
If this is your level of sensitivity, find a new industry.
Don't go into politics.
You'll be even more offended.
You know what I mean?
If you ask him, you know who he is.
And if you ask him a certain question, he was baited in that question.
I don't give anybody a leash.
Well, I'm saying you a leash?
I'm like free speech.
Control what people say.
Kind of tell people what to believe.
Kind of tell people.
I don't tell any other human being what to say, what to think, and there's no leashes on any of them.
I'll say the only thing that was factually and demonstrably false that Bad Bunny said is that Bad Bunny that Sean Strickland said about Bad Bunny, he's not a foreigner.
He's from Puerto Rico.
It's a territory of America.
Now, that being said, being from Puerto Rico and coming in and doing a halftime show speaking only Spanish, which you do a halftime show in Canada speaking only French, you might piss off a substantial portion of the country.
But at least, you know, French is one of the officially recognized languages of the country.
So Bad Bunny's not a foreigner.
He was born and raised in Puerto Rico.
So he's from an American territory.
And so other than that, what Sean Strickland said is a thousand percent right about the NFL screwing everything up and making it unwatchable.
But he came out with something of a mea kulpa.
Sean Strickland at S. Strickland, MMA.
Listen, I got rage-baited, he says, by an MA reporter, but let's be honest, after what Paramount Plus did to the Halo TV show, I don't know what they did, or Star Trek and Star Trek.
I don't know what they did to that either.
They should probably hire me as a director.
Quote, all right, team, it's simple.
We're not going to fill it with strong women and we're not going to make it gay, end quote, said Sean Strickland, taking the apology and turning it into more of an insult.
Now, by the way, I don't know that it would get graded at 10, but if you're watching, Sean, good luck tomorrow.
I'm not sure that my prediction is going to be on you, but my heart, and I might place a bet on you because you're at 30% right now or last I checked and those odds.
But I'll be holding the card, watching the fight tomorrow night.
Booyah.
Good afternoon.
Something's driving me crazy.
I don't know who tucked my desk and now I'm asymmetrical and it's sort of like I need to be more this way.
How goes the battle?
Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler.
Let's make sure that we are, probably should have done this before going into the tirade.
Live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Live on Rumble, which we are.
And there's a, oh, hold on a second.
I'm going to, I'm going to enable the Crumble rant over on Rumble.
And I noticed there's a tip question over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And it looks like we're going to get into trouble already.
Big news in Canada, viral Japanese egg sandwich coming to Canadian 7-Eleven stores.
My late wonderful father-in-law, Don, told me never to get sandwiches in gas stations or in vending machines because of listeria.
And I have not ever forgotten that.
And I've actually lived pretty much since then.
When I used to work at a fabric factory and I used to have the night shift from 11 to 7, and I would get literally gas station, you know, gas station subs.
Cantor Fitzgerald's Controversial Gain 00:14:41
And I thought it was healthy because, you know, it's got bread and cold cuts and whatever.
Then I realized, yeah, the listeria that you get from those gas station sub sandwiches is a real risk to be not underestimated.
Polish dog, Rumble is where all the cool kids hang out.
Indeed, sir.
But the coolest of the cool is at viva barneslaw.locals.com.
Okay, so news of the day, the Trump tariffs or the IEEPA tariffs have been declared unconstitutional, unlawful by the Supreme Court of these United States of America in a six to three decision.
Some people are raging about it.
Others, if they had been following us at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, would not be surprised whatsoever.
In fact, I believe, and I'm fairly certain we've been calling it for a very long time right now.
This is a tweet from Robert Barnes from November 5, 2025, in which he says, after listening to today's oral arguments, Trump's tariffs are cooked.
Trump abandoned using tariffs for industrial policy related to the economic emergency of our trade deficit, instead choosing to use them like sanctions as a political toy.
Free pick on Calci.
Bet the no.
Had you bet that, you would have made some money.
Forget about betting it because more important than money is pride.
More important than money is accuracy.
More important than money is reliability.
Because with those three things, you can be sure that you can make the money should you need it because people will be able to have faith in and rely on your assessments.
We've been saying it for a while.
There's a link to the tweet.
We've been saying it for a while that the second Trump started using the tariffs not as something required under the IEEPA, which is the, oh, I had the acronym up here in the backdrop.
It's the emergencies thingamy jig or other.
Hold on one second.
What was it?
Ah, goodness sake here.
What does IEPA stand for?
I always forget the acronym here, the International Emergencies Economic Powers Act.
So once he stopped using it ostensibly for that purpose and began using it as a political cudgel, as good as that might have made people feel and as necessary as that might have been, it did undermine his argument that it was an economic emergency that he was imposing these tariffs for and as opposed to political policy.
So the report of the day coming out, get out of here later.
I'm not subscribing to your crap.
All right, this is from the AP.
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda.
It's not a full catastrophe because if you've been following us for a while, either me daily, three o'clock on Rumble, or the Sunday show, Viva and Barnes Law for the People, or our community with the regular bourbon with Barnes, it was predicted.
There are remedies.
You can have Congress coming in and enacting legislation to retroactively validate the tariffs that were struck down today.
There's plenty of ways to deal with it.
Trump made an announcement that he's going to deal with it in another way, which we're going to get to in a second.
But the news is: Washington, Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a stinging loss on an issue critical to his economic agenda.
The 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping reciprocal tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.
The high court, call it the highest court, ruled his use of an emergency powers law to set import duties without Congress was illegal.
I mean, by the way, this is exactly what we predicted.
We're not going to get too far into the judgment because it's basically everything we've been saying from the beginning is that the emergencies law was somewhat used for political purposes.
And if it was to be used in the way Trump was using it, then the emergencies element of it became superfluous, effectively.
Trump told a news conference he's absolutely ashamed of justices who voted to strike down his tariffs, calling the decision deeply disappointing.
The decision was incorrect.
There were a lot of other legal minds saying it was legally correct or saying this is where it was likely headed.
But it doesn't matter because we have many powerful alternatives.
He did not specify them.
Well, you don't need to specify them right now.
I forget, you know, I'm going to go specify them for you here.
You want to see?
He just put out a statement where he talked about the other resources that he might avail himself to failing Congress simply enacting legislation that would be retroactive ratifying the tariffs.
Under the various tariffs, authorities.
So we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed.
Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs, they're existing, they're there, remain in place, fully in place, and in full force and effect.
Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.
And we're also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations.
Incidentally, all of these other potential remedies, Section 301, Section 232, 1962 Trade Expansion Act, Section 338, 1930 Tariff Act, Congress simply ratifying it, have been known.
And some might say, if you want to say there's 4D chess here, this is where you might say there's a little 4D chess.
You get a little, you know, two or three other kicks at the can, create a financial situation that the courts are going to have a hard time undoing without creating devastating economic consequences to the country as a whole.
And you're going to put pressure on Congress to ratify this at the very least, or at the very least, to find other ways of effectively not undoing the financial gain, which is objective and undeniable, that has occurred under Trump's tariffs.
As unlawful as they might have been under the IEEPA.
To protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I think he read his own, he read his own truth post.
And I say quite simply, which I've said for a long time, make America great again.
