James O'Keefe and Donald Trump face legal scrutiny as attorney Benjamin Barr details a Florida court victory striking down a firearms surrender provision in O'Keefe's restraining order, citing violations of First Amendment rights and Florida law. The episode contrasts this with Trump's alleged $32,000 bet on Maduro's removal and highlights Nova Scotia's unlawful 2025 forest ban that cost Jeff Evely $28,700 to challenge. Ultimately, the discussion underscores a broader trend where courts increasingly reject government overreach regarding free speech, movement, and due process in the face of administrative decrees and vexatious litigation. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, MahmoudAshraf/mms-300m-1130-forced-aligner, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.00, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Protecting People and Property00:02:41
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, I present to you the Premier of the province of Nova Scotia, talking about your constitutional rights like they are mere prerogatives of the Crown.
Behold.
Will you appeal the decision?
I don't think so.
I'm not aware of an appeal being prepared.
It's kind of come and gone.
And as we move forward, I, as Premier, will certainly look at circumstances that are in front of me at any given moment in time.
And I will always do.
What is necessary to keep people safe, to keep property safe every single time.
We'll make that decision.
We'll do that again if necessary.
That's a clip from Middle News.
What happened at the beginning here?
That's the premier of Nova Scotia.
And I want to highlight just a couple of key words that he said in that 28 seconds of utter stupidity.
Appeal the decision?
I don't think so.
I'm not aware of an appeal being prepared.
I'm not aware of an appeal being prepared.
And why would I bother appealing it when I'll just declare my intentions to do whatever the hell I want?
Regardless of what the courts have already declared, I can and cannot do.
But there's another word in there.
We're going to do what is necessary to protect people and property.
People rights be damned.
Come and gone.
And as we move forward, I, as Premier, will certainly look at circumstances that are in front of me at any given moment in time.
And I will always do what is necessary to keep people safe, to keep property safe every single time.
To keep property safe.
Now, people, for those of you who don't know, and It's not a source of criticism, but people say, Viva, sometimes you jump into a story and you understand or think that we all understand what you're talking about already.
That man is the premier of the province of Nova Scotia.
Premiers are sort of like governors up in Canada.
The province is sort of like a state up in Canada.
Nova Scotia, they're all beautiful provinces up in Canada, but Nova Scotia is on the East Coast.
It's a maritime province.
And it was one of the provinces that was the most tyrannical during the COVID madness.
And I say one of because I think it's tied for all of them.
But I do think Quebec was the worst.
Ontario was the second worst.
And then you had your maritime bubble that was the third worst.
In the maritime bubble, they prohibited outdoor protests, outdoor protests against the COVID lockdown measures on the basis that they would be a public security, public health issue.
And they violated the constitutional right of peaceful assembly outdoors to protest the restrictions being placed on the right to exercise constitutional rights of freedom of assembly, et cetera.
Worst Season in Canadian Law00:03:32
Okay.
During a particularly bad forest fire season, or at least during a dry season that turned into a bad forest fire season, because of arsonists in 2023, that might not have been that premier at the time.
It might have been another premier.
I don't want to make a mistake there.
Nova Scotia issued a prohibition, a ban on entering the Crown's Forest because of forest fires.
You know, you walk around with your rubber soled running shoes, things catch on fire.
It's just common sense.
Jeff Evely, a man with a beautiful, glorious beard who had been on the channel on last Saturday, At the time, he tried to challenge that decree, was told that he didn't have standing because he didn't actually have any monetary, pecuniary, or rights violation interests in that decree.
And that decree came and went in 2023.
2025 came around and they issued the same prohibition on entering the Crown's Forest.
Jeff Evely, the veteran man, Canadian, awesome dude, then said, I'm going to go get a ticket.
I'm going to get a ticket so I have a pecuniary interest to challenge this decree.
Went into the forest almost as a joke, notified the local authorities that he was going to do it, recorded himself doing it, and procured a $28,700 change fine.
It was a $25,000 maximum fine plus the contribution to the victims of violence.
And he got a $28,000 fine.
He challenged it.
And with the help of attorneys from the JCCF, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, they had a court declare that decree totally unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra virus, whatever you want to call it.
Jeff was on.
Last week, talking about it, and now I've got the attorney who is hired by or works with the JCCS.
His name is Marty Moore.
Now, I have trouble hearing the word Marty and not thinking of the villain from Happy Gilmore.
I keep telling you, Marty, this is some premium handmade stuff.
His law firm is called More Justice, which is damn amazing.
He's going to come on and talk about what happened, what went down, and we're going to get into another issue afterwards, which I didn't know we were going to get into, but we were talking before the show, and it's going to be hilarious.
So, without further ado, We're going to bring in Marty.
Sir, Marty, how goes the battle?
Goes well, David.
Thanks for having me on.
Thank you for coming.
I say some people are scared to come on because I have a bit of a potty mouth every now and again, but I will control myself and not do anything to compromise your integrity or say anything bad until we get to the next subject.
But, Marty, tell everybody who you are, where you're working out of, and where they can find you before we get into this.
I say massive success.
It's a little upsetting that these are the victories that we need in order to get encouragement in Canadian law and politics.
But tell everybody who you are and where they can find you.
Yeah, my name is Marty Moore.
I've had the privilege of practicing constitutional law exclusively in Canada for the last dozen years, thanks to donors to the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
And so I get to represent great Canadians like Jeff Evely, who are willing to stand up against government tyranny, and we get to fight back.
So that's a little bit about who I am.
I'm on Twitter at CanConLaw.
Okay, amazing.
What is it called?
Cancon Law?
Yeah, just at Cancon Law.
C A N C O N Law?
That's right.
That's fine.
Con as in constitutional.
And I know a guy in the States who's Cancon and it's for cannabis conservatives.
So these are different originating names.
All right, so Marty, tell us what happened.
I had Jeff Evely on.
I mean, we know the context of him getting the fine for this, violating this decree.
Standing Against Government Tyranny00:14:47
If you could flesh out for people who listen to this and they say, It's impossible that premiers have this seemingly unilateral authorization to desecrate charter rights.
Can you tell us the procedural mechanism that even allowed the premier to get to issuing that decree, if there is one?
Right.
Well, that's a great question.
So there's a document in the Nova Scotia legislature called the Forest Act.
The legislature has passed that act, and it allows for not the premier, but the minister of the Department of Natural Resources to protect.
The forest.
So you notice in that video that the premier is saying, I want to protect people and I want to protect property.
Well, that's not what the ban on entering the forest allows you to do.
It allows you to protect the forest from particular hazards, fire being one hazard, disease being another hazard.
And so that allows you to restrict entry to particular areas of the forest to protect the forest.
And so this travel ban that was enacted wasn't saying we're going to restrict entry into a particular area of the forest, but every area of the quote, woods.
And for your listeners, Nova Scotia is 75% forests.
But when you encompass the definition of woods, which in this case included rock, barren, swamp, bog, marsh, like it's about 85 or more percent of the province that this ban affected.
Nova Scotians, a million of them, were not allowed to enter 85 percent of their own province.
And another thing that you don't hear the premier mention even after this case in his discussion.
It's the safety of people.
It's their property rights.
You never hear him mention their mobility rights.
You never hear him mention their constitutional rights as if Nova Scotians don't have any.
And so clearly, this premier has a lot to learn again.
And unfortunately for Canadians, it's government entities like that that keep us operating.
We continue to have to bring the constitution to the forefront of these individuals' minds.
Your American audience has the benefit of 200 years of constitutional.
Defense.
I'm a US trained lawyer.
I practiced in Chicago for a couple of years.
I understand that precept.
After COVID, there is no Canadian government official that has the excuse of saying, well, I don't know about the Canadian Constitution and that we protect liberty and freedom of movement up here as well.
