TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A 911 call was placed, but police were allegedly not allowed to enter the premises. The speaker questions why police responding to a 911 call must wait for a supervisor to grant them access. The speaker finds it strange that police are restricted from entering after a 911 call and expresses a need to relocate.

Two groups clash over who may be in the building and who is authorized to act as the governing authority of the institute. - The conflict centers on who is recognized as the president of the institute. Speaker 0 says, “The president of the first day is the right to be in the building,” and insists they have seen paperwork that supports Mister Jackson as president. Speaker 1 counters that he is “the president of this institute” and asks for the other side’s credentials and documents, signaling a challenge to Speaker 0’s claim. - The outside counselors (not employed by USIP) state they are there to address issues and note they do not work for the agency or institute being discussed. They say, “Are you all work for USIP? We are the outside counselors. You do not work for USIP.” This creates tension about authority and whose procedures apply. - The group inside, including Speaker 1, questions the motives and legality of the intruders, framing the situation as unauthorized access. Speaker 1 emphasizes control of the scene, saying, “I’m the president of this institute. I’m asking the questions, not you.” They propose to proceed with a judge’s decision regarding who has rightful access, noting, “According to news, sir. And how do we decide? You wanna talk about the second law and how the board goes off? No. We’re go over. It hasn’t been decided. It’s gonna be decided by a judge.” - There is a clear conflict about process and authority: the outsiders say they are present to facilitate a meeting but are unsure how long their involvement lasts and emphasize the need to identify who is authorized to be in the building. The outsiders insist on conducting a meeting inside first and indicate that certain individuals will not be allowed to come back in, stating, “You’re not allowed. I don’t know what I’m gonna have to let anyone pass you. So please don’t walk this way. Four of you are not coming back in today.” - Access to personal property and documents becomes a point of negotiation. The outsiders request to retrieve personal items, while inside personnel want to conduct their meeting inside first and control access, saying, “We need to have our meeting inside first. Thank you.” They offer to allow retrieval of personal belongings after the meeting but prioritize internal access. - The exchange ends with continued insistence on controlling entry and a directive to move toward a meeting inside, with the outsiders escorted away from certain areas and told to wait while the internal decision-making progresses.

The speaker received a call that a car was found at 30 First, next to their farm, and authorities would be searching the area. They later received a text asking to set up a command unit on the property. The speaker discussed the terrain and buildings on the farm with law enforcement, mentioning an unlocked camper and house. They also informed them about an old, hard-to-access abandoned house on the hill. The speaker and a neighbor told the authorities that the buildings were unlocked. The speaker also heard reports of shots fired early in the morning. A neighbor claimed to have been awakened by a couple of shots while outside late at night.

Out of Vernon, they’re bringing the hay. Ideal Lease is carrying the hay. They probably don't know what they're being used for. Katie and the family wanna stay with their animals so they're fed how they're supposed to be fed, as Karen explained yesterday, there’s protocols to be the animals are used to a certain type of feeding style. Jeff over here was calling Ideal Lease and telling him, calling Supersave. Supersave trucks right now have tape on the number and what their and the company name, and the guy is wearing a SuperSave shirt. "SuperSave's the fencing. They would be the disposal bins." Supersave is masking their identity so that people don't know what they're doing. Track down Supersave in the North Okanagan. They wanna take a contract, and they're trying to hide who they are, super safe, and ideal lease. They're carrying the hay to help the CFIA feed the animals because Katie and Karen and Dave are gonna be removed. Jeff was phoning Supersave letting them know what they were doing.

There's been people asking about the eggs. So the family has no idea. So these birds probably are laying eggs. What are what is the CFIA doing with the eggs? And unfortunately, the family does not know. They got no way to track this stuff. These guys come in here and and just take over the place. Don't let anybody know what they're doing. They put up all these walls of secrecy to ensure that nobody can see what's going on, and then they wonder why everybody's freaking out. It'd be easy enough for the CFIA to make a statement. It'd be easy enough for the police to make a statement. It'd be easy enough for anybody that knows anything about this to make a statement, but they wanna keep all the public in the in the dark.

