TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@dom_lucre - Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives
BREAKING: Fulton County has posted the mugshot of Trevian Kutti, she also a co-defendant in Trump RICO and former publicist for Kanye West. Why isn’t the media talking about how DA Fani Willis trying to keep the Black co-defendants in jail?
@simonateba - Simon Ateba
Some never-before-seen clips of New York Attorney General (@NewYorkStateAG) Letitia James (@TishJames). Forgive me, but if your sole purpose is to send a man to prison and you have said these things about him, how can this be a quest for justice? WATCH
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses their disagreement with the president, calling him illegitimate and stating that his days are numbered. They urge others to mobilize and resist him until he is defeated. The speaker also mentions giving the same level of respect to the president as they believe he gave to President Obama, which is none. They repeatedly chant that Donald Trump has to go and that he should be locked up. The speaker concludes by stating that the claim made by the president is not true.
Full Transcript
The president of the United States has complained that I'm engaging in some sort of political witch hunt, that I've got some personal vendetta against him, that I campaigned against him. That is not true. This illegitimate president who sits in the White House. That president, because he's not my president, he's an illegitimate president. His days are numbered. His days are numbered. We've got to get ready to mobilize, and we've got to get ready to agitate and irritate until victory is won, but more importantly, until Trump is defeated. We will all rise up and resist this man. And ultimately, we'll bring him down. This illegitimate president, I'm going to give you the same level of respect that you gave to President Obama, and that is absolutely no respect at all. Donald Trump has got to go. Hey, hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Ho, ho. How the Trump got to go. Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Donald Trump has to go. Hey, hey. Ho, ho. There were days where Donald Trump was a man. Lock him up. What? Lock him up. What? Lock him up. What? Lock him up. That is not true.
@Martyupnorth_2 - Martyupnorth®- Unacceptable Fact Checker 🍎
Last night Tamara Lich reflected on the last few years of her life, sharing some thoughts on the Freedom Convoy, her trial and the injustices she and others have endured at the hand of the Trudeau Liberals. "The truth doesn't need a binder" Keith Wilson, K.C.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses gratitude for the support received and acknowledges the lawyers and organizations helping with their legal defense. They provide an update on their trial, stating that the crown has closed their case and the evidence presented has been helpful to their defense. The speaker reflects on the unity and hope they witnessed during their cross-country journey and emphasizes the importance of standing up for civil liberties. They express confidence in their case and encourage support for others facing similar challenges. The speaker concludes by highlighting the irony of being involved in a trial despite never having faced any previous legal issues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wow. Thank you, you guys. Thank you so much. Wow. You can't make me cry because I still have to sing some songs.
I don't know if you know how hard that is to sing and cry at the same time. Thank you. Thank you so much. Wow. It's so great to be here, you guys.
We have been so excited about coming to do this for a long time. Daniel asked me months months months ago if we could come and play here. And I always said, absolutely. Because one of the things that brings us together is music. You know?
And it just seems so fitting to me that after the unity that we saw happen in Ottawa, you. You know that we can come together and do something like this and celebrate together. And it's another just part of me that I get to share with you. So, Thank you. Definitely have to say a a big thank you to Daniel and and, Jacomo and New World Sun who we get to play with tonight.
Wow. And, obviously, thank you for all you guys for coming. I know Rebel News is here. Well, I'm not sure where they're at, but they're here somewhere. And, they've been very amazing to me.
They've helped me write a book. As you know, the Democracy Fund is helping us With our, with my legal fees for my criminal my criminal trial, which goes into day 28 on Monday. 28 days to try and prove mischief. I think this has gotta be the the longest mischief trial of all time. I'm pretty sure it is, anyway.
And, of course, before I I go any further, there is a couple people in this in the audience that I definitely need to acknowledge tonight that that were with us on the ground in Ottawa. And, of course, you know, we didn't really know what to expect when we got there. I I knew or felt, you know, as these donations were coming in, and it was like $1,000,000. And the next Say they're like, bump it. It's another $1,000,000.
Wow. Canadians donated over $10,000,000 twice in less than 8 weeks, By the way Yeah. Fringe minority. Right? But it was just so I mean, the support that we had and then even in that.
And I remember saying to this gentleman, you know, This was never about the money. This was the statement behind the money, and that's what scared them so bad. But back to my point, I think I think the the number that I was told was there's approximately a 138,000 lawyers in Ottawa Or, sorry, in in all of Canada. And we had a couple of the best ones that showed up in Ottawa with us, Thank you. Stood beside us on the ground.
And the reason I bring up the millions is because, you know, I'm thinking this is great, but every time I have to bump it up, I'd get a little bit sicker because I thought When you start talking about 1,000,000 of dollars, lawyers are coming. In this case, it was good. If I could just have Keith Wilson stand up, please. There he is. Yes.
He, he's been a great friend. He's been an amazing lawyer. He has done this from the good of his heart. He sacrificed just as much of the rest of, just as much as the rest of us, and I'm just thank you, Keith, and, of course, his lovely wife, Donna. And then speaking of our civil suit, it just so happened that our lawyer from the JCCF who's representing us, because we're getting sued for $406,000,000.
James Madison is also here from the JCCF. They're heroes. I I remember always hearing these nasty jokes about lawyers, but I don't get it. I mean, I think they've been fantastic. Oh, wow.
I don't even know where to start. I'll try and give you guys I I thought what I'd do tonight is, before we play you some tunes and we start rocking, I'd give you a little bit of an update on what's with our trial. I'm not too sure if you've been following along. So far, I'm very happy to report that the crown has Now closed their case against us, and, all the evidence that they've produced so far has been extremely helpful to us. So that's good.
Yes. I've seen a lot of videos of me saying, please be peaceful. Respect the police. We're gonna follow the rule of law. Nobody's coming here to be violent, and I I guess that's all they got.
I don't know. I don't know. If that's mischief, then I guess I'm a mischief maker. Proudly. So as I said, we're going into day 28.
And, look, I I can honestly tell you that I never saw this coming. You know? We started this thing seems like a lifetime ago. You know? And, Thank you.
In the back of my head, you know, after I'd reached out to Chris Barber, I thought, you know, maybe I'd you. Start a GoFundMe, and we might raise about $20,000 and, you know, get a couple of trucks to drive to Ottawa. And they could stand there with their signs and then get back in their trucks and and and and go away or go back home. And, clearly, that is not what happened. And, thank god for that.
You know? We were We were totally overwhelmed because if you think back to the 2 years before then, it had been so dark, Thank you. Just dark and desperate times. I mean, I I don't know about you guys, but when I think about something that happened a few years ago, I it's like I forgot those 2 years even And it's like they've been completely erased. And the one the one word that we heard the most as we came across the country was hope.
That's the number 1 word. The second one we heard was pride because Canadians It's gonna make me choke up. Thank you. Thank you. But you gave it to us, and therein lies the irony because we were all in the same boat.
We were all feeling that way. And then we started getting these messages, and people started telling us their stories. And I don't know, but I I would love to find out how many tears were shed on the number one highway by the most biggest, burliest truck driving men you've ever seen. But I it was a lot. It was quite an emotional time.
So we've they wrapped up their case. We're gonna go back in on Monday. I don't know what's gonna happen, but I'm I'm positive. I feel positive. I don't feel like we have anything to worry about because I do truly feel like we're winning.
Yes. We are. And we have, you know, the Supreme Court cases that are coming out overturning bill c 69 and, the the the straws, the the toxic plastic straws that actually aren't toxic. So there's lots of reasons to be hopeful in my opinion. And even though sometimes I know that we're being bombarded with a lot of things right now.
That's how I feel. And I remember saying to Chris as we were driving across Canada, I said, you know, They can't let us succeed here. This protest they can't let this protest be successful Because if we fall here, it's gonna everyone in the world's and and it did, actually, you know, in hindsight. I mean, I think it was the most successful, Peaceful protest of all time. Polite just like Canada.
Right? That's who we are. But I remember saying they can't let this succeed because if we succeed here, we said, well, I we don't know what we're walking into, Chris. We we could Be arrested. We make a shot.
I mean, we're from the West, and we think all those people up in Ottawa are Crazy. So we didn't know what was gonna happen. Right? And it's it's ironic because for someone, I've only been to Ontario, like, once at one other Time in my life, but I've spent more time in Ontario, I think, in the last 2 years than I have in Alberta, which is fine because I love it. I fell in love with Eastern Canada.
I can tell you that. And that was one of my most profound moments was when he we saw all the the support that we were getting from the Quebecois. Because if you know my story, you know that before all this happened, I sat on the I was on the board of for a Western Independence Federal Party. We built a party from nothing. And and so My first big epiphany was finding out I think on day 3, I was still sitting on my kitchen table organizing, And I found out that Quebec had a 1,000 trucks ready to go.
Yeah. And I was completely overwhelmed. And the first thing my first thought was was this has all been a A lie. All this division that they've been pushing was a lie. There is no East Canada versus West Canada.
There's just Canada. And then I think one of the first photos I saw was actually a a Quebec man with a Quebec flag and the Alberta gentleman with the Alberta Flags shaking hands. I mean, from for me, that was a really big deal. That was one of the most profound things I'd ever seen. The second epiphany that I had was coming through Manitoba.
And so imagine, if you will, you know, we're driving across Canada and we thought, well, we didn't know what to expect once we crossed the Saskatchewan, Manitoba border because we legitimately thought the closer we got to Ottawa, the less support we would see. But, Thank you. Boy, were we wrong. We came through Manitoba, and I have never seen crowds like that before. And I looked out my window, And I saw a first nations a couple of them ladies dancing and drumming in their full regalia.
But standing beside them were about 4 seat gentlemen, And standing beside them were Hutterite ladies with their children holding thank you signs, and beside them were nuns in full habits. Canada. It didn't matter what Color you were, it didn't matter what your income bracket was. It didn't matter what god you worshiped. It didn't matter where you lived in the country.
We dropped the labels, and for the first time in a long time, we were just Canadians, and it was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. Because that's the Canada that I grew up in. And so, I I guess I'm kind of rambling on a little bit here, but so we're going back into court. Obviously, I have to also thank the Democracy Fund as I said earlier who is funding my the criminal legal defense. Yes.
Thankfully, I'm 1 I'm very lucky. I mean, I can't imagine You know, before this trial started, I think the quote was or the estimate was gonna be $300,000. $300,000? You know? So to have organizations like the Democracy Fund there to help people like me and to stand up for people in their civil liberties, The Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms.
Yes. These guys are helping. Not just me and Chris, But there's others too. You know? Next the week after our trial, Bernd Buecke, you saw the mandate freedom, Thank you.
On the on the on the video, Bernd Buecke's trial starts on December 4th. And we got Chavez coming up. He's from Windsor, and we've got, That would be nice. I'm sure that day is coming. You know, as sad as it is, not great because this is our country, but all those things I find that they said about us up during the convoy, like how terrible we were.
And We were taking money from foreign entities, and we were being infiltrated by the Russians and all this nonsense. Right? But you know what's happening is it's all coming back to them, and that's karma. They got caught taking money from Beijing, The Trudeau Foundation. We have this big Chinese interference thing that's gonna happen.
I don't even know when. I guess I guess they'll get around to that when they get around to, you know, what mischief is very important. Mischief must happen right now, but if there's a foreign government interfering in your In your government, it can wait. It's not mischief after all. So, I mean, just thank god for for organizations like these that are helping us.
And so I strongly, strongly encourage you if you Know anyone that needs help that we don't know about because we wanna make sure that all these people get looked after. The one thing that I've always said, I'm, again, I'm so blessed, and I am so lucky that I'm being helped, but there's lots of people that aren't, that, you know, that aren't being helped by these organizations. But Chris and I always said no one gets left behind. Nobody gets left behind. So we have to make sure that we're helping all of these people.
And I have no doubt that we're gonna win. You know? I I really do. I I I I've never had any anxiety about this trial, which is kind of weird, because my joke is, like, I've never even been in Facebook jail before the car Swaying. Never.
Not even been ahead of suspension, a warning, nothing. Funny how life turns out, isn't it? Where was I? Yeah. Anyways, no one gets left behind.
We really have make sure I think we're winning, I feel like we have God and the truth on our side. I think it was actually yes. Thank you. I think it was actually Keith Wilson that said to me one day And here's an example. We're at we're at the inquiry last fall.
Brenda Lucky comes in, and she's got this massive briefcase. Thank you. Krista Freeland gets up with a big messy binder full of notes, and they're all coming up with, you know, duotang and notes. And Keith Wilson said to me, the truth doesn't need a binder. Haven't had to use 1 yet.
