TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @rightblend

@rightblend - Right Blend

This is a phenomenal interview with hero cop Detective Helen Grus who was internally charged by the Ottawa Police for doing her job. I wish the police force had many Helen Grus. We'd be a safer country for sure. https://rumble.com/v6zyxba-ottawa-police-detective-disciplined-for-asking-questions-about-vaccines-and.html

@rightblend - Right Blend

The RCMP reinforcements have gathered in the field next to the CFIA cull area. An additional fence surrounding the tall hay wall can be seen covered with a tarp of some sort. There are RCMP and surveillance equipment manning the perimeter as if it's a military base or something similar. 📷 Blake Roberts

@rightblend - Right Blend

The hay structure the RCMP / CFIA has built at the ostrich farm obstructs anyone filming from the ground from seeing what's going on inside. Now that they've taken Jim Kerr's drone, the atrocity will be hidden from the world's eyes. That's what they want. A cloak of darkness. https://t.co/e7PduUeZsX

@rightblend - Right Blend

BREAKING NEWS: Fire erupting at Universal Ostrich Farm. To my knowledge, the CFIA warrant prevents them from operating before 6 am local time. What's going on?? https://t.co/GS3ad9ShV5

@rightblend - Right Blend

1/ 🧵 Doug Ford's crown prosecutors are back in court today trying to take Freedom Convoy organizer Chris Barber's iconic Big Red truck so it can be destroyed. They say it is offence related property, much like biker gang symbolism or drugs, and should be seized and destroyed. They seem terrified of the hope that truck represents and the strength and hope the Freedom Convoy inspired. It wasn't enough for them to charge over a hundred people and take many to trial. These court cases have ruined lives and buried people in debt. Some have gone to jail. Some have been on house arrest. Some have had conditions for years that removed basic liberties like posting on social media. Some were subjected to 1 am knocks by police. Again, this went on for years. But that's not enough. It's not enough to run the longest mischief trial of all time, 40 plus full days of court time prosecuting Tamara Lich and Chris Barber. That's not enough. They need to go further. Lich was convicted of 1 x Mischief and Barber was convicted of 1 x Mischief and 1 x Counsel Disobey a court Order. And for that, they want SIX YEARS in prison for Tamara Lich and SEVEN YEARS for Chris Barber. Meanwhile, deranged and violent repeat criminals walk through the revolving door of our court system and continue victimizing communities. But for the crime of protest and some people honking, Chris and Tamara should get years in prison? It's insane! And on top of all of that, the Ontario crown looked at this travesty of justice and said, that's not enough. We need to go further. We need to take Chris Barber's means for income. We need to take the truck his children grew up in. We need to take that truck and DESTROY it because some Canadians find it a source of hope and inspiration. This is not justice. I am currently trying to get remote access to court so stand by. No response to my request yet.

@rightblend - Right Blend

2/ I still don't have access / a response to my request.

@rightblend - Right Blend

3/ I'm in. I've missed a bit. Brendan Miller is cross examining the witness. I believe Officer Launen is on the stand.

@rightblend - Right Blend

4/ ... Miller: You agree you dont make any notes of email sent to crown on April 15th and no mention of it in your synopsis, is that fair? Witness: Fair. ... Miller: you would agree with me between the dates of April 12-21, that is on pages 118 and 126 of your notes? (Yes) And those arent disclosed (no they are not) and taking you to April 22 of your notebook (yes) 127 (yes) and 1 page (yes) and then from April 23 - June 27 you have no notes / nothing in your synopsis (right) Miller: After that, you can agree you had email correspondence between June [] and June 28[?] with My Radcliffe (I dont have emails so I cant tell you) Let me assist. Miller approaches to show the witness material

@rightblend - Right Blend

5/ Miller: Starting with email first in time, second last page. Now Mr Radcliffe emails on June 28, right? (On the bottom, it appears I did receive an email) and the subject is R v Barber forfeiture hearing (yes) and I take it you dont know what that entire email is redacted (I dont) ... theres an email from you on June 30 to Radcliffe and other crown (yes) and its all redacted (it is) and you dont know why? (I dont) Miller: Let me take you to email on July [?] about subpoena (yes) and it says... accused Lich for some reason... not sworn true statements... so on July 8, 2025 you provided a set of notes to Mr Radclliffe (yes) and you agree with me there's no indication in your notes or synopsis of having done that (no) do you recall what notes you sent (... Notes pertaining to 8th of April to 10th of April and Im not sure if I had sent them so wanted to send them) so youre saying attachments from April [] to 10th? (yes) and does that include the 8th and 9th? (no notes on this incident on that date so wouldnt have sent notes) Miller: ... would you agree you dont provide... you dont provide copies of these emails (no I do not)

@rightblend - Right Blend

6/ Miller: I want to talk about your emails from July 9th to July 28th if I may approach [comment: I believe Miller is in person] Miller: now starting... can I take you to second page... and there you see email July 9 2025 from Magas here to Radcliffe and Ms [spelling] and its forwarded to you on July 15 2025 correct (I believe so) and that email is redactedo n July 15 2025 (yes) and you dont know why it is redacted do you (no) and the email outlines: ... my understanding is my clients [parents' email], have purchased big red in 2022 through their company for 50,000$ but the registration remains with CB trucking because they have the permit for that type of vehicle but it is his permiots (yes) and that was forwarded to you on [] (yes) and what did you do to investigate that (i wasnt asked to investigate that) you werent asked to? (I was asked... to investigate owner) Miller: you had emails of [parents] you didnt contact them (no) you didnt ask RCMP in Saks to interview them (no) you didnt investigate ownership at all (no) you didnt do that for Jonathan Barber (no) ... and the individuals havent been convicted (no) and dont know of any evidence of them being colluding for conviction of Barber (no)... Miller: so you find out on July 15 the ownership had been put for them, and originally crown Melissa Adams asked you to investigate this... (she sent me information didnt ask me to investigate) so got no instructions in email (no) so there's information on 3rd party and your expertise is on forfeiture (yes) and you agree 3rd party rights important (yes) you didnt investigate any 3rd party (I didnt see any leans... i wasnt asked to) Judge: thats not the question Miller: (no) and the crown was going to proceed no matter what (I cant answer this) Miller notes the investigating officers are homicide detectives as he can see on the news [not this police witness], and the judge says 99%+ of the time they are but not in this case

@rightblend - Right Blend

7/ Miller: and can you agree with me that... emails... on July 15 nothing in your notes or synopsis about having received this (no) dont you think this is pretty important point that theres a 3rd party right such as farm company (can be depending on how forfeited, not proceeds of crime but offence related property) Judge: how... youre aware that in the code it grants rights to same and challenge forfeiture? (officer: Yes your honour) Miller: So none of that, your notes end Sept [4?] 2025? (Yes) did the crown provide you any records or documents in regards (no) to 3rd party or anything on September 4 (no) Miller: So you were not provided any information on 3rd party from crown between Sept 4 to present (no) were you aware crown made aware (no) so you could have never investigated (no) would you agree this investigation with rights to third party not done here (yes) would you agree somewhat negligent to not investigate (I would have if had...) you had... do you wait until the crown tells you to investigate? (no) ... Miller [heated] do you think ... you did not act in accord as peace officer (... NO[???] [the judge is taking many notes] [Miller got heated in that exchange. The judge and sounded like crown was going to stop him perhaps. But he was able to finish. It seems the officer did not do due diligence in regards to third party rights or proper police investigation.]

@rightblend - Right Blend

8/ Crown reexamine: Why is it you dont take notes of every email you send (It would be a lot, but I do maintain the emails themselves) Thank you. The officer is dismissed. He is cautioned not to speak to anyone about the case, questions asked and answers given.

@rightblend - Right Blend

9/ The judge asks about an objection regarding to redaction. The crown says Miller had a chance to address it. Miller says he received them on Friday... and the response from crown was take it up with judge. So he's doing that. Miller says as he understands the law... should specify redaction... my friend won't identify what's what. I've asked over and over for the grounds. He wont give them Judge: In the past, crown has identified nature of redaction or privilege sought is. I ask you to do so Crown: I have pre-vetted versions for your review if an application (Judge: I feel there may be) I am in your hands. I indicated the crown objects in emails in terms of relevance and privilege Judge: There are many type of privilege and Id like you to identify which you are claiming but Im not sure if there's an application Miller: Im asking my friend to provide the unredacted copies to court for review Judge: And Im asking crown to identify nature of redactions.