No, you shouldn't have that excuse yet.
Totalitarians can't meaningfully engage with the concept of individual rights and freedoms, but yet this court brought that to the government's face.
And I don't think that the premier has actually read the decision, because if he did, this decision literally slaps that kind of commentary right in the face.
Well, it was Tim Houston who issued the decree in 2023.
Just wanted to double check that as a matter of fact.
So he got away with it in 2023.
Do you remember or do you know why back in 2023 nobody had successfully challenged the decree at the time?
Well, in 2023, Mr. Eagley did bring that challenge to the court.
It didn't get heard until 2024.
And by that time, of course, as Tim Houston says, this is in the past.
Why care about it now?
We just restricted the rights of a million people to move about in their own province.
And the court in that case said, well, look, it's moot.
We don't need to hear about it.
And actually, that was the government's attempt in this case as well.
Even in the early court proceedings on this 2025 travel ban, while the travel ban was still in place, they were trying to delay things enough.
So, the travel ban would be gone before we got to court.
But, of course, in this case, Jeff Evely got the $28,872.50 fine, which wasn't going away.
Premier Houston, in all of his chutzpah, decided that he was going to prosecute those people to the maximum extent of the law.
And, of course, that ticket is still out there.
We'll see if the prosecutors have yet to drop that in response to our invitation.
Okay, so he issues this decree a second time around.
Evely gets the ticket this time around.
And you go to court, I mean, You challenged the constitutionality before challenging the ticket itself, correct?
I mean, that was the procedural posture that you undertook?
That's right.
We obviously got in front of the provincial court.
That's where the ticket's getting prosecuted.
And then we went to the Supreme Court, where they can actually strike down the entire law.
That's the main constitutional trial court there.
And the government tried to punt us out to the provincial court, but the judge was not hearing it and scheduled this matter for a hearing.
And so we got the essentially commitment from the government lawyers to say, yes, this is going to get heard on the merits.
And then over the next number of months, we litigated it, fighting for evidence to get into the court record and filed our constitutional arguments and also just jurisdictional arguments.
Because, as I mentioned, the premier is still concentrated on protecting people and property.
That's not a right that he or his ministers had under the legislation.
That legislation is more narrowly tailored to protect the woods from particular hazards.
People are looking at this and saying, massive victory, but why on earth was this different than the COVID decrees, the COVID rules or mandates or whatever they issued?
And why did this one get overturned and smacked down and the government, what I call judicially spanked?
Whereas in the other case, they basically ratified them.
Not all of them have a couple of good decisions, but there is a clear difference in the treatment between this ban and the COVID mandates.
And I don't know if you have a good answer or a hypothesis as to why the two sets of rights violating decrees got disparate, separate treatment under the law.
Yeah, well, it's important to look at what this decision does.
And what this decision does is it criticizes the government for the abject failure to even acknowledge charter rights.
And so I litigated a lot of COVID decisions, for example.
Sometimes I'd file the cases and I'd say, you're not respecting charter rights and you haven't even acknowledged those charter rights.
And then before it got to the court, they would start acknowledging the charter rights.
But because those COVID orders were going on and on, the court would kind of say, okay, well, you're acknowledging it now.
We'll just address.
The fact that you're acknowledging the charter rights, and we're going to give you lots of deference because it's an emergency.
It's a novel coronavirus.
Well, there's nothing novel about forest fires for all, for starts, but they've been around since humanity has been around.
So, what we're dealing with here in Nova Scotia, though, the court restricted its reasons primarily just to say the government of Nova Scotia, not in a single document, identified the fact that its decision was impacting the charter rights of Nova Scotians.
It identified the fact that homeless people in the woods.
We're going to be affected because you're not supposed to go in the woods.
It identified the fact that the forestry industry was probably going to sue them if they didn't let the forestry back into the woods, which of course they did.
Everybody else is not allowed, but the forestry industry could go in.
But they never identified in any email, in any communication, and I have the whole record, that constitutional rights of Nova Scotians to move about their own province, including on their own property, having neighbors over, for example, that those were affected by the decision.
And that's the primary basis for this holding.
See, that's what sort of irks me a little bit is the court now says this is what you did wrong.
And so the next time, This guy, Tim Houston, is going to say, We'll pad our emails.
We'll say, Okay, what about the constitutional rights?
And then they're going to say in return, Well, we have to violate them as sad as it is because it's a greater good and an emergency, yada, yada.
And so now they just know how to break the rules better the next time and then take them to court then, and they won't have that weakness in their arguments.
Do you get the impression that's exactly what they're going to do?
That's a possibility.
I think with Mr. Houston there, if he doesn't talk to a lawyer before he does it again, he'll be subject to the second argument we had before the court, which is, of course, you don't have the authority to do what you're saying you're doing.
You're going to protect people.
From walking in the woods?
Well, you don't have legal authority to issue an order to protect people.
The legislature has not said, oh, yes, the premier can ban you from walking in the woods to protect yourself from your own.
Fire risk of walking in the woods with your sneakers, as Jeff Eagley would say.
That's just not an authority he has.
And of course, at that point, we can get into what mobility means?
And is your view that we must protect people from the risk of forest fires, does that mean you can just ban everyone outright from going anywhere?
Because that kind of logic is anti human.
And this is the argument that we ended up getting in the court.
And the court actually started putting these arguments back to the government lawyers saying, okay, well, if you're going to ban people as a proxy for risk, and that's exactly the way the government framed this.
People are a proxy for risk.
So, no, not all people start forest fires, but people do.
And so, therefore, we can just ban people because some people do.
Okay.
Well, then ban people from driving because some people drink and drive.
And the judge picked up on this and put it to the government lawyer saying, well, why don't we just ban people from going out on Friday night along with your logic because people seem to get into more problems on Friday nights?
This is the kind of anti human logic that these government tyrants.
Are using against citizens in Nova Scotia.
And people need to stand up against it.
And we're proud to stand with those that do.
Well, it's amazing.
And you say anti human logic, and it sounds like the precursor to 15 minute cities.
You're going to stay in your zone.
It's going to be for your own good.
The climate crisis is what's forcing us to lock you down, another virus or whatever.
And it looks like they got away with it so easily during COVID that they want to apply this mutatis mutandis to any other emergency, real or not.
It was a smashing.
Smackdown of the government.
There was no halfway about it.
But explain to those out there who might not understand the ticket itself still stands.
It's just that the decree in virtue of which that ticket was issued has been declared, what was it, ultra virus or a null ab initio?
Yeah, it's an unreasonable from a charter perspective.
So it's void ab initio in that sense.
And then all you'd have to do as a lawyer before the provincial court, which of course we're prepared to do, is file a charter challenge against the ticket saying it's trying to implement a constitutionally unreasonable law.
And then get the provincial court on the basis of stare decisis saying we're bound by the higher court's decision saying that the order is unreasonable.
So, yes, those tickets will fall from a legal perspective.
And again, we expect in Canada that the prosecution would just withdraw that.
That's their duty not to advance a ticket that has no chance of success.
Well, amazing.
I say it's an amazing success.
To me, it's still a little despairing that these are the W's that we're celebrating.
And they seem like not the smaller W's, but the courts will intervene when it's not a question of impugning the court's own conduct in the context of COVID.
Here, they can say, well, we didn't really ratify any of this insanity.
We didn't sink our names and reputations into affirming these COVID decrees.
And so we have an easier time overturning them and spanking a tyrannical premier.
JCCF was involved in this.
Are you guys involved in it?
I mean, I know you're involved in a lot of other stuff, actually, but what can people do if they want to support the JCCF and the work that you guys are doing?