The letter shown yesterday, "that wasn't that was prior to this operation," arrived yesterday morning from "the gal" Courtney Fotheringham, who has been our contact. She wrote the letter saying that they would like us to help feed the birds and do things. "Are you gonna leave? Are you serious?" "Yes. Because if you don't, you'll be impeding me as an inspector, and that's an obstruction under the health of animals actually." "We're not obstructing. We're just trying to feed them." "Yesterday We're not obstructing. We're not being in anybody's way." "you guys are in." "Here you guys are gonna be able to see it." "That's why you're gonna be taking you're gonna be taken to the colonies, first of Yeah. Why? Given documents, right"

Speaker 1 requests recognition of their rights in their territory, asserting that it is their business. Speaker 2 acknowledges this but states that the line cannot be crossed at the moment. Speaker 1 disagrees, emphasizing their right to free access. Speaker 2 insists on holding the line temporarily. Speaker 1 argues that it is not the officer's business and reiterates their ownership of the territory. Speaker 2 confirms the location and mentions taking care of some matters. Speaker 0 concludes that the police are breaking the law by denying Bill Jones access to his own territory.

Speaker 1 requests recognition of their rights in their territory, asserting that it is their business. Speaker 2 acknowledges this but states that the line cannot be crossed at the moment. Speaker 1 disagrees, emphasizing their right to free access. Speaker 2 insists on holding the line temporarily. Speaker 1 argues that it is not the officer's business and reiterates their territorial rights. Speaker 2 confirms the location and mentions taking care of some matters. Speaker 0 concludes that the police are breaking the law by not allowing Bill Jones on his own territory.

Speaker 0 and the property manager engage over a search attempt. Speaker 0 asks who they are looking for and whether they have a judicial search warrant, noting they’re not going to get access and that “This is not private property.” The conversation repeats that this is not private property, and Speaker 0 asserts they won’t be able to open the door. The property manager confirms they are the manager but refuses to open the door and declines to disclose whether the person is present, saying, “I can’t tell you,” and “Don’t tell me that yet? Nope. I can’t.” Speaker 0 presses for information and whether the person is in the building, while the manager maintains they cannot reveal anything. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 saying, “Have a nice day,” and the property manager replying, “Have a great day,” and expressing a concern to “keep my residents safe.”

I haven't been able to access my house since January 7th, and it's now January 25th. President Trump mentioned we could go back, so what's the situation? Unfortunately, we coordinate with LAPD, and they dictate our actions. LAPD requires that you have a police escort to reach your house. How long will that take? It could take an hour or two because many people are trying to get in. Why can't I just drive there? There's a hard closure in place. It's not that I'm preventing you from going; you just need to arrange for a police escort. So, you are preventing me from going to my house. You can go, but only with the escort. I'm not saying you can't go at all.

The speakers recount watching authorities move in at Universal Ostrich Farm and being stunned because they themselves are not Universal Ostrich Farm. Upon arrival, the state set up a camp for operational logistics—building roads and securing a safe position to enable access and logistical success—and soon after a warrant was posted on the door, which they could not access right away; it took days before they could view it. They explain the warrant as a search-and-seizure order written to the aunt and her business partner, not to the parents, and it identifies Universal Ostrich Farm’s “secondary quarantine property,” which they insist is not Universal Ostrich Farm. Because of this, they must challenge the warrant in court while watching events unfold via multiple livestreams on phones, computers, and a TV. They describe people attempting to enter and police trucks driving onto the property, conveying a sense of confusion about what was happening. When asked about jurisdiction, they clarify that the RCMP are enforcing a warrant applied for by the CFIA, and that the warrant is based on the Health of Animals Act rather than criminal wrongdoing. They say they now have the document and are reviewing it with lawyers; the CFIA issued the warrant, the RCMP enforce it, and the order could extend beyond October 22. They emphasize that the process is slow and contested, with many legal hurdles to navigate. They depict the property layout as a slivered triangular tract extending to the highway, explaining that the expansion of access and new driveways was intended to provide logistical access from the highway and local roads to avoid protesters and to facilitate routine movement, such as transporting hay bales. They acknowledge that the situation involves a tense balance between security and access, and they describe some of the equipment and measures used to control movement, including how shifts are managed and where supplies are brought in, with a side remark about roadworks and security considerations. On the timeline, they state the quarantine for the birds began in December by coordinates, not as the earlier designation, and that the “secondary quarantine property” label appeared when the seizure occurred, with an extension in September signaling a protracted dispute. They frame the Supreme Court application as the primary objective due to the urgency for the animals’ lives. They recount an incident where entry was restricted: family members could enter with ID after a checkpoint delay, while friends were barred; a Rebel News interview occurred around midday, followed by a directive instructing them to text the CFIA and to email for written permission to enter—otherwise potential arrest for protecting their animals. They note a temporary exemption allowing sleep inside, but that dogs were later banned, a change they found troubling. They describe the fence and police presence behind it as a jarring sight but emphasize the human element: the aunt and cousin are described as kind, and the speakers advocate for informing the police about the CFIA while seeking constructive dialogue. They close with a wish for the situation to resolve and a sense of uncertainty about what lies ahead, expressing hope that it will work out.