And interestingly, we've already made it great, so I don't have to use that, but I don't think we'll ever give up on MAGA.
MAGA's always going to be with us.
You could do just turn into MAG, make America greater, which would always be true.
Now, this video, I actually, hold on a second.
Yeah, this was from today in response to the decision.
So a number of other methods that they can use to get to the same outcome.
And now that there is a financial issue in terms of simply refunding all of the ill-gotten tariffs that would have a catastrophic effect on America, it'll put more pressure on Congress to remedy this for the betterment of America.
Although you're going to have the argument that Democrats might not want to do that, they might like the economic catastrophe so they can blame it on Trump heading into 2026.
We'll see.
Oh, shut the F up about Trump playing 5D chess.
No, I said 4D, first of all.
And what is more or less undeniable about this is that a financial economic situation has been set up such that simply annulling the tariffs and reimbursing, I mean, I don't know how many, how many, was it $150 billion is very unlikely.
And so you could say, shut the F up.
Okay, it was a mistake.
Well, now you can still pivot off of the mistake to turn it into a net positive, which is say, yeah, it'll be a catastrophe to reimburse all that money.
So just get Congress to retroactively ratify it through legislation.
It wasn't Trump's ability to do it under the IEEPA.
Get Congress to ratify it.
Now, some people out there, and you might or may not be aware of this, one of the conspiracies of the day is that as a result of this ruling, Howard Lutnick, indirectly, through his children who are now the directors or in charge of Cantor Fitzgerald,
stand to make billions, billions from this, because they were basically buying up the, they were buying up the potential for this decision to come down for pennies on the dollar or percentages on the dollar,
such that if there is, in fact, a reimbursement, which they have bought the rights to from people who paid into these tariffs, well, then they might stand to benefit a lot as a result of this ruling.
This is from Wired and it's from July 2025 to explain what was going on in that there was always this risk.
And we had talked about it, we had touched on it, in that if they declared the tariffs unlawful and there had to be a reimbursement, well, everybody who paid into these tariffs, say a company paid $10 million in tariffs, well, they're going to get reimbursed that $10 million if they're declared unlawful and America is forced to reimburse them.
Well, Cantor Fitzgerald said, okay, well, we'll buy that risk.
So here, we'll give you $2, $3 million now for your $10 million that might be coming back to you.
And we'll have the rights to claim it if and when.
Well, now that they've been declared unlawful, these tariffs, their odds of recouping that on a reimbursement have certainly gone up.
This was reported back in the day.
Trump's commerce secretary loves tariffs.
His former investment bank is taking bets against them.
Subsidiary of Cantor Fitzgerald, which is run by the sons of U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Luttnick, is letting clients essentially bet that President Donald Trump's tariffs will be struck down in court.
Now, people can call me whatever freaking names you want after this because I am probably the first to look for conspiracies and rightly so.
And people are saying, look at this, Howard Luttnick's family is now going to benefit off of this ruling, which strikes down the tariffs.
They made a bet.
They made a bet, which actually you would have thought had they done something that would have banked on the decision being favorable to Trump, then you could argue some form of corruption.
You could argue some form of maybe, I don't know, insider information if they knew that this was going to be the unlikely ruling in favor of Trump.
Here, they made their bets.
And this is just the nature of the incestuous relationships of business and politics and government.
So Cantor Fitzgerald, all that to say, they made a bet on this ruling.
They might never even recoup what they bet on because if they somehow retroactively ratify these tariffs, I don't know that they still recoup what they bought at a discounted rate.
We'll get there.
Cantor Fitzgerald, financial services company led by the sons of U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Luttnick, is creating a way for investors to bet that President Donald Trump's signature tariffs will be struck down in court.
Traders of the firm Investment Banking subsidiary, Cantor Fitzgerald and Company, say the capacity, say they have the capacity to buy the rights to hundreds of millions of dollars in potential refunds from companies who have paid tariffs, Trump's tariffs, according to documents viewed by Wired.
Luttnick ran Cantor Fitzgerald for nearly 30 years until he was confirmed when he returned over control, when he turned over control of the firm to his two sons, Kyle and Brandon, who are both in their 20s.
I mean, this is where there's a little bit of, you know, they're going to say, well, he turned over interest of it.
He doesn't know of the internals.
He's no longer an executive.
Horse crap.
This company is always going to have dinner time conversations.
They're going to have information that members of the club would have access to and outsiders like myself would not.
So set that aside.
He no longer has an interest in it, but his two sons are running it.
And if they stand to gain, he's got an interest in it.
That's just the nature of family.
Anyhow, that's it.
Since joining Trump administration, Lutnick has emerged as one of the most vocal supporters of the president's tariffs policies, which Luttnick has said would raise hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues for the United States, eventually eliminating the need for Americans making less than $150,000 to pay taxes.
I can see the conspiracy theories.
People are going to say Luttnick knowingly pushed a policy that he knew would get struck down by the Supreme Court so that his children at Cantor Fitzgerald could reap the benefits when they buy those tariffs, the rights to those tariff reimbursements at a discount to recoup them.
My big issue on this, on the one hand, it's not clear they're even going to get them back still.
And maybe it was just a win-win situation.
They saw the opportunity arise.
It was always a risk and it was a predictable risk, as we were predicting, that it gets struck down.
And they just reap the benefit of it.
And at the end of the day, the question is going to be who gets rooked by this.
It's not any ordinary American.
It's those who may have sold their reimbursement.
The companies that may have sold their reimbursements at a discount to Cantor Fitzgerald.
But the investment bank, back to the article that made Luttnick a billionaire, is now letting certain clients wager that Trump's tariffs will eventually be ruled unlawful, at which point companies that have paid the duties can apply to get their money back.
In a letter sent by Wired, a representative from Cantor said the firm was willing to trade tariff refund rights for 20 or 30 percent of what companies have paid in duties.
So far, quoting, a company that paid 10 million say they could expect to receive $2 to $3 million in a trade, the representative wrote.
We have the capacity to trade up to several hundred million of these presently and can likely upsize that in the future to meet potential demand.
Cantor said, Cantor has already landed at least one major deal, according to the letter viewed by Wired.
We've already put a trade through representing about 10 million in IEEPA rights and anticipate that number will balloon in the coming weeks.
Experts say the deals are coming.
The deals are a form of litigation finance, an increasingly popular category of investment in which financial firms seek to make money from potential legal settlements.
Many lawsuits can take years to resolve, and the structure can allow individuals and companies to get more upfront or their lawyer fees, whatever here.
So that's the gist of the corruption that people are alleging.
Oh, well, now Trump's insider man, Cantor Fitzgerald, run by the sons of Howard Lutnick, are going to make billions off this.
Possibly.
Corruption Allegations Over Tariffs 00:03:52
And I do wonder if I'm not missing something in terms of how they would make that regardless of whether or not Congress retroactively ratifies the tariffs in one way or another.
But that is the corruption.
That's the concern.
Now, back to the article on this.
I think that's about the size of it right now.
Yeah, I don't think not much more to review on that.
I think we're going to talk about it on Sunday, but it was the legally sound decision, as far as I understand.
But I had to go back and just see some of the things I had said on this.