@Sassafrass_84 - Sassafrass84
She lays this out brilliantly. Absolutely no fraud. Judge Engeron and the prosecutor should BOTH be fired, disbarred, and charged for prosecutorial misconduct. I truly hope some people start seeing this for what it really is. Political persecution. https://t.co/2qoBwYgzZy
Video Transcript AI Summary
An accounting expert testified that there was no fraud in President Trump's financial statements. He stated that the statements were undervalued and that Trump had nothing to hide. The expert criticized the attorney general for investigating a private company and violating constitutional rights. Despite a gag order, the expert plans to testify on Monday. The speaker expressed frustration with the trial, calling it election interference and garbage claims. They believe the outcome was predetermined and that there is no case. The speaker hopes this serves as a lesson to other attorneys general and district attorneys trying to make a name for themselves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's listen to testimony from a man who has such distinct recognitions as an accounting expert that even Leticia James's team and the OAG's team used him themselves as an accounting expert. Professor Bartov was the New York attorney general's expert in the Exxon case. Let's start there. But today when he was on the other side, they spent the entire day objecting because he was giving testimony that didn't suit their claims. His testimony included that there was absolutely and I quote no fraud.
That the statement of financial condition for president Trump was understated that there was no evidence of concealment and that in fact, president Trump's statements of financial condition had something that most other statements of financial condition don't have. Eighteen pages of descriptions and details about his properties, about his trophy assets. Things that most people don't need to do and wouldn't do. The reason because he had nothing to hide and he didn't conceal anything. This is not a publicly traded company.
This is a private company, and the attorney general is now sticking her nose into private companies. This is a very scary moment for our country. We have to have boundaries. We have to have laws. They were objecting every 5 minutes and I really give credit today to the press that was in there.
I did look at some of the feed and it was accurate. There was absolutely no fraud. The statements were undervalued, and president Trump and the Trump Organization provided Deutsche Bank with thing they needed. Last week, we heard banks make clear that they thought they were a trophy client. They were the big whale that they wanted to get and they valued their relationship.
They said that holds true today. I don't know why we're here. I've said it before and I say it again. Again, this case has absolutely no merit and you don't have to believe me. A man that gives gives the Nobel, the executive committee recommendations on accounting and who should be recognized in accounting.
That man that just sat in there for the entire day made it very clear and had words with the AG and said this you should be ashamed of yourself, and I say it too. You should be ashamed of yourself. Don't forget though. He's going on on Monday with the judge's gag order still in place, so he can't speak about certain things. He has to be so careful.
That is so unconstitutional in my opinion. We have first amendment rights, we have rights as attorneys, 6th amendment rights, and those are all being violated. And he still wants to take the stand even though my advice is at this point, you should never take the stand with a gag order, but he is so firmly against what is happening in this court and so firmly for the old America that we know, not this America, that he will take that stand on Monday. The the same as we've heard. The same as we've heard from experts.
He will clarify it. He will open himself up to whatever they want because he's not afraid. People that are afraid cower. President Trump doesn't cower. We'll be back on Monday with that and tomorrow we'll hear more testimony from this incredibly intelligent man.
To the accident to this point? I think I think he made it clear. It's more frustration that we have wasted time that they are doing election interference. This is a tactic that we've seen time and time again. This is not the first or last of it, and we're gonna have to deal with it in all the other trials.
But I really hope this is a lesson to those other AGs and DAs out there trying to make a name for themself off of president Trump's back. If you're going to do it with garbage claims, it's going to come out because there are experts willing to put their heads out, willing to put their necks out, I'm willing to say that this is garbage. And we heard that today, the entire day, and we will hear that well into tomorrow. The outcome of this case was determined before we walked in court. Let's be clear.
We're not walking into this court every day expecting that this judge is going to let us off. We already see what's happened in this court. This judge made his determination on summary judgment before we even walked in before an expert took the stand. So let's not get it twisted. I'm not here fighting for that.
I'm here fighting for America with him so that we can stop this. You know, that's the truth of it and it's a very sad state of affairs. Today and many days, we've asked for a directed verdict because there is no case, this case is garbage.
reSee.it AI Summary
A large convoy is heading to Coutts, Alberta in support of 4 protesters held in remand for over 700 days. Some believe there is a 2-tier justice system in the country, where elites don't face consequences for their crimes. The protest is facing a media blackout, support @MediaBezirgan for coverage.
@BezirganMocha - Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦
BREAKING: A large convoy in support of the 4 protesters who’ve been held in remand for over 700 days is now heading down to Coutts, Alberta. “I think we got a 2-tier justice system in this country, our elites don’t seem to ever pay for any of their crimes, we just saw the Emergencies Act talked about in court that it was illegal, it was criminal that how they enacted it, and I doubt we’ll see any kind of consequences for that.” There seems to be a media blackout on this protest, please consider supporting @MediaBezirgan so that I can bring you the coverage that nobody else will.
Video Transcript AI Summary
At the Tucker Carlson event in Calgary, the speaker mentions that the turnout is expected to be bigger than last year's convoy, which had 400 vehicles. They express their lack of faith in the government and judicial system, believing that the four prisoners are being punished for protesting against mandates. They highlight a double standard in the justice system, where elites escape consequences for their crimes while average citizens face harsh treatment. The speaker appreciates the independent media coverage since they haven't seen any other media present. The video ends with a request for donations to support the media's mission.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We were just at the Tucker Carlson event in Calgary a couple days ago, and, seeing him talk about the 4 prisoners was really good. And I think that's bringing a lot of people out, raising a lot of awareness. So kind of expected to be bigger than last year. So, you know, it was big last year. I think there was 400 vehicles at the convoy.
So this one looks like it's gonna be even bigger.
Speaker 1: But last year, did you expect them to be held in remand for this long?
Speaker 0: Unfortunately, I kinda did. I mean, I I don't have a whole lot of faith in our government or our judicial system. I think we need really big changes. So I'm not shocked that they're punishing these guys, you know. They they stood up against, you you know, the mandates and everything else, and they needed an example.
You know? So I think these guys are getting punished for everybody that protested.
Speaker 1: You know, on the on the other hand, we have companies like Assasin Lavalin who commit corruption and, you know, they get they get slap on their wrist. They don't The government don't make an example out of them. What do you make of that?
Speaker 0: I think we got a 2 tiered justice, system in this country. You know, our elites don't seem to ever pay for any of their crimes. I mean, we just saw the emergency act get, you know, talked about in court that it was illegal, was criminal, how they enacted it. And I doubt we'll see any kind of, consequences for that for anybody. Yet the average person, you know, had their bank accounts frozen, had their Property seized got beat up, got pepper sprayed, you know, just for, for using their rights.
So, yeah, I I think we got 2 very different systems thing on what kind of person you are. So yeah. That's why we're here protesting today.
Speaker 1: My last question. Have you seen any media so far?
Speaker 0: No. You're the first. So, yeah, it's good to bump into you. It's good to see somebody covering this, some independent media. I don't know where everybody else is.
I guess they don't, they don't pay them to cover these kind of things.
Speaker 1: Hey, guys. I'm out here covering the Cowboys' 2nd anniversary. Please consider donating at the media visitor count.gov/donate so that the mission of bringing you
@GreyMatterConvo - Grey Matter Podcast
I spoke with Max Bernier today. Max is the only Canadian political leader seeking justice for the Coutts 4. He recently visited with them in Lethbridge and plans to meet their lawyers before calling an Alberta press conference. He wants to end this travesty of injustice in AB🤜 https://t.co/iBWBQNUtva
reSee.it AI Summary
A lawyer and former police officer are critical of the plea deal for two members of the Coutts Four. The individuals were initially deemed dangerous, but after signing confessions, they were released.
@DonaldBestCA - DonaldBest.CA * DO NOT COMPLY
"A Montreal lawyer and former Toronto police officer are expressing criticism over over the process that led to a plea deal for two members of the Coutts Four." @LeeHardingSK quotes @thevivafrei and @DonaldBestCA in his latest at @WSOnlineNews. "Only two days ago Chris Lysak and Jerry Morin were said to be terrorists and too dangerous to release on bail under any circumstances… but once they signed their confessions they were free to go," wrote Best. https://www.westernstandard.news/news/lawyer-and-ex-cop-view-coutts-plea-deal-with-skepticism/52221
Lawyer and ex-cop view Coutts plea deal with skepticism
Lawyer and ex-cop view Coutts plea deal with skepticism
westernstandard.news
@ASimplePatriot - American.357
This is not a prosecution, it’s a persecution. https://t.co/XiZkVlsq8q
Video Transcript AI Summary
They want to take my freedom, but I won't let them take yours. They aim to silence me, but I won't let them silence you. I will stand firm to protect our nation. On November 5, 2024, justice will prevail. Together, we will reclaim our country and restore its greatness. Thank you all, and God bless.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They wanna take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedoms. Very soon. They wanna silence me because I will never let them silence you. They want you silent. And I am the only one that can save this nation because you know they're not coming after me.
They're coming after you, and I just happen to be standing in their way, and I will never be moved. On November 5, 2024, justice will be done. We will take back our country, and we will make America great again. Thank you. God bless you all.
Thank you. Thank you very
@BezirganMocha - Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦
BREAKING: 3 men accused of being the organizers of the Coutts blockade have been found guilty by a jury of their peers. This means they could face up to 10 years in jail.
@CRRJA5 - 🦅 Eagle Wings 🦅
.@VivekGRamaswamy “Our justice system should be blind to politics.” https://t.co/SJH3nUFbl9
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is a disgraceful situation in a courtroom, with biased prosecutors and a judge with conflicts of interest. Every American must reject the politicization of justice and demand a fair legal system. We must unite against injustice, regardless of political beliefs, and ensure that everyone, including the President, receives equal treatment under the law. The American people hold the power to make a difference in November by standing up against this corruption.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a sham. This is not the United States of America. This is some 3rd rate Banana Republic. If this were happening in another country, we would be laughing at them as a sham democracy. I am ashamed as an American citizen to sit here in a courtroom watching the former leader of the free world, and let's be honest, likely next leader of the free world.
Sitting with the indignity in this dingy 3rd rate courtroom with 4th rate 4th rate prosecutors and a 5th rate lawyer on the stand as a witness who actually is violating attorney client privilege left and right. Nobody's even talking about that. So this is a shame. Shame on the spirit in our country's history, but we will get through it and be stronger because you know who ultimately actually cast the vote on this case? It's not just the jurors in that jury box.
It's every one of you at home. It's every American who votes this November to say no to the weaponization of justice. And if you're at home, you may say, you know what? I don't agree with everything Donald Trump's ever said. You know what?
I may not agree with some his policies even, even though they were great policies for 4 years. But you do agree whether you are Democrat or Republican or black or white or gay or straight or man or woman, that our justice system should be blinded to politics. That regardless of whether your last name is Biden or Trump, regardless of whether you've been a politician or not, you get a fair shake in our own legal system. And when you have a prosecutor who campaign on the pledge of going after Trump and then keeps his campaign pledge, when you have a judge whose kids are collecting money from democratic operatives by fundraising off the very trial that that judge is presiding over, and then telling the US president that he's subject to a gag order, that he can't talk about it. That is not justice.
That is a bastardization of what this country was founded on. And I'm here, and all of us are here as friends of Donald Trump supporting him in our personal capacity, sharing our opinions. That's why we're here today. But I hope every American at home who isn't able to be in that courtroom is able to see what's actually happening there. And when you do, we will have a landslide of historic proportion this November if every American understands the injustice that's playing out in that courtroom today.
reSee.it AI Summary
The trial for the "Coutts 4" is set to begin after 2 years in pre-trial custody. The post encourages support for on-the-ground coverage by following @MediaBezirgan and donating at mediabezirgan.com/donate.
@BezirganMocha - Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦
COUTTS 4: “The ones who initiated the mandates are the ones who should be on trial.” Today, I spoke with a convoy participant who’s been following the prosecution of the “Coutts 4” since they were remanded 28 months ago. “The punishment is in the process,” summarized the man, as the trial is finally set to begin next week on June 3rd, after more than 2 years in pre-trial custody. Follow and support @MediaBezirgan for more on-the-ground coverage of the news that matters.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes the wrong people are on trial for protesting mandates, pointing to the government and police as the real culprits. They criticize the lengthy legal process and suggest plea deals are being used to discourage further resistance. The speaker alleges that the government and police are using aggression to suppress opposition to mandates and the COVID vaccine rollout in Canada.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Definitely the wrong people on trial. The people on trial are the ones who initiate the mandates in the first place who should be on trial because the, the, the fact that there's even a publication ban, to me, is the tool they are using, to suppress the information from actual the real information of getting out there. You know, everybody has, gets upset and angry at some stage, and and that you pick out 4 individuals as well as the 3 now who, ostensibly, regardless, the organizers of the the organizers of the the police, and by the, you know, security organizations who are there to protect the peace of it and the public. So, yes, the wrong people are sitting behind jail today. Having been in, Ottawa in February 2020 2 for the convoy, I had the suspicion already then around February 6th or 9th that, Coutts was the focus.