@rightblend - Right Blend

10/ Crown: April 4-April 15... exhibit number 4, 3 pages and 2 lines. Judge: All I have is red boxes (crown: exactly) Im going to ask you to write on each side of boxes which privilege youre claiming over lunch Crown: We started talking about this before deralining on this issue, Im hopeful Judge: My concern, should we have the officer on standby in case something should arise of the release, if it should arise, from the boxes? Miller: Yes please Judge: If you could ask the officer to be on stand by in case needed... it just came to me now and out of an abundance of caution

@rightblend - Right Blend

11/ Crown: ... exhibits the crown wishes to rely on Judge: And I asked the clerk to bring all original exhibits just in case [hence all the boxes] Crown: I wish to flag for you, youve seen them all, I dont think it will take us that long. There are 9 exhibits I wish to flag. I can do that before closing Judge: Were going to deal with redactions before anything else (that will be it for the crown's evidence, well then hear if any evidence from the defence, Ive yet to receive any material from Mr Barber with respect to the arguments that are anticipated. I understand the arguments for third parties. In terms of Barber, perhaps I can chat with Magas, the 9 exhibits Im going to take you through I may need to add some) Judge: And Id think may some portions Magas might want Magas: Well (Crown interrupts: we can talk... over lunch) Judge: Is half an hour enough to deal with your case management? (Miller: Should be) and enough for you? Magas: Should be Judge: When you're ready you can let our clerk know [Sounds like lunch until 2:30 pm]

@rightblend - Right Blend

12/ We're back. Exhibit 6 is being "unredacted" by the crown. The bottom of Exhibit 4 is an irrelevant salutation, the judge says. Page 3 she agrees is litigation privilege. On exhibit 5, Justice Heather Perkins-McVey says the first page are irrelevent. They are commons about her honour and whether virtual comments would be available. Not necessarily favourable comments about her, she says. And she says that's why you never write those in an email. But she says nothing turns on that, it's about her dislike of virtual testimony. Other pages are about holidays and scheduling and are irrelevant. The judge says from her perspective, we can release the officer.

@rightblend - Right Blend

13/ *They are comments about her honour and whether virtual testimony would be available*. [To explain, these are emails the crown had redacted that the judge had asked them to explain which privilege they were claiming for doing that. The crown, after review, decided to unredact exhibit 6 while the judge agreed parts of exhibit 4 are litigation privilege for the crown.]

@rightblend - Right Blend

14/ The crown explains parts of the evidence from the trial proper they want to include in their forfeiture application. I can't hear the crown because he's very quiet as he's listing the summary of what they'll be using. The judge cheekily comments she's having a minor heart attack here [possibly from an overwhelming volume of material the crown wants to use?]. She listens to the crown and says it makes sense. The judge says she's formatting another decision as we speak. The crown says there's a list of 28 tabs. Titles. The judge asks that when they have reproduced something from an exhibit, have they reproduced the entirety? Crown replies part of why its so big is because they have [except...?]

@rightblend - Right Blend

15/ The judge explains to Miller she doesnt like snippets from documents. She likes to see the whole thing instead of having to go back. Miller said theyll lead evidence by [affidavit?] Crown talks about cell phone, social media evidence, admissions of Facebook belonging to Freedom Convoy 2022 page and Mr Barber's page... Tiktok exhibits. The crown is extremely quiet. Ms Magas asks the crown to keep his voice up but it sounds like his mic is off or something. We watch a video. Barber is on video. TikTok. He's in Big Red. Talks about a woman from his home town. He's put a sticker on his truck. Her husband was k*lled in a highway accident. Everyone saw how emotional that call made him. They're here to represent everyone here, everyone who couldnt make it, the one's who passed on. We have to win this... be strong people no matter what gets thrown at us like Ghandi did, peace... I dont know a lot about Ghandi but Im going to do like Ive heard in the meetings a while ago.

@rightblend - Right Blend

16/ Comment: I'm severely struggling to hear the crown. Lots of exhibit lists but it's so quiet.

@rightblend - Right Blend

17/ The crown is presenting a video of Chris Barber saying that Jonathan is driving the truck. It was led by Ms Younes, he believes exhibit 68 and 68 A. From the crown's perspective it shows the truck arriving in Ottawa. We watch the video. He wishes to rely on the entirety of the video. Video: Chris Barber is saying we're here. He's letting this kid drive, right Jonathan? "Yeah" people on radio cheering. Lots of people here. Chris comments I'm in the back now so wonder if TikTok will ban me. Lots of support. Some honks... "The fact Ottawa police are parking us right behind Parliament Hill, it's kind of a cool thing too, isn't it." Tab 8, Ms Lich letter to Watson, trial exhibit 101. Judge: It's her response to Watson (Crown: Exactly, dated Feb 12, 2022) Crown: over to tab 9. The entirety of texts between Cst Bach and Mr Barber so this is exhibit 127 from the trial record. Crown: And anticipating your preference to have the whole exhibit, I've provided it (okay) Ill have submissions on Thursday with respect to little parks Judge: Redactions, Mr Miller, are redactions we agreed on to protect personal info (Miller: I have no standing to...) Telling you what they are Crown: Exhibit 128, tab 10, screenshots. and those are all 9 of the screenshots connected to page [46?] of the text exchanges Crown: From tab 11 are screenshots from texts from Barber... sometimes we know the person, sometimes we know the number... if you wish to rely on the full text chat, that's in black binder. What I've extracted are the portions the crown is relying on for this application. Crown: As an example... very beginning of tab 11, page 5 (judge: yep) Ive extracted this page and a few more, you'll see Mr Barber is in green and then we have somebody. We only know the person to be named phone number, is what we named it during trial. So phone number give tik tok link and says someone is trying to sell big red lmfao people will do anything on this s show app I reported it for you brother. Barber said: Did you read it, hilarions... Crown: more on page 6, the person provides the first of 2 screenshots. (To be fair, Mr Barber said should have screen shot it. It's apparently gone now) and then the person provides the first of 2 and at the top of 7 provides the second of 2 screenshots and says there you go buddy and Barber says haha awesome

@rightblend - Right Blend

18/ Crown: See red font... says someone is selling big red's truck... wow, and then second screen shot, back of tab 11, see same comments and then commentary beneath. This is example of extract crown wishes to rely on for this exchange. Back at table of contents, have actual pinpoints like tab 1, page 4, convo [number] Crown: Tab 12, simpler one. Between Barber and someone named Melissa. Starts on page 29, the only page from actual texts, you'll see that Melissa sent Mr Barber a text with image that says you in the one weeks edition. My girl and me in the next weeks. And she sent an image found on the next page and it's a shot of Big Red on the front page of a appears to be a newspaper called SW Booster, and the title overlayed on image of big Red is "Rolling to Ottawa"

@rightblend - Right Blend

19/ [It seems to me the crown is trying to establish ownership and use of the truck] Crown: Next a conversation with someone name Barbera... they're trying to screw us and Barber says yes I can see that then Barbera sends a photo which from crown perspective is Big Red in front of St Andrew's Church on Wellington st Judge: Is st andrew's the church with (Crown: Vivian Leer, yes) Crown: For Mr Miller's benefit, Vivian Leir was admin with that church... [as in trial] Magas: To be clear, its crown saying this is Big Red, no one is saying that. (Judge: it was certainly not put to Ms Leir) It was never put to anyone whose vehicle that was Crown: To page [14?] please, the single page of bubbles and single photo. For Mr Barber's benefit and Lich's benefit if listening, its a photo of Zippy behind you both with an identified 3rd party Judge: Zippy's driving

@rightblend - Right Blend

20/ Crown: To tab 15, someone named Nichole SK trucker, is person who sent Barber a picture of someone wearing I call it a Big Red costume at a rally. SK trucker says one of your supporters? Barber says omg where you at. SK says Kent at Albert [I think] Crown: ... to the remaining 2, 2 pages of bubbles, bottom of 47. Feb 15 after Big Red has been moved. The blue bubble at the bottom of page 47, SK trucker says do you want us to bring Big Red in? We have room at our area. Top of 48 she says can bring it out if you want, your call. Both big red and farmer said they would drive it. Barber replies sht I would love it up on wellington. We are at meetings. Lots going on. Hang tight until I get organized Crown: I presume my volume is better Ms Magas, we havent heard anything (its good) again... [next page] no image here blue and green. Text from someone named Mike. Ill flag a couple of text chains with someone named Mike. So Feb 14, moving days as you recall, Im moving... room for big red here. And Barber replies minutes later, okay Ill try to get it up there Crown: Up to tab 17, so this is chat with another Mike, a different conversation number, page 2... a series of 5 images sent to Mr Barber on Jan 23rd from Mike Judge: Sent Jan 23? (yes maam) before they arrived in Ottawa (exactly) Crown: And those 5 images are found after those pages of messages. Those images appear to be Big red on the road, obviously we dont know where. It's got the let's call it big sign on the back and the Canada flag. So after those 5 photos, you'll see page 17 (Judge: None of the photos show the license to be able to definitively identify Big Red) Crown: and as you recall crown's onus is balance of probabilities and Ill have comments to make on images like this that are not definitive... still in tab 17, after those 5 photos, there's a page [17?] with blue and green bubbles. Blue bubbles are from Mike on Feb [?] Morning bud and sends a picture of a tshirt Judge: What is the tiktok sent in other bubble (crown: what page?) page 2 (we dont know but could look into...) trying to see if its relevant (part of redactions agreed with Ms Magas... not relying on embedded links in any way... Ms Magas is entitled to lead it if she finds it relevant) Crown: taking you to second last page [page 17] Barber says cant cancel insurance. Next Mike says morning bud and sends an image of a red T shirt

@rightblend - Right Blend

@DebbieLedu1061 Now that is an old reference!

@rightblend - Right Blend

@ReillyOToole1 It's extremely easy to take care of things you care about. Hard working people live their life that way. It's also very easy to use a cell phone camera.