Well, again, incredibly grateful to not only myself, but a team of a dozen other lawyers across the country funded by the JCCF to take these kind of cases, whether it's free speech or your liberty rights or Or even some COVID hangover cases supported by donors to the JCCF at jccf.ca slash donate.
All right.
And we got it right here.
I think we can see it.
Click on that.
Well, you won't see it.
Click on the link, but jccf.ca, Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
In airline talk, it's Juliet, Charlie, Charlie.
Foxtrot.ca.
One last question, actually, for the Americans out there who are watching and saying, and for the Canadians who say, we have a charter of rights, we have a constitution, put it in quotes.
Why the hell do we not have the same protections of these rights as they do in the States?
What is the fundamental legal, cultural, political, historical difference between the capital C constitution of these United States of America and the charter of rights that we have in Canada that don't seem to be worth the website on which they are printed?
It is citizen knowledge and engagement, and it is also people being willing to stand up and fight for their fundamental freedoms.
Documents, almost every totalitarian country in the world has said they protect freedoms, whether it's freedom of religion or freedom of speech.
But it's actually do you, as a country, hold those things dear in your heart?
Do you make electoral decisions on that basis?
And are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Are you willing to fund lawyers?
Are you willing to stand up like Jeff Evely and take that personal risk and say, no, I am pushing back on this?
And it's when A country and a society begins to hold those freedoms dear like that and actually defend them, that they'll uphold them and advance them.
And that's what we hope to see brought forward in Canada for sure.
Amazing.
Amazing.
And well done and Godspeed and continue with this.
But now, when we were talking beforehand, and I put the tweet out before and I didn't tag you because I said we are going to, the words wax my balls are going to come up during the stream.
I didn't put two and two together because I said, what else are you guys working on?
And you mentioned that you're working on.
Sorry, if anybody doesn't know what we're talking about, I'm going to bring up a.
Just the illustration of what we're talking about.
I didn't know that you guys were involved, or you in particular, I'm not sure if it's you specifically or the JCCF at large, with a guy named Jonathan Yaniv, who has been, I say, literally terrorizing women, typically foreign women, up in Canada.
I've been covering the various stories and the various insane abuse of the administrative tribunals in Canada, the human rights tribunals.
Jonathan Yaniv is a man who purports to be trans, whatever it is, and goes by the name.
Went by the name Jessica and E for the longest time and would literally call up women.
What is it called?
The women who do estheticians.
Estheticians.
And they were typically foreigners.
They were typically, and a lot of them, there were a few that had religious issues about waxing a man's balls.
And he would call up these women, estheticians, try to book an appointment for.
A waxing for a woman, but on his balls and terrorizing these women, taking them to the Human Rights Tribunal, coercing, extorting nominal settlements out of them, and got away with it for a long period of time, but then started eventually running into actually adverse rulings before the Human Rights Tribunal.
And it seems that Jonathan Yaniv now is on another warpath.
And are you involved personally in these files?
Policing Speech and Rights00:14:30
Yes, I, thanks again to the funding from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms that fund all the work I do.
Full time funded by them to do this kind of work.
I am representing a number of individuals in this case who've been subject of human rights complaints alleging discrimination and hate speech for simply speaking out on social media, referencing this individual who now goes by the name Jessica Simpson, referencing this individual as either Jonathan Yanib or referencing this individual to be a male.
And this Jessica Simpson now.
Claiming that that violates human rights protections and filing complaints before the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
That's the same tribunal, however, that issued the $750,000 fine to Barry Neufeld in Canada, a school trustee who was speaking out against the SOGI or transgender indoctrination in schools in BC.
Just the Americans might not know what the SOGI is after the MMIW2SLGBTQIA acronym.
SOGI is SOGI, it's sexual orientation and gender identification.
If I'm not mistaken, And just to give everybody an idea here, this is from the National Post.
When is this?
This is six years ago.
Trans activist Jessica Yaniv's human rights complaints brought her prominence.
Now she, they still call her she in the National Post.
They should be stripped of whatever funding they get from the government.
Now he's accused of harassment and predatory behavior.
Who would have thought that mentally ill narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths would ultimately go into predatory behavior?
So I hadn't heard about this.
Yaniv, who's now trying to go by Jessica Simpson, which is its own level of hilarity, has filed human rights complaints against.
Megan has been on the channel, I've been on hers.
This is one of the people that Jonathan Yaniv has filed what human rights tribunal complaints against?
Yes, Megan Murphy is facing multiple human rights complaints.
Some of my clients are facing upwards of 10 human rights complaints.
Again, just for mentioning.
The fact that Jessica Simpson used to be called Jonathan Yaniv, or that Jessica Simpson may be a male, in fact.
So, those kinds of statements on social media are now engendering, I think, upwards of 40 complaints that I'm aware of personally against some prominent individuals.
In fact, you mentioned the fact that the National Post is saying Jessica Simpson is a female.
Well, there's an organization in Canada called the Western Standard.
That's a news organization out of Calgary.
They have a policy that says, much like organizations in the States like the Daily Wire, that says, if it's relevant to the story, we refer to people by their biological sex.
And the Western Standard has that policy.
And so they have, in their own reporting, referred to this Jessica Simpson as a male.
And for that, they've now been subject to repeated, I think maybe five or six or seven of these human rights complaints for every time they write a story referencing this individual as a male.
Again, the idea being that.
Because you're speaking in a way that this individual finds offensive, you can now be prosecuted before a government tribunal to censor your speech.
I don't know if you know these answers offhand.
Jonathan Yaniv, has he legally changed his name to Jessica Simpson?
Like, is that a legal change that he's done to his status?
There is a legal change to his status.
Jessica Simpson is the legal name on a number of filings.
This is an individual who's actually been barred from filing private criminal information in Canada because of the vexatious nature of those complaints.
When the JCCF funded the defense of those female estheticians, Jonathan Yaniv, at that point, Was fined $6,000 in punitive costs because of the improper use of the Human Rights Tribunal process.
My colleague Allison Pavich, also funded by the JCCF, recently and successfully defended a Canadian female beauty pageant that was the subject of a Yaniv complaint because Jessica Simpson, I guess, at that point, claiming that they were discriminated against even though they had fully intact male genitalia and wanting to participate in a female.
Beauty pageant in Canada.
That was against the rules of the pageant, and so the JCCF funded the defense of that pageant.
But again, in those circumstances, we're talking about long, onerous human rights processes, a government agency set up to essentially prosecute private individuals over the offense of special interest groups or people who claim special interest status.
And just to put cherry on the cake, your listeners are all aware of the new.
Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women acronym that's being slammed into the 2S LGBTQIA plus acronym that has been popularized in Canada as well.
Yaniv has now claimed identity as a murdered and missing Indigenous Women LGBTQIA plus as well.
And so that identity has now been claimed by this individual, formerly known as Yaniv, now known as Jessica Simpson.
So it would be hilarious, except for the fact in Canada, these human rights tribunals get pretty high on their horses.
And as A $750,000 judgment shows it's not something that can be easily trifled with.
I'm going to bring this up.
This is Wikipedia.
It would be hilarious if it weren't insane.
Jessica Simpson, commonly known by her former legal name, Jessica Yanid, is a Canadian transgender activist in British Columbia who is best known for filing at least 15 complaints of discrimination on the basis of gender identity against various beauty salons if they refuse to wax her male genitalia.
I'm not going to swear with you here because it would not be right.
They refused to wax.
Her male genitalia.
This is the bit of what's his name?
The British guy who did the Emmys, who has a.
Ricky's your face.
This is his bit.
Like, he sexually assaulted her with her penis.
Like, the.
Okay, so Jessica Yaniv, if that's the legal name, I don't mind going by legal names.
It's neither here nor there.