Back in the day when Amy McGrath, in response to Trump, who said, if the courts somehow rule against us on tariffs, which is not expected, that would allow other countries to hold our nation hostage with their anti-American tariffs that they would use against us.
This would mean the economic ruination of the United States of America.
To which Spencer Hakimian says, What?
What?
To which Amy McGrath says he makes no sense in these posts, yet no one seems to care.
To which I said, the fact that you don't understand the post doesn't mean the post is incomprehensible.
It means you are an idiot, Amy.
Because since you seem to be an idiot, let me dumb it down for you.
What it means is that if the courts prohibit President Trump from imposing tariffs on foreign products, those same foreign nations can continue to impose whatever tariffs they want on American products without America being able to respond in kind.
In other words, it would be the judiciary usurping the powers of the executive and sacrificing America and Americans to unfair and asymmetrical trade relationships with foreign and sometimes hostile nations.
Is that clear enough for you?
And now what you have is not, I don't think it's spin.
You have Trump coming out and saying this decision declared illegal under the IEEPA.
And so now we're going to go find other methods to impose tariffs because while we might have been using them as a political cudgel, undermining the argument that it was in response to an economic emergency, we have other means.
And now that we're sitting on $150 billion in tariffs, the reasonable prospect that we might actually be able to say, we'll impose tariffs and not charge income tax or impose income tax on people making $150,000 or $250,000 as a family.
Well, now that you've got that in the bank, pun intended, you might have more support for it.
And there might be more pressure on Congress to make sure that it happens.
That is my limited understanding.
And I hope if I've clarified it to myself, then maybe I've clarified it to others out there.
The decision itself, there was a dissent.
We'll talk about it.
We'll talk about the dissent in detail on Sunday.
Now, with that said, apparently someone said the chat was a little harsh today.
I want to go see what's going on in the chat.
Here, there was a rumble rant.
I saw a rumble rant.
Okay, whatever.
Congress sucks and passes unconstitutional bills not beneficial to we, the taxpayers.
Anyone still defending Trump at this point has to be brain dead.
It says mod trend, unsubstantive, not critical.
Congress sucks.
Merlin McGee, a very practical notion.
Just don't admit to.
Okay, if I don't know how to run it here.
Trump on Wednesday night signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to compel the domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate.
Yes, Barnes talked about that yesterday on the bourbon with Barnes, and his position, to which I defer because this is beyond my pay grade for American politics, is that you can't create immunity by way of executive order and that it's effectively unenforceable.
But from a moral spiritual perspective, it is something of a slap in the face to people.
And it's something that's going to shock people to hear the president say that, you know, there's nothing wrong with glyphophates, glyphosate, glyphophates.
Les Wexner's Oath Violation 00:12:49
So, yeah, we understand that.
Could Trump just stop these tariffs for those reasons and then make new tariffs for different reasons?
Yes.
And then it would get challenged.
Basically, what it says is you can no longer impose tariffs on the basis of the IEEPA, the, I'm going to forget the freaking acronym again, the International Economic Emergency Powers Act.
Can't do it under that, at least the way you've been doing it, especially when you've been obviously using it as a political cudgel and not an emergencies cudgel.
So yeah.
All right.
Good.
What else?
We're going to get into some more Epstein stuff.
hold on one second, because I don't like people using sound clips.
And now I've realized if I cough and I go like this, apparently, you know, people can make funny images with someone putting a fist to their mouth.
I'll try to stop doing that, but who cares anymore?
You can just use AI to do everything that you would otherwise not do in any event.
Epstein stuff.
Okay.
Les Wexner should do less testify.
Okay, no.
Les Wexner sat down for deposition.
And it's four and a half hours long.
I'm going to listen to the entire thing.
I have not yet been able to listen to the entire thing.
But Les Wexner has already made some, I don't know, I want to say hilarious sound bites out of this hearing, this deposition.
And there's been a couple where his lawyer had some things to say that were caught on a hot mic.
I'll play that in a second.
But listen to clip one, which was posted by Luke Rydkowski, who said Epstein was a Rothschild agent since the 1980s, holy F. Lex Wesner, Les Wexner, says Jeffrey Epstein claimed he was the financial advisor to Elite de Rothschild and the Rothschild family in France.
Well, you'd know that also if you've been watching me, I didn't pick up on it at the time because I had, what the hell did I know in 2020 when I had Dershowitz on?
And he said, I was introduced to Epstein by the Rothschild family.
I think it was his experience at an industrial level, like working for a big company like Bear Spurns, and then he had done personal work for the Rothschild family in France.
Personal wealth management, essentially.
I don't know.
We've seen some reports that he would present himself as a bounty hunter, that he would find people's missing money.
You might not want to use the word Epstein and present himself in the same sentence.
Just, you know, heads up, that's a bada bing, but a boom.
Okay.
I think it was a saying anything like that.
No.
Sorry, my fat fingers dragged it back.
Well, specifically, I talked to L.A. de Rothschild, and so I mentioned that earlier.
So he represented their whole family.
So there'd been a whole bunch of people.
Most of whom I never would have met at New LA.
Nothing curious about this dip ninny, Jeffrey Epstein, Dalton's school, who becomes, like Mike Benz put it, it's the best way to look at it, the forest gump of American international politics, money, arms trade, and sex trafficking.
Alleged sex trafficking.
It's not alleged.
Sex trafficking.
I never met people, but there were people that called me that either insinuated or said they knew Jeffrey through a financial relationship.
Because how did Jeffrey make his money?
Oh, that's right.
Les Wexner gave him power of attorney over his entire estate.
How and why?
I'm going to listen to this deposition and find out because you're not going to get the answer from a question asked by Jasmine Crockett, the dumbest woman in American government.
And let me actually broaden that.
The dumbest person in American politics.
So, I mean, they could have been actors, but at the time, a guy calls me up.
I'll give you an example.
Just because I want you to understand this because it's so confusing to me.
He would say, like, I'm providing financial advice to the founders of Google.
I'm providing financial advice to Jeff Bezos.
I'm providing financial advice for the chief technologist at Google.
Wow, I'm in good company because these are really smart guys with a lot of money.
And you have to put yourself in the mindset of you, if my attorney said he was qualified to argue in front of the Supreme Court, I'd believe him.
I didn't say to call the Supreme Court and say, tell me, is he really an attorney or did he do this?
It's amazing.
It's like the illusion of reputation builds on itself.
Now, hold on, I lost my screen here.
It's like, oh, well, yeah, he's hanging out with the Rothschild.
He's hanging out with Bill Gates.
He must be a big person.
So I'm going to hang out with him too.
Then he goes and says, oh, I'm hanging out with Les Wexner.
I'm managing his funds.
Oh, yeah.
So now, what the heck was going on?
Why were they having these hearings today?
Where's the article covering this here?
Hold on.
There we go.
Just to give you the context.
Film deposition shows Les Wexner denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes.
The former Victoria Secret CEO spoke to members and investigators with the House Oversight Committee for nearly five hours.
This is yesterday.
Billionaire Les Wexner told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee he was duped by Jeffrey Epstein, according to a video recording of the panel.