@rightblend - Right Blend

I'll have to clarify that sentiment but the only reason the crown reached out to him is because he's specialized in forfeiture. So he knows or ought to know the ins and outs of proceeds of crime, offence related property, investigations, third parties, etc. Then again, the crown doesn't usually try this kind of thing. So many firsts here. But the exchange with Miller was very important. He seems to be of the position that there was no lean so he didn't bother to look further into the third party issue, apparently. And all the redactions. At least the judge is making the crown explain what exact privilege they are claiming for all of that.

@rightblend - Right Blend

@RyemanCanada @LichTamara The memories with his children in the truck are irreplaceable, I take it.

@rightblend - Right Blend

21/ Crown: Last page of tab 17. An image that says Chris Barber for PM and says Big Red underneath (Judge: and whats the date?) date of that being sent is Feb 7 2022 at 1:2[1?] in the afternoon Crown: Tab 18. A conversation between Mr Barber and someone named Derrick. Youll see... two bubbles. Derrick sending images of Big Red (Judge: Jan 23?) Yes Ill note same date as earlier... he says 60 vehicles in convoy today, my friend? And then over the page the larger picture of Big Red appears to be a parking lot is the only one the crown is relying on in this bubble. There were two additional images sent but the crown doesn't need to include those Crown: So over to 3rd page tab 18 still with Derrick, and here the bottom of that... which is page 20 from exhibit. You have Mr Barber sending an image of Big Red driving on a highway. Smoke billowing out of the exhaust stacks. People in the background. And Ill flag for your honour zooming in on this image shows the license clearly and we'll do that Thursday if any doubt from my friends. So an image Mr Barber sent Crown: last images to flag, with Derrick, Page 22 of the exhibit. A screenshot a meme of sorts sent to Mr Barber on Jan 28, Derrick says to Barber have a great day man, youre the best. And Mr Barber replies thats so awesome. Crown: and the image sends is at the last page of the tab, for your benefit Mr Barber it's meme of smokey and the bandit most recognized semi in 1977 and most recognized semi in 2022 this is from Mr Barber's FB page. I'll draw that connection on Thursday.

@rightblend - Right Blend

The Freedom Convoy trucker protest was a valid, justified, and non-violent response to unbearable circumstances imposed by the governments of Canada. People were losing everything because of lockdowns and restrictions that ripped society apart and destroyed families. The government didn't have a leg to stand on. But the protest embarrassed the government, which means they'll continue prosecuting Tamara Lich, Chris Barber, and anyone else they can shake their angry stick at until the end of time. The government of Ontario specifically has spent more than ten million dollars prosecuting Freedom Convoy protesters while other protesters concerned with foreign issues who terrorize, intimidate, and disrupt communities across Ontario (and Canada) almost daily continue with free rein. The governments of Canada and the governments of the world forgot the most important truth during Covid: The power to govern originates in and depends solely on the people. While many or most Canadians did support Covid restrictions of various degrees due in large part to emotional and illogical manipulation and fear mongering from the media and authorities, that does not invalidate the needs or rights of the minority. It is also important to note the will of the majority on the issue of vaccine mandates was never properly recorded or known at the ballot box by way of a referendum in Canada. And that is the only way to know how the people feel about such a pivotal issue. Ideally however, in a democratic and free society, when the will of the majority seeks to rob an otherwise law-abiding minority of the right to life and liberty, those inclinations are balanced by constitutional guardrails created by precedents of past transgressions. Throughout history, those guardrails have failed at critical junctures. They failed again in Canada during Covid. In such circumstance, members of the class of people being denied life and liberty have only one remaining recourse: protest and demonstration. Protests across Canada during Covid were illegally restricted by way of public health decrees and people were criminally and provincially charged for peaceful protests in parks. The series of events that led to the Freedom Convoy had no other way of unfolding. By the grace of God and the goodwill and good nature of the participants, the protest unfolded non-violently except for the actions by police at the end of the protest. We routinely see footage across Canada of protest groups demonstrating for foreign causes literally fighting with the police and facing minimal consequences. And that raises a glaring issue: Two standards of justice cannot coexist in a free and democratic society. During the years of Covid panic, Canadian citizens who led gainful, pro-social, and productive lives were robbed of the rights their ancestors had spent countless generations creating in Canada and the mother countries that came before us all the way from the Magna Carta. The western doctrine of liberty vanished by the stroke of a hysterical health official's pen. There was no remaining recourse. No remaining option to redress. Letters to MPs were ignored and thrown in the trash. Protesters in parks across the country were arrested, charged, and punished. No option remained. The trucker protest rolled across Canada and parked in Ottawa, our capital. This happened in January and February 2022 following nearly TWO intolerable years of abusive Covid policies. The movement grew like wildfire because it attracted the support of those who could no longer live under a boot. Millions of dollars were donated to the protesters by supporters -- and the vast majority of combined funds were donated by Canadians. (Concerning the main two fundraisers according to the POEC report: 89% [$9 million CAD] came from Canadians of $10.06 million CAD on GoFundMe and 47% [$4,627,660 USD] came from Canadians of $9,776,559.50 USD on GiveSendGo.) The longest mischief trial in Canadian history began nearly 2 years ago in September 2023. That was the trial of Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber. Tamara Lich was convicted of mischief and co-accused Chris Barber was convicted of mischief and counselling others to disobey a court order. And on July 23, Tamara and Chris return to court for their sentencing hearing. The crown is seeking a shocking 7 years for Tamara's singular mischief conviction and 8 years for Chris' mischief and counselling conviction. Adding insult to injury, the crown is also seeking to seize and destroy Chris Barber's iconic red work truck, Big Red. This crown request defies precedent and stands out as politically motivated. Freedom Convoy jurisprudence in higher courts should forbid the presiding judge from imposing such a ridiculous sentence. While Tamara and Chris suffer in court, Canadian streets see regular intimidation from mobs screaming about foreign causes, shutting down streets and critical infrastructure, getting in people's faces, and even fighting with police with minimal consequences. Charges against this special and apparently protected group of people are routinely dropped or punishments are practically non-existent. Yet the crown seeks a sentence for Chris and Tamara that dwarfs typical punishments for violent and vile serial offenders in Canada's justice system. What other conclusion can exist for this other than political motivation and two tiered justice? Hopefully the judge rejects the crown's political pipe dream. I will be there to continue my reporting on this saga resuming on July 23rd. Stay tuned.

@rightblend - Right Blend

Conservative candidate Barbara Bal receives a rockstar welcome at her rally in Nepean. Meanwhile, Carney's crowds often number in the dozens despite him being the prime ministrer. Barbara is going to turn Nepean blue! https://t.co/irKG5W17Fk

@rightblend - Right Blend

Surprise: Pat King speaks. He says he feels remorse. He did not expect it to happen. He honour and respects the court and accepts the findings of the court. He comes from long line of family who spent time in military and takes a lot of pride in the country. He takes a lot of pride in family and who he is. And his pride has been vanished, defamed, slandered, raked through the coals more than he can shake a stick at He is extremely sorry for what happened to Ottawa and apologized for his actions. Intention not to hurt citizen but speak to government and it never happened. King says it was very dark. Government didnt help, in fact hindering, and people frustrating and speak on my behalf and I was frustrated and hurt and lost friends. I own my actions. Served 6 months in OCDC and while in that jail went through harsh condition no one should have to, was mistreated, was threatened by guards and inmates, was held in isolation for 38 days with lights on. Guards would pound on the door and wake me up Was put in cell with man for double homicide for mischief and I lived with that man scared I would be killed in my sleep. I was given no opportunity to have medical care when asking and I screamed and yelled and it almost led to Staph infection It wasnt until till one guard came up and spoke and said you have this man in maximum wing for mischief he needs medical care he needs to be out of here. He brought me to infirmary and got me medical care. The treatment I went through, the solitary confinement. It was torture I did not deserve that. Constant threats. The shower not accommodating to man of my disability. If I take a shower with metal leg will slip and fell. I need chair. Didnt get it until one guard fought for me. Well in prison... I get emotional... and one of proudest moment parent gets is to see child graduate and move on to secondary. So proud of my oldest kid so smart accepted to Tokyo school for aerospace. And I was going to see his graduation and I missed out and that strained relationship with him So when you read in PSR I have strained relationship its because of this. And for that Im so ashamed of what I did to hurt my son in that way one of worst feelings in world. Now I get out of jail and in repair mode. I am under constant surveillance not only by law enforcement but my sureties. I am constantly under watch. I lived for 2 years with lack of sleep because of door knock for year and a half at 3 am... wasn't regular knock but boot the door. Would jump me out of bed. I dont sleep well. I barely get an hour or two. So when we talk about what people went through in Ottawa I can relate and understand [king is emotional and crying and sincere] ... my funds locked out... For my son to go to college he had to decline because I couldnt get funds out. My younger son going to college next year and I cant get fund... theyre geniuses and Im not just saying that... they were raised by me. ... I raised them to say I grew up with troubled past but made change and worked hard to make change and be a contributor and make an example and now my children are embarrassed... the attacks online and stalking have come down on me, my son, my fiance, we go through harassing and stalking from all aspects of Canada. ... I dont have access to travel. Dont have access to go on social media. My bank accounts are frozen. I cant make money from podcasting... the strain this has put on my family, the media propaganda, the way the CBC [ran my name through the mud]... has drug my name in a manner that is... Im afraid in public to be attacked. ... Ive lost my pride. I dont want to be in Canada. I dont want anything to do with protest... ... people dont want to hire me. See my name... Im lucky I have someone who hired me remote... Im nervous to take full time. Will take it if I dont go to jail and in that still nervous because if some employees know who I am they may not like me... ... My mother doesnt want anything to do with [media]... Im sorry I did this to my family. Im sorry I did this to my mom. When they talk about things going on to Convoy. Talk about trucks parked. Found me guilty. When doing that no injunction... guided by police... if you ask if Id do it again I wouldnt... the harassment... hope Canada doesnt go down that path If anyone knows me I laugh in uncomfortable situations. I laugh in nervous situations... when you hear me laugh it sounds cynical... ... if you give me ten years I may as well get MAID. Dont want to live in country where thats the punishment for standing up... I had to bring up remorse. I am sorry for what I did. The uncomfortable people went through. Ive been living that for years. Its [1000+] days since arrest... Ive lost friends... I wouldnt suggest anyone follow in my path. I wouldnt allow anyone to do what I did and Id scream at them at top of lungs. If your honour is worried about lesser sentence because may not send a message... I have a message. Think of the cost. Im over 250,000$ into lawyer, into funds... had to rely on begging online. I do not have access to my funds. ...Canadians saw hardship in my actions and no one wants to do what I did. You will never see me in this town again. I make a solemn promise. I will never be here again except for court. I just want to live my life. I want to be in a hole and die sometimes... Im done. I dont want anything to do with it anymore. End of Pat King's statement ----------------------------------- Now for return date. Please note my notes are not verbatim. There are sections I miss. Thank you so much for following along. Covering these trials has been one of the most difficult and important things I've ever done. It's the end of a chapter and it's fitting that King got to finally speak. 9:15 February 7th for the sentencing.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