Jessica Simpson, now.
Again, we've moved on from Yaniv.
First, it was Jonathan Yaniv.
Then it was Jessica.
Now it's Jessica Simpson.
And again, I don't fault someone for wanting to get away from a past where Jonathan Yaniv is filing these grotesque and abusive human rights complaints against immigrant female estheticians demanding that they touch.
Male genitalia when they only offer female bikini wax services in the privacy of their own homes.
That is the context that brought this person to fame.
If that was your history, you might be compelled to change your name as well.
But then to demand that anyone reference your history, just referencing Jonathan Yaniv, has been accused in Megan Murphy's case of being dead naming as a hate speech charge.
This is the problem when you start allowing the government.
To police the private and the speech of private individuals.
There is no limiting principle to that because, oh, we hate it or you don't like it?
Well, what is the line?
And the line on hate is really very blurred.
And it's a line that, you know, in law, it's just untenable and unworkable.
But what really needs to happen, I think, is the human rights tribunal process, the star chamber process needs to be abolished when it comes to any action policing private speech.
Well, that is my next question, actually, because when you say that.
Yaniv has been declared a vexatious, it wouldn't be a vexatious litigant, it's a vexatious, I don't know, criminal complainant.
How has he not been declared a vexatious litigant or a vexatious plaintiff before the human rights tribunals?
I don't know if they're streamlined interprovincial, but I practiced law for 13 years.
There were a number of times where I'd come across people who were declared vexatious litigants and they couldn't file pleadings without court authorization.
Has it not come to that with the administrative tribunals?
And is there a Interprovincial sort of mechanism to declare him a vexatious litigant that he should have to have authorization by the tribunals before filing any more frivolous bullcrap complaints.
I think any tribunal that doesn't want its process to be abused is going to have to actually look into that.
And I know that there's legal processes being looked at.
It's not a very clear cut thing like it is in the court system that you and I are most familiar with, but it is being worked on and looked at.
But this is the concept that we have here in Canada.
And I have instructions from a number of my clients.
To fight this on its merits, because this is a bigger issue than simply one individual feeling offense.
This is an issue where you have government paid tribunals and commissions prosecuting the speech of Canadians.
Are we or are we not going to allow there to be a discussion and debate on these things?
Or do we have the star chamber process?
Across the country, even here in Alberta, where I am, we see government commissions prosecuting people's speech.
And that is just absurd from a constitutional perspective.
We got a question in our locals community.
I'm just checking to see who's got any questions to get him in.
F. Chartrand says, Is he going to sue the internet for not changing the past?
I just can't get over the fact that you have a Wikipedia article that says, She asked people to wax her male genitalia.
It is, it's the patently most insane thing you could imagine.
Which, so where is Megan Murphy being sued?
In which province?
All of these complaints that I'm talking about with Jessica Simpson.
Formerly known as Jonathan Yaniv, are taking place in British Columbia.
And that's before the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
That's the location where Jessica Simpson resides.
He's picking the most batshit crazy province, although maybe it's coming a little bit back from insanity, but that's where the restaurant Buena Nostaria, the one where the restaurant was fined $35,000 for misgendering an employee.
And now we've got that other insane case of three quarters of a million dollars for the, what's his name?
The trustee guy?
That's Barry Neufeld.
Yes.
Very Newfeld.
And so he just got a three quarters of a million dollar administrative tribunal finding of whatever damages because of his campaign against sexual orientation, gender identification, transgender ideology.
Are you guys representing Newfeld as well?
We are not representing Newfeld, but we will be likely intervening in that case to support the free speech arguments at issue.
I also have a case before the BC Human Rights Commission, the tribunal there, dealing with a $10,000 fine for a woman raising concerns to her friend that her friend should not get a double mastectomy.
That is the kind of speech being policed.
That was in a context of a private conversation.
And so there's a massive overreach by these tribunals.
They take a bit of a mandate and they just run with it.
And so we're looking for systemic change in Canada, really, to protect the interests of Canadians and their free speech rights.
Well, Marty, you're doing the Lord's work.
And that might, I mean, if it's not already criminal, it's going to become criminal up in Canada.
If I may ask, and I guess feel obviously free not to answer, Have you experienced any complaints to the bar as a result of your legal representation?
I have not.
Although, after this conversation, I would not be surprised if we both end up with a human rights complaint because we are talking about factual situations and trying to do so in a factual way.
That is the nature of the creeping censorship that you can allow.
If you open that door, this is where it gets to.
You're afraid to speak, you're not willing to speak up.
But as a Canadian, we must speak on these things and we must be willing to defend.
The freedom of speech in Canada as well.
I say legal names, I got no problem with.
Like, I knew a guy named Jesse.
I don't know if it was short for Jessica, it might have been, but I'm not referring to a man with a penis as a she at any point in my life, period.
And what's wild is, you know, we all know it, and I'm saying this, these are not your words, Marty.
I'm not trying to get you in trouble.
It was a diagnosed, diagnosable mental illness under all clinical criteria.
And we're living in a world now where it has become criminalized to not play along with the delusions.
I had a schizophrenic aunt who thought that she was having an affair with a doctor that she never had.
I played along with it, call it in quotes, because I'm not going to fight with my aunt when she calls up.
But to affirm that delusion is no different than to affirm this delusion, which is gender dysphoria.
And I dare say, clinical narcissism, psychopathy, whatever you want to call it, that this guy goes around tormenting people because he has now been empowered by virtue signaling politicians who have codified.
The insanity.
Literally.
That is my statement.
I don't ask you to agree or disagree with it.
But, Marty, you're doing the Lord's work in terms of the legal work.
And again, where can people find you?
I'm going to pull up your Twitter account right now.
Yeah, I'm on Twitter.
I'm a grateful lawyer to be funded by the JCCF.
And so, most of our work shows up on the JCCF's website or on its Twitter account at some point.
But thank you for bringing me attention to this issue.
And you're not wrong to say that when we as a society privilege concepts, Amorphous concepts like gender identity and gender expression that have no definable characteristics other than subjective feelings and privilege those as quasi constitutional concepts, that you end up having problems with reality.
And that's what we're experiencing right now.
It is problems with reality, it is an understatement of the year.
And I mentioned it before we went live.
You might want to do it this weekend.
I just double checked my memory.
You do, in fact, look just like him.
I don't know what the guy's name is.
The actor from the movie Novocaine.
Understanding the Rumble Code00:03:31
Which was a kind of a not a terrible movie.
I told you of a guy who clinically has no sense of pain and it becomes a superpower when his girlfriend gets kidnapped after a bank robbery gone wrong.
And he then goes after the people that kidnapped him.
But Marty, amazing stuff.
Thank you very much for coming on.
And let's do it again.
And I'll actually, I'm going to call you afterwards and you have to ask some questions offline that I wouldn't ask live.
Well, thank you, David.
I'll have to look up that guy with the gun and watch a movie on that with my wife.
I'm sure she'll be thrilled to see if there's any resemblance.
It's dumb.
It's dumb fun.
It's sort of like that other one with Ryan Reynolds.
What was the one?
Deadpool.
It's Deadpool type stupid fun movie.
So, Marty, people.
I do have a twisted sense of humor.
So, that might come from practicing law for too long in this space, but we'll see how it goes.
I say you got to practice law long enough to have it build spirit, but not crush it.
So, you look young.
I don't know how long you've been doing it for.
How long have you been practicing law for?
I've been practicing law for about 15 years.
15 years?
So, I'm going to say you're 36.
38, yeah.
Okay, very nice.
We'll keep it up.
You're doing great work and we'll do a follow up of this afterwards.
Thanks so much.
All right, man.
Godspeed.
That's what's going on in Canada, people.
Thank your lucky stars if you live in these United States of America.