Everything is blocked off, and there’s a heavy presence of military, police, and FBI agents. It’s strange that we’re being kept out of our own house. Things are definitely getting weird around here in Kelly.

Checklist for Summary Approach: - Identify core claims, actors, and the sequence of events described. - Preserve key terms and labels used in the transcript (e.g., quarantine, CFIA, RCMP liaison, kill pen, garlic). - Exclude repetitive content, filler, and off-topic tangents. - Emphasize unique or surprising details (e.g., land seizure claims, access point construction, specific directives). - Translate or present clearly in English if needed; maintain factual phrasing without added judgments. - Keep within 400-501 words; present information neutrally and precisely as stated. Summary: The speakers discuss a site involved in a quarantine and protest conflict, focusing on where protesters would gather and how access and fencing were arranged. They describe an “Austrians” group and supporters, noting a Hay Bale corral built as a kill pen. They say the quarantine was originally issued on coordinates, with December 31 as the reference date, and that CFIA declared a quarantine area, recognizing protesters would be present and that there would be a single road in. The speakers assert that protesters arrived and that those enforcing the quarantine expected immediate compliance and slaughter, but when protests were anticipated, the plan changed. They claim a land seizure occurred in September to seize access for roads, stating “That’s our land” and “I’m the garlic girl.” They contend the seized land was never a quarantine and that the purpose of seizing it was to build roads and access points for operations, including routes to avoid protesters during shift changes. They emphasize that these roads were not desired by them, as they wanted private access from the highway to protect the property from poachers and trespassers; the new access points were added after seizure, enabling tractor trailer movement for hay, bins, and the kill wall logistics. They explain that back access to their property was never wanted, but the new routes were created for the other party’s use. The discussion covers obstacles to obtaining garlic from their land, attributed to “hired security” present on site. They identify the main access point as the police line where supporters are, and reference a video of an interaction at that gate where access to their own house was refused. They recount an earlier period when entry had been possible, followed by an interview with Rebel News, after which they received a text from the RCMP liaison and faced delays; one participant notes an email from CFIA directing not to enter their mother’s property without emailing CFIA first, and mentions difficulties with an email address that bounced. They describe attempts to coordinate with police and authorities, including Katie’s efforts to get access to their property; at times, police ignored those attempting to facilitate entry. They note the logistical purpose behind the operation: the protestors’ presence, the kill-wall setup, road-building, and the logistics of bringing in hay, straw, and other materials. Toward the end, there’s a plan to address broad questions publicly: Jim Kerr will join Katie and others to compile a list of questions and discuss them with the family, aiming to present clear answers in a forthcoming video, thus reducing stress by offering transparent information. The speakers express a sense of shared stress, family ties, and a desire to handle questions openly, concluding with appreciation for those present.

If you prefer not to answer questions, you can say so. You’re not willing to sign anything or talk without a lawyer, but you’ll remain cordial. Since we lack a proper facility, we’ll explain your situation privately. We have a search warrant for your residence and are sending people there now. Is someone home? You can call them. This is a federal arrest warrant against you for civil disorder and entering a restricted area. You can review the warrant, which is from DC. You’ll be detained for a few hours today, and there will be a search of your house. I’ll explain the process to help ease your stress. We’re concluding our conversation now.