Former CEO of Victoria's Secret and one-time Epstein client also insisted he severed ties with Epstein after learning of sex trafficking allegations.
I think there was something about a Victoria's Secret sex problem.
I'm going to double check that.
As I look back, I was conned by the World Olympic all-time con artist.
Wexner was subpoenaed earlier by the Oversight Committee, which is conducting its own investigations.
While he has not been charged in connection to Epstein's crimes, he is now under additional scrutiny after being named as a potential secondary co-conspirator in materials released by the Justice Department.
He was named as a co-conspirator, period.
And they tried to redact it.
The memo also said there's limited evidence regarding his involvement.
And Ohio Governor Mike DeWine in an interview during politicals, whatever, barring some new information of something that he has done illegal, I don't think, I don't see the problem.
Yet the committee's decision to post Wexner's full testimony on YouTube without delay comes as Republicans face renewed pressure to hold wealthy, powerful men accountable for enabling Epstein's decades of sexual abuse.
Now, hold on one second.
I want to double check one thing, which I was fairly certain of.
Was there not a certain sex scandal involving, was there not a sex scandal involving Victoria's secret?
I am fairly certain there was.
Let's just see what the answer is.
Yes, there have been several major scandals involving Victoria's secret.
Widespread culture of misogyny, bullying, sexual harassment.
Okay.
Close ties to Les Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein, convicted sex offender.
Epstein that served as Wexner's financial advisor.
The issues overlapped with a broader meeting.
Okay, well, we'll get back to that in a second.
Now, as you can tell, old people tend to be chatty and not know when to shut their mouths and say things which you may or may not want them saying.
And at one point during the deposition, the lawyer let Les Wexner know as much.
But before we get to that, conservative alternative posts.
Les Wexner just confirmed that Epstein worked for the Rosshoff.
This is the same.
This is the same clip.
You did personal work for the Rothschild family in France.
Well, specifically, I talked to Ellie de Rothschild.
Okay, fine.
This is the same clip.
We're going to get this one out of here.
Well, at one point, his lawyer said, I thought it was hyperbole, and I thought maybe it was being paraphrased inaccurately, but the lawyer actually, you know, humorously, that's not the right one, came over and said, if you, if you, if you, if you don't shut up, if you don't answer with five words or less, I'm going to effing kill you.
Now, he didn't actually literally mean to kill him, but he does mean less is more, less, and shut your mouth.
It was just regularly done.
He said, I will fucking kill you if you answer another question with more than five minutes.
It was just regularly done.
Excuse me.
Now, hold on a second here.
One second.
I will fucking kill you.
Answer not the question.
This is problematic for a couple of reasons.
And you see Les's demeanor change when he says, fucking kill you.
Watch his hands.
It's just regularly done.
Last time, I promise.
Okay, right there.
Oh, he clenches his fist.
I don't know what the rules are during these oversight committee hearings, but I can tell you one thing, coaching a witness during their testimony while they're under oath is a violation of rules, ethics, and law.
So that's problematic to the extent that that seems to be what's happening, but I'm not sure if the same rules apply during these oversight committees hearings.
But that's mildly hilarious.
That the lawyer said, yeah, you don't get points for being chatty.
And I will effing kill you if you answer another question with more than five more than five words.
Now, just on the Epstein stuff to tie a bit of a bow in all of it, the former prince, Andrew, whatever the hell Windsor individual who was arrested yesterday has been released without charges.
Still under investigation, was arrested, detained, released without charges.
And TMZ posting some stuff which they think relevant of former Prince Andrew playing with a child who's blurred out and a ball that apparently is painted like a boob.
Andrew Mountbatten Winslow, formerly the Prince Andrew, turned fun bags, which are boobs, into kicks for kids in some very unprincely photos obtained by TMZ.
These pics are of Andrew back in 2011, show the then Duke of York kneeling across from a young boy and rolling a ball back and forth.
I would never have even seen it.
I thought it was a pumpkin.
That's how innocent my virgin eyes are.
Just clean, wholesome fun until you realize the ball is painted like a tate, a breast complete with a pale pink nipple protruding from it.
That's called an areola.
I happen to know that just because I'm a hypochondriac.
The young boy appears to be horsing around with the boob ball while Andrew crawls around on the floor, takes that later picture shows them sitting together in the couch.
I just would like to know the relationship of the kid, but other sources say these pics were taken inside Andrew's Windsor's 15 years ago.
We're also told Andrew was not alone with the child.
Okay.
As you know, Andrew was arrested Thursday on a 66th birthday suspicion of misconduct in office with the alleged emails he sent to Jeffrey Epstein regarding his role in the UK trade envoy in the early 2000s, reportedly being central to the investigation.
That dude looks like, you know, curiously enough, I've read a number of stories online where people get diagnosed with eye cancer because of the way the light reflects and one eyeball reflecting red like that versus the other could indicate a tumor in the eye.
Words of the wise.
All right.
To be clear, his arrest has nothing to do with the myriad of sexual misconduct allegations made against him over the years.
Andrew was released from detention late Thursday with no charges.
So you could either just write that off as innocent fun, as Michael Tracy has, or you can say that's a little bit weird to be playing with a boob ball with a child, or it might not have been a boob ball and it might have been an eyeball ball or a pumpkin ball and it was just oddly misshapen.
All right, that's that.
And because I just saw it come in, let's go straight back to Rumble, where we have King of Bill Tong in the house.
We are the lowest priced direct to consumer Bill Tong brand in the U.S. Bill Tong USA does not overcharge for junk.
We make real Bill Tong.
Go to Billtongusa.com, code Viva for 10% off.
Get it?
It's delicious.
I just got my shipment, Anton.
My latest shipment, I should say.
It is objectively delicious stuff.
Thank you.
Mr. Neufeld's Judgment Impact 00:15:21
Let's go to the chat and just see what's going on here.
The red eye could be indicate reptilian.
Put Bill Tong's meat in your mouth.
Wow, Viva.
Holy cow.
Hold on.
About what?
About what?
What's the thing about the bar being a cultish maritime?
I'm not getting into that.
I don't know.
Time has been up for the monarchy for a long time.
Okay.
Pizza Party.
Sick, evil people.
Don't say anything.
Did you have to wear a red ragged?
Okay, fine.
And then we got NeuroDivergent says, smash the thumbs up, peeps.
And we're going to.
All right.
That's that.
Now, people, it's not going to be a full episode until we go to the Maryland of Canada to see what's going on there.
Stuff that is.
You wouldn't believe it if you didn't read it.
You would think it was a meme because that's actually how I found out about this.
I got, okay.
I got sent a meme that purported to be a section of a judgment in Canada where an individual by the name of Mr. Neufeld was allegedly ordered to pay $750,000 Canadian because of speech that allegedly injured, harassed, whatever you want to call it, the trans community up in Canada, in British Columbia, more specifically, which is the epicenter of woke in Canada.
And the reason why he was a former school trustee who allegedly made posts while in his position of school trustee that violated the civil rights and dignity of the trans community.
We'll read the article and then we're going to read a couple of sections from the ruling because it will blow your freaking mind.
Now, it's coming out of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the BCHRT Human Rights Tribunal, hormone replacement therapy.
Is that a coincidence or did I just make that up?