1/ Tamara Lich and Chris Barber criminal trial day 20. It has now been 4 court days longer than this trial was originally anticipated to take. We are starting later this morning, at 11:15, due to a request from Tamara's lawyer Greenspon as he had other business this morning. Follow this thread for my courtroom coverage. Yesterday, we heard testimony from Ottawa police officer Isabelle Cyr, who testified that she felt extremely overwhelmed during the Freedom Convoy and that she was doing the job of 20 people. Cyr worked as a PLT, police liaison officer, and was one of the key points of contact for several (other) Convoy organizers - as well as the main information person for the OPS PLT. We learned that Cyr is an officer who distributed maps and route information made by police to truckers showing them where to park in Ottawa and how to get there for the protest. Cyr did not recall hearing, despite the information being somehow available to Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) - that OPS INTERSEC believed the trucker protest was going to be a significant, potentially extended event (longer than 30 days). We heard limited information yesterday about direct contact with Chris or Tamara. As always, remember that if convicted, the two accused Convoy leaders face a potential ten year jail sentence. The trial's schedule is unclear, and the crown expressed frustration yesterday at how dates they thought were reserved for this trial - which they say they worked with counsel teams to accommodate schedules across the region - were no longer. There was discussion in court yesterday about potential trial dates as far away as December (20 & 21). The end is not in sight at this time.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

2/ We are in session.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

3/ The crown rises to explain the next witness is ready. Crown mentions how they've requested accommodation for this witness [explained a couple days ago]. The witness did not bring her baby today. Crown says it may be necessary to cut this witness short sometime in the afternoon; they have another witness ready to go.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

4/ The next witness is Nicole Bach, an Ottawa Police Services officer and a member of the OPS PLT [police liaison team]. She affirms to tell the truth.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

5/ Crown chief. Bach has served 5 years with OPS, and has primarily been a patrol officer. Has been PLT for the last 2 years. She is currently an officer. She explains that PLT group of officers trained to act as liaison for person, groups, events coming to Ottawa. Conduit of communication between organization and other "key stakeholders," primarily the police but also others. The crown asks if it will be necessary to refer to any notes that she took. Bach says it might to refresh her memory. The crown asks when the notes in the notebook were made in relation to the Freedom Convoy. She said she made them as soon as she was able to, "very timely in terms of what I was documenting." She made all of her notes. No one else added to or changed her notes. The events were fresh in her memory when she noted them and based on her observations. The crown asks if Bach has pages 27-45 in her notebook. The crown asks her to limit herself to those pages as that's what's been disclosed. Justice Perkins-McVey if those are all her notes from the Convoy. Bach says no. Bach says has many entries in PLT log. Clarifies that those previous pages are only handwritten notes she made. Magas asks to see the original ones, and approaches the stand.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

6/ I am very happy @helmera, @JasonLavigneMP and many other good reporters are in the courtroom so we can create an accurate picture of what's happening today. I also appreciate the crown asking the witness early on to project her voice to the back of the courtroom. Much appreciated. Magas asked for a moment to talk to the crown. She seems to be acceptable to the notes. Judge instructs she may refresh herself by looking at her notes, but ask that she indicates where she is looking. Crown asks about other notes - Signal chats. Passed her 9 page documents and comments on the black redactions. Asks Bach if she recognizes the document - she does. She says its PLT Signal chat. Bach explains that the portions not redacted are any entry she had made. The crown asks her to confirm that. She does. The crown asks how she came to make the Signal chat entries. She said they acted as their notes throughout "deployment." She said anytime she wanted to make notes, she would write in Signal. She says it is standard practice for her team. Crown asks when the chats were made in relation to conversations may have been made. Bach responds very timely. The defence has not issues with her refreshing her memory as long as she tells the court where she is looking.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

7/ The judge asks if she's reviewed the Signal chats to ensure they are a complete record of her involvement. She has and there were no discrepancies "in the Signal chat printout." The crown asks if Bach used emails. She did. First couple of days before the Convoy, they shared information on email, before the Signal chat took over. Bach shared information about Chris Barber by email on January 28th. Officer Bach is asked by the judge if she's reviewed the OPS email server to make sure everything relevant has been disclosed. She has not done a search. The crown takes the email back from officer Bach to show Magas.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

8/ The crown asks if the email refreshed Bach's memory about information she shared on Jan 28 concerning Chris Barber. Bach confirmed that Mr Barber is an organizer of the Convoy heading to Ottawa, and that he'd have more information on the plan and timing, ... and any other type of organization information "I suppose." Magas rises: That information did not come from Barber to this witness, but third party - our position it is hearsay at this point. Judge: Thank you Crown asks about next day, January 29, if officer Bach made any observation of Convoy outside of Ottawa. She did. She recalls she made observation at Old Antrim Gas Station in Arnprior. Crown asks about anywhere else in Arnprior. Bach says basically Old Antrim Gas Station. Crown asks if it would refresh her memory to refer to Signal chats - page 10 or 11. Bach recalls now - the Arnprior airport as well - in close proximity. Crown asks if she shared grand total of vehicles at those two locations with PLTs - she does. Has to look at entry - Crown says top of Page 11. 248 total - makes it total how many are patrons and how many are in Convoy. Crown asks if she had a breakdown of that total... crown asks to speak to the grand total. Bach: 248. Crown asks for breakdown, above that, starting with 103. The crown approaches the witness to show her the part he's referring to. Bach testifies west Convoy including 66 bobtails, 44 tractors with trailers. Bach says west Convoy members of Convoy coming from western Canada. Crown asks is she had the opportunity to send a text to Barber that day [Jan 28?]. He passes it to her.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

9/ Crown asks if Bach recognizes anything. Bach does. Says they are text messages to Barber. Crown asks to specify if she is green or blue bubble. Barber is green, she is blue. Crown asks if officer Bach recognizes portions of that document. She does - they are texts with Barber. She believes received Barber's phone number from "intelligence cell" at OPS. These texts are 127; Judge asks on what basis this is to be an exhibit? Crown says statements of Mr Barber. Judge asks: Entirety? Referred to 1 page. Some may not relevant. Crown says statements made by Barber, presumably relevant Judge: Are they relevant? Crown: Yes Judge: All of them? Crown: Yes Magas has no issue; says some may be irrelevant Exhibit 127 text messages between Barber and officer Bach. Jan 29 - Feb 15 [I knew I heard Jan 29] Judge asks if Bach has done search to ensure this is entirety of messaging with Convoy. Bach says this is just Barber. Judge asks about others. Bach says there are some others she spoke with on text. Crown says those are irrelevant, we're dealing with Barber and Lich in this trial. Judge says it may be relevant. Crown asks about observation of Sunday, Jan 30th. Bach recalls making observations. Crown asks about Wellington and Lyon - she does not recall that specifically. Crown directs her to her Signal chats for that observation. 11:14:33. Bach sees it. Crown asks her to read it, and if she recalls what she observed and any messaging she conveyed to anyone. Bach observed some openings on Wellington that had been fully packed day prior - some trucks left. Conversations with various members of Convoy; Crown doesn't want to hear what they said. Wants to hear what Bach said. Bach messaged them no trucks to move in and fill vacant spots.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