If you were gonna find a a reason to introduce the Emergencies Act, Coutts was the re was the place where they would find a past potential insurrection as that was called at the time. What's happened up until now, I think, is, the punishment is in the process. This is being dragged out consistently and continuously. I think if we just look at the trials of Chris Barber and Tamara Leach in Ottawa, originally scheduled for a few weeks in October last year, is now still ongoing. You know, here's a case where people who don't seem to have any, recognition of what at that time costs money.
As long as our taxpayers keep paying for a judicial system that has no importance to get this over with. I mean, if if they had obvious, evidence, this could have been dealt with in a matter of weeks. The question is the 2 of the 4 Coots that warrants were issued for their arrest have already been released on minor, plea deals where all the initial charges were dropped. And here we've had rumors, that's all I can say, of plea deals that have been offered again to these 2 2 that are still in a jail. This is a delay tactic to to as a as a sign of of a warning to anybody else who wants to stand up against the mandates.
In fact, the initial trigger, as I call it, was issued by the medical health organizations and our provincial and federal governments in the mandates that were issued. That is what this is all about. It it and, of course, you it angered enough people, to want to take up, even arms to eventually join a, you know, a a revolt, a protest. You wanna call it anything you like. But the point is that, the response was a violent response by the police, not only into us in Ottawa, but also here.
We've heard evidence, that police arrived in with with multiple weapons, to arrest individuals who peacefully surrendered and and were had now been in remand jail for for over 2 years. The aggression is coming from our government and our police to suppress any, resistance to the original mandates and the COVID, vaccine fiasco that was put on Canada.
@BezirganMocha - Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦
Make this coverage possible by supporting my efforts at mediabezirgan.com/donate
reSee.it AI Summary
A man who grew up under apartheid in South Africa protests the "Coutts 4" trial, claiming corruption in the system. Two men are set to face trial by jury for conspiracy to murder RCMP officers during an anti-COVID protest in Coutts, Alberta. Advocates believe the government exaggerated the conspiracy charge and consider the remaining men as political prisoners. Follow and support @MediaBezirgan for more information.
@BezirganMocha - Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦
BREAKING: Man Who Grew Up Under Apartheid in South Africa Storms Out of the "Coutts 4" Trial in Protest: "The System is Corrupt" Trial by jury is set to begin tomorrow for the two men who have been held in remand for over 840 days on charges of conspiracy to murder RCMP officers during the anti-COVID mandates protest in Coutts, Alberta. Following the release of the other two accused a few months ago in a plea deal that dropped the conspiracy charge, advocates believe that the government has exaggerated the conspiracy charge and recognize the remaining men as political prisoners. For more on this story, be sure to follow and support @MediaBezirgan.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I stormed out of the courtroom due to perceived corruption in the system. The Charter of Rights in Canada seems ineffective, as rights can be disregarded for government interests. Drawing parallels to apartheid in South Africa, I see a divided society in Canada. The government may target more dissenters after this case. Law enforcement in Canada has used violent tactics, including seizing bank accounts. The trial for the Coutts 4 is starting soon, with updates to come. Support independent journalism at mediabezigian.com/donate.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What made you storm out of the courtroom?
Speaker 1: I stormed out because my belief is that the system is corrupt. I mean, I can't, announce here now what actually the decisions were made, but the decisions were made to to, as far as I can see, protect the interests of the crown entirely. You know, one would think that, 2 boys now still over 800 days, 840 odd days, in a remand center. They have not yet been tried. They could be out gainfully employed doing whatever they've done, have lost their employment, have lost their business, their livelihoods, and yet are imprisoned.
So we we're arguing about things, and I felt that it was just this is a method of prolonging that imprisonment. And if the decision that I heard in the court was not going, to be a logical or reasonable one, I thought, really, I can't sit around and watch this. I've been here for a year now. June last year, I started attending. And, you know, I've seen this go back and forwards.
It's very disappointing to see see the direction it's going in at the moment.
Speaker 0: Do you think the charter means anything at all at this point?
Speaker 1: No. I think, the charter is meant to pass if Canadians to think that they have some rights, but these are really just privileges in, this current situation here in Canada. I think it's a very impressive document because it tends to indicate to people that, you know, you can have protection. But if that protection gives the government or the crown, the evidence you know, the sort of evidence they need, they'll trample that over and and do away with your rights. Your rights for, you know, protecting your own interests, protecting your privacy, protecting your possessions can easily be taken away and then an excuse, given afterwards, which is sad, unfortunately, because, I think I well, I came from South Africa.
My accent might tell people that. You know? I grew up in an era of apartheid where the country was divided, and I just don't can't can't understand how our current, Canadian government doesn't understand the division that has was created, how we don't see the similarities, Africa, in South Africa, tyranny here to to separate people. In in Africa and South Africa, it was a, white versus non white. Here, it's still the, you know, it's the anti vaxxers, the anti mandates, the, you know, whatever, co COVID deniers.
Things are coming out as well in the media today. It's a thing where suddenly, doctor Fauci has he's not really a doctor. He's was he had no idea that, with 6 foot distances, masks, or anything would help, but he he quoted that as being de facto science. And here we have a situation where, the people who stood up against the government have been divided as as much as the white or black populations in in South Africa. And we went through a terrific horrific time, which led to the assassination ultimately of Henrik Vert, a leader of the of the country.
You know, the situation we're facing here, and I I sitting in court, I can't quote some of the cases, the case law that has been quoted, but none of those cases had any any relevance, to something like a a pandemic, something like mandates where seniors were being locked in their seniors' homes and died, where people were forced, you know, into situations where or coerced. You know, you keep your job if you take a vaccination. Things like that. None of those case laws quoted at any circumstance. And that's why you say, you know, what happened in South Africa?
Yes. I grew up as a kid in apartheid. So things were very, very different, and we are facing this divided society here. And the yet the case laws that are being quoted do not reflect on a divided society. They reflect on particular incidents that have happened.
And I still go back to this. Nobody was hurt. Nothing was broken other than what the police damage to excavators at the protest, which were provocation. Based on all the provocation, there was no reaction. So the, what what really becomes a a government theory of what could have potentially happened, if the, average, member of the public in Canada has these type of theories, what could happen?
That's regarded as conspiracy. So there's no balance of of, probability of which is real and which is not real.
Speaker 0: My last question, if I may. Do you think after this case is over, the crown could come after more people?
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure they will. Yes. Because, the current government is splintered at the moment. The current the the economy of this country is in a terrible condition. A lot of people are standing up and resisting the current existing government that's in power due to a coalition in Canada.
And I think the only way that they could keep that is by trying to route out anybody who has alternative views on how things and, certainly, in terms of law enforcement, we have not yet seen violence in Canada, you know, other than that's perpetrated by the intimidation of the law enforcement. So, you
Speaker 0: were in Ottawa?
Speaker 1: I was in Ottawa and were chased out of downtown by violent police with batons, with tear gas, with with, horses stomping on people. This is all evidence that exists.
Speaker 0: Bank accounts being seized.
Speaker 1: Correct. There was no no regard to real law, true law enforcement. You know, serve and protect is what I grew up to respect police for, yet they've been turned against us. And I say us, all Canadians, for more aspects.
Speaker 0: The trial by jury for the Coutts 4 trial is set to begin tomorrow. I will continue to bring you updates periodically throughout the trial. It is expected to last one and a half months. If you like to support my independent journalism and help me cover my expenses, please consider supporting it by donating atmediabezirgian.com/donate. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
The posts discuss various criticisms of the Supreme Court of Canada and Chief Justice Wagner. The author, @buckmcyoung, highlights concerns about elitism, political bias, lack of accountability, and the need for institutional reform. They also mention specific cases, such as the Mosley case and the Coutts 4, and express a desire for a leader to take responsibility. The author emphasizes the importance of civil discourse and fixing the country.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
1/ THREAD This article criticizing the @SCC_eng was so impactful that I just had to sit down @buckmcyoung and go over it, paragraph by paragraph. https://t.co/X625rv18hh
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
2/ @buckmcyoung's aim in writing this article was to draw attention to the elitism that permeates the judiciary. https://t.co/17GgghWQWX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Canada's institutions, including the justice system, are seen as deeply flawed. The prime minister's remarks about protesters in Ottawa were criticized for being divisive and elitist, reflecting a wider issue of elitism in Canadian politics. The lack of criticism towards institutions like the judiciary is concerning.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You said, Canada's institutions are deeply broken. Our justice system is no exception. Little further on, you go on to say that our prime minister disparaged thousands of Canadians who gathered to end the COVID tyranny. I I'm assuming you're referring to Ottawa. Can you tell us why you said that?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. I mean, I think a lot of Canadians feel that his comments about, you know, the French minority, the racists, they're bigoted, they're misogynistic, But those comments were directed at them. And, you know, and and, you know, the the prime minister may have tried to distance himself from those comments, but, you know, they're very much in keeping with the, you you know, prosecution of the unvaccinated and COVID dissidents throughout the COVID era. So, you know, I think it is emblematic of the elitism that is rife in in Canadian politics and institutions. And, you know, so I'm taking aim here at probably one institution and leader of an institution that, experiences the least amount of criticism, you know, because of all this deference that we give to the judiciary and so forth.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
3/ One common theme throughout our conversation is that @buckmcyoung believes that those in authority won't apologize because it may land them in trouble. https://t.co/QR4W5iLbEz
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the lack of accountability and apology from Canadian elites for decisions made during COVID. They believe elites fear being held responsible if they admit mistakes. People are angry at institutions for failing them and violating their rights. The speaker calls for elites to take responsibility and address the issues through self-reflection and accountability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Their uniform reaction has been to blame the public without one iota of self reflection or discerning contemplation as to what has led to such public consternation. Give me what what are you referring to here?
Speaker 1: I think it's odd that, we can't get a simple apology out of anybody, for any of the decisions that were made during COVID. We can't even get an acknowledgment that, you know, these mistakes were made and and and define them. So, you know, I think fundamentally there is, an expectation among the elites in Canada that if they acknowledge what has transpired, you know, rightly so, they will be held accountable for it. And it seems to be, you know, just kicking the can down as, as far down the road as they can, to avoid, you know, that accountability, while they're still in office or in positions of authority. Right?
So, you know, I think that accounting has to happen. Right? People are are very upset that their institutions failed them, that their rights were, violated and that nobody stood up for them. Nobody in a position of authority or power, leading an institution stood up for them. So, you you know, obviously people, get a little uncivil when, they don't feel like their issues are attended to or the voice is being heard.
And, you know, and that's why, you know, I'm advocating that we have that public accounting. I I I put the onus on the elites. This is a problem they created. It's up to them to solve it, and it was only gonna happen through that, self flagellation.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
4/ Our Chief Justice, like all the elites in Canada, is carrying a bias, and that is is undermining the credibility of the @SCC_eng https://t.co/9offpZKtvz
Video Transcript AI Summary
I believe the chief justice has shown bias in his views on COVID and the convoy, making him unfit for his role. I have personally experienced institutional bias in the legal profession and have evolved to be more of a populist, valuing confrontation in the political process.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What did you mean by, the institution that's principally responsible for discernment and the fact that Wagner's kind of gone off the rails? Well, I mean, this is what we expect of of our courts and our justices is that, you know, they can see things from both sides and find the nuance in arguments. Except that I I think it's pretty clear that our chief justice here has taken a very polarized view, of the issues of COVID and then, the convoy and so forth. And so, you know, that's that to me means, he's unfit, for the role. You know, the lack of, discretion in his public comments, after the convoy, I think is, indicative that, you know, this individual is, carrying a bias.
And, you know, it's the institutional bias that, all of the elites in Canada have for the the pledge. Right? You know, so I I think it's, you know, I I again, I'm taking aim at this institution because, you know, it's one that I understand, to a certain degree. You know, I went to law school. You know, I've been to, you know, meetings with crown attorneys.
I participated in preparing, charter cases. You know, I was a legal observer during the g 20 protests, and I watched, Canadians' rights, to protest be violently repressed. You know, and then during that time sort of, you know, 2008, era where there was a lot of public discontent about, the banking crisis. You know, I think I experienced the institutional bias amongst the legal profession towards, politics of respectability. And I think to a certain extent, I even, you know, bought into that notion.