I made that up.
That's copyrighted.
My joke.
Nobody gets to use it.
This is out of the Commie Broadcasting Corporation, CBC, writing, former BC school trustee ordered to pay $750,000 for hate speech discrimination human rights tribunal.
Tribunal says Barry Neufeld, quote, invoked negative and insidious stereotypes, end quote, about 2S LGBTQ plus people by Laura Lauren Vanderdeen.
There you go.
Former Chilliwack, BC school trustee, has been ordered to pay $750,000 to LGBTQ teachers and a class, a class of injured persons.
It's Canada people.
BC Human Rights Tribunal has ordered former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld to pay $750,000 for violating the human rights code by publishing hate speech and discriminatory content against 2S LGBTQ plus people.
Quote, Mr. Neufeld invoked negative and insidious stereotypes about LGBTQ people, especially trans people, which denied their inherent dignity and in some cases reflected the hallmarks of hate against them as a group, the tribunal said in its decision.
Neufeld was one of the loudest critics against BC government's move in 2017, directing school boards to update codes of conduct to address bullying based on SOGI.
I want to remember what that is.
Sexual orientation and gender identification.
It actually sounds like a disgusting Japanese form of pornography, Soji.
Soji, sexual orientation and gender identity, according to the tribunal's decision.
For five years, he publicly denigrated LGBTQ people and teachers and associated them with the worst forms of child abuse.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Am I going to face issues in Canada if I say that hormone replacement therapy and gender affirming care for minors is child genital mutilation?
Have at it.
That's what it is.
Oh, no, no.
You can't say that because now you're denying the existence of trans children.
We'll get there.
Neufeld did not respond to CBC News' request for commentary by publication deadline.
The complaint was brought to the tribunal by the Chilliwack Teachers Association of BC, whatever, and on behalf of their members who identify as LGBTQ.
Tribunal's decision noted it used the LGBTQ term in its decision as set out in the association's initial complaint, but did not intend to erase or overlook the breadth of sexual and gender identity.
Just put the freaking plus in there.
Just skip the 2S LGBTQIA.
Just put plus.
Plus maps.
Neufeld's publication included Facebook posts, a speech at a gathering, a widely circulated email, and comments at a school board meeting.
Tribunal found six of his publications were likely to expose trans, gay, and lesbian people to hatred or contempt based on their gender identity.
These publications demonize and delegitimize trans people and in one case, lesbian and gay people, and cast them as a powerful menace threatening the security of children and their families.
Anybody, anybody, straight, gay, lesbian, whatever, who wants to allow gender-affirming care on children is a threat to children, period.
They are promoters of child genital mutilation, period.
And now you get, or I get, you know, it's more likely to do with his role as school board trustee than just a, you know, Canadian podcaster.
This is where Canada is going.
It's not just outlawing speech.
It's criminalizing thought.
It's criminalizing conscience.
It's criminalizing religion.
More than 20 of Neufeld's publications indicated or indicated discrimination or an intention to discriminate.
Discrimination or an intention to discriminate.
You haven't yet discriminated, but I get the feeling you intend on doing that against 2S LGBTQ plus people in Chilliwack.
We can skip the rest of this.
We got to get to a section of the ruling, or actually more like three sections, which I highlighted in a post, that will make you never want to go to Canada.
Certainly, you go to Canada and you realize you're facing tyrannical forces of government that are as oppressive as China.
So, my post, which I put out on Twitter, had a section of it.
This is not fiction, it's Canada.
Recent tribunal ruling out of British Columbia ordered Barry Neufeld, school board trustee for five years, to pay $750,000 in damages.
This is what the tribunal actually wrote.
I'll bring it up so that you don't think I'm misquoting or otherwise exaggerating.
Paragraph 55 of the tribunal, they write, We can think of no better example for how trans people, they've now created a word.
There's not a hyphen, it's trans people, are denied than this passage.
Trans people are, by definition, people, quote, whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth.
Hansby, at paragraph 12.
They're citing absolute fiction as authority.
Two plus two equals five.
I can think of no other passage that shows the egregious mathematical calculation error by Mr. Neufeld than him not saying two plus two equals five, because I quite clearly see it here.
This man identifies as two plus two equaling five, and how dare you deny his existence?
Listen to this.
This is the quote from the decision: If a person elects not to, quote, believe that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, then they do not, quote, believe, end quote, in trans people.
Read that and read it five times.
If a person elects not to believe that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, then they do not believe in trans people.
No, no, no.
I believe in schizophrenia.
I mean, and that's without judgment.
Are we saying that schizophrenia doesn't exist?
If someone is schizophrenic, I don't believe their delusions, but I believe they are delusional.
But believing that you're not a male and that you are different from your sex assigned at birth is no different than a schizophrenic thinking that he or she is the king or queen of England.
I don't deny their delusions, but I deny the accuracy of their delusions.
This is a form of existential denial.
Ogre, paragraph seven, whatever that means, at paragraph 61.
It is not, as Mr. Neufeld argues, akin to religious beliefs.
A person does not need to believe in Christianity to accept that another person is Christian.
However, to accept that a person is transgender, one must accept that their gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth.
I don't believe it.
Never will.
If you think that you're not a male because you don't feel like a male, I will agree that you have gender dysphoria.
If you will argue that, well, it's not causing me discomfort, so technically it doesn't fit the definition of gender dysphoria.
Then I will say, all right, you have a delusion of your own reality.
You're entitled to it, and I'm entitled to reality.
They go on to say this is not quite as shocking to the conscience or to intellect or to human dignity.
As this tribunal has recognized, quote, the question of whether transgender people exist, are entitled to dignity in the province is as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another.
So they say that denying someone who says I'm a boy despite having a vagina, that that is tantamount to saying whites are better than blacks or blacks are better than whites.
This is what you call mental gymnastics of the highest order.
It's what you call suicidal empathy because this is societal degradation of norms and standards and freedoms.
People can do and live beyond the binary.
People can and do decide, oh, this was the good one.
Hold on one second.
I think I highlighted in the sec.
There we go.
Oh, yeah.
Listen to listen to this.
Paragraph 55 in the middle.
People can and do live beyond the binary.
What the fudge does that possibly mean?
Live beyond the binary.
I would put that on a shirt if I were so inclined to make money off of this.
Still think, live beyond the binary.
Oh, you'll have a group of people who are going to buy that up.
People can and do decide that they were assigned the incorrect gender at birth.
Why did you say gender there?
Did they get the wrong sex at birth?
This is a human rights tribunal that has the authority to levy massive, massive penalties.
People can and do decide that they were assigned the incorrect gender at birth, end quote.
Trans people are here, existing in schools and homes and workplaces, as Mr. Hansman characterized it during his testimony.
No matter the attempted erasure by some facets of Canadian society, the existence of trans and gender diverse individual is a fact.
Quote, they are there.
There are students enrolled in British Columbia public schools who are transgender and non-binary.
Likewise, school districts have employees that are transgender and non-binary.
You have people whose gender orientation is different than what they want to have between their legs.
Good for them.
I don't care.
Do whatever the heck you want.
Don't make me call you a he when you have a vagina, and don't expect me to call you a she if you've got a penis.
