00:27:12.320And the issue sort of sort of like looking forward in this, the issue that and Mark and I were just talking about this, the issue that we've got going forward is how how do we we had a guy who called us right after you guys were convicted, asking for advice on on on a protest that he was planning to stage.
00:27:33.560um we were we were sort of hung up on this because um as it as it looks today um you know there's
00:27:43.660there are some it it appears as though if you're sort of in the in the periphery you can be uh
00:27:50.920convicted of uh of mischief right um and that's not just it's not just with you you uh tamara and
00:27:58.000it's not just with you chris but it's also with uh i don't know if you you guys i'm sure you are
00:28:02.860aware of the the coots three um we represented george jansen as a three-week jury trial we ran
00:28:10.280and he was convicted with a betting through speech and logistics so um it it certainly
00:28:21.800it it requires um i think you know sort of for my part it requires clarity on on what the law is as
00:28:30.600it relates to our rights to protest. This is a problem we're now faced with. I mean, Tamara was
00:28:39.220calling for peaceful assembly in Ottawa. Hold the line was mentioned a number of times in the
00:28:48.220decision. And the prolonging of the mischief through that statement in the decision was
00:29:00.520was sort of tied into the the mischief and and and the ratio i guess so to speak uh for for the
00:29:08.340mischief it was because you called for for people to to come and peacefully protest and then hold
00:29:14.900the line that uh was was enough that that was sufficient to uh to convict on a um on a mischief
00:29:24.980on a mischief charge which um you know that's it's from our perspective certainly it's uh it's
00:29:33.640it's that's that's it's rather distant and we we we're we're uh we're looking forward to getting
00:29:39.620some clarity at the uh at the court of appeal where this is certainly going and obviously this
00:29:44.340is going to be married up with the crown's uh appeal so you know i'm i'm anticipating a one to
00:29:50.360two-day uh appeal but you know i think clarity here is is necessary because um like i said that
00:29:57.220guy who who uh who contacted us asking what his rights were how how does he stage a lawful protest
00:30:04.040in light of this uh in light of these convictions and um you know it's a good question it's it's
00:30:11.840very difficult to advise you know it would be i know i'm sorry to but barred barjen but i know um
00:30:20.180Like even in her decision and her honor's decision, she did make a point of trying to say that the sentencing was to restrict deterrence from protesting.
00:30:34.240But I mean, this whole thing would be like you just said, some people are phoning you to ask what they can do to ensure that they're not going to get a conviction if they want to exercise the right to peaceful assembly and their right to free speech.
00:30:45.000so that tells me that the damage is done people are are so maybe it is only only 12 months of
00:30:51.120house arrest and only an additional six months of a curfew but you have to take into fact the
00:30:56.360previous three and a half years the bail conditions the trips to ottawa like who's going to want to
00:31:02.840sign up for that well it is a deterrent if i can adam you just left on terrible right and you moved
00:31:11.700uh west i did okay so april of 2022 i believe is when doug ford passed bill 100 and i don't know
00:31:23.700if you know the ins and outs of that uh he he passed that very quickly um in ontario it's
00:31:29.620basically a bill which was meant to stop any future protests in the province of ontario
00:31:36.420involving a vehicle so he compounded the difficulty for the public so penalties could be a year in
00:31:45.140prison a hundred thousand dollar fine or both and if you were wrongly convicted and the police
00:31:54.100officer who laid the charge wrongly laid the charge he was actually immune from any form of
00:32:01.460prosecution or lawsuit uh so doug ford in his cabinet moved very very quickly to pass that
00:32:09.300and because he had a majority government still has a majority government because
00:32:13.380you know ontario voters need i say anymore uh but he passed that very very quickly like it was
00:32:20.340three up three down and uh there you go you've got now bill uh c 100 and uh it passed just before
00:32:28.740the election we had in june so yeah very very it's much more difficult now in the province of
00:32:36.740ontario to do a protest if you involve a vehicle but i would say do it anyway not with a vehicle
00:32:45.300but in a different way do it anyway i mean i didn't say that just putting that on the record
00:32:51.540no samara leach did not it was all uh it was all mark joseph who said it
00:32:58.420but then even holding the line like the ndp or jagmeet singer somebody just came out with a great
00:33:03.620big poster that last week a rally hold the line so i mean it depends on who's saying it i guess
00:33:10.340right mark do you have any thoughts on uh on everything that's that's transpired this week
00:33:15.060Well, I'm trained to be paranoid. And so I'm not going to say anything about, you know, the live appeal. Like Adam said, we need some clarity. And I think we'll get that the Court of Appeal. But I mean, look, governments are definitely looking at restricting charter rights, whether it's to protest or free speech.
00:33:35.820We're in Ottawa, everyone probably knows this, because Bill C-9 is being debated, and that seeks to amend the criminal code to codify a definition of hatred that is, the liberals say it's the same, liberal government said it's the same as what we have now, but we disagree.
00:33:58.300It's actually much lower for the Crown to prosecute alleged hate speech offenses, and they're also seeking to amend the Criminal Code to stack an additional freestanding criminal offense if the underlying offense arising from any act of parliament is motivated by hatred.