You are expecting what the outcome is. I will. What what was need to put CFIA exactly where they need to be put in check. This organization feels that they are greater than the Supreme Court of Canada, that they are still positioning the birds and putting them in the position to be killed immediately. The Supreme Court has not decided what is happening, we are on a stay order. and yet they, I just get a phone call that they've got a whole bunch of birds herded in a little circle right in the kill pen waiting. This is, it's animal cruelty, it's anguish to the families, this is terrorism and this is such disrespect to our Canadian government of justice that this company thinks they're better than the Supreme Court of Canada now. Amen.

Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 to confirm that three excavators were disabled to prevent illegal activity. Speaker 0 asks about the expectation of how the excavators would be used, but Speaker 1 doesn't have an answer. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 and ends the call. Speaker 0 then calls Corporal Southern Cobb to confirm the damage caused by the RCMP. Speaker 1 doesn't know the specific steps taken to disable the vehicles. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 and ends the call.

Get your hand off my camera right now! I apologize, but I need to follow protocol. Don't cover my camera! What do you want? There's no need for that. I have a warrant. Get off my property! Are you home to talk? Yes, I'm hiding from you. Show me the warrant! You're losing connection. Get off my property! I don't care who's with you. No one is welcome here. You can stand on the curb and show me the warrant. Get all your friends off my property! No need for that language. You pointed guns at me! Get the hell out!

The speaker received a call that a car was found at 30 First, next to their farm, and authorities would be searching the area. They later received a text asking to set up a command unit on the property. The speaker spoke with someone from the BCA who inquired about the terrain and what was on the farm, including a camper and ice house, both of which are unlocked. The speaker and a neighbor informed the BCA about an old, hard-to-access abandoned house up on the hill. The speaker also heard reports of shots fired early in the morning. A neighbor claimed to have been awakened by a couple of shots while outside late at night.

In the exchange, Speaker 1 indicates they are checking up on them and have received keys, while Speaker 0 asserts clear boundaries about entering the property. Speaker 0 repeatedly states: “You cannot come to my house,” and “This is my property.” They insist that Speaker 1 cannot walk onto the premises, cannot ring the doorbell, and cannot visit; they caution about needing to pass a background check to come to someone’s house, and insist Speaker 1 must leave immediately. Speaker 0 clarifies that they have kids and expresses concern about potential criminal activity, saying, “Call the police and say hi. I have kids. I don’t know. I’m not sure if you’re a criminal.” Speaker 1 agrees to leave after these warnings. The children’s safety is a recurring theme in Speaker 0’s statements, with multiple refusals for access and visits, including a claim that Speaker 1 cannot use childcare or be a friend to gain entry, underscoring the need to leave. During the confrontation, Speaker 0 also notes that they are recording because they do not want their face shown on social media, and claims to have Speaker 1’s information and “saw it already in the system.” Speaker 1 responds with a remark about privacy rights and asserts there is no right to privacy in that context, while continuing to attempt polite closure by saying “You guys have a good day.” Despite the tense exchange, Speaker 1 maintains a calm demeanor and explains they are simply visiting local daycares and that “everybody’s been very nice.” They insist this is not harassment, recounting that they knocked on doors to say hello. They offer New Year’s greetings at the end, repeatedly saying “Have a good day” and “Happy New Year,” and remark that the area feels “very friendly here.” Overall, the interaction centers on a strict boundary set by Speaker 0 regarding entry to the home, safety considerations for children, and the assertion of recording and monitoring, contrasted with Speaker 1’s attempts to explain their benign intentions and to end the encounter with courteous farewells.

I was surprised this morning when the police came to my house with a search warrant. They informed me that not only my company, but several others are being investigated. I don't know the details of the investigation yet because it is still in progress. My lawyers will request access to the case so that I can understand what it is about. As one of the partners, I was subjected to the search. The company in question, which I am a partner of, was founded in 1980 and has a long history. It is a well-regulated company with all the necessary licenses and certifications. I want to thank everyone for their support and messages. I will share more information once I have access to the case. Thank you all for your messages.

Where's the leader? Who's in charge here? You’re treating us like criminals. This is unacceptable. That’s my father inside, and my wife is in there too. Can you please back up? I’m already backed up; I haven’t moved.