Don't expect me to tolerate or promote a swimmer with a paddle, that being his penis, changing in front of a bunch of unwilling girls.
That's called abuse.
Oh, no, but now it's abuse to call it abuse.
Paragraph 57, calling transness, quote, gender ideology, end quote, allows anti-trans activists to hide behind a veneer of reasonableness.
It allows them to say, as Mr. Neufill did in his statements, as well as at the hearing of this complaint, that they are not attacking human beings.
They are simply opposing a set of ideas.
Yeah, they are.
We are.
The idea being that you can think that you're a different sex than what's between your legs, what's in your chromosomes.
But listen to this.
This is a human rights tribunal reading like an activist organization with the power to create law, because that's what it is.
But behind this insidious veneer is the proposition that transness is not real.
Such phrasing can make it easier to ignore that trans people are human beings.
Who the hell ever denied that?
Who the hell ever denied that they are humans with all of the rights and protections under the law to dignity, to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness?
Referring to quote gender ideology, end quote, or quote, transgenderism, end quote, ism denoting a belief or ideology such as capitalism or communism, pushes the idea that trans people have an agenda rather than being just another demographic group.
They do.
And that agenda is to push gender ideology on children.
As this decision illustrates, such terms can create the conditions for discrimination and hatred to flourish.
Do you understand right now that this tribunal, if this decision stands uneviscerated by the higher courts, which have to show deference to these administrative tribunals because of their degree of expertise, referring to transgenderism as transgenderism or as gender ideology in Canada will literally be criminal effectively.
It'll be hate speech because by referring to it as transgenderism, you're making it an ideology and not a reality of people who exist.
Holy sweet, merciful hell.
$750,000.
There's the link to the tweet.
And if it doesn't get overturned, if it doesn't get eviscerated by the higher courts who say, A, this is insanity, literally.
B, you don't have the right to impose $750,000.
How did they decide that?
Where was the annex?
You got the annex of all of his statements at the end of the ruling here.
I hate the formatting.
I can't read the left.
Oh, there we go.
That's better.
Let's see here.
There was a September 2024, September 24, 2022 interview.
Complaint alleged this interview violates the sections of the code.
This is an interview that Mr. Neufeld gave to RH Media during the campaign for re-election as school trustee, defending children's rights in schools.
What did he say here?
Paragraph 87.
Mr. Neufeld says that schools should be doing things to help kids with, quote, genuine gender dysphoria, end quote, which he posits is about, quote, one half of 1%, but says that, quote, changing the whole culture of the schools is having unintended side effects.
These side effects include, quote, rapid onset gender dysphoria and growing number of kids, quote, bugging their parents for hormone blockers.
He says this is largely happening to teenage girls.
And quote, if the girls were thriving, I might be tempted to go along with it, but they're not.
They're miserable.
They're sullen.
They're angry at the world.
He says that the language of quote, being born a boy in a girl's body sounded like the language of sex offenders who use this to confuse and groom children.
This is the type of statement.
We don't need to go through all of it.
This is the type of statement that he was just found liable for.
Notice of Violation 00:16:10
That's insanity.
I'm going to bring something up here because I saw it coming from Ginger.
Ginger Ninja says, Viva, you said everyone has the right to dignity.
That's completely false.
If it were true, this adjudication would be correct because they're just endowing the dignity to these psychopaths.
No, the dignity means not being treated in a manner that would debase the value of human life.
It would mean that if you have to kill a serial killer, you wouldn't, I mean, maybe you would do it in the most horrific and torturous manners.
You would just, you know, do it in a manner that does not defile the dignity of what it means to be human.
It means you treat humans with some fundamental element of uniqueness because they are humans, even when it comes to executing criminals and whatever.
You still preserve a certain inherent dignity of being a human.
It doesn't mean you cater to their whims.
And it sure as hell doesn't mean that you cater your own speech and thought to accommodate their own delusions.
Live and let live is what it would basically mean.
And right now it's live and let dominate.
Live and let oppress.
And it's not straight, whatever, I'm not even using the word.
It ain't the straight people that are oppressing the 2SLGBTQIA plus.
And the second anybody gets in there and brainwashes, interferes with other people's children, even their own, that is child genital mutilation.
It is child grooming.
It's repulsive.
And if a trans individual wants to do whatever the heck they want after 18, good for them.
Godspeed.
But indoctrinating children, talking about sex, gender ideology, gender affirming care with children is grooming.
It should be illegal itself.
And now we're at a stage in Canada where criticizing it is now illegal.
Serenity now.
But there's more coming out of Canada, obviously.
Give me one second.
All right, let's see what's going on in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community while I prep psychologically and spiritually for the next what do we got here?
Could Trump just use this?
Let's go here.
Let's go to all and just see what the chat has to say here.
The percentage of people born hermaphrodite now intersex due to chromosome or development abnormality.
It's vanished.
It's less than one-tenth of a percent from what I understand.
And that's the bona fide, you know, you have like XXY chromosomes.
And the only reason people find out, they might, I don't know if they look like more manly if they're women with this.
The only time they find out is when they find out they're infertile.
Vanishing small.
Environmental effects on hormones, endocrine systems is an issue, but so is lying to children and manipulating them, says one of the people.
Rocket boy, I just posted a reminder for comments for Viva Fry.
When you get a chance, read the description of what they have set up in Washington.
Julie lived it with her own kids.
It's why she moved her family to Florida.
Did you guys think Mark Mitchell truly got silenced by his boss when it comes to critiquing the Trump admin?
I was one of the many he was preoccupied with.
I was of the opinion he was preoccupied with the death of the family.
It probably could be a little bit of A and B, S V 123.
This guy will lose his home to pay for it.
I don't know if it would be covered by insurance as a trustee.
I would imagine he had insurance as a trustee that might cover it.
But that's, I mean, it's got to be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in the same way that remember Mike Ward, the guy that was fined for making a joke, his joke about the kid with misshapen head from a birth defect, public figure.
It was also just a joke.
He had to get to the Supreme Court 5-4 in order to be absolutely exonerated.
This too must go to the Supreme Court.
And if it doesn't, it's just, if it's stand, it's British Columbia.
It's the same province that had the restaurant bueno ostaria or that I've talked about it, 30 some odd thousand to pay to a trans employee.
So that's that.
Okay.
What I was going to say now was, still in Canada, the ostrich farm crisis came, went, slaughtered the ostriches, and Canada has moved on.
There have been some developments in there, but I'm not particularly optimistic about the chances of success.
You will remember, I mean, talked about it, and some people said I talked about it too much, but tried to halt it, tried to get people involved so that wouldn't happen.
And those efforts ultimately did not achieve the results that we were hoping for.
The slaughter of the 400 ostriches because they allegedly, you know, two of them tested positive for H5N1 a year ago, the entire legal battle from the administrative tribunal that ordered the culling to the federal court that ratified it, to the federal court of appeal that ratified that,
to the Supreme Court of Canada that refused to hear it, to the 60-day standoff where CFIA, empowered by their terrorist goons with guns, RCMP, occupied this farm and then slaughtered all of them in the dead of night the day that they got their ruling from the Supreme Court that they weren't going to take it up on appeal.