It's sort of only, having seen where, you know, where that leads us to this indifference to the plight of, average Canadians that I've reversed my view on that and, you know, can appreciate that, confrontation is, is part of the political process. And, you know, so I I, I guess I've evolved on the issue a bit, and I find myself, much more of a populist these days.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
5/ While Chief Justice Wagner is calling for more collegiality, a more aggressive interpretation would be that he is calling for more cowardice in confronting the courts. @buckmcyoung
Video Transcript AI Summary
Civility in the legal profession has led to corruption. Lawyers need to maintain respect for each other but also hold each other accountable. The lack of criticism and courage has allowed the system to be distorted. Only 13 lawyers in Canada have spoken out against unethical behavior. The legal profession needs to reflect on their societal obligations, not just their professional duties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Civility, I contend contend, is what led to the corruption of this most important democratic institution. Can you can you break that down for us, please?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, you can take it a number of ways. You know, I think within the legal profession, you know, all this collegiality that chief justice Wodgner is always going on about, collegiality and civility. You know, it's really baked into the professional ethos. And, you know, and I can understand that.
You you know, at the end of the day, lawyers are sales advocates for their clients, and, they are to take, you know, an adversarial approach. And that's how the administration of justice is is done. You know, and and so if you're gonna be arguing with your colleagues all the time, you have to maintain a certain, respect, mutual respect for each other, so that you can, you know, make your arguments, but, you can avoid, getting personal about things. And I think that's that that really captures the legal professions ethos. But, you know, we also rely on, lawyers to, be the stewards of this institution.
And, you know, I think all that collegiality and deference and, you know, said more, said more aggressively the, the cowardice that, many people who work in the profession have to criticize judges, criticize politicians, or criticize their colleagues is what has facilitated, you know, the distortion of, of our system, the capture of our system. Right? And so, you know, there are I mean, as in this article, there are 13, you know, courageous lawyers in Canada who are willing to, write a letter, to, the, you know, the administrative body that is supposed to, adjudicate the behavior of judges, which I'll note is led by chief justice Wagner. So we'll see how effective that institution is at, at, correcting his behavior that is, I think plainly offside with the ethics, that they're supposed to be held to. But, you know, I would be surprised there aren't more than 13.
And I'm also surprised that there weren't a bunch of, lawyers in their robes marching with folks during the convoy. You know, I think the legal profession really needs to take a long look in the mirror, about, you know, their obligations to society as a whole and, you know, not just their professional ethos to, any one particular client.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
6/ That David Lametti advised the government to illegally invoke the Emergencies Act and violently repressed Canadian's right to protest and could still show his face in a law firm proves that there is no accountability within the legal profession. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/ANEGA7oGHx
Video Transcript AI Summary
Former Attorney General David Lammetti resigned after the Mosley decision. Despite this, his reputation remains intact among his peers. The fact that he can now work at a law firm shows a lack of accountability in the legal profession.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This one line, it almost made me chuckle. You said the now disgraced former attorney general David Lammetti. Why do you say he's disgraced?
Speaker 1: Well, because he resigned immediately after, Mosley decision came out. Now, I mean, he's not disgraced in the legal profession. He's now a partner at, I forget which firm. I'm not gonna name it. It's just in case I get it wrong.
You know? So, unfortunately, amongst, his peers, his reputation is intact. And I think that actually is exactly what I'm talking about. That somebody, who could advise the government to, illegally invoke the emergencies act and violently repress Canadians' right to protest, seize their bank accounts and so forth, that that individual could even show his face, in in a law firm, I think, is the evidence that, you know, there is not accountability within the profession.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
7/ This is strictly my interpretation, but Chief Justice Wagner is using the concept of 'civility' as a shield against criticism of his own political bias. https://t.co/R7d2TYLcKB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Wagner emphasizes civility for judges to avoid criticizing colleagues, but some see it as a way to hide bias. The focus should be on addressing issues or ideas, not attacking individuals. This concept of civility may be used as a shield to avoid accountability in the legal profession.
Translation: Wagner stresses the importance of civility for judges to refrain from criticizing their colleagues, but some view it as a way to conceal bias. It is essential to address issues or ideas instead of attacking individuals. This notion of civility could be used as a shield to evade accountability in the legal field.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wagner states in his address that civility means that judges should avoid criticizing colleagues where possible. I think he's not saying this, but, basically, he's using civility as a shield to hide his bias behind?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the the context there is that, you know, he's talking about, you know, as a supreme court justice versus, you know, reviewing the work of a lower court justice, you know, or or, you know, critiquing a lawyer's argument that you you don't attack the person. You you address the issue or the idea. Right? But I think that is has extrapolated into, as you say, a shield to accountability within the profession.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
8/ When the Chief Justice is explicitly attacking a head of state, we have a serious problem. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/URFAOSSPmO
Video Transcript AI Summary
He criticizes Brexit, social media freedom, and Trump, but not COVID-19. His criticism of Trump shows his political bias, which worries other lawyers in the convoy cases.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He cites things like Brexit, the freedom on social media, Trump politics. He he sort of criticizes some politicians, but what you're saying is he he did not bring this same level of criticism when it came to COVID 19. Well,
Speaker 1: yeah. I mean, he's explicitly, in 2019, explicitly attacking the head of state Donald Trump, and, and and attacking the people who voted him in. You know, but then just very shortly thereafter, it, you know, refuses. Now I'm not suggesting he should make those comments, and and it's his place to address, you know, our leaders and their behavior. Only in the context in which there's a case before him should we hear his opinions, And and they should be rooted in the law and not, his personal politics.
And so, you know, I only mean to point it out not to say, well, look. There's hypocrisy here, and he should have been criticizing Trudeau and and all the liberal cabinet ministers who continue to lie and gaslight us, like, every day. It's shocking. However, you know, the fact that he did it, you know, felt comfortable to do so in attacking Trump, I think is just a, the veil drops and you understand his political biases. And this is what I think concerns me and these other lawyers about, the convoy cases.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
9/ I'm leading the witness here, but it's my contention that Chief Justice Wagner is more political than his office should tolerate. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/WcOrczqZzM
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the impartiality of a Canadian judge, suggesting they may be more politically biased than previous chief justices. They express doubt about the judge's ability to remain apolitical in their role.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He has the temerity to to say, in Canada, judges are still seen as being above the political fray. Now I don't understand the the the legal aspect as well as you do, but I'm looking at him, and he doesn't seem apolitical. He doesn't even seem like he's capable of of his position. Is he more partisan than previous, chief justices? I would think so.
Definitely. I I mean, this is very, becoming behavior for a chief justice.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
10/ To further drive home the point that Chief Justice Wagner is behaving in a partisan manner, he was promoting this narrative that the convoy was funded by the US. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/9PWbzsgzYW
Video Transcript AI Summary
He mentioned that some Canadians in the convoy were good-hearted, but claimed others were influenced by external forces, hinting at US involvement. He also said the convoy was turning into chaos and Canadians were being held hostage, which contradicted the peaceful activities seen in livestreams. Despite a court injunction to stop honking, it acknowledged the protest as lawful and safe. His statements seemed to disregard lower court rulings.
Translation: The speaker discussed contrasting views on the Canadian convoy, suggesting external influence and chaos while ignoring evidence of peaceful protests and court rulings.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And could you go on to tell us, what did he say in, oh, lord, that, shocked so many people about the convoy? I have to refresh myself here. I mean, he made another a number of comments. He let you know, he, on one hand, said that there were, you know, good good hearted or or or good natured Canadians involved, but then he also alleged that, many of the protesters were, being directed by some sort of external influence. I think this was feeding into the narrative that the the convoy was some US political influence op operation.
You know, obviously, this that's a a very political take. There's no evidence to suggest that. I don't know how he could, make an allegation like that, you know, in in April other than maybe reading it off of, you know, CTV News or or wherever he got that from. You know? But he also, remarks that the convoy was, devolving into anarchy and, and that, Canadians were being taken hostage.
I mean, this is very inflammatory language. We're talking about, you know, a convoy that was cleaning up the streets and, you know, feeding the homeless and, you know, bouncy castles and children. Like, the the the I watched livestream what was going on, and, and it just doesn't comport at all with, you know, what he was saying. I mean, even to the point where, you know, the horn honking was, very problematic for the residents living in the downtown. And, and there you know, it went to court and, the Ontario Superior Court, had the injunction where on one hand, they said, hey.
The has gotta stop, you know, which I think for the most part was complied with. But at the same time, that decision said that this was lawful peaceful protest and safe protests. So, you know, I just think, he is essentially ignoring the rulings of lower courts, in his public statements, which, contradict that.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
11/ We have a serious problem where the government launders fabrications through NGOs, to the @rcmpgrcpolice, and then back to the government as coroborating evidence. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/d7c3v07z6k
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions if the media and courts are shaping false narratives to serve political agendas. They raise concerns about bias in the justice system and the manipulation of information by government-funded groups. The involvement of the chief justice in political narratives is seen as problematic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm gonna I'm gonna cite something Jan Jekalik said was, when the convoy made its way to Ottawa, the politicians, they they they basically said these guys are insurrectionists. They're here to throw us throw overthrow us. They then turn to the media to parrot that narrative back to them to convince them of what they wanted to be convinced in the first place. Is the same thing happening with our courts? I I hope that makes sense.
Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think I'd have to I I don't think I'm positioned to really opine on it yet. Maybe it's something I could get back to you on. You know, I'm taking one one justice's comment, public comments, and, you know, and and making a very specific claim here that this individual, has a bias and that bias is on, you know, full effect. I do think that why would why would our chief justice in April 2022, be making these statements? To launder a false narrative.
Right? In the same way that, you know, Canadian hate alliance, you know, government paid, you know, quote, unquote NGOs are fabricating evidence, that is being laundered, you know, to the RCMP and then back from the RCMP. And and then the government is saying, well, this came from the RCMP. Right? There's all kinds of narrative laundering going on.
And, I do think it's very problematic that our chief justice would be getting involved in shaping political narratives.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
12/ @buckmcyoung suggests that we may have collapsed the three branches of government into one. @PardyBruce https://t.co/sghSMwsoOq
Video Transcript AI Summary
The concern raised is about the merging of government branches in Canada. The speaker points out that the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches are not functioning separately as intended. The executive branch, under a strong majority government, is also leading the legislative branch. During COVID, the judiciary deferred to the executive, creating a situation where all branches are essentially one. This collapse of the three branches into one entity is seen as a fundamental issue in Canadian governance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That's actually what I was asking. Like, I I understand if you don't wanna answer it definitively. But to what extent I'm reading this, the the this line right here. The the beginning of anarchy, to take other citizens hostage, to take the law into their own hands, not to respect the mechanism, that I find worrying. That sounds like something, you know, Trudeau handed a a a letter over to Wagner, and he read it.
Like, how are are these two branches of government merging?
Speaker 1: Well, that's a a good point you're making, actually. I think it's something that, Bruce Pardee also makes is that, you know, Canada you know, when we think of the subdivision of powers, we think of, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the executive branch. Now in Canada, we don't really conform to that, ideal very well because the leader of the executive branch is also, you know, under a majority government or a coalition that is as strong as this one, the leader of the legislative as well. And, you know, so we're already deviating from that ideal division of powers. You know, but I think it's fair to say that, you know, the judiciary, at least during the COVID era, also deferred their responsibility to the executive.
So we have a legislative that's not legislating, passing laws and leaving it up to the regulations to fill in the details. And you've got a judiciary that is taking judicial notice that the that the decisions that the executive branch is making are valid without even, you know, requiring any evidence for it. So, yes, we have collapsed, the 3 branches of government into 1. And that is a a a root problem for this dysfunction in Canadian governance.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
13/ It's unlikely that we will see any positive self policing from the Council of Judges @buckmcyoung https://t.co/I1DLQm9cRN
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes that the legal profession needs reform, similar to the expansion of the Supreme Court in the United States under FDR. They suggest that the current conservative government may face opposition from liberal-appointed judges and senators if they try to address issues from the previous Trudeau era. Strong measures may be necessary to make changes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We we've kind of talked about you've talked about these 13 judges, 13 lawyers. What do you think is gonna happen? Because it seems like, the council of judges is not doing anything about it. Yeah. I doubt anything's gonna happen, unfortunately.
You know, I think it's good that, lawyers are are planting a flag in the ground. That's the most courageous thing I've seen out of the legal profession in some time. You know, but I don't expect that it it will be addressed this way. I mean, to be honest, I think we are looking at, some drastic, need to reform the courts. And, you know, this happened in the United States, the expansion of the Supreme Court, you know, to because the Supreme Court in the United States, under FDR was opposing, his legislative mandate, you know, he stacked the court.