10/ Bach testifies about another message she said to protesters at that area that anyone who wants to participate walk to Parliament or downtown. No more vehicles. Crown asks without saying what they said, did she observe anything in response? Bach says a lot of unwillingness to do so. A lot of people upset with that messaging, she believes. Bach testifies about another intersection [Wellington? and x?]. Says protesters were verbally aggressive towards police. Not supportive of walking to downtown core. Recalls messaging there must access routes to emergency lanes, that messaging was consistent. Anyone to she would speak to downtown. Judge clarifies when she means messaging, she means talking. Bach says any conversation she would have. Crown asks about January 31 at 9:14 in the morning and a conversation she had with Barber. Bach said what page. Crown said just asking. Bach said no. Crown says refresh memory with notes. Bach refers to PLT log (Judge clarifies Signal chat). Bach refreshes herself. Speaking to Barber of coordination of repositioning vehicles to keep emergency lanes open. Bach testifies Barber was looking to do "rolling" convoys around city. Waiting for direction from police to redirect vehicles. Crown asks about hotels. Barber said 2 different hotels. He called them "war rooms." To organize, plan, meet. The crown says she mentioned rolling convoys (yes) recall saying that (yes) did that mean anything to you when he said those words (it did, needed more clarity) did you ask for more clarity (yes) did he answer (no, not a lot of information when it would start) did he give you anything further than words rolling convoy (not that I can recall, no) The crown asks about Wellington 6 hours later on January 31st, 15:36, at Wellington. Bach said needs to refresh her memory. Says that area not cooperative, Metcalfe and Elgin, to open lane there. No open lane there at that time. The crown asks to sit to 1 pm. Says Bach will give nod if necessary to break beforehand. The judge agrees. Crown asks about Feb 1, if she did count. She did. Crown asks if she knows where? Bach says no, but it would have been downtown core. Crown says she can refresh her memory with Signal chat, page 27-28. Asks her to start with the total, if she completed the count Bach: QED 4 tractor trails / 5 campers emergency lane open, SJAM Booth - Vimy EB 14 tractor trails, 2 campers, WB 28 tractor trails, 5 campers. Crown asks about personal vehicles. 10-15 Crown asks about Queen. Queen Bay - Bronson emergency lane open. 10 tractor trailers, from Bay to Bronson, from Bay to Elgin completely open. Bank Albert to Nepean 18 Tractor trailers, 12 personal vehicles, emergency lane open. Kent Sommerset to - Wellington all lanes full, no lanes open. 200 tractor trailers. Albert Bank - OConnor 8 tractor trailers. Metcalfe Lisgar - Albert 33 tractor trailers 19 passenger vehicles. Wellington MacKenzie - Sussex 10 tractor trailers, 15 passenger vehicles... Wellington Portage - Sussex approx 300 tractor trailers. Grand total 633 tractor trailers 73 passenger vehicles approx. Crown asks she didn't make that all at once. Bach said she did; was in vehicle and drove those areas. Wasn't driving, real time updating log. Approximately afternoon or midmorning. Midmorning, as per log, 11:23 in morning.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

11/ Crown asks if that day, Feb 1, if she had conversation with Barber. She did. Crown asks if it would help refresh her memory to consult Signal. She does. Bach does not recall where she was. Says mobile in vehicle. Barber said he was Booth / Wellington - SJAM. Crown asks if she recalls or noted what Barber said. Barber explained 2 problem trucks identified that were - greater context 2 problem vehicles parked there causing issue for police - Barber on scene tried to have conversation. Relayed they wanted to be closer to "action." Closer to DT / Parliament Hill. Crown asks if comment made with respect to core. Bach advised core was totally inaccessible. Barber indicated he had priorities: Biggest issue was fuel, vehicles running out of fuel. Magas rises to say from now crown should not lead. Bach testifies Barber explained there were [truck] cabs with babies and they were going to run out of fuel. Crown asks if any further discussion in respect to fuel. Bach says there was, the way he would prefer fuel being brought to tanks. Slip tanks. It would be better, less chance of spillage. He also stressed importance of getting fuel to vehicles. Bach testifies she does not know what a slip tank it. Crown asks if Barber made further comment. Barber said guys being starved of fuel and food, more convoy being organized; need to get these issues streamlined this is not going away. Bach took that as a whole, downtown Ottawa.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

12/ Crown: What times was that convo on Feb 1 (At 12:50 in afternoon or very close to that) do you recall making further observations later that afternoon at SJAM (yes spent time there) recall specifically what you saw (specifically no, but remember it was packed with tractor trailers) refresh memory to refer to entry you made? (yes) Bach looks at notes. She remembers. She saw a lot of agitated people involved in Convoy, who have been sitting in trucks with impression they would be in front of Parliament, haven't been able to. Crown asks for observations, not what she heard or thought. Bach said observed agitated people unwilling to cooperate with police. Crown asks about open lanes for emergency vehicles. Bach testifies lanes were blocked, trying to get vehicles to move to keep lanes open for emergency vehicles Crown: Recall conversation with Barber on Feb 2 at 2:45 pm (specifically I do not) might it refresh memory to look at Signal chat page 33 (yes - I'm looking at it) I'd like you to review your entry to yourself and let us know if it refreshes your memory in regards to conversation 14:55 (I do recall this conversation) what was nature of conversation (try to work with police to open up areas for it to become more safe) Did Mr Barber ... Magas: The crown is going to lead into a narrative Crown: I'm trying to direct her to a specific part of convo without giving the words Judge: Now shes reading Crown: Entitled to Judge: She is. Needs indicate where she is reading... clearly does not remember Bach: Explains what she was reading Judge: That was helpful Crown: Did he share his feelings (he did - felt convoy out of control becoming unsafe. More inclined to work with us to resolve these issues) recall anything else about that conversation (in addition to strategizing solutions, he mentioned there would be meeting at Arc hotel with PLT and he would be attending it or members of PLT) Crown asks for a moment Crown: Did Mr Barber tell you anything else about his feelings (Believed at this part perhaps Convoy as whole lost sight of what it was meant for. He did express that)

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

13/ Crown: Do you still have text messages with you (I do) bring those to top dont open yet. Recall sending text to Barber on Feb 4 (I do - I do recall sending him messages and screenshots) Open to page 46 of the document that you have in front of you (looking at text) Magas: Maybe we can call it cellphone Crown: exhibit 127, correct. Officer do you see screenshots you sent to Mr Barber (I do) what were nature of screenshots (I know the screenshots meant to share info of OPS posting on social media - messaging to Convoy) when say messaging what referring to (OPS has Facebook or Instagram) Greenspon: Don't tell me just a sec when handing things to witness without saying [what it is? crown was handing something up to witness and saying just a sec to Greenspon] Bach testifies OPS has social media accounts where they post messaging and corporate messaging. Magas says usually crown provides same document to court and defence. Says usually has courtesy to bring hard copy. It is disclosed. Gave copy to witness and court Crown says under impression when things shared electronically... Judge says please provide them copy Crown asks for same courtesy in return Crown: 9 page document in front of you. Recognize it? (I do recognize it) Judge: Have you compared your actual messages to ensure these are the same (first time) Judge: Need to go to original to confirm exactly what was sent to Barber (No I did not) The crown begins saying something Judge explains she asked witness if she had that opportunity. Says she has to go and do that. Bach said doesn't have these messages. Magas explains these were extracted from Barber's phone Judge asks where Bach's phone data is. Bach says her phone was wiped shortly after Convoy due to IT upgrade. Not aware of any efforts to recover her phone Magas says if fact they were sent, it's okay. If it's for other purpose [she would object?] Crown says at minimum want to hear from Magas... why Judge says discussion in absence of witness Crown says will leave this issue for now mindful of time.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

14/ We move on to Signal chat of Feb 4. ... Crown: Tell us what was spoken about during this conversation Magas asks for testimony to be constrained to what Barber said, not something else [another person in this conversation] Crown explains in respect to the other person - crown has no intent to provide what they said for truth of content - thinks it fair to [perspective of] conversation at large Officer Bach leaves for Magas' objection Magas says PLT log 15:30, hour after conversation, received phone call from Barber and other person ranting. Doesn't know what Bach is going to say... Judge says relevant what Barber said; Magas doesn't know what purpose crown wants [to explore] third person "ranting"; doesn't know relevance. Judge says unless linkage Crown says no intention to explore rant for truth of content. Well aware. Reminds about crown comments yesterday regards to balance. Wants to ensure things are balanced. Judge: same rules apply to both The witness reenters

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

15/ Crown: We're talking about phone call you had with Barber and another individual on Feb 4 (yes) recall time of phone call, not entry (I don't recall time... make entry shortly after) refresh memory to look at notes for time of call (yes, 15:30 hours) recall nature of what was discussed in call (yes I do) recall people you spoke including Mr Barber estimated number of trucks (yes) how many trucks (roughly 320 trucks) and did they make any comments about these trucks, what were they Magas: We should ask if Barber made comments Judge: What were they if you recall (Recall conversation clearly, who I was talking to, don't know what time. Don't know if it was Barber or other person identified unless I looked at notes. Conversation was collective - wouldnt be able to recall unless I made note) Crown: How did conversation work (I received phone call. request for other person to have convo with myself. Barber facilitated that. Wanted to speak to someone at OPS who wasn't their contact - had been in contact with PLT) Judge: So he was just facilitator (first person. Then convo with Barber as well) How was he involved - was it simultaneous Magas: and without leading, please (I dont recall. I recall being on phone being passed off. Dont know if speaker on other end) Crown: Who told you 320 truck estimate (between two of them, I do not recall) recall anything being discussed in regards to their concerns Judge: Barber's concerns (joint concerns. Cant separate. Parts of convo with Mr Barber. Said he would send names of organizers to myself - to police - and have convo of what they'd be willing to "give" - talking moving vehicles, negotiate) Crown: Barber share other concerns MAgas: for record witness said "To give" did quotation mark with hands Crown: Barber share any other concerns? (Barber specific, I can't recall)