And I think I got the questions looking in our chat over here on vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
All right.
Now, before we get to the next lawyer, which is going to be the lawyer for James O'Keefe coming up in a few minutes.
337.
Do I try to cover another story or not before we get him in here?
No, what I might do is give you the recap of what's going on with James O'Keefe and Matthew Termand.
Because if you don't know, you might want to know.
Let me see here, Matthew.
I'm just going to pull up an article in a second.
Okay, maybe we're not going to do that just yet.
Let me bring up Rumble and see what's going on over here.
And uh, uh, dog digger says, Hey, don't forget to hit the rumble like button, people.
Do it just so you guys understand.
This Yaniv, this is M. Sidloy saying this, has a history of entering female only spaces and trying to touch young adult females.
Not a potato file, as far as I know, but one sick F. CK.
And we got King of Biltong in just in time, craving a snack that's bold, authentic, and packed with protein.
Biltong boasts over 50% protein, B vitamins, creatine, iron, zinc, and more.
Check out Biltongusa.com.
Use code VIVA for 10% off.
I'm going to show everybody the link to that in a second.
And let me just bring these out of here.
Can I refresh this?
Yeah, I can refresh this.
Hold on one sec.
Refresh.
If everybody wants to support the channel, by the way, all the links are there.
If you want a custom shout out video, you go to shoutout.fans or shoutout.us forward slash VIVA.
Download Rumble Wallet, not the sponsor of today's stream, but it's basically the sponsor of all streams.
Download the Rumble Wallet.
If you want to invest in crypto at your own risks and perils, you can tip your favorite creators by scanning that QR code, tipping with crypto.
Well, that would be Bitcoin.
If you want to tip with XAUT, which is gold backed crypto, because Tether, which now has a partnership with Rumble, has this option where if you want to invest in gold, but you don't actually want to physically hold the gold, you could buy XAUT.
Trump's Insider Trading Allegations00:05:49
It's tethered to the price of gold, and you can actually redeem it for physical gold if you go to Switzerland to do it, but it's actually tethered to real gold.
And It's one hell of a way to support the creators that you want to support if you are so inclined.
Okay.
Now, we're going to do one quick story before we get to the James O'Keefe story.
There was an individual in the military who has been charged with insider trading.
It's not really insider trading because I don't believe that there are insider trading laws that apply to poly markets and those types of future markets.
And I believe he's been charged with other crimes, not insider trading, putting it in quotes.
And the question is going to be A, is he going to get a pardon?
And B, is he the only one that's actually going to get charged for this?
And is this going to be like the signal to bigger players who apparently, allegedly, have been doing this since the onset of the war in Iran?
Because there have been some suspicious investments, suspiciously timed investments, both on the markets or on the futures markets and on these predictive markets.
Do they get one lower level guy, charge him with something else, send a shot across the bat to all the other players who've been doing this saying, stop it?
And then they pardon this guy down the line.
We'll see.
But the news for those of you who have not yet heard US soldier charged with using classified information to bet on Maduro's removal.
Where it's just from NPR.
So we know what type of bias we're going to be getting with this.
Hmm.
Were you expecting a paywall?
Not our style.
Well, too bad.
Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against U.S. Army Special Forces soldier accusing him of using insider knowledge of clandestine military operations to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.
The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was part of a team that planned and carried out the pre dawn raid in Caracas.
Earlier this year, that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.
Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wages.
So the question is going to be Is this a warning for everybody else who's been doing this for the last two months?
Allegedly, we'll start with a low level guy.
Pardon him, no harm, no foul, and everyone else better fix their stuff ASAP.
Court records show Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misuse of non public government information, and other charges.
Hours after Maduro was arrested, Van Dyke was pictured on the deck of a warship in military fatigues.
Carrying a rifle, standing alongside three other military officials, according to the indictment.
Let's listen to this.
Before the photo was taken, he began trading under numerous usernames, including Burdensome Mix, allegedly placing bets totaling $32,000 that Maduro would soon be out of power, resulting in winnings exceeding $40,000.
Van Dyke, according to prosecutors, abused of his access to information about the classified operation and tried to cover it up by hiding behind pseudonyms, Polymarket accounts.
Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriate confidential or classified information for personal gain.
U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York said, Southern District of New York, eh?
Those entrusted to safeguard our nation's secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members and not to use that information for financial gain.
Van Dyke's lawyers have not publicly commented.
All right.
We don't need to go through the rest of this.
I did want to bring up.
Trump opining on it.
And I have a bit of an interest.
I don't know, it might probably not be an interesting take, but Trump did opine on this.
This is coming out of a post from RT, and Trump had this to say Behold, Mr. President, apparently there was a special forces soldier who was involved in the capture of Venezuelan President Maduro, who was arrested by federal authorities today on suspicion of insider trading and betting on Polymarket.
Are you concerned that federal employees are betting on these prediction markets and potentially getting rich?
Well, I don't know about it, but was he betting that they would get him or they wouldn't get him?
It sounds like he was betting on his removal from office, that Maduro would be removed.
It sounds like he was involved in the operation.
That's like Pete Rose betting on his own team.
It's a little like Pete Rose.
Pete Rose, he kept him out of the Hall of Fame because he bet on his own team.
Now, if he bet against his team, that would be no good, but he bet on his own team.
I'll look into it.
Yeah.
So it is interesting, you know, Trump's position that.
He's betting on his own team.
The market seemed to have been that Maduro would no longer be in power, not that he would be captured.
And so, if he's no longer in power, it's predicated on the idea that the mission was a success in terms of removing him from power, not necessarily apprehending him, which is why I think if it was betting that he'd be arrested or detained, that's a bit more specific than out of power because he could have been out of power either through having been killed during the operation, removed from power, I don't know, and exiled, or arrested and removed.
But The idea that he's betting on the success of the operation, $32,000.
I'm just trying to think of how the operation could have gone bad where he could have stood to lose his $32,000 that he bet through various accounts, allegedly, if indeed he did it.
I know there is some outcry on the interwebs that they're going after this guy when allegations of this, as relates to certain timed bets in the context of the war in Iran, have been going on for great profit for a great many people.
People are asking pardon this guy, but make sure that nobody else does this on a going forward basis.
Florida Amendment Investigation00:16:26
We'll see.
Dude put down $32,000 knowing that he was embarking on an operation.
Oh, it's like we say, it was just bad.
I mean, if you're going to do it, do it a little better, man.
Like, don't create pseudonyms.
Why not just create what they call side letters?
I'm not giving anybody advice on how to do stupid things.
Don't do stupid things, and you'll avoid a whole hell of a lot of trouble.
32,000 to make 400.
And now he's busted.
And I presume those ill gotten gains are going to be seized under civil forfeiture.
And we'll see what type of deal he strikes.
That's that news there.
Now you know, and no one's half the battle.
All right.
I see someone in the back who's named Benjamin Barr, who's an attorney for James O'Keefe.
And I don't know how much time he's got.
So I'm going to bring him in right now.
I've never met him before.
This is going to be the first.
Benjamin, I'm bringing you in in three, two, one second too early, sir.
Mr. Barr, how goes the battle?
Well, today's a good day, a righteous day for.
Constitutional vindication.
We secured a Second Amendment victory for James O'Keefe down in Miami.
He's been the subject of a stalking temporary restraining order, which raises a whole host of constitutional problems.
And that's what we've been fighting.
So we unfortunately had a firearms surrender provision in the injunction.
The police came to James's office last night.
We were on the eve of contempt and needing to comply with an order.
We had sought emergency relief, but Justice sometimes comes very slow.
So, we turned over the firearms last night, but the judge actually, to her credit today, took time to work through the law.
And Florida law is very clear.