He added a lot more, justices to, to be able to to move that through. And, you know, I think it remains to be seen, but, you know, the conservatives are likely gonna have a strong mandate. We don't know yet if they're gonna go about trying to fix, a lot of the problems that were created during the Trudeau era. But if they do, you know, expect that, the judiciary and the senate will be brakes on that. And, you know, I think, 7 of the 9, justices on the supreme court are liberal appointees, Trudeau appointees.
And, you know, they may seek to, protect his, legacy. And, and, you know, Pierre is gonna have to consider, some strong measures if, if he's, if that's the case and he is intent on on fixing some things.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
14/ It's important to point out that Chief Justice Wagner is not a @JustinTrudeau appointee, but a @stephenharper appointee https://t.co/pMdgIIakVL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 mentions that Justice Wagner was appointed by Harper. Speaker 1 notes that most justices seem liberal, but can't speak for all. Some align with liberal agendas, but not all are political. Speaker 1 emphasizes not to be seen as biased. Speaker 0 acknowledges.
Translation: Speaker 0 mentions that Justice Wagner was appointed by Harper. Speaker 1 notes that most justices seem liberal, but can't speak for all. Some align with liberal agendas, but not all are political. Speaker 1 emphasizes not to be seen as biased. Speaker 0 acknowledges.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I'd just like to point out, I believe you told me that justice Wagner is actually a Harper appointee?
Speaker 1: Yes. So, the 8th of the 9 justices seem to, have a liberal bent. Well, I shouldn't say that. Yeah. I shouldn't say that because I can't speak to the 7 that were appointed.
I know a couple of them that I would say, have revealed themselves, you know, to be ideologically aligned with, the liberal, legislative agenda. But, I shouldn't say just because all of the justices were appointed by Trudeau that they are, political, in nature. That that wouldn't be appropriate for me to say. Make sure that one gets in because I don't wanna I don't wanna be seen as Clarkson.
Speaker 0: Will do.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
15/ If the @SCC_eng was worried less about @JustinTrudeau's legacy, and more about it's reputation, it would have immediately fast tracked the Mosley case. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/pJrv9p1z3A
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions if recent events have damaged the credibility of institutions, particularly the courts. They believe the delay in addressing legal issues is a tactic to benefit certain political parties. They express disappointment in the Supreme Court's handling of cases and suggest that clarity and quick rulings are needed to regain public trust. The speaker implies that important decisions may be postponed until after the current political leader has left office.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't
Speaker 1: know if this constitutes a constitutional crisis, but has Wagner really eroded the credibility of of, like, his institution? I know I'm I'm beating a dead horse here, but all all across the board, all the institutions are failing. And we all kind of hinted that the the the courts were failing us during COVID, but this is like the nail in the coffin, isn't it?
Speaker 0: Well, this is indicative of what may be to come. I think when we see the, COVID era cases move their way through, you know, I would have liked to have seen the Supreme Court take up the Moseley appeal immediately. That is their prerogative. The fact that they are gonna let that go through court of appeals, before, ultimately seizing the matter, I think is just buying breathing room for the Liberals to, say, well, you know, even though mostly is the law of the land and that was unlawful behavior, the liberals can say, well, no, it's waiting appeal and and, you know, it's yet to be decided, which is factually incorrect. It is decided.
That's the law of the land. You know, I think in a, a supreme court that was intent on engendering support from the public would immediately take up that issue and provide a quick ruling and some clarity on the issue. But, alas, we're not gonna see it until after Trudeau is well gone.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
16/ There is no way that the @JustinTrudeau administration read the Mosley decision before they decided to appeal it. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/DucjnuSUVj
Video Transcript AI Summary
The government appealed a ruling without reading it first, claiming it was wrong. This move was seen as political maneuvering. The speaker believes a previous Supreme Court would have addressed the issue immediately instead of allowing the government to create ambiguity by appealing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Like, is it proper for a government to appeal a ruling without actually having time to read it? That's a good point. Yeah. I'm not sure exact I try to look up exactly when the decision came out. It was probably around 10 in the morning.
And by 1 o'clock, you know, Freeland was doing her press conference, saying that she consulted with the prime minister and the cabinet, legal experts, and and the Department of Justice. And, you know, and they had all reviewed it and, they had concluded that, this 190 page decision, was, wrong and that they would were going to appeal it. The truth is that there's no way they read that decision, before they decided to appeal it. It's pure political, maneuvering that, that the federal government appealed it. And as I say, I think a a, a pre prior version of the Supreme Court would have, taken up their prerogative and immediately addressed the issue, rather than letting this government, you know, sort of continue on in, in the ambiguity that they created by appealing it.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
17/ Canada owes a debt of gratitude to Justice Mosely for delivering such a bullet proof ruling. @buckmcyoung @GreyMatterConvo https://t.co/94B1ZjAJtw
Video Transcript AI Summary
I spoke with a constitutional attorney about the Moseley decision, which he praised for being well-written and difficult to overturn. Despite some opposition, I believe the decision will stand as good law, especially given the flaws in the national security threat definition. The attorney's recommendation to remove that part of the definition suggests even he recognizes the illegality of its use.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was talking to Leighton Gray's Alberta constitutional attorney, right after the Moseley decision, and he said that he read the thing, and it's really well written. And and he goes, Moseley wrote it specifically in a way that it probably couldn't be overturned on appeal. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I thought it was written really well, as well. I think, you know, folks like that who are practicing professionals, their opinion matters a whole lot more than mine. You know? And I did take some flack for, you know, suggesting that supreme court take this issue up because people were pushing back and saying, no.
No. No. Mostly the law of the land. You know, we've got all these cases that are working their way through the courts. We don't we don't want it overturned.
You know, and I was of the mind. Look. You know, it it's this is gonna be this is good law, and so it's going to stand up, you know, unless we have some crazy travesty of justice. You you know, but I think it's it's very clear. And if you look at the, forgive me the Public Order Emergencies Commission rule decision.
You know, he says he recommend one of the recommendations is that the national threat to national security part of the definition is removed. Well, I think he's even acknowledging, even though he, you know, is a political appointee and he was there to, you know, prop up the liberals and and cover over for them, even he acknowledges that, the the test the standard was not matched for the indication. And that recommendation is is, sort of a clear acknowledgment that even he knows, that, that it was illegally invoked.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
18/ As the saying goes, Justice must not only be served, it must appear to be served. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/HG1CQ0FrbP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The judiciary's impartiality is crucial for public trust in justice. Perception may outweigh reality; if people doubt institutions, even if they function well, they lose legitimacy and can't fulfill their roles.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The impartiality of the judiciary is foundational to the public's confidence in the administration of justice. How much do you think I mean, beyond just the sound administration of justice, how much is it important to have the per the perception of that?
Speaker 1: I'd almost argue that the perception is more important than the fact. I mean, at the end of the day, if people don't think that their institutions work, whether or not they do, then those institutions have lost their legitimacy and they can't fulfill their mandates.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
19/ If doctors can't debate science, if lawyers can't debate law, if cops can't investigate deaths, then what are these institutions doing? @buckmcyoung https://t.co/zyWD1GjalW
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses examples of travesties that have eroded public trust, such as the case of detective Helen Bruce investigating COVID-related child deaths and facing disciplinary action. They also mention Dr. Kovind Kaur, a physician facing repercussions for speaking out on Twitter. These instances highlight a pattern of corruption and suppression within various regulatory bodies, undermining their intended purposes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is under acute scrutiny as a result of travesties in the last few years that have shattered the public's trust. We're gonna jump into the Coutts 4. But other than the Coutts 4, can you give me examples of travesties? And and try to give it from the perspective of the audience is the left, Right? So it's not our echo chamber.
Speaker 1: Look, I would bring up Helen Bruce, who is the, detective who, I think was dismissed for, you know, dishonorable conduct because she was investigating, deaths in children, and, you know, with the implication that they could be associated with, the COVID transactions. And she was disciplined and, I think her court case or review is is currently underway. And, you know, and it's it's, it's an essentially, it looks like a cover up. They don't really wanna let the public in. They don't wanna talk about the issues.
So that you know, there there would be an example, I think. You know, I think, doctor Kovind Kaur, again, this is a a physician who was very vocal and outspoken on Twitter. Elon Musk is actually supporting her, litigation right now because, the Ontario Medical Association really came after her. I can't remember exactly all the details, but, you know, I think they they took away your license threatened to take away your license or it's in jeopardy at this moment for simply pointing out things that we all understand to be facts now that you couldn't say back in, you know, 2021. You know, and so what you know, whether it's whatever the institution is, you know, and these are all sort of adjacent, like even if they're not the courts themselves, these are all semi judicial.
All these regulatory bodies and panels and tribunals, all sorta have a judicial flavor to them. And they're all experiencing the same kind of the same kind of corruption for the status quo. Right? This deference to government and the administrative state and, a persecution of dissidents that would seek to challenge it. You know?
And so if if we can't have doctors debate science and we can't have, you know, lawyers debate law, you know, or cops to, you know, investigate, you know, deaths, Like, what are these institutions doing? They have abandoned their foundational purpose.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
20/ The Coutts 4 got framed by the federal government such that it could invoke the emergencies act. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/ECtRzffLoD
Video Transcript AI Summary
The four individuals known as the Cootes Four were unjustly targeted in a political prosecution, falsely accused of involvement in an armed insurrection at the Coutts border blockade. They have been held in pretrial detention for over 800 days without visitation access or being convicted of any crime. The media initially spread false narratives about the case, but a pretrial publication ban now prevents the accused from telling their side of the story. The trial is beginning today, and it is expected that the truth will come to light, revealing the injustice they have faced at the hands of a government that disregards justice and rights.
Translation: The Cootes Four were unfairly prosecuted for a political agenda, falsely accused of inciting violence at the Coutts border blockade. They have been in pretrial detention for over 800 days without being convicted of any crime. The media initially spread false narratives, but a publication ban now prevents the accused from sharing their side of the story. The trial is starting today, and it is believed that the truth will reveal the injustice they have endured due to a government that does not respect justice or rights.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For people that have no idea who the coupes for are, can you tell us what exactly is the what's the injustice there?
Speaker 1: Well, there's things that we don't know yet, but we're gonna find out very soon that, maybe I'll leave to another conversation because, I'll probably get ahead of myself. But I think what we can clearly say is an injustice is that these 4 individuals were, the subject of a political prosecution, that the government needed a pretext to invoke the Emergencies Act. You know, they laundered false intelligence, Canadian anti hate to RCMP, to government and claim you know, claiming that this was RCMP investigations. You know, this whole narrative around an insurrection and people violent, and so forth, you know, created this, narrative that these individuals were involved in, you know, an attempt to murder an RCMP officer. Warrants were executed at a bunch of locations, not at the Cootes border, but, you know, elsewhere in Alberta.
And, you know, a bunch of guns and ammo were, brought to one location and staged for a photo op, to give, you know, give the public the impression that an armed insurrection was happening at the Coutts border blockade. That is not I'm comfortable enough saying it, and I'll leave these words, if I turn out to be wrong. That's absolutely not what happened there. And, and this very, odious narrative was used to, keep these 4 men in pretrial detention, which is not, you know, don't have all of the, I'll call it, comforts of, prison, but a remand center, which is supposed to be a temporary holding zone where, you you know, the drunks dry out before they go get their court date. They've been they these there's 2 men left who've been there for 843 days, behind bars, without visitation access, away from their families, and they've been convicted of no crime.
Right? Meanwhile, violent repeat offenders are routinely given bail and and go on to, to reoffend and including murder. So, you know, the public safety here was the argument for why these men should be, you know, kept in custody. You know, but, the the the other implication of that is that, you know, they also haven't been able to tell their story. Right?
There was a, a supreme court case that came out, and this was supposed to protect the rights of the accused from, you know, biasing a jury. But there's supposed to be a there is a pretrial publication ban, that is in place that prevents people from talking about what went on. And that that wasn't the case at the very beginning. And so the media was running with all of these narratives about insurrection and guns and ammo and pipe bombs and all that stuff. And then this decision from the supreme court gets handed down.
And and now these men can't tell their story. Right? They are you know, no no no journalist is allowed to report the lawfare that's going on in the courtroom. You know? And so we're gonna I think today is the first day of their trial.
We're gonna get the full accounting and the story soon. And I think what we're gonna come to appreciate is that, you know, these men got railroaded so that the Liberal government could invent a pretext to invoke the Emergencies Act, which was unlawful. And, and so they've lost almost 2 years of their lives to a government, that, doesn't respect justice nor rights.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
21/ The Coutts 4 did not meet the threshold to be denied bail. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/OrQoZtLBG5
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are cases where bail can be denied, like for repeat violent offenders. But in this situation, with charges dropped or individuals choosing to go to court, keeping them in custody for years without conviction is seen as punishment. The process itself changes people, sending a message that challenging the government may lead to retribution. Many others facing similar charges have experienced persecution for resisting COVID regulations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Can I ask you some basic questions?