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

16/ The crown asks about observation on Feb 7 at Kent. Bach doesn't recall specific date. Crown can look at notes to refresh. Bach looks at notes and testifies Kent was blocked entirely, from Wellington to Gloucester. Laurier at Kent only place open for moving. Crown asks about observations on Kent at Feb 8. Bach does not recall. Crown says refer to notes, concerning emergency lanes. Bach says no change - completely blocked with area. Judge clarifies same area? Same area. Bach says that block specifically, between Nepean and Gloucester, had made it known they were not willing to move. Bach testifies they are mix-match of people who came to participate in Convoy. Crown asks if she remembers conversation with Barber Feb 8 in the afternoon. She does not. Crown says it might refresh memory to look at Signal chat. Crown: (I do recall this conversation, yes) what was the nature of the conversation? (Again, we were talking - Barber was talking to me about ideas on how we wanted the convoy to look moving forward. He spoke about strategy to move vehicles out, conduct rolling convoys, to utilize staging areas) do you recall him making mention of anything he had done (he had been out of Ottawa. Had confirmed trucks out of city. At this time returning to downtown area)

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

17/ Crown: Did he tell you where he moved truck? (No he did not; referenced "secret location" that he moved it to) previous had he ever indicated where his truck was located (before he indicated where it was) do you recall where it was, according to Mr Barber Judge: and what date (no I don't recall any of those) Crown: Do you recall Barber making comment about solutions (yes he did) what did he say in respect to solution (that trucks could move out of DT into staging area and others move on to Wellington, for optics, and that would open DT core to become much more safer) Was there any discussion about the prime minister (there was) what was nature Magas rises to say something Crown explains from their perspective, directly relevant Magas said maybe witness can be excused Officer Bach leaves the room

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

18/ Judge asks how it goes squarely to counts Crown says count 5 blocking highways Judge asks how comment about PM go to blocking road Corwn says comment on Aug 1st, back at some point, defence asked to identify one or more person to compel and crown said any 1 or more, any level of government, or their agents or employees, including the PM Crown says a statement, if any, about PM is squarely relevant to at least this Judge says she needs something more. Whether Barber had political view - how relevant - political view about how he liked one leader or another, how relevant Crown says its not comment... from their perspective relevant Magas: Crown does not suggest anything to do blocking HW relating to comments about PM in her view. Second, again crown cannot lead, as he did give out comment about PM Judge says we're beyond that Magas does not agree with crown's comment that any comment about PM goes to obstruct hw Crown says lets hear evidence Judge says we're now in a voir dire

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

19/ VOIR DIRE Crown: My first question officer, is do you recall if Mr Barber had comment about leaving city (he did. In terms of convoy as a whole?) Judge: Not the question Crown: Did he, Mr. Barber make any comment about leaving city (made comment about Convoy not leaving anytime soon) Judge: Question asksedd o you recall he made comment about leaving city Crown: Answer was Convoy not leaving anytime soon. With respect to - what else to - with respect to answer you- (he was speaking to how the convoy is not leaving anytime soon) Judge: do you have verbatim notes on this conversation (I do in log. [He said] only one solution, they haven't been heard. Includes acknowledgement from the prime minister. Spoke to more trucks being ready to come to Ottawa and participate in the Convoy) Crown: Did he give indication of how many more trucks ready to come and participate (he did said 3000 ready to move at a moment's notice to participate) In respect to comment said required acknowledgement, was there anything else other than acknowledgement (Yes acknowledgement and action) With respect to voir dire, all we have Judge: Address it when we return for lunch Crown: Want to call quits? Crown asks if defence wants to do cross. Defence says wants to do it after break or when witness comes back [tomorrow]. Crown: Do you recall conversation on Feb 9... Judge says her clock is slow. Believes it's 1:03. We'll break to 2:30. Discussion about when Bach will come back. She says can come 2:30 - 4:00. Lunch break

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

@helmera @JasonLavigneMP @threadreaderapp unroll

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

1/ Tamara Lich and Chris Barber criminal trial day 19. The trial has now gone 3 days longer than it was originally scheduled to take with no conclusion in clear sight. Follow this thread for my updates from the courtroom. The crown is still making their case, which was originally scheduled to take 10 days. The defense hasn't even started on their case. Tamara Lich and Chris Barber stand accused of numerous crimes including mischief, counselling offenses, and others. They are presumed innocent. If convicted, the pair faces a possible ten years in prison. So far, court testimony has focused heavily on the sound of horns and the smell of idling engines. There has been other accusations as well, but a/the "common theme" is the sound of horns. Do you think the accused crime deserves the desired punishment? What about just having to attend this trial so far? What about the almost 2 years of having criminal charges over their heads? All the traveling, lawyer fees, and everything else. Is this case in the public interest, in your opinion?

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

1/ Tamara Lich and Chris Barber criminal trial day 17. Follow this thread for my coverage from the courtroom. This trial was originally scheduled to end last friday. So far, we haven't even finished the Crown's case. Tamara and Chris potentially face a 10 year sentence if convicted. The evidence we've seen doesn't support that possible sentence. I struggle to see if it justifies this proceeding at all. I feel as though the right to protest, in part, is on trial here. Our rights NEED to matter all the time, not just when it's convenient or simple. Our rights are only as strong as we are upholding them.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

2/ We are in session. Zexi Li takes the stand for the crown.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

3/ Zexi Li resided near Bank St and Laurier Ave west. She was employed at the time and worked from home since the beginning of the Covid lockdown since March 2020. She's salaried employee within government, and works 7.5 hours during the day between 7 am 6 pm, Monday to Friday.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

4/ The crown asks her what it was like to work from home - she said difficult, followed by near impossible, "perhaps." Crown asks what made it difficult. Li says it was primarily difficult working from home in the moment due to level of noise present most of the day, if not all of the work day, in addition to effects of noise going on outside as result of "the occupation." Li testifies it created an environment that made it difficult to focus on work and quite literally anything and "live as a human being." Found it difficult to work due to lack of sleep in addition to other effects of the "occupation"

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

5/ Crown asks about the level of noise and what she was hearing. Zexi Li says countless sources of blaring air horns, in particular from trucks "occupying" streets - were aftermarket horns. Magas objects - she has no idea unless she checked truck. Judge asks specific knowledge Zexi Li says can recognize horns being sounded, can recognize car horns as resident being downtown, in addition to "very large trucks being used to transport" and walking around horns looked "non-standard" to her being an individual and when she observed from home

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

6/ Crown asks how frequent horns Judge asks for specific Crown says how frequent first week to February 4 Greenspon objects - says frequent suggests answer Crown rephrases Zexi Li says constant 7 am - 11 pm, says exception horns blared throughout night and day not conforming to specific time Magas asks witness to slow down. Judge instructs witness to slow down

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

7/ Zexi Li testifies about "roving truck" that she believed to be train horn due to excessive noise. Magas asks about "roving" She testifies in addition to what sounded like air raid siren in parking lot across from her building. Crown asks what that "air raid siren" looked like Zexi Li answers it was covered by tarps on truck, but noise it produced was evident, reminiscent of air raid siren, she sounds it Greenspon objects - question was what it looked like Judge instructs answer question Zexi Li testifies didn't see it; heard the noise, saw where it was located.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

8/ Crown asks about change in 2nd week Feb 4-11 Zexi Li says based on sound observed, it appears sounds changed due to live streams Recalls moment where noise stopped after injunction, but she was watching a livestream- Greenspon objects Crown and judge ask Zexi Li to stick to direct observations Li testifies there was first time since occupation began there was silenced Magas objects to constant use of term objection. "Very irritating to my ear" Judge says opportunity for cross. Judge says protest word were using Li says she personally - Greenspon objects Judge says personal opinion doesn't matter. Judge asks the witness to leave the room so discussion can occur in absentia

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

9/ Magas argues this particular witness is "quite invested," she says there's occupation around the world where people are living - Judge says we know legal definition. Judge says can put it to her if she understands the difference. Says it's important - astute - in these particular times. Will remind the witness we have called it a demonstration or protest Greenspon says he rose because concern witness is under some right to respond to ruling - she started to respond - should be told it's not her position to be discussing matter with your honor. Judge says will make sure witness knows who makes decision. Will have witness come back, will suggest use wording demonstration. What she says is up to her.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