Well, there's been a development in that when the farm was contesting one of the notice of violations or notices of violation that they got for allegedly violating the quarantine.
Well, it turns out a court now ruled that they were never properly served with the quarantine notice.
Therefore, there was no proper quarantine that they unlawfully violated and that they're not ordered to pay the $10,000 notice of violation for having violated the quarantine.
I'll get there in a second, but listen to what Katie Pazitny, the daughter of the farm owner, had to say about this.
Hi, everyone.
It's Katie with the Universal Ostrich, and I have one more question that I'd like to ask.
If the process of procedural law was not followed to lawfully service the quarantine documents, was proper procedure ever ensured for the shooting conducted with 800-plus shots less than 300 meters away from an open highway to kill our healthy animals?
It's just another question.
You can protect animal health and still respect the law.
So what does this mean for Canadians?
Monday, food for thought.
So procedurally, what the outcome was, and I'll have the ruling somewhere in the backdrop here, that they were fined $10,000, the farm, for allegedly violating the quarantine, which was allegedly served on them by way of whenever.
And the argument is that, and this was the finding of the court, that they were never properly served with the quarantine, such that there could never have been a violation of the notice.
And I'm going to pull it up here.
I have to go in the backdrop.
It's a PDF, so I have to open this up like this.
And here's the ruling right here.
So this is the ruling coming out of the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal, Universal Ostrich Farms Inc., and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency before Patricia Farney's member.
Umar Sheikh Council, hearing written submissions, yada, yada, yada.
The decision date is February 6th.
It's a couple weeks old.
I had it in the backdrop and I, you know, now I'm getting around to it.
We don't need to get further than the introduction because it covers it.
Introduction.
Universal Ostrich Farms received a notice of violation with $10,000 penalty for contravening subsection 9146 of the Health of Animal Regulations.
Universal elected to have the tribunal review the notice through written submissions from the parties.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency Agency, I like to call them terrorists, ordered Universal to quarantine its flock and declared its premises to be an infected place after highly pathogenic avian influenza was detected.
The agency issued an NOV, which is a notice of violation, after alleging it had identified several breaches of conditions of the quarantine between February 6th and February 26, 2025.
Universal challenged the notice of violation on a procedural basis by asserting that they were not properly served with the quarantine notice, that they have been penalized for breaching.
Next, they argued that the notice of violation was unfair because their conditions, because the conditions they were alleged to have breached were designed for quarantine poultry and were either impractical or ineffective when dealing with the ostriches.
Universal also claimed that the conditions imposed to prevent wild birds from coming into contact with the ostriches, their feed, water, were either impossible or impractical.
That was the argument for killing the ostriches.
But finally, they argued that the notice of violation is unjust because the continuation of the quarantine order was unwarranted.
Their ostriches were no longer dying of avian influenza.
Well, they're dead now from government bullets.
For the reasons that follow, the NOV and penalty are set aside.
The agency's failure to personally deliver the quarantine notice as mandated by subsection 914 of the HA regulation is fatal to its case.
The legislative intent deliberately required personal delivery for quarantine notices, a stricter standard than broader service methods permitted elsewhere in the Health of Animals Act.
The choice must be respected without proper service, deciding whether Universal contravened the quarantine notice is unnecessary.
We don't need to go further than that because that's the essence of the decision and we can find out the matter of facts about how they weren't served personally.
And for anybody who doesn't fully appreciate this, service is you get sued, you've been served.
We've all seen the meme.
And typically it's got to be served in hand.
Sometimes you can get alternate service methods of service.
You can serve by email.
You can serve by public notice.
If you can't find the person, you can staple it on the front door of their house if they refuse to open the door, if you get court authorization.
You know, typically, in ordinary civil practice, unless they've changed the rules in the last five years, and I don't think that they have, you can, in fact, Not compensate for, but you can accept service and thus ratify what would otherwise have been improper service of proceedings.
Please acknowledge receipt as service, you know, for emotion, a lawsuit, whatever.
I don't know what the exact rule is here.
Reading this court order, it sounds like there is no method or equivalent under this legislation or enabling legislation to authorize another form of ratification of improper service.
And so the argument here is they were never properly served with the notice of the quarantine.
So they could have never violated it because it's as though they never received it in the first place and they were never under quarantine in the first place.
I don't know if this is going to get appealed.
You know, the crown, the government agencies have all the money in the world.
They have all the time in the world.
And I believe sincerely and wholeheartedly that they get pleasure out of torturing and tormenting citizens that have the audacity of challenging them.
So I don't know what happens with this if they appeal it.
I don't know what legitimacy for arguments it's going to have that the slaughter itself was somehow therefore unlawful.
If they were never under quarantine properly, then on what basis could their farm have been occupied by the CFIA and their armed Gestapo goons at the RCMP?
Would it therefore invalidate or render unlawful the slaughter?
I don't, I mean, like, I don't, I'm blackpilled on this and I'll admit it.
There will be no justice in this.
I don't think the system will allow the invalidation of the slaughter because it would be too destabilizing on the system as a whole.
And even if this notice of violation was improperly served and therefore they're not going to be held to the $10,000 fine, unfortunately, the Supreme Court ratified the CFIA's decision to justify, authorize, and carry out the slaughter of the animals.
So I don't see it going anywhere.
I would love to be wrong, but I don't think I'm going to be.
And I wouldn't be surprised ultimately if this gets brought up for review and they say, no, in fact, you can substitute for improper service or ratify improper service by acknowledging it.
And it was clear that they knew that they had been served with a quarantine notice because they were making statements here and there about being under quarantine.
And therefore, although it was potentially improper in the first place, there are other means by which it can be ratified and therefore service made valid, even though it might have been invalid in the first place.
That's where I would have to see it going.
But we'll see.
Bookmark that.
But in the meantime, speaking of the grotesque abuse that was that entire torturous and government-sanctioned terrorist ordeal, the neighbors of the farm are suing the government, RCMP, and CFIA, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
This is from UConn News.
Government, RCMP, CFIA, sued by BC Ostrich Farm neighbors, not the farm itself.
They didn't just go in there and wreak havoc on the ostrich farm.
They effectively, you know, talk about takings.
They effectively occupied the neighboring property.
The neighbor's property had nothing to do with this.
Neighbors to Universal Ostrich Farm have filed a civil suit following weeks of occupation by police and officials last year.
Notice of civil claim was filed with the Vernon Courthouse.
I've been there, actually, Mount Vernon.
It's beautiful.
Naming Allison Turnbull, Trevor Klug, and Margaret Grieba as plaintiffs.
The suit is against the CFIA, RCMP, and the king of Canada.
There, you got a dog eating a banana for some reason.
The residents live on a 28-acre property on Langville Road next to Universal Ostrich Farm, but their farm, their own farm and property has taken a toll from the Ostrich Farm occupation.
Listen to what they did.
It's alleged.
It's allegations and lawsuit.
It's on video.
We were talking about it at the time.
They set up checkpoints.
They had drones surveilling people on their property.
Listen to this.
Filing this lawsuit has required us to revisit every detail of what happened during the 52-day seizure, occupation, and destruction of my parents' residential property next door to Universal Ostrich Farms using a warrant that did not even have my parents' names or responsibilities on it.