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: Is there ever a case to deny someone bail?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I think so. Sure. Certainly, I can conceive of, many circumstances where that would be the case. I think if you've got repeat violent offenders who are a threat to the community, those people should be denied bail.
This is not that context. Right? These individuals, you know, 2 of them have already had the attempted murder charge dropped. They pled out, to lesser charges. And, and 2 of them have decided that they are gonna have their day in court.
You know, and so yeah. I think there are circumstances where it may be appropriate, but I would say that it's it's probably rare. Right? You know, we have a presumption of, you know, innocent till proven guilty. And, if you're gonna keep people in, you know, inadequate conditions for 2 years going on 3 years, you know, without convicting them, well, the process is the punishment.
These men will be let out. They'll they'll maybe have lost their houses, paying for lawyers, overturning, you know, unlawful warrants and so forth. You know, they'll be forever changed. And, you know, and I think that is the whole point. It's, it a
Speaker 0: Buck, we we lost you there. You were saying that these guys were changed forever.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the process is the punishment. I think this was a signal to folks that, you know, if you challenge the government, they will use whatever means that are available, lawful or not, you know, to, inflict retribution on you. Now I could be wrong. I might be eating these words, the publication ban is up today, and, and we're gonna get that story.
But, I think there's no shortage of other people who, you know, were subject to mischief charges and, you know, the, you know, being terminated from employment and being denied employment insurance and every other, you know, form of persecution that was done to those that, you know, resisted the the COVID regime. You know, it's par for the course.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
22/ A publication ban is meant to protect the defendant, not the government. @buckmcyoung
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is merit to a pretrial publication ban to protect the rights of the accused, not the government. It prevents potential jurors from being biased before the trial. However, in this case, the ban has perpetuated injustice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Buck, my next question again, these are very basic questions. Is there ever a justification for a a publication ban or a gag order?
Speaker 1: Well, yes. I think there is merit to that supreme court decision about pretrial publication ban because it is intended to protect the rights of the accused. What you don't want is, you know, getting to a jury selection stage and every potential juror has already been, you know, convinced that you're guilty. You know? But the the the point of that pretrial publication then is to protect the rights of the accused, not the government.
Right? And, anyways, I I don't know all the details and I understand that maybe, you know, the lawyers advising these men, you know, may have given different advice, and I I don't know all the context. But I think in this circumstance, that pretrial publication ban has, perpetuated this injustice.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
23/ The government is hoping that the last 4 years gets swept under the carpet and that no real institutional reform is brought about. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/U4m7KgcV67
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 believes the justice system is being compromised for political gain. Speaker 0 thinks the situation reveals widespread corruption and distrust in institutions. Speaker 1 wonders why charges aren't dropped, but Speaker 0 has no answer. They agree on the need for change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm go
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna say is it's like a loaded statement. It's it's almost like it's not even a question for you. But, like, they are dragging the integrity of the justice system through the mud to get a temporary win, I guess, you know, to get the Emergency Measures Act across the line. And now, they just can't let it go? They they're in too deep?
What's going on?
Speaker 0: Well, look. I I think they're hoping that all of this blows over and no real institutional reform as a consequence of COVID happens. I think it's bigger than just the Emergencies Act. You know, I think what what has happened is that people have woken up to the corruption that exists in all of our institutions. There's, you know, a a great deal of resentment, for authority.
And, you know, and if it finds its expression, that'll be a force to be reckoned with.
Speaker 1: I I thought you you put that beautifully, Buck, and I agree. What's to stop them from just dropping the charges at this point?
Speaker 0: That's a good question. I don't know. I I don't know, actually. I don't have a good answer for my payment. It's beyond my pay grade.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's that's too bad you're the expert. So moving on.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
24/ @buckmcyoung's hope is to see just one leader in government step forward and take responsibility for their actions. https://t.co/SWWRPYQP7D
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes Chief Justice Wagner for bias and calls for accountability. They mention a complaint filed by 13 lawyers and hope for a public apology to restore trust in the justice system. The speaker emphasizes the importance of leaders admitting mistakes to improve civil discourse. They express doubt that Chief Justice Wagner will take this opportunity for leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What are your so going back to what we were talking about, the the appealing of the Moseley decision, can you speak to the bias that you see in the chief justice? Like, I I I call it, like, looking out of one eye. Like, he sees hyper laser focuses on things that he doesn't like and then gives the government a free pass. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I'm only basing on this on this, you know, these public statements he made back in April 2022. You know, maybe in the, you know, in the fullness of time, he's helped come to regret some of those statements. I think if the, the the complaint that's been filed by these 13 lawyers results in him giving a mea culpa and saying, you know what? I was wrong.
That wasn't appropriate behavior. I'd love to see a leader of an institution take that kind of approach, right, and admit their own wrongdoing. I think that is exactly what I'm advocating for in this article is that the leaders, contend with the mistakes that they have made or their institutions have made. I see that it's the only way that we get back to, civil discourse. Because until you stop gaslighting people and telling them that, you know, vaccines are safe and effective and, you know, we had to lock you down for your safety, you know, they're just not gonna buy anything you say and and until their that trust is restored.
So, this is a big opportunity for, chief justice Wagner to show leadership and, and reestablish public confidence in in the administration of justice.
Speaker 0: Well, let's hope he's watching this.
Speaker 1: I doubt it.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
25/ Chief Justice Wagner is calling for civility in the face of f**k Trudeau flags, but the reason people are flying those flags is b/c being civil got them de-platformed or silenced or censored. @buckmcyoung https://t.co/GSYI2Bd4xR
Video Transcript AI Summary
The lack of civility in Canada is due to certain viewpoints being silenced, leading to emotional outbursts. When people are deplatformed for expressing themselves civilly, they resort to uncivil behavior. Without all perspectives being heard, there is no genuine discourse, just an echo chamber. It is essential to allow all arguments to be presented for true civility to exist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Based on his Toronto Star article and, your article, he uses the word civility a lot, and I think civil means something different to him than than it does to me. But what you're saying here is that the lack of civility on display in Canada is because all points of view are not being heard. What do you mean?
Speaker 1: Well, I think, the reason people are flying, you know, fuck Trudeau flags, and, you know, are quite happy to, you know, express themselves in unmitigated ways is because them expressing themselves in civil ways got them kicked off in Twitter, you know, disinvited from Christmas and Easter and, you know, resulted in the loss of relationships. Well, that what is that? You know, somebody's trying to express themselves and you deplatform them, there that that's gonna invoke an emotional response and that emotional response is gonna come out as, you know, discourse with a lack of civility. So, you know, I think that's my point is like when when, you know, the courts will take judicial notice that, you know, non pharmaceutical interventions like, you know, limit restrictions on travel within our own country or, you know, the social distancing laws that, resulted in certain businesses being closed. You know, when when those cases can't be brought forward because judges will just defer to the wisdom of the administrative state, Well, then you can't have there is no civil discourse because one side of the conversation is not at the table.
Right? And so, you know, this is what I'm I'm trying to get at is, you know, he's saying we need civility so that everybody's arguments can can be heard. And I'm saying, you you're not having the argument. You just have an echo chamber of, you know, a bunch of people who are reinforcing their own narrative. You're not letting the counternarrative, come to the table.
@PeymanAskari451 - Peyman Askari
26/ @buckmcyoung is a shining example to Canada. You don't need a 1M Twitter following. Just take what you do best and do it in service of fixing your country. If we all do that, then we're going to get through this. God bless this great nation 🇨🇦
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
This is what they do to anyone who speaks out. Free Tommy https://t.co/bprq4JowJM
Video Transcript AI Summary
Warren is arrested for an outstanding immigration warrant. He asks why he's arrested but is told to sit down. He requests a lawyer and bail assistance. The police mention the APU precinct for help.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Warren? What what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what you want? We got an outstanding immigration warrant. We'll talk about it in the vehicle. Okay?
How's your luck, Kay? You got 190. What about my stuff? What about my stuff? I missed your stuff.
Absolutely insane. Absolutely insane. Get me underwear. Can you not tell me why I'm under arrest for? You're under arrest for having an outstanding warrant.
I'm happy to provide you with all of your more. Yeah. For outstanding immigration order. You should jump in there, please. Tommy.
Yeah. Love you, buddy. Can I put you in the top? Yep. Yeah.
You cut your feet Thank you. So, Oi. Calgary's fine. Justin Trudeau. Okay.
What is the charge? Yeah. But I'm trying to put it in front of you. I'm not confident. Tommy, do they tell you what Yeah.
You gotta sit down. I've got an outstanding word. K. Thank you. I can't sit I can't sit down with my hand.
Come on. Calgary's finest. Step back, please. Calgary's finest. Thou shall not speak against.
Where where can I go to to help him, get a lawyer and get bail? He'll have access to lawyer. Which police which police do APU. Could you go and down saying the APU? Which precinct?
APU down Precinct. Where where can
@julie_kelly2 - Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
My interview on War Room this evening Don't forget the human wreckage behind the DOJ's wrongful prosecution of 1512 defendants. https://t.co/tyJ13ieFhK
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the impact of recent court rulings on January 6 defendants. They mention the misuse of a specific statute by the DOJ, resulting in unjust imprisonment. They predict that the DOJ may still pursue charges despite the court's ruling. Recommendations include investigating collaboration between the DOJ and courts and potentially impeaching judges involved. For more information, visit Julie Kelly's substack and social media. The conversation touches on the need for accountability and justice in the legal system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Your thoughts on a huge day and and and Mike Davis is absolutely correct. If it was not for you, your intrepid reporting over years years years every day, we have not reached today on on Fisherman. So, you're a patriot and a hero to so many people, not just the families that have been destroyed and the individuals have been destroyed, but for standing up for this constitutional republic of what we have to get back if it's it's people like you that are helping us do it. Your your thoughts today.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, thank you both so much. You're gonna give me a big head now. Mike, you've just been so gracious with your comments about this for the last few months, so I appreciate it. And, of course, Steve covering my work because if you hadn't brought this to the War Room Posse in your audience, no 1 would know that it was happening. And Mike Davis just relentless in his work as well, supporting mine and supporting each other on this.
So thank you both so much for that. Yeah. I mean, you know, just a little reflection. I think we talked about this. My first piece on how the DOJ was abusing the statute was March of 2021, And I was seeing how the DOJ was using it.
And at the time, and I think this is important to emphasize, the DOJ was seeking pretrial detention for j6ers based on this count alone. I know, Steve, we talked about this this morning. Think of the case of Timothy Hale, Judge Trevor McFadden denying his release on 1512 c 2, Jacob Chansley, Judge Royce Lambert denying his release on this count alone, Other members, nonviolent members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys before they were charged with seditious conspiracy. This was their most serious count. They languished in that DC Gulag, some of them for 2 years before they went on trial.
Based on this count, it will be impossible to calculate the human wreckage of what this DOJ has done by intentionally abusing the vague language in this 15/12 statute C2 subsection to destroy these people's lives. And furthermore, it's important to note how this count has been used as an anvil over the heads of j6ers forcing them to plead to other lower offenses, so they could keep up their headcount here in the j6 prosecution. If you don't plead to parading or these other misdemeanors or attack assaulting police officers, we're going to add this felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. So my phone has been blowing up. Some people, you know, very happy and relieved and think that they are going to get some relief at the court.
Maybe they will, but others really heartbroken. I just got a text from a woman, who was convicted of this. I believe she pleaded guilty, and she was a nurse, and she's lost her license simply because of this count. So I really wanna take this time and I appreciate the accolades for myself, but the how these defendants and their families have been ruined. And now we know wrongfully so by this DOJ, there has to be consequences for the DOJ, Matthew Graves, Lisa Monaco, Merrick Garland, the line prosecutors who brought it, and the 18 federal judges in Washington who put their stamp of approval on this vindictive, and wrongful prosecution.
Speaker 0: Wait. Where does this go from here? When you say people haven't been when you say people have not been, have not people have not been released already, I thought, with these charges left. You had said a month ago that Graves and these guys are so vindictive, they're gonna think up other charges to do with him. So what is what is the reality with the prisoners that were under this, in this alone or just had some other misdemeanor?
Are they being released right now?
Speaker 1: Well, you have to file a motion with your judge, asking for release from prison. Some judges have already released a few j sixers. So it's a little bit complicated, but let's say you were convicted or you took a plea deal for obstruction and the 4 common misdemeanors. Well, the obstruction charge really drives your sentence, right? So, let's say you were you're sentenced to 30, 41, 50 months in prison on the obstruction, but you also had prison time assigned for the misdemeanors.