10/ The witness Zexi Li returns and is instructed by the judge that she prefers her use the word protest or demonstration and just be careful to answer. When lawyers make discussion, it is for her to rule, not for her to question Crown asks about second week Feb 4 - 11; Asks a moment of more directed honking, efforts to honk at specific periods of time. What were those specific periods of time? Zexi Li: I recall that prior to the obtaining of the injunction there was an increased amount of honking, and following the injunction, there was a relief in the honking. Crown asks what specific period of time she noticed (Judge: if at all) the witness testified there was honking (Then she testified relief of honking so question if at all) Li: In morning prior to injunctions, periods of more intense honking. Following injunction, there was prolonged period where there was minimal honking that clearly differed from earlier in day; may have been 1 or 2 occasional honks c from who??? Crown asks about the 3rd week, the week Feb 11-18, what if any changes did you notice in level of noise you were hearing? Li asks for dates again. Zexi Li: From 11-18, there was more organized honking "at this time," where I recall a specific incident where there was a collective resounding honk 6:55 or 7 am and recall other more scheduled intense periods of honking it seemed those participating in the demonstration c some emphasis on that last word Magas objects - testify about what she hears. Judge agrees Zexi testifies seemed like people participating in the "occupation" were doing it together. The sound was all happening in the same moment rather than all spread out. Crown: Do you recall what time you heard that sound? Li: In general, I recall it being on the hour, as I mentioned before, 6:55 to 7 in one instance Judge: what day? Li: Believe it was 17th or 18th of feb

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

11/ Crown asks for specific other dates. Li answers can't recall any due to the "frequency of the occurrences." Crown asks what she means by frequency of occurrences Zexi Li: At the time the demonstrations were going on - can you repeat question Crown: Answered other periods, couldn't say date or time but answered frequency of occurrences - what did you mean by that Zexi Li: By that time the occupation - sorry demonstration - the honking and noise had permeated "My existence" where always expecting there to be honking wondering if it would ever end. Blurred from that perspective I guess cause always under the impact of the honking. So the frequency I refer to is in reference to both I guess it was the honking happened so consistently that even when it wasn't happening I could expect it to happen at any other time Crown: aside to honking, did you hear other noises? Zexi Li says there was what she found reminiscent to be air raid sirens, fireworks, megaphones being shouted into, speakers blasting music, roving truck with extremely loud horn Crown asks Zexi Li to clarify where she is when hearing these noise. The witness replies she would either be the streets of downtown, Parliamentary and centretown area or at her home.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

12/ Crown asks about fireworks. Zexi Li testifies on 1st weekend, she heard fireworks around the night c she gave the time but I was dealing with a posting issue on the last post Crown: During period of Jan 29-Feb 19 did you have commitments or activities that would bring you out of house (Yes) what were they (gym, groceries, medication pickup, just to walk in my neighborhood) Crown: How many times a day if at all would you go on these walks or go do appointments (I would say once or twice a day on average. Some days I would stay home entirely) Crown: Focusing on first week, Jan 28-Feb 4, did you take walks? (Yes) Where did you walk? (I walked in the general vicinity between my home and Parliamentary area where the demonstration was primarily taking place) Do you recall streets you would have walked on? (Laurier west, Bank, Kent, Albert, Slater, Wellington) Crown asks to slow down (Metcalfe, O'Connor, Sparks, those main area) Recall days you would have gone on walks? (I recall going on Walks Feb 3, Feb 4, and perhaps other days as well)

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

13/ Crown: Can you tell us your observation on these walks? (I was generally masked. I explored area demonstration was taking place on Feb 3 on area along sidewalks near by home observed garbage everywhere, feces, other material, bonfires on certain streets, trucks and cars, large trucks - transport trucks parked in the middle of the streets in intersection. At times vehicles with wheels removed. Observed a lot of snow in addition to what was in streets. The biggest thing I observed, I supposed, the people on street timing to get my attention. Trying to see if I supported their cause.) Judge asked about you don't know? (Said to see if I supported, and when they knew I didn't, would honk in response, when I flinched - no longer trying to be friendly) Greenspon objects - she doesn't know. Judge agrees. Crown says it's her observation Crown: Without telling us anything said to you, when you say there were people trying to see if you were supportive, what is that based on Judge: She can describe personal direct interactions with people [and that might get what led her to think that] Crown: I think your honor what I'm getting at based on my friend's comment... The judge asks Zexi Li to step out.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

14/ Crown says it could be based on conversation she had. Judge said better approach to ask her to describe direct interactions and perhaps go from there. Judge: Difficult to place a lot of weight on something that isn't direct observation. Crown: I propose to ask her in that area did you have direct interactions Greenspon: She can be cautioned as to [testifying?] what she thought - but your honor has covered it, it's fine

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

15/ The crown asked if she recalls the intersection of the interaction she just described. Li answers Kent for sure, believes it was at Albert Crown asks if she had direct interaction? Li said considered direct interaction because they signaled to her (Judge asks how) With her right hand. She didn't reciprocate, and once she didn't, excessive honking - and the vehicle was shaking as well - and she felt intimidated by that encounter. Asks if she gone walking Feb 4-Feb 11 if she went walking Li starts testifying about 3rd week; Judge cautions her to listen to question. Crown asks if she went walking that second week. Li can't recall any specific days. Crown asks what if any changes to things she observed on the street during that week. Li says based on what she can recall, the demonstration was becoming more entrenched in these streets. There were structures being setup Judge: Where? Li keeps talking, crown says judge asked where Li says structures on Bank and Laurier, what appeared to be structures along Kent street Crown asks to describe structure at Bank and Laurier. Zexi Li says she can't really describe it. Says it was like a makeshift soup kitchen.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

16/ Crown asks same question, but Feb 11-18: What if any changes to your observation - were there any changes? Zexi Li: In that week, it felt less of a jovial atmosphere to me Greenspon: Objection Judge: Your observations Zexi Li: By what I recall, by the third week [long pause] c there has been a lot of long pauses Crown: Recall where you walked third week? Li testifies she walked similar area, closer to Kent and Laurier Crown: How many times that week do you recall you walked? Li: I can't say exactly how many times, but I would say at least 2 or 3 times that week Crown: And what was your observation on your walk? Li: c long pause Li: Can I speak about a specific incident? Crown: Yes, if there's something that sticks on Li: based on my personal interactions with the demonstrators, on either Feb 17 or 18, I was on corner of Laurier and Kent, where I was taking pictures and recording evidence of the honking injunction being broken, at which point the demonstrators in the area became hostile towards me, which the demonstrated through shouting, and in addition, while I was taking a picture of an individual's pickup truck trunk that contained jerry cans, the individual inside the truck, parked partially on sidewalk, backed his truck into me. After which point I called the police and addition demonstrators in the area began to shout and honk at me and create further disruption Crown: Do you remember time of day that occured? Zexi Li: Between 7 and 9 in the morning

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

17/ Crown: Going back to the first week, you described in your answer, trucks and cars, large trucks, parked in the middle of street in intersections. What intersection do you recall making those observations on? Li: I would say along Kent in the middle of the street from at least I think Nepean to Wellington, the entire street was blocked by the trucks. From Bank street, on Laurier, to Glocouster was I believe completely blocked off... for some time. Wellington I believe was filled with trucks in the middle of the street as well in addition to Metcalfe between around Nepean I would say and Laurier. Crown: Did you make any observations of traffic? Zexi Li: Yes, I did. Throughout the demonstration I personally observed a service vehicle - an ambulance - unable to make it passed - it was driving on Laurier trying to proceed west through Kent - however, it was unable to make it through. The ambulance had to take 2 or 3 mins to navigate out of gridlock Judge: What time did you observe that Li: It was in evening Crown: What do you mean by gridlock? Li: Ambulance was unable to proceed; had to find alternative route to make it passed blockage on Kent and Laurier Crown: Was this on first week? Li: Can't recall if this was first week, but it was during the demonstration

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

18/ The crown asks the witness what changes they observed to traffic throughout the demonstration Zexi Li: Roads were much narrower due to buildup of snow on sides of street. To be honest, I think - I don't drive. Crown: Asks about changes to intersections and traffic Zexi Li: At times, vehicles were removed. Over times, there was openings to some roads completely blocked off. On Bank, it was at one time completely blocked. Remembers a change to one lane was open. Similar occurrences in concentrated areas Crown: What concentrated areas? Li: Bank st, Kent st, as well as Wellington, and Metcalfe Crown: Do you recall what week, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, you would have made observation of the easing? Li: Can't recall exactly, believe in second or third week some intersections began to open Crown: How do you get around Li: Walk or public transit

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

19/ Crown asks if she used public transit during demonstration Zexi Li answers she believes the area was inaccessible to transit, there were detours Crown asks about smells Zexi Li testifies about idling vehicles, smell of gasoline and diesel. The smell was significant in downtown area. The difference to me personally was evident Crown: When you were making these observations about the smell, where were you? Li: In the Parliamentary and Centretown area. Generally, in the downtown area - it wasn't like clean air. You could smell the diesel and the gasoline.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

20/ Crowns asks what if any differences were there in her observations on weekends The witness testifies from what she recalls, at least in the third week of the demonstration, there was a smaller presence in regards to the demonstrators on weekdays and on the weekends, I believe that was when the fireworks most commonly occurred The crown asks for a moment

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

21/ The crown asks for the morning break. Judge says not convenient. Has another matter. Was planning to go to 11:30. Judge says it they need a few moments, that's fine.