It's consistent with what the Supreme Court has said about this.
You can't just deprive people of firearms based on hunches and guesses.
If a person's a real threat to someone else, they've made a real threat or they're engaged in violent activity, then you can use a sort of red flag.
Law that allows people to be disarmed.
But otherwise, through a stalking motion that's basically someone filing a grievance, a petty complaint in court, you don't do that and you don't deprive people of constitutional rights.
So we got one half of the problem taken care of.
Well, let's back it up even to the broader context so that people understand what's going on.
I've talked about it on the channel.
James has gotten some stalking, harassment, threaten complaint filed against him in.
It's in the Family Division Court of Miami, if I'm not mistaken.
That's right.
Matthew Tiermand, or Tiermand, who is now one of, I guess he still is a director of Project Veritas.
I believe he's a former director.
He used to be a board member, director of Project Veritas, the nonprofit.
He is one of the, I'm going to weigh my words here.
He's one of the individuals that was responsible for or participated in the ousting of James O'Keefe from Project Veritas.
James goes and starts OMG.
All of the donors leave Project Veritas because they were there for James and not for Matthew or anybody else.
And they had their falling out as a result of that.
James goes and gets someone who's posing as a reporter or as a date for Matthew.
Not exactly sure the context, but gets Matthew basically saying in hidden camera that he wants to kill James O'Keefe.
He wants to eat his heart.
He wished that it had been James that was killed on September 10th and not Charlie Kirk.
And then she got a book, which was James O'Keefe's book, that had a bullet through James O'Keefe's heart.
And they got that on video.
James O'Keefe then goes and confronts Matthew with that video, with all of that footage.
Oddly enough, Tierman, who's so scared of James, he walks with him through the streets to his car having a nice conversation.
After trying to grab the book back, James threatened him and said, I'm going to file a restraining order for stalking and harassment against you.
And then Matthew somehow goes and using lawfare and these bizarre divisions of the Florida justice system, goes to Miami and gets what type of order against James?
But let's correct the timing.
He doesn't go right after this happens, right?
And when you think about, boy, I need an emergency injunctive relief, you think about running right to the courthouse that night.
The next day, somewhere in there, no, about six weeks later, Tiramon comes out and says, It's an emergency.
It's an emergency.
You got to stop this man.
You got to shut it all down.
And he received one of the most onerous types of relief it's a temporary restraint order.
So you come to the court, you include the facts about all the bad things that you think happened, and without a hearing, without notice to the other side, without all the requisites of what you think.
Makes a fair judicial system and a Western system of law that we would think about, you get an order.
And then the order says that James can't possess firearms.
It says that he cannot do things like standard things for stalking, can't get within so many feet of Mr. Tiramond, but gets weirder.
Can't inquire in his professional life, can't do things reporters do, ask questions related to Mr. Tiramond among his professional associates.
Engage in indirect communication.
And the complaint that Mr. Tiramon filed seems to indicate that whenever James writes a story, puts out a story, puts out a podcast, that's an indirect communication to Mr. Tiramon.
So on its face, it would seem to shut down all that sort of news gathering.
So there's a whole host of constitutional problems there.
And one of the ironies on it too is, you know, is asking questions harm?
Right, this is an idea that the progressive left has been pushing fairly steadily for about the past 10 years that speech that's too offensive, that's too punchy, that uses the wrong intolerant terms can somehow constitute harm and can be regulated or punished.
That's something we firmly reject in the American tradition.
But the theory of the core theory of Mr. Tierman's relief here is that he suffered turmoil, turmoil from the reporting and uh.
And as a result, we need to shut up Mr. O'Keefe.
There are ways you can pursue your claims in an American court's judicial system.
If you think that Mr. O'Keefe falsely reported, you can file a defamation claim and you go through a rigorous trial in which you have to be able to put on evidence and be able to meet high standards of actual malice to be able to show that.
If you think that he trespassed, if you think that he stole a book, if you think any of these things, you can file the appropriate claims and you go through the correct procedures.
But what you can't do is Package it all into a midnight stalking claim that you file in this sleepy family division court in Miami just to get a journalist to shut up.
Someone in the chat in our locals community said ex parte.
You have to flesh that out and explain.
This was done not only in James' absence without him even having been notified that the hearing was occurring.
In Quebec, we used to say in chambers, but this is ex parte.
He's not notified, he's not there.
It's some judge signing off, I presume, in her office or not in open court.
And then James wakes up with this being served on him the next day.
Yeah, a few days.
March 26th, I believe the orders entered.
And then I think the end of March, while he's doing a show, the police come and serve notice there.
And we've got one night to find local Florida counsel to be able to make just a cursory showing for this initial.
Hearing, and there wasn't much to be heard by the judge other than setting a future date and not doing much research on what the petition actually said.
Now, we credit her because between then and now, she did go in and she at least heard our arguments on the Second Amendment side of the issue.
There were no particularized findings of violence by Mr. O'Keefe.
The petition itself doesn't claim that he threatened Tiramon, that he engaged in any sort of physical violence, all the things you would normally.
See in a proper stalking injunction, they're absent.
So the judge at least recognized that and had sensitivity to that issue.
But unfortunately, on the First Amendment issue, the ability to go out and keep investigating.
The judge didn't see it our way.
So, we have an emergency appeal, an emergency stay that we will be pushing forward in the Florida State Court here.
We expect to file that on Monday.
That's largely prepared.
I got to make a few changes to it and such.
But the core of that is to say, I guess, a couple of things.
The status quo in this sort of situation is not censorship, it's not for a judge to shut people down.
That's not the status quo.
So, when we deal with injunctions, courts always ask, well, how do we keep things relatively normal?
Well, normal is preserving your God given natural liberty.
And that's the right to be able to speak and to be able to associate.
And if Mr. Tiramond hasn't met the very high bar in America that we set for shutting down speech, then that should be preserved.
And the court inversed that rule and said, no, we got to keep everybody safe.
We got to shut this down.
And so, So that's wrong.
And on top of it, it's sort of the earlier theory that I said Mr. Tieramont's free to pursue any number of claims he'd like, just as others have tried unsuccessfully against James in the past, in which I have defended and by and large won left and right across America.
Bring those claims.
We'll see you in court.
We'll have an honest fight.
We'll go through the evidence.
But don't do this midnight maneuver going into court and trying to sneak this into a stalking TRO.
No, and then people should understand when they issue the injunction, typically it's like, You're going to demolish a building, and if they demolish the building, you can't have it back after it.
So you preserve the situation as it currently stands.
Unfortunately, it sounds that they're preserving the situation as it currently stands after the issuance of the initial ex parte TRO.
Was it the same judge who overturned the Second Amendment aspect as who issued the initial TRO?
No, different judges.
And may I ask, there's no judicial sanction or judicial remedy against a judge who might arguably have not abused, I don't want to get anybody in trouble, but Acted capriciously or at least intempestively in terms of issuing this TRO on the basis of allegations that have been poorly fleshed out, if at all, or maybe were dishonest in the first place?
No, there's normally not much recourse there other than the people of the state of Florida being able to subject, I believe they have retention election for their judges to decide if that's an appropriate judge to keep in office or not.
Our focus in the case is that.
Florida does have a strong anti slap law.
These are laws that say if someone files a lawsuit that's frivolous on its face and it targets a constitutional right like the ability to speak and wants to shut it down, it's a nuisance sort of lawsuit, then you can pursue that and get the attorney's fees paid back.
So we'll be pursuing that remedy against Mr. Tiramond once we go through the appellate route here.
Because it's not illegal in America to ask questions.
And there's one of the things I did in our brief, we filed a motion first day.
I wanted to point, give the judge time to see.