So these defendants have been going to the court already saying, okay. If you drop if Fisher overturns the obstruction count, which they have, based on the misinterpretation of the statute, okay. Well, I was convicted of these other misdemeanors, so now I should be out of prison because I've already served 12, 13, 14 months. So judges have released some of them. But then other judges have come back and said, well, okay.
But if you ask for resentencing and the obstruction count is then dismissed by DOJ or I drop it or whatever happens, and you still have convictions on 4 misdemeanors. Now hear me out here. 2 of the common misdemeanors punishable by up to 12 months in prison. The other 2 up to 6 months. What the judges have said now that usually runs concurrently.
Right? So they're saying 12 months max for all of them, you're gonna serve 12 months. Some judges have said, you come back and ask for resentencing, the obstruction count goes away. You're already in jail. We're going to now stack that sentencing, Meaning, you're going to it's going to be consecutive, not concurrent.
So they will still try to keep these people in prison for 3 years on misdemeanors, parading in the Capitol, being on restricted grounds because Mike Pence was there as a Secret Service protectee. Mean, there are judges who will triple, quadruple down on this instead of saying, okay, look, We did this. We tried. We thought we were doing not the right thing. They knew that they were working hand to glove with the DOJ to turn these people into lifelong felons.
So now you're gonna still keep them in prison, restacking their sentences when that's nothing that the district court ever does. The chief former chief judge, Farrell Howell, admitted that. She said, we don't really do this stacking sentences, but we might do it in this case. So they will never admit error. They will never seek some sort of, like, you know, where they will tell these j6ers, you know, we were wrong.
This was an error by the court. No. Some of them are gonna do whatever they can. We even see signals from the DOJ because this ruling today said that the to find someone guilty of this 1512c2 has to involve evidence impairment, destroying a record, mutilating a document, or shredding a document, which was the origin where this originated in Enron. The DOJ has signaled, and Jack Smith, that they will say the elect oral college certificates that these j sixers never touched.
They never saw. They didn't try to steal them out of the hands of people who were carrying them into the joint session of Congress that day. Did those electoral college certificates represent a record or document in an official proceeding and still try to make this count stick. Jack Smith has said the same in the j6 case against Donald Trump 1512c2, half of the indictment, 2 of the 4 accounts in that indictment related to 1512c2, either the electoral college certificate or as he mentions in his indictment, the fake electoral certificates that happen every 4 years, somehow that represents tampering with evidence. So this is how unbowed for the most part we know DOJ will be.
The question is, will the judges continue to go along with this charade, this life destroying charade, simply to protect their own reputations, their own turf, and refuse to, recompense for for what they've done in aid of the destruction of these people's lives.
Speaker 0: What, what does this mean for president Trump? Because aren't the other 2 charges he's got, like, some sort of conspiracy to, this 2 weird conspiracy charges of Jack Smith? I mean, isn't isn't Chutkin isn't it over for her? This is never gonna take place in, in DC. Limited immunity or not, this thing is over?
Speaker 1: They're not gonna view it that way, Steve. They're just not. So even if Jack Smith drops the 2 1512 c 2, which I I'm not sure that he will. I'm not confident that he will because he will try to
Speaker 0: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. The the the the courts just overruled it. Where on what grounds would we be able to do it?
Did say that there actually was a document?
Speaker 1: Correct. That either the electoral college certificates or the fake electoral certificates that Jack Smith mentions in the Trump indictment specifically that that was an attempt to tamper, interfere, or somehow impair the proceeding the evidence in the proceeding.
Speaker 0: So After getting after getting slapped after getting slapped like this with even, judge Brown Jackson, wrote a concurrent opinion, She was part of the 6 to 3 on the good guy side. You think they'll still try to play? I guess, we'll have to watch MSNBC tonight and already Melbourne because I'm sure they already Weisman's already, you know, thinking this through Any about what they're gonna do. But you honestly you honestly think that they're gonna still stick with this charge?
Speaker 1: I I do. I think there's probably a really good chance that they will. And I think Ketanji Brown Jackson, even though she did concur, at the end of her concurrence, she mentions these electoral college certificates as potentially records that could meet this element in the 1512c1 c 2 statute. So in a way, she kinda set up Jack Smith and maybe even DOJ going to these judges saying, well, here, she suggests that these certificates could represent some sort of record or document. So there's still a lot that could happen here.
But when you're talking about your regular day 6 defendant, Joseph Fisher, in this matter who entered the capital, stayed there for 4 minutes after the joint session had long, recessed, how are they gonna prove that he tampered with or impaired electoral college certificate or any kind of document? So but going back to special counsel Jackson, after seeing him look, the guy was overturned 80 in the McDonald conviction. He was completely overturned there. He doesn't care for he is just an apparatchik, a Democratic party apparatchik. He knows there's no consequences for him.
There's no consequences really in court. I mean, that's why they're going after judge Cannon. She's the only 1 holding him and his team remotely accountable for that documents case. But he knows at the end of the day, if he gets came convictions, he doesn't get convictions. These cases go to trial.
They don't go to trial. He's slapped down by the Supreme Court here or in the immunity case. He doesn't care because he's gonna go on and be a big hero to the left and the media and the Democratic Party for at least trying to take out Donald Trump.
Speaker 0: What what about, what should be done now? House judiciary immediately, and then when president Trump wins and takes over the DOJ, what what's your 2 recommendations to get justice here?
Speaker 1: Investigation into collaboration, I think, between the DOJ and these courts. Beryl Howell, by the way, is already in a little bit of trouble in the documents case. Judge Cannon looking into some of her rulings, including piercing attorney client privilege between Trump and Evan Corcoran in the documents case. So there has to be some sort of, investigation. Should some of them should they be brought up on impeachment charges?
Absolutely. You should start with Beryl Howell, the former chief judge, not just for this decision, but others putting her imprimatur as the chief judge on using this 1512c2 charge against January 6. Other judges who have done it, including those, especially those, Steve, who kept Americans in pretrial detention in the DC Gulag on this count alone. And that will be Trump judges, it will be Clinton judges, Obama judges, Ahmed Mehta who applied a terror enhancement for the obstruction conviction, a terror enhancement to sentencing. Those judges at least a handful should be investigated and brought up on impeachment charges.
That should send a little tiny message to that courthouse in the shadow of the U. S. Capitol by the way. Send a little bit of a message that some sort of oversight is going to be reclaimed by the legislative branch of government.
Speaker 0: Julie Kelly, where do people go and get all of your materialness, the substack, your website, your investigative site, and also your social media?
Speaker 1: So, I have a piece up on this issue today, and my substack declassified with Julie Kelly. I'm on Twitter, xjulie_kelly2. I'll be posting more information tonight about this ruling and other text that I'm getting from j sixers. And then real clear investigations, I have judge Florence Pan, who was the appellate Biden appointed appellate court judge who upheld as the appellate court judge on that panel, upheld both 15 12, appeals in Fisher and then another 1, Thomas Robertson. She is married to Max Steyer, the Democratic Party activist, Kavanaugh accuser, who is still working hand in glove with the Biden White House right now to thwart the 2025 plan, related to, civil servants.
So she also is a villain, and she should be called out as well in addition to the other lower court judges.
Speaker 0: Oh, we will. We'll make we'll make them all famous. Julie Kelly, thank you very much. Thank you for taking time away on a early on a Friday evening in June.
reSee.it AI Summary
Tonight, I feel a sense of relief knowing our community stands on the right side of history. The Coutts men were not found guilty of conspiracy to murder police, despite being held in remand for over two years on that serious charge. Their innocence has been recognized.
@BezirganMocha - Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦
Tonight this community can sleep comfortably for having been on the right side of history. None of the Coutts men have been found guilty of conspiracy to murder police. Bails were denied because the men were believed to be a danger to law enforcement given the conspiracy to murder police charge. They were innocent of a serious charge that got them locked up in remand for 2+ years.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Canada's justice system is being compromised by rogue prosecutors targeting individuals whose views differ from the state. Four Canadian men have been unjustly held for nearly nine years, and while two were acquitted recently, the situation raises alarm across the political spectrum. The Coutts4 case demands a thorough inquiry by Alberta's Justice Minister to restore trust in our institutions. It's crucial to confront the misuse of our justice system by corrupt prosecutors to protect the foundations of Canadian democracy.
@marco_huigenbos - Marco Van Huigenbos
Canada's justice system has been hijacked. Rogue prosecutors are using the powers afforded them to persecute and prosecute Canadians whose views no longer align with the state! These prosecutors remanded 4 Canadian sons 3,246 days and counting, which is almost 9 years combined. Last night, the remaining 2 men were aquited of the allegations prosecutors brought against them. Canadians from all political persuasions should be extremely concerned with the lawfare that is setting precedence in the courts across this country. The Coutts4 proceedings require a full inquiry by Alberta Justice Minister @mickeyamery. Trust has been lost. Only a full public accounting will provide the opportunity for Albertans and Canadians to regain some trust in the institution that was once the cornerstone of canadian democracy. The weaponization of our Justice system by corrupt prosecutors needs to be addressed!!
@israelUSAforeve - Israel & USA forever
In case you missed it Watch: This is Nancy Pelosi’s daughter caught explaining how the democrats are using lawfare to persecute, not prosecute, their political enemies Release the J6 prisoners now! Thoughts? https://t.co/tWPPGlZpr3
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the potential impact of dragging out trials after Democrats lose power. They mention the attention trials receive initially, but predict waning interest over time. The conversation touches on trial locations, sentencing discrepancies, and the use of certain cases to strengthen charges. Overall, they suggest that prolonging trials may lead to increased scrutiny and potentially harsher sentences.
Translation: The speakers talk about the consequences of prolonging trials after Democrats lose power, noting initial interest followed by declining attention. They discuss trial locations, sentencing differences, and using specific cases to bolster charges. They imply that extending trials could result in heightened scrutiny and harsher penalties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, I think the one thing if you drag it out, after the democrats lose the house Yeah. And then they get rid of the committee Right. People may lose interest. Yeah. The first trials are gonna get a lot of attention.
Yes. It's like anniversaries. At the first one is a big deal. They did a really
Speaker 1: big deal. Then you're saying Alright. Right.
Speaker 0: No one's gonna care after the Democrats out
Speaker 1: of power. Right.
Speaker 0: And then take Biden out of office, then who cares? If you drag it out longer, I wouldn't go first for a trial because DC is
Speaker 1: a lot of people who work for the government. Right. And it's a lot
Speaker 0: of people who work for the government.
Speaker 1: Right. And it's
Speaker 0: a lot of I don't think I'm sympathetic.
Speaker 1: That's our the jury that's the that's
Speaker 0: the The jury issue is because we we don't
Speaker 1: need this trial to
Speaker 0: be held there.
Speaker 1: Obama City bomber. They agreed to move to Colorado. So that's a stick to it. Even the Boston bomber case, which is now on appeal, the Boston the city of Boston or the federal judge, they were like, what
Speaker 0: do you mean we can't be fair?
Speaker 1: Motion is signed by the judge. Yes. Yes. But then but but there might be more favorable up the line. You know, we go to the I'm not gonna be the decision of appeal to the Supreme Court.
They might say, wait a second. You're do you have politicians every night comparing it to Pearl Harbor, 911 That was just
Speaker 0: deep. Deep. These are under siege.
Speaker 1: Had the natural budget for 7 months. If you live there, you're like, I don't yeah. I do.
Speaker 0: So some days In
Speaker 1: the case of
Speaker 0: I tell him he got great legal sometimes I say, 8 months was a
Speaker 1: was great. It wasn't.
Speaker 0: Considering that the shaman who did not I mean, what did the shaman do? He stood there. What he told you? He stood there. The shaman got how many months?
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: 31.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So they're
Speaker 0: paid. So I bought when I sold out, and I think that the government is gonna go for that they're going to look to get bigger. Like, people are criticizing some of the people that get home conduct. A lot of people getting probation and stuff. So I think they're looking to make people like, I think if Paul went now, he'd get a bigger a longer sentence.
Speaker 1: What what would he do? Okay. What did he do? He went He just walked him with
Speaker 0: the trunk flag in the sand.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's it. That's it.
Speaker 0: That's it. And he got so I don't know if anyone was was good or bad.
Speaker 1: Well, for the charge itself, I'm looking from a charging point. I'm gonna give you a 15, 12.
Speaker 0: Steve, you didn't walk in.
Speaker 1: You didn't walk in. You didn't walk
Speaker 0: in to the
Speaker 1: for that reason. I'm not there to overturn anything. I I I think they might have used him to to shore up their 15 12 charge too because if they have people fleeing to it, they're telling the judge, look, we already have people who pledge this felony. So if you overturn it for one case, you're gonna overturn all the prior conditions. It puts more pressure on these district judges not to overturn it because he, oh, we have Paul.