Turnbull said in a social media post, reliving it has been difficult in new ways I didn't fully expect.
Search warrant issued September 3rd, 2025 to Ostrich Farm co-owner Karen Grieba when the plaintiffs were not home, included their property.
The claim says the defendants trespassed between September 2nd, 22nd, and November 13, and the conduct of the RCMP and CFIA, quote, constituted abuse and caused mental distress to the plaintiffs.
Yep.
Something about hearing, said if it was only limited to the slaughter of the animals, with no advanced warning, just start slaughtering animals, hearing people screaming, bullets whizzing.
You have no idea what the hell's going on.
They occupied the property and utterly mangled it.
The claim says the defendants trespassed.
Okay, fine.
Along with property damage, the suit says property access was restricted.
Harvest of garlic and/or apples was refused, resulting in loss of income, and the owner's use and enjoyment of the property was restricted.
The experience leading up to the war zone-style killing of animals we have loved for decades was harrowing, said Turnbull, noting that nearly 1,000 rounds were fired during the November 6th cull, directly beside the residents without warning.
Our sense of safety, privacy completely shattered, and we are still distraught that our land was used to facilitate something horrific.
Release sought includes damages as well as for trespass, assault, battery, permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing on the property is also sought.
Defendants have 21 days to respond.
The allegations of lawsuit.
Mount Robson to Vernon 00:03:25
I mean, I've read through it as well.
Drones flying overboard over their properties, surveillance, armed checkpoints, for them to access to and leave their own property.
They tore up the land.
They didn't allow them to harvest their own products, their own garlic and apples.
And you know what's going to happen?
In this particular case, I'll call this as well.
They will win.
They'll get a settlement or they'll get a judgment.
And the effing terrorist government is going to pay for that judgment with the taxpayer dollars of the victims themselves and the rest of Canada.
Nothing better and nothing teaches responsibility better than paying for your own mistakes with the monies of the people you just victimized.
It's atrocious.
So that's what's going on in Canada.
Now, I saw another crumble rant come in.
Dominant once says, I heard a rumor that Straightman can put Anton's firm and juicy meat in their mouths for Anton's pleasure and from theirs from Bill Tong.
Is there a discount code to use a checkout?
Well, why there is, sir.
It's Viva for 10% off at Billtongusa.com.
Viva, your video got blurry.
Okay.
The question is: what did Epstein give Huexner?
The lawyer.
Dubai is one of the safest places I've ever visited.
I'm white, Christian, elderly woman.
I could have walked out to go eat.
Yeah, just don't put your hands on anybody at the airport.
You'll get locked up for a year.
Yes, countries that are heavily tyrannical tend to be safe, and you just got to make sure you know the rules so that you don't end up in jail.
All the way down.
My goodness.
Come on, come on.
What's going on here?
Stop drinking.
War is okay.
Here we go.
I watch your show as much as I can, Viva.
I live in Vernon, B.C. Nice to nice to hear you mention it's a beautiful area.
Yeah, if I'm not mistaken, hold on a second.
Where's Mount Robson in relation to Mount Vernon?
Hold on.
Hold up.
Mount.
Okay, I live in Vernon, B.C. Where's Mount Robson?
Because that's where I have a core memory.
Mount Robson, B.C.
I think it's near Vernon, is it?
Maybe it's not.
Maybe that's Mount Robson, BC to Vernon, BC.
Let's see here.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
No, it's not.
It's five hours away.
Okay.
British Columbia is so big.
You're like, oh, you see the little sky?
Oh, that's cool.
No, no, that's five and a half hour drive.
So Mount Robson is where I caught the Dolly Varden fish in the river in a mountain creek and it snapped the line and I got into the water and pulled it out with my hands.
It was one of the greatest moments ever.
Let's go see what's going on on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com before we decide what to do with the rest of the show.
All these human rights are commie institutions for sure, hyphen.
They don't have any right to make me share their delusion.
That is also correct.
Don't get me into trouble in Canada.
I just posted a reminder.
Oh, so I got to go down to the bottom here.
Just a fair warning.
Okay.
What do we got here?
Hyphen.
Andrew was great mates with Jimmy Saville.
Roostang says, Viva and Lord Buckley at the movies offered a good effort at explaining the film Seven Days in May.
However, Mark did need the patience of Job to help Viva learn some basic American history of the 60s.
One wonders if Viva was away when this was taught at school.
Next film review, Network.
One wonders if Viva was away.
Go Raid Owen 00:03:00
I lived in Canada and yeah, born in 79.
So it's tough to fully grasp an era in which you did not live or through which you did not live.
Bill Tong lollipop.
Hey, now, what the heck is that?
That looks like a dolphin.
Some acknowledgement of small bit if the many violations committed by Canadian government on ostrich farm and neighbors is a small step, but a step in the right direction.
How's it going for the audio the sweet dog?
Uh, the dog got adopted by somebody else.
I'll vent a little bit over on Vivabarneslaw.locals.com because uh, like my, like my grandmother said I never mind a little frustrated with the process of uh, how this ultimately went down.
Uh, what we're gonna do now, we're gonna go over to VIVA Barnslaw.locals.com and um, do we go raid Roseanne?
No, she's not even live, Roseanne.
Uh, we'll go raid Nerd.
Do we raid Nerd Roddick?
Hold on, do we raid Owen Shroyer?
Is he live?
Owen Shroyer is live, so let's go raid Owen.
Oh, I love the way he talks, I love his accent.
Okay, we're gonna go raid Owen.
Come on over to Vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
For the after party.
We'll go forward slash raid and uh, sunday night's show is gonna be a banger, so make sure to be there and you are safe, so long as you do not criticize the government.
Or Islam says the real man, Buckle Brush says okay, i'm not gonna do that.
Uh, so let's go over to Vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
I'm gonna say hi to Owen.
What's up, Owen?
Viva Raid in the house.
Okay.
And now we're gonna go over to Viva Barnes Law.
I'm gonna vent on a few things over on Viva Barnes Law.
And then the question is: this: This is the question.
I gotta pick my fights, my picks for tomorrow's UFC.
Uh-oh, the kid's coming here.
I'm in trouble.
What's up?
I'm not doing it now.
We're gonna open a box of baseball cards while I make a video with my predictions for tomorrow night, UFC.
But I'm not sure that the kid's gonna come in because we're still live, sir.
Do you want to say hi to the world?
Hi.
And now you should.
I heard you had a friend here.
No.
Okay, well, get on anyhow.
We'll be back in a second.
All right, we're gonna go raid.
We've already raided.
We're gonna go to locals.
So, everybody, come on over there.
Sunday night, Thursday night is Viva and Lord Buckley go to the movie.
Next week is, in fact, network.
Viva and Lord Buckley go to the movies.
Let me just give everybody the link one more time.
We're setting up a Rumble.
He set it up, and he set it up, and I'm not trying to blame him.
We just don't have a Rumble page for it yet, and we're going to.
Go and subscribe to it.
And now we're going to Viva and Barnes.
Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com.
And I'll see you all Sunday and probably sooner.
Export Selection