The discussion centers on the RCMP examination into whether the prime minister obstructed justice under section 139(2) of the Criminal Code. The RCMP’s strongest theory of obstruction involved the prime minister shuffling Jody Wilson-Raybould out of the position of attorney general so a new attorney general might pursue a different decision regarding SNC-Lavalin. It is stated that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence related to this strongest theory, because of the parameters of the order in council concerning the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. The RCMP acknowledge that the scope limitations prevented them from fully examining this central aspect of potential criminal conduct. When pressed, it is indicated that the decision to expand the parameters would have to be made within the government, and that the RCMP did request an expansion to obtain additional evidence, but the request was denied. The denial occurred on 08/30/2019 and came from the Prime Minister’s Department (the PCO). The RCMP clarifies that they did receive a letter from the Department of Justice, but cannot confirm if it originated from the PCO; regardless, the refusal by the prime minister’s personal department significantly impeded the RCMP’s ability to pursue a full investigation into potential obstruction of justice. The RCMP describes this as limiting their capability and suggests that, given the scope constraints, they could not reach the heart of the obstruction issue. Speaker 0 asserts that the prime minister’s department obstructed the investigation, and questions whether any other Canadian could single-handedly block RCMP access in such a way. Speaker 2 emphasizes that the RCMP operates within established parameters and regulations, noting that certain information remains inaccessible under those rules, including some international security information. Nevertheless, Speaker 0 states that there is no one with such powers and characterizes the situation as part of a pattern of cover-up. Speaker 2 reiterates that they made efforts to obtain additional information, but the expansion request was refused, leaving the investigation constrained. In closing, Speaker 0 thanks the commissioner and Justice, and the exchange underscores that the RCMP felt hindered by the parameters set by the PCO, which curtailed their ability to conduct a full investigation into the prime minister’s potential obstruction of justice.

Hey. Did you hear that? So Sunbelt Sunbelt was commissioned to bring in the big scissor lifts so that the army could come in and shoot the things. Sunbelt said no. They took their shit home. You. You. Sunbelt Sunbelt was renting some equipment to the CFIA. They thought it was going on. They said, no. We're not renting the ship. We're taking them all back. These people monsters.

Do many of you speak English? We want to talk to as many workers as possible. There’s a lot of concern about immigration issues, but you should know that you don’t need to worry about law enforcement, the sheriff's office, or the police regarding immigration matters. We do not handle immigration enforcement.

The speakers describe an eerily devastated site with extensive property damage and a semi-dismantled kill pen in the background, suggesting blood, carnage, and possible biohazard concerns. They note that the perpetrators “drove all around it and left,” then disappeared, leaving behind an impression of what happened. Speaker 1 observes enormous bales—much larger than typical hay bales—stacked on the property, describing them as about a foot to four feet high. They remark that birds are landing inside the area and pecking at whatever is there. They reference video from the day with dead ostriches still present, noting flocks of birds arriving, implying concern about the bird flu. The speakers recount that “they drove all around in the killing fields” and “kicking up hay as they left,” describing the act as tearing down their operations and leaving in a dismissive manner after terrorizing the family for a long period and slaughtering many birds. They mention “a thousand rounds” fired by marksmen that night, and state that this had “nothing to do with avian flu,” asserting that those shots were unrelated to the flu. Speaker 0 points to a pickup they saw stuck and seized in the area, with windows left open, illustrating the chaos and mess left behind. They emphasize the long duration of distress endured: “eleven months of hell, over six weeks or something like that of having this occupied land,” with RCMP provoking people and CFIA marksmen shooting, followed by the aftermath. Speaker 1 echoes the mess, suggesting it would have been easier to stack the birds or manage them differently, rather than creating the visible wreckage. They reiterate the claim that if the situation is labeled a biohazard, wild birds are currently seen around the area. They observe birds flying over the site, including a duck, indicating ongoing wildlife presence. Both speakers conclude by questioning the process: with an anonymous tip or accusation triggering CFIA involvement, suspicion alone seems to trigger actions that lead to destruction of holdings. They assert that CFIA will come in, destroy everything, and leave scorched earth, killing all animals, presenting this as the outcome. They end with the statement that this is Canada, folks.