He's gonna plead guilty with
@KatKanada_TM - Kat Kanada
Tamara and Chris for "Hold the line": 2 years of prosecution This thug migrant for "I'll put you 6 feet deep": zero days of prosecution. Trudeau's Canada. https://t.co/LK28rumaVD
@joe_warmington - Joe Warmington
Yes. The persecution of @ChrisBarber1975 @LichTamara — that is still going a year in and two and a half years from their arrest — is a show trial and they are political prisoners. No other mischief case has ever taken this long. The ride is the punishment. Cruel! https://t.co/UVDJNXnWpm
@MaximeBernier - Maxime Bernier
There are violent criminals who get bail and are allowed to go free and continue to commit crimes. These peaceful men are being persecuted and kept in jail for years to justify Trudeau’s unconstitutional invoking of the Emergencies Act. This is a complete travesty of justice! https://t.co/QFpDpyR4xO
reSee.it AI Summary
I prepared a statement for court that I couldn't deliver, but I want everyone to read it. I believe in freedom of speech and the press, and my role as a journalist is to uncover the truth. Despite losing my case, I stand by the testimonies of courageous children who supported me. Justice Nicklin's verdict dismissed their voices, causing severe consequences for them. The media failed to report the full story, and the government's actions seem aimed at silencing dissent. If it means jail for me, I will not be silenced. Thank you.
@TRobinsonNewEra - Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧
ADMIN POST - TOMMY'S PREPARED STATEMENT - SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE!!!! This is the speech Tommy prepared for court today, unfortunately he wasn't able to give the speech but it is his wish that you all get to read it for yourselves. Your honour, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. My duty as a journalist is to uncover the truth and I have worked for years to shine light on challenges in society that no one else is willing to speak about. Have you watched the documentary Your Honour? If you have watched the film ‘Silenced’ Your Honour you will have seen that I didn’t make accusations and I didn’t make assumptions in the film. I simply repeated what I was told by the Head Teacher of the school and others and what was written in black and white in school documents. I let the witnesses give their testimonies and made it clear that Jamal, in his right to reply, denies all of their accusations against him. I explain Justice Nicklin’s verdict and I explain that I lost the case. There was nothing else I could have included because Jamal didn’t bring any evidence to court and he didn’t bring anyone to court to speak for him apart from his father, Jihad. No teachers. No social workers. No friends. It is for this,... REPORTING... for this that I am facing these charges, for this I am facing the prospect of time in a maximum security prison with the risks to my life that presents. Justice Nicklin’s verdict in this case is extraordinary and while the case caused my divorce and bankruptcy, far more important is the impact his verdict has had on those courageous children who came to court to testify in my defence. Justice Nicklin effectively discarded their testimonies. He said he didn’t know why they were lying but called them liars nevertheless. Charlie, a grade A student, didn’t even like me or support me but was courageous enough to come to court to testify. She had a breakdown, she had to be sectioned. Justice Nicklin caused that. Bailey Maclaren had tried to commit suicide. Thankfully he has started to rebuild his life. He has to overcome the lie that he is racist. Many others have been affected. The collateral damage of this scandalous verdict was too great for the public not to know the truth. Some people still believe the legacy media is there to report what is happening, the truth, rather than push strongly biased accounts driven by ideology or political agendas. Well, in this case, the press only attended court on the day Jamal and his father gave their accounts. They then left court and didn’t bother to return to hear the testimony of the children who were witnesses for the defence. The whole balanced picture could not be reported by the legacy media because they weren’t there; they weren’t interested in what the children testifying for the defence had to say. And then Justice Nicklin tried to prevent the whole picture being given to the public by issuing his injunction, banning the film. Justice Nicklin has banned me from presenting the same evidence that was presented in court. If it is such a clear-cut case, why is it necessary to hide the facts from the public. If they watched the testimonies of the witnesses, they would surely come to the same conclusion as Justice Nicklin. What’s the agenda here? Well the injunction was apparently to protect Jamal’s reputation. Yet it’s not the reputation of Jamal that has been damaged by this legal circus. I don’t wish any ill for Jamal. I personally think he was a victim of his own predatory lawyers and those who blasted this story around the world for their own purposes. It’s very telling that Jamal hasn’t asked for me to be prosecuted in this case. Neither have his lawyers. The case has been brought by the Attorney General, by the Government. In my view there are similarities with the Post OMice case. Powerful interests hiding the truth for their own purposes regardless of the terrible consequences for those innocent children I have mentioned, and others. I could have shown the film ‘Silenced’ at any point in the preceding three years. I didn’t. However, I did make the decision to play this film in Trafalgar Square on the 27th July this year. and I am grateful to @elonmusk and X for allowing the film to remain available; for standing for freedom of speech and a free press. So if you’re asking me whether I plead guilty or not guilty, yes, I’m guilty of showing the film in Trafalgar Square on 27th July. And I am guilty of JOURNALISM. And, although not for you Your Honour, nor for your court nor for the entire justice system, I do have contempt for Justice Nicklin’s ruling and the actions that attempt to hide the truth from the public. Justice Nicklin fell out with his own father before the case, arguing about me. He should have recused himself before the case even began. The world is watching. I stand for the truth, for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and if that puts me on the wrong side of Justice Nicklin’s injunction, then so be it. If I have to sit in jail for speaking the truth; Well I am just one of many people now that this government is imprisoning for things they say; political prisoners. This government is releasing violent offenders early to make space for people who tweet things they disagree with. Peter Lynch is the first to have paid the ultimate price. A sixty-one year-old father, and grandfather, non-violent but imprisoned for his views and his speech. If I have to sit in jail for refusing to be silenced for reporting information that was brought to me for journalism... Then I am prepared for that. Thank you Your Honour. #FreeTommy #LAWFARE #TwoTierKeir
@RealDonKeith - Don Keith
I see @piersmorgan and the mainstream media are hard at work this morning trying to convince you that Tommy Robinson was sentenced to prison for spreading “false” information yesterday, but I was in the courtroom and here’s why that’s fake news. #FreeTommy @TRobinsonNewEra https://t.co/GpJN1WOkeD
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tommy Robinson was sentenced to 18 months in prison not for posting false information, but for ignoring a court injunction against discussing a specific incident. The judge acknowledged Robinson's work as a journalist and did not comment on the truth of his claims. Despite mainstream media narratives, multiple witnesses supported Robinson's account, while the judge dismissed their testimonies. The case involved a Syrian refugee with a troubling history, and the judge's ruling contradicted the testimonies of respected community members. The media aims to portray immigration as harmless and demonize Robinson. Viewers are encouraged to watch Robinson's film "Silence," which has garnered significant attention, to form their own opinions rather than relying on mainstream media.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, I see Piers Morgan and the mainstream media are already hard at work this morning trying to convince you that Tommy Robinson was sentenced to 18 months in prison yesterday because he's continuing to post false information about a Syrian refugee. Let me just tell you that's not the case. I was in the courtroom yesterday. The judge made no mention of the fact he made no mention whether or not he believed Tommy's accusations or his film was false or true. Yesterday's sentence of Tommy Robinson was about the fact that he ignored the injunction of the first judge who forbade him to post any more information about the incident, at at the school in the first trial.
So the judge just basically upheld the first judge's ruling. The judge yesterday did say he had seen the silence film. He did he made no claim whatsoever about the validity of that of that film, and he did acknowledge Tommy Robinson's work as a journalist. For all you folks out there who keep saying Tommy Robinson is not a journalist. Well, the judge acknowledged acknowledged his journalism yesterday.
So, that's in the court of law. You guys like to refer to the court of law so much. Well, the judge yesterday, validated Tommy Robinson's journalism work. So I just wanted to get this out there, and let you guys know that this may false this narrative by the mainstream media is completely false. Ask yourself this.
If if Tommy's, account of the incident is false and the court is right, why did the why did the, Kirklees Council pay all of these teachers and staff to remain silent about the incident? 250 $1,000. Multiple staff came forward. Witnesses came forward and testified that on on Tommy's behalf that the incidents the ins that the incidents in his film were factual, and the way he states it is factual. But one single judge, in one case, not a jury, mind you, one judge said that multiple upon multiple witnesses were lying and 1 Syrian refugee, a troubled Syrian refugee with a history of physical, abuse towards girls according to them, according to witnesses, stabbing 1 boy with a school compass according to him.
He was found with according to his school records found with a knife and a screwdriver in his desk. He's called women, white, fat white bitches. Had no disrespect for for women. Had no respect for women at all. All this information was ignored by this one single judge who decided that all of these multiple witnesses, respected members of the community were lying and this one Syrian boy, by the way, who had a GoFundMe account, I'm told that was worth a $160,000 because, you know, he was the poor Syrian refugee that was bullied by, you know, a white English racist which we all know by accounts of who knew knew the young white English boy.
He was a very upstanding young boy and, the Syrian refugee had threatened to rape his sisters and the boy held him down and poured some water all over him in defense of his sisters to make sure that this boy didn't harm his sisters. So these are all in Tommy's Tommy's movie Silence that now has 58,000,000 views. So I recommend rather than looking at the headlines today and paying attention to anything Pierce Morgan and the mainstream media tell you, they're trying really hard to make sure this narrative that all immigrants are peaceful and they're, you know, they come in peace. None of them are harmful. That's that's what this all is about to make sure you guys all think immigration is harmless and Tommy Robinson is the devil.
That's what they want you to believe. I encourage you all to go watch the film Silence on his Twitter at t Robinson new era dot com. And, yeah, just go watch it. Don't believe anything the mainstream media tells you.
reSee.it AI Summary
A New Mexico judge, Joel Cano, resigned after law enforcement arrested 23-year-old Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, an alleged member of the Tren de Aragua gang, at Cano's home. Ortega-Lopez, who entered the U.S. illegally, had been released from detention due to overcrowding and later worked for Cano's wife. Photos surfaced showing Ortega-Lopez with Cano, including one where he handed the judge a gun. Discussion ensued about potential political implications and accusations of corruption involving judges and cartels.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
NEW: New Mexico judge suddenly resigns after ICE arrests an alleged Tren de Aragua gang member in his own home. What a bizarre story. Law enforcement executed a search on Magistrate Judge Joel Cano's home before arresting 23-year-old Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, who had ties to the Tren de Aragua gang. According to Breitbart, authorities recovered photos on Ortega-Lopez's phone of decap*tated and m*tilated bodies. Ortega-Lopez illegally entered the country under President Joe Biden through Eagle Pass, Texas. He was released from a detention facility just days after entering the country due to overcrowding. He soon met the judge's wife, Nancy Cano, and started doing construction work. Cano then invited the illegal to live at their house. Judge Cano was seen in multiple photos and videos with the alleged gang member, including one where the illegal is handing him a gun.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
@KingLagoswa How long until a Democrat senator demands his release and a bunch of clowns raise a few hundred thousand dollars for him?
@DeborahReiter6 - Shore Grandma
@CollinRugg @KingLagoswa Let’s be real, the cartels ARE already paying these activist judges and if they aren’t on the payroll they or their families are threatened. American and European politicians sold out their countries to WEF cartels decades ago and now it’s all playing out!
@Breaking911 - Breaking911
CAN'T MAKE THIS UP! Letitia James says her indictment is the "weaponization of our justice system." "This is political retribution." She cannot be serious. https://t.co/9KePiUG8bX
Video Transcript AI Summary
"This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system." "These charges are baseless, and the president's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost." "His decision to fire a United States Attorney who refused to bring charges against me and replace them with someone who is blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country." "I stand strongly behind my office's litigation against the Trump Organization. We conducted a two year investigation based on the facts and evidence, not politics." "Judges have upheld the trial court's finding that Donald Trump, his company, and his two sons are liable for fraud." "We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system. He is forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as the New York state attorney general. These charges are baseless, and the president's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost. The president's actions are a grave violation of our constitutional order and have drawn sharp criticism from members of both parties. His decision to fire a United States Attorney who refused to bring charges against me and replace them with someone who is blindly loyal not to the law, but to the president is antithetical to the bedrock principles of our country.
This is the time for leaders on both sides of the aisle to speak out against this blatant perversion of our system of justice. I stand strongly behind my office's litigation against the Trump Organization. We conducted a two year investigation based on the facts and evidence, not politics. Judges have upheld the trial court's finding that Donald Trump, his company, and his two sons are liable for fraud. I'm a proud woman of faith, and I know that faith and fear cannot share the same space.
And so today, I'm not fearful. I'm fearless. And as my faith teaches me, no weapon formed against me shall prosper. We will fight these baseless charges aggressively, and my office will continue to fiercely protect New Yorkers and their rights. And I will continue to do my job.