Both in Florida and nationwide, when parties come before courts and they've asked for speech restraints in these kind of TROs, these ugly orders that are issued without notice and without an opportunity to be heard, speech restrictions aren't allowed.
And so I cited, I think, close to 14, 15 Florida cases showing reversals left and right against a wide range of ideological organizations who got shut down by trial court judges.
And across America, I did the same as well because this is a A very well settled point in First Amendment law.
It's not developing.
It's not a questionable issue.
We don't do this.
You can even go and you can go steal.
There's a case out of Michigan involving Ford where a journalist stole trade secrets out of the Ford building and published the trade secrets and sought, you know, Ford didn't want those out, sought a TRO and an injunction.
That was denied.
So we allow people to go out and only, you know, or think about historical cases in America.
Pentagon Papers, where we have key details about what's happening in the Vietnam War and about readiness and about the truth of that matter.
And the government, of course, sought that to be all shut down.
That's a high level interest national security, troop readiness, military preparedness.
And that didn't fly.
We don't allow a TRO there consistently, time and time and time again.
The proud tradition of the American First Amendment process is that we don't shut down speech.
You got a claim?
Bring it.
And we'll evaluate that in open court, honestly, fairly.
We don't do it this way.
And the next hearing is on May 11th.
And until then, the TRO as relates to speech is in effect.
So is that to say that nobody at OMG, which is James's new project, what was O'Keeffe Media Group, nobody can report on Matthew Tierment?
Well, this only applies to James, and it depends on how broadly or narrowly one reads the order.
We think that there's a good case to be made that says certain types of questions that, well, certainly on the face of the order, any questions to Tiramond's professional associates by James would be prohibited.
They would become criminal.
So, James has been investigating Mr. Tiramond, his role in Veritas, his role at large in different professional associations, including the Philadelphia Society, some of the investment organizations that Mr. Tiramond works with.
So, that all shuts down.
That's a blackout, judicial kill switch for journalism there.
And general reporting about Mr. Tiramond depends on how broadly and narrowly you read the order, but certainly it's subjecting James to liability every time he talks about that.
And if Mr. Tiramond were to see those and have an indirect communication by James.
So it's a cause of concern on multiple levels, and that's why we're filing the emergency appeal and emergency stay.
And we'll see what our Florida appellate court does with it.
And would the emergency appeal, emergency stay, would that be heard before the next May 11th hearing date?
Our goal is to urge the court, it's in their discretion about how quickly they want to move and what they see in the case.
So we are at their mercy.
Well, it's amazing.
I say it's amazing in an awful way.
It's just when I was rewatching some of the interaction between James and Matthew, and James says, You know, what you're saying about me, I'm going to get a restraining order against you.
And it's like you could almost feel a light bulb go off in Tear Man City.
It's like, I'm going to go do it first, and I'm going to go exploit the ex parte process of some family division claiming, you know, not domestic violence, but I guess that's what it goes down under.
Yeah.
That's wild.
James Needs Support Now00:06:29
Where are you?
Where's your practice based out of?
Washington, D.C.
And my law partner and I, Steve Klein, and I do, it's just a small boutique firm.
We specialize in First Amendment litigation and media defense.
James is one of our proud professional troublemakers, but we work with investigative journalists, documentarians, other folks who want to work creatively and do this sort of work because I think they're the front line at uncovering abuse and being able to bring real transparency to the American people.
And usually the law is used as a sword.
To go against them and to be able to punish them and shut them down when they're effective.
Where can people find you and what can they do to support the work that you're doing?
You've had an amazing track record with James.
I mean, I've been following a lot of his lawsuits, mostly those initiated against him since the bird dog case in 2018.
I always forget the date, but yeah, yeah.
Jamaica State Partners was bird dogging.
Yeah, you do amazing work.
Where can people find you and what can they do to support you?
Well, our website's barklein.com.
You know, you can support James and the mission of OMG.
I think James really needs support right now.
He's the guy at the head of the spear.
He's out there with incredible bravery doing terrific work.
There it is, the website.
And I think James needs that support to go forward, whether it's moral support or donations, this is in the Journalism Foundation.
I think those are all appropriate ways to do so.
I'm just tickled in my life that I don't chase ambulances, I get to work on Key constitutional issues that are cutting edge with groups and people that I really like, like James.
Hopefully, you've seen James's work recently in Skid Row and uncovering some of the voter fraud sort of one of a kind in history of showing this up front to the American public about what really happens with voter registration in an illegal way, or his film, the Line on the Border film that was out last year.
Just wow, who else is doing it?
Something like this.
So throw your support to James, throw your support to OMG, Citizen Journalism Foundation.
And we want to win these cases and we want to build good precedent.
And that's what I'm here to do.
Amazing stuff.
I'm going to try to make it down for the May 11th hearing because it's not that far for me.
So I don't know if you're going to be there, but I'll see if I can get down and document and journalize myself.
But Benjamin, are you on any social medias?
Do you venture into the X world?
I am on Twitter, on X.
Yes, you can find me there as well.
What is your handle?
You know, I don't know my handle right now because that's how often I use it.
I post maybe once a week.
I have a small YouTube commentary channel where I do educational material and constitutional law.
But you can look up Benjamin Barr and you'll find him.
Look it to me afterwards.
I'll stick it in the pinned comment when this gets published and goes into the non live format.
Benjamin, thank you very much for the update.
It's amazing.
I keep up the good work.
It's amazing stuff.
And if anybody out there ever needs a lawyer, they know where to find you now.
Yes, sir.
I appreciate your time today.
Appreciate you covering this.
And maybe I'll see you in May 11th.
Absolutely.
All right.
Thanks.
Take care.
Now, hold on.
There we go.
All right.
That was fantastic, people.
Yeah.
No, you could tell good, charismatic, knowledgeable lawyers who can express things clearly to a judge based on how clearly they express them in interviews.
I've been told when I was practicing, you talk too fast, Dave.
Slow down.
The judges don't talk, receive that fast.
There's some part that's genetics that you can never, you can not train yourself out of, although you can try.
Benjamin knows the law and doing great work.
So, May 11th, I'm going to try to make my way down here.
Oh, NeuroDivergent says he has it pinned.
Booyah.
What we're going to do now, do I?
There was another story that I think we're going to cover.
What was the other story that we were going to cover?
Oh, yeah.
That's right.
An update on the man who threw the vinegar at Ilhan Omar.
We're going to do that on the after party part.
Time Travel says great content.
Thanks, V. Thank you.
No, this was great.
I love it.
First of all, lawyers are tremendously busy.
And the fact that, Two on relatively short notice made time in their schedules to come on.
The James O'Keeffe stuff is madness.
I'm gonna, I want to get down for that hearing on May 11th.
We'll see if it's even there.
Um, I hate lawyers.
Then this guy ruins it, ruins my thought.
There are, well, the old expression, and it's it is kind of funny that 95% of the lawyers give the other 5% a bad name.
5% of lawyers are actually decent humans, decent people, and good lawyers.
95% there might be good lawyers in there, but if you're not a decent human, then your wisdom and your intellect. Is a weapon, not a tool.
And that's it.
Let's go see what's going on in our Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com community before we take this party on over.
Oh, we're not going.
I'm in StreamYard, so I won't be able to do this anyhow.
Okay.
I won't be able to go to the premium after party and the locals after party.
I don't know how to do it when I'm not using Rumble Studio.
Bill Brown says, No.
FJ says, That's not true.
Slow talkers are annoying.
Dude, they're annoying for me.
And I'm told also that.
Telling someone you know what their sentence is going to be before they finish saying it is rude, Viva.
I'm also told it's a symptom of ADHD, Viva.
Okay, it looks like we got, let me refresh here and just see if we've got.
What do we have?
Got Chartrand, Cayman, GT.