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

22/ Crown: Earlier in your evidence, you have described, you had said, at times, there were vehicles with wheels removed (Yes) Do you recall what type of vehicle (green midsized sedan) Where did you make that observation (Kent and Laurier) crown: Those are all my questions The judge cautions the witness not to speak to anybody about her evidence. Judge says we'll come back at 11:45

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

23/ We're back. The witness isn't here. Greenspon says ready to commence. Judge says we need a witness. Greenspon asks if she's been paged Judge says she has officers with her Greenspon asks if Li had notes or a journal (no I would not have a journal) and if we go through collective honking, can't tell us what date that occurred (could you repeat your question please) incidents of collective honking - can't tell us specific dates (not for all the events, but some specific dates... on Feb 7, also collecting honking on Feb 17 or 18th, can't remember) You'd agree can't tell me what date, specifically (not at this time, no) well, at any time, at any time in the future specific between Feb 17 and 18 (have captured images as described, if was to look at images, would know what date) you could tell from these images what date there was collective honking- would you need an audio? (the images I captured) I'm not interested in that - question was from images you captured, could you tell Feb 17 or 18 there was this collective honking (based on my recollection of the day that occurred, I would be able to link the day the honking occurred with other events) but you're not able to specify Feb 17 / 18 collective honking occurred, correct (correct) Greenspon asks how long honking lasted on Feb 7. Li can't speak to specific duration. Greenspon asks about other dates (when it is in reference to specific examples of collective honking - can't recall other than what I specified) and as far as air raid siren, can't be specific to specific date (no) As far as roving truck, can't answer a specific date (no) As far as megaphone, can't answer specific date (correct) as far as fireworks, can't answer specific date (correct) as far as truck backing into you, did the truck making contact with you (no because I moved out of the way) it was a truck moving in your direction and you were able to move away (the truck was parked- ) I didn't ask where it was parked... did you report to police (yes) incident report (they did but no further action taken) the date that happened, you cant be specific to when that occurred (correct)

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

24/ Greenspon asks about the demonstrators who signalled to Zexi Li. Li says they were sitting in trucks and pumping their fists up and down. Greenspon says it was a person in truck doing this - Li says correct, driver. Greenspon asks when they did that, she didn't reciprocate. Li says correct. Greenspon says honking happened after? Correct? Greenspon asks you can't be specific about date? Li says believes Feb 3. Greenspon asks about where - Li it was Kent, believes at Albert. Greenspon asks if she knows who it was - she does not. It was "a stranger." Greenspon inquires about the ambulance - what date did that occur? Zexi Li does not recall. Greenspon asks about the study of the emergency services during the demonstration - is she aware of that? Zexi says she is not well versed, but is aware of it. Greenspon says we heard testimony about such a study - and response times within course of demonstration were within expected timeframe - do you have knowledge of that? (No) And your testimony of ambulance on some day [you don't know] delayed by 2 or 3 minutes would suggest a response time that is no in expected timeline (Zexi says it would be response time for specific ambulance) Greenspon: I want to ask you about traffic blockages you saw during your walks, I take it you're unable to tell us specifically on what dates you noticed traffic blocking intersections, is that fair (for specific intersections, yes, however there were blocked entirety / majority of demonstrations) can't tell what dates intersections blocked (I did not record or map intersections were blocked) not able to tell specific dates intersections blocked (I'm not able to provide that for all intersections in downtown core... aware of intersections blocked for majority of time) go back to my question - you cant tell us what intersections were blocked on which day (Correct) and you said you were some roads blocked majority of demonstration - have your evidence correct? (Correct) ... there were periods of time roads not blocked entirely (it's possible I wasn't there at all times) ... you can't tell us what roads were blocked on specific dates, correct (Correct) Greenspon: I understand that a class action was started with you as the representative plaintiff in early Feb 2022, is that correct (correct) and that pursuant to that class action, one of the first things done on your behalf was a motion for an injunction against the honking (correct) and the motion for injunction done on your behalf and other residents in downtown Ottawa (Correct) and that injunction, the purpose was to try and stop honking (correct) there was nothing in the application, to your knowledge, that tried to stop the fireworks, right? (That is correct) There was nothing in the injunction, to your knowledge attempt to unblock roads (correct) Nothing in injunction to do anything but stop horns (correct) and you were present at the time Superior Court judge ruled on injunctions? (Virtually, yes) And you'd be aware what was stopped would be air horn stopped in down town (correct) and that injunction was enforced for period if 10 days, did you know that (I am aware that is ordered to be enforced) ... and that's why your lawyer had to go back on Feb 16 to continue order (correct) Greenspon: And you are also aware that the court ordered that, provided the terms of ordered complied with, the defendants - you understand that to be organizers of various Freedom COnvoy (could you clarify question) You understand number of defendants in class action (I'm aware) these people you are suing (yes) and these included about 60 John Does (correct) people unknown to you or your counsel (at that time, correct) and aside from 60 John Does, also named Chris, Tamara, BJ, Pat King and others (correct) So you understand as of 7th of Feb because you were in attendance, that provided terms of order complied with, the judge ordered that defendant and other persons remain at liberty to participate in a peaceful, lawful protest (I understand people named as John Doe at liberty to continue peaceful lawful protest, I do not understand that to be) Greenspon starts speaking Crown: She is trying to answer the question, should be allowed Greenspon: If there's an objection, ask witness to be removed Crown: objection was let witness respond Greenspon: I'd like to respond in absence of the witness The witness is asked to leave

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

25/ Greenspon says witness does not have absolute right to continue answering. She was about to give opinion on peaceful legal protest Crown says it's probative to answer question. Not first time it happened - not first time it happened - witness should be allowed to do so as she sees fit. Clearly trying to be thoughtful. Let's give her space to answer as she sees first Judge: people should be allowed to answer questions... but I don't want anyone talking over anyone else. Have to maintain decorum in court. The judge remarked that certain things might be used by defence to impeach the witness, and show they are not impartial. Greenspon says where witness begins to give non-responsive answer... Judge: I will direct her Greenspon: Thank you

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

26/ Zexi Li returns. Greenspon: I'll restate my question - so you understood as of 7th of Feb - you were in attendance - providing terms were complied with, judge ordered defendants and other persons at liberty to engage is peaceful, safe, lawful protest - you understood that part (correct) and your lawyers [agreed] to that portion as long as injunction complied with (I -) Judge asks for the question again (I acknowledge that my lawyers accepted a term that as long as injunction not violated, lawful peaceful protest would be permitted - I do not acknowledged that was indicator of what was going on) Your lawyers agreed - correct (that's correct as long as the demonstration remained peaceful, lawful, and safe) your lawyers consented to a term where (I agree my lawyers agreed to term where peaceful and lawful protest was allowed as long as the injunction was followed) I'll ask one more [or show you your affidavit] your lawyers [consented] to a term lawful peaceful protest permitted as long as injunction complied with - correct (correct) 10 days later lawyers brought case back to judge McLean (correct) were you there when he made order continuation of injunction (I was connected virtually) Greenspon: And at that time, reading from paragraph 8 of the order, entered as 122 b, you were aware, Ms Li, as of Feb 16, 2022 the same superior court judge ordered that provided terms are complied with, the defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful, and safe protest - you were aware of that terms (I was aware of the term that peaceful, lawful, and safe protest would be permitted as long as honking injunction respected) the wording of judge's wording in both cases is identical - agree? (That lawful, peaceful, safe protest permitted -yes) and I put it you it was open to you as representative plaintiff between Feb 7 and 16 and speak to your lawyer and say look, they're not complying, can't consent to order - and you gave no such instruction did you Crown objects to certain language Judge says solicitor client privilege applies Judge says witness don't want to know about direct conversation - its privileged Greenspon: In attendance Feb 7 and 16th correct (correct) and there was nothing brought to judge on Feb 16 nor was there any request made in open court to have that particular clause of the order changed (I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're looking for) Judge: Not for you to understand ... not up for you to analyze Greenspon: What don't you understand? (I just don't understand question) Say so an I'll rephrase (okay) you were in attendance Feb 7 and 16th (correct) and on Feb 16, you were present when, once again your counsel on your behalf consented to term, the very same term "remain at liberty to engage in peaceful, lawful and safe" (correct) You were present when put in place on 16 (correct) and as of Feb 16, you were aware that once again, the only thing that the judge enjoined [stopped] was the use of airhorns or trainhorns other than those on municipal fire vehicle in geographic location anywhere in Ottawa - aware of that? (Correct) No expansion of what demonstrators not supposed to do (specific to injunction yes) That's all they were enjoined by the judge both on Feb 6 and 16th (correct)

@rightblend - patriotsmoothie 🇨🇦

27/ Li testifies honking started January 28 to Feb 17 or 18. Greenspon asks if it never stopped and it was constant. Zi answers correct. It felt like it every other minute. Greenspon: Let me go to your description... it was at least every other minute, agree with that? (Yes) and yet, as of Feb 7, the day of injunction you described honking stopping entirely (yes in that moment) You said stopped entirely (in reference to that specific time) ... it started ramping up again on weekend (correct) ... and then you describe by Feb 11 you hear honking again (correct) so it wasn't constant by Feb 11, it was frequent (correct) Do you not see that your description of the honking as being constant until Feb 17 / 18 - do you not see that being contradictory to Feb 7 stopped entirely, Feb 11 would hear it frequent (I would not see as being contradictory. Referring to different points in time) I see. Greenspon asks for lunch. We'll back back at 2:15 The witness is cautioned again, as all are.