I don't think you can wax testicles without causing severe injury.
I doubt the insurance policy for waxing salon covers men either.
Do you know what I once did?
It wasn't waxing my testicles.
I once pulled a band aid off.
You know, they say like pull it off quickly.
It peeled off the skin.
It had been on for a little while.
It peeled off all of the skin directly under the band aid in the exact shape of the band aid.
And so, yeah, I once waxed my leg just to see what it felt like.
I did it with a drone.
And it hurts.
And I can imagine it would rip your thin, fragile testicle skin in ways that you may not want it to be ripped.
Barnes just went live with Davis.
The Fake Plea Deal00:04:47
Okay, that's good.
Well, let's get the haters in the chat.
JP Spooner says, it's totally ADHD as we hear it and process it before they heard it.
Okay, well, that's good.
So we're just going to do one at one.
We'll do the after party.
I might do.
I got something special behind me.
Oh, oh, oh, wait, wait.
Oh, hold up.
Let me move to the side.
Which way is going to.
I'm going to do this with my kid.
There we go.
I got a box of baseball cards.
Got a box of baseball cards that we're going to open afterwards.
And maybe we'll do it locals exclusive as a party.
And I'll predict my picks for the UFC tomorrow night.
The guy that threw the, I want to say urine.
It wasn't you.
Let me start that again.
The guy that sprayed the vinegar on Ilhan Omar back whenever.
And everyone was running around saying Ilhan Omar paid him to do it because it was so fake.
She charged him afterwards, not knowing if it was acid or if he was armed.
And then they didn't take her out of there to change her clothes.
She ended up finishing her speech.
And I understand why a lot of people thought it was fake, and I think a lot of people are still going to think it was fake.
But I said, if it's fake, the guy's not going to get charged.
The guy got federally charged, and I'm like, okay, well, if we still think this is fake, how do we square that in terms of him being federally charged and not state charged?
Where he would then say, if it were fake, well, it was fake, and then Ilhan would get into trouble.
I said, if he were going to get charged, I would be more reluctant to buy into the it's a staged event, Ilhan Omar found a guy.
To pay him or her entourage to make her look like a hero.
He got charged.
And the breaking news of the day is he just changed his plea from not guilty to guilty, I guess, because he seems to have struck a deal, a settlement with the federal prosecutors.
And so, for those who don't remember, Ilhan Omar, vinegar attacker, changes his plea after a chaotic onstage rush.
Settlement details are unknown, and a change of plea hearing is scheduled for May 7 in federal court.
The guy, I mean, I said the guy looked drunk.
He looked like he was just at his wits' end doing something tremendously stupid.
Didn't actually want to hurt anybody, but wanted to make a point, I guess.
Other people said it was Ilhan Omar setting it up so that she could have her hero moment during her reelection campaign.
I think that was the timing.
The Minneapolis man who sprayed Rep. Ilhan Omar, Democrat, Minnesota, with vinegar during a January town hall is changing his plea to guilty on federal charges.
Anthony James Kazmirchak.
Alleged assault on Omar occurred weeks after Renee Goode was killed by an ICE agent, which heightened tensions between federal officials and Democrat state leaders.
Democrat leadership called for federal agents to leave Minnesota.
I want to go into the chat and see what people think might still be the conspiracy theory here if they believe it was a setup.
How could you square this with thinking now maybe the feds set it up?
And I don't think they, I don't believe it.
I just, if someone's going to float that theory, I'm curious to know what the thought process is going to be.
In March, Kazmircek pleaded not guilty to one count of assaulting a United States officer, but an April court filing from his attorney, John Fossum.
Said Kazimark will change his plea to guilty after they have, quote, reached a settlement with federal prosecutors.
His change of plea is scheduled for May 7.
Details of settlement are unknown.
Fox News reached out to Kazimark's lawyer for comment.
Video of the incident showed Kazimark rushing the stage.
Yadda yadda.
He sprayed her with a syringe full of apple cider vinegar.
There were so many, I say, funny memes like spraying her with holy water.
And I thought it would have been urine if someone's going to spray someone with some foul smelling stuff.
Apple cider, it seems like a waste of good vinegar, but whatever.
She's not resigning, Kazmir Zach said in the video, referring to Noam Kazmirchak.
Kazmirchak also pointed his finger to Omar, screaming, You're splitting Minnesotans apart.
Omar wasn't injured, continued with her thing, yada, yada.
I'm okay.
I'm a survivor, so this small agitator isn't going to intimidate me from doing my work.
I don't let bullies win.
Grateful to my incredible constituents who rallied behind me, she wrote on X at the time.
Since this incident, holy crap, since the incident, Kazmirchak has been held in custody?
Wow, that's a long time to hold him on something like that.
A magistrate judge ruled that.
Quote, the exceedingly serious and dangerous circumstances of the assault make it impossible to ensure that public safety is not at risk if Kazmichak is released on bail.
So, this sounds like he's going to have to do some time.
They're not going to give him time served if they wouldn't release him in the interim.
During the investigation, FBI agent interviewed an associate of Kazmichak who claimed Kazmichak once said somebody should end Omar.
Assaultive behavior and acts of intimidation directed at officers and employees of the United States will not be tolerated, said United States Attorney Daniel S. Rosen.
Persons who engage in this criminal conduct.
Can expect a swift response from law enforcement, federal prosecutors.
Six Months Behind Bars00:02:54
Okay, so I'm actually going to take a wild guess prediction right now.
This guy's going to do six months in jail.
That's what's going to be the plea deal.
Yeah, locking it in six months to a year.
If I can say it'll be less than a year, and it'll be, what did I say, a year, then he's already served January, February, March, April.
So three months.
Yeah, I'm going to say six months to a year less a day.
And I don't know how they're going to factor in time served, but he's going to have to do some more time because if they wouldn't release him on bail because of the extremely dangerous circumstances, well, yada, yada, yada, and he's pleading to a settlement, that is to get out sooner than later because they would have kept him in there indefinitely until trial.
A year.
Now, let me see what the chat thinks of that highly educated guess.
Down we go.
Meanwhile, she walks free after stealing millions of American taxpayer monies, also lied on immigration.
Can I type three?
Okay, I don't know.
Lock her up.
Type one if you don't know what the Scott.
Why do I get in trouble with these things?
All right, well, that's good.
Let me go back here and see if I didn't.
Oh, yeah, I said I was going to show built on the actual product.
Let me bring this up here because it is.
Amazing stuff.
I might go get some.
Biltong, I got an idea.
We could do a Biltong break where I open a box of baseball cards and eat Biltong at the same time.
Let's think about this.
Biltong done properly.
Check it out, people.
It's prosciutto made from beef.
It's flipping delicious.
And you can pick it up here.
They also do candies for those who have a sweet tooth.
South African who lives in Texas moved to these great United States of America.
American beef.
And it's delicious stuff.
What I am going to do, we're going to go over to locals for an after party.
And I'm going to drop over on Rumble and drop on X.
And if you want to come over, it's not behind a paywall.
So you can come do it.
And we'll have some fun in the chat over there.
And maybe, maybe unbox.
We'll see.
I'll get my kid in here and see what he wants to do.
But let me give everybody the link there.
Sunday's show is at noon on Sunday.
So don't forget, because I've got an event and I'll be posting picks from the event Sunday evening.
And there's a UFC fight tomorrow night.
You know what to do, everybody share the channel, snip clip, share away.
And that is the easiest, bestest way to support.
So, without further ado, let me just see what's going on here.
Okay.
Time served.
Done, says Greggy58.
No, it can't be time served because then you can't be time served and have a judge say we can't release this guy until trial because it's exceptional circumstances.
So, I'm going to know he's going to do more time, I think.