00:34:25.440So that's a little convoluted way of saying if you committed offense under any act of parliament, that could be the National Parks Act, the Labor Act, anything, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and it's found that you did so because you were motivated by hatred.
00:34:44.320Well, they, if this amendment passed from Bill C-9, can then stack on another criminal offense, a freestanding criminal offense that could involve jail time.
00:34:54.380They're proposing to amend to add further offenses if you block a religious building.
00:35:01.080And they're removing the Attorney General's consent to file hate speech charges.
00:35:06.620So they're really looking to restrict what we think is legitimate speech, unpleasant, offensive, obnoxious speech, maybe.
00:35:16.120But the threshold now is low, and they're proposing to lower it even further.
00:35:21.720Adam and I are representing a street preacher who was arrested and charged for, I think, causing a disturbance just for preaching gospel on the street corner.
00:35:34.140And John Carpe, probably speak to this, he represented a street preacher for preaching the gospel near the Santa Claus parade.
00:35:48.140No, it was 176 sub 2, John, correct me if I'm wrong.
00:35:51.880And that's obstructing an assemblage of persons gathered for religious worship, which is bizarre.
00:36:00.840with my point is the police already have plenty of tools to deal with uh criminal conduct and
00:36:08.360the government is now proposing to give them even more tools to restrict restrict speech so they've
00:36:13.240gone after your right to protest and now they're going after your right to free speech so you know
00:36:19.160i don't know where this is coming right speculate but they're definitely restricting your charter
00:36:23.800rights well let's if i can talk about i can add in on standard i just wanted to go to your point
00:36:29.720john of the double standards you know we can have non-christian uh non-christian religions blocking
00:36:38.520major intersections in canada's biggest city uh but you can't have one individual person preaching
00:36:45.400or even silently well maybe that's the uk silent doing a silent prayer you're going to get picked
00:36:50.600up and harassed by by the authorities and so when we look at again another double standard
00:36:57.480uh it seems like this government seems to be building a case a double standard against people
00:37:03.720who are of christian faith or descendants of christians or were raised in christian
00:37:10.200communities and environments where you know you can as a muslim do a the the call to prayer
00:37:17.640in front of the largest uh christian church in montreal and not a thing happens to you or any
00:37:25.000individual within your group or you can do a prayer uh in the middle of a busy intersection
00:37:30.680in downtown toronto and nothing happens but one guy at a santa claus parade geez that's that's as
00:37:37.640bad as whispering for three seconds in my ear where you're going to get arrested after giving
00:37:42.120a speech right it's ridiculous to see the double standards so i yeah and i think that's an important
00:37:49.080thing to recognize is there is uh a very powerful double standard uh between newcomers and old stock
00:37:56.680canadians and maybe that's a crude term old stock but that's that's what everybody knows yeah john
00:38:04.360Look, double standards are, you're likely to see more of, if Bill C9 passes into law, the definition of hate is so subjective that it almost lends itself. Okay, it's very subjective. There are, you know, even the six of us on this call, and we're fairly like-minded on a lot of issues, but if I was, if we were all to watch the same YouTube video or see the same flag or the same symbol,
00:38:33.760Some of us might say, oh, that's hateful.
00:38:35.660And others would say, nah, it's just expressing an opinion and vice versa.
00:38:39.620Other people would look at a different YouTube video and say, it's hateful.
00:38:43.280No, it's just the expression of opinion.
00:38:47.400If it wasn't so serious, it's almost comical how they twist themselves into a pretzel trying to define hate,
00:38:52.820which is an emotion you don't really know for sure if it exists in somebody else's heart.
00:38:57.380I mean, sometimes it's fairly obvious, but you don't really know for sure.
00:39:01.160so they say to discredit humiliate offend ridicule and hurt the feelings of somebody
00:39:09.660is not hate speech disdain and dislike are not hate however detestation and vilification now
00:39:17.900that's hate i mean go figure that out a good law by definition is clear so that the the average
00:39:24.660person whoever you know average person of average intelligence can read it and you know there's lots
00:39:31.520of good laws on the books I mean the laws against shoplifting like they're pretty clear as to what's
00:39:36.340prohibited there's there's not much of a great there could be you know questions at trial about
00:39:40.960the evidence or maybe the evidence is not clear as to whether somebody did it or not but the law
00:39:45.500is very clear what is shoplifting what is murder what is assault so on and so forth and here it's
00:39:51.320like yeah well you know uh detestation and vilification is hate but dislike and disdain
00:39:56.260is not hate and apparently you can mock ridicule discredit and offend people and hurt their
00:40:03.600feelings and that's not necessarily hate and the uh the worst thing and mark already mentioned this
00:40:11.100it's the removal of a current requirement whereby if the local police and crown prosecutors in you
00:40:17.200Ottawa, Saskatoon, Victoria, Halifax, wherever, if the local police want to commence criminal
00:40:24.200prosecution against a Canadian over what he said, they need the approval of the Attorney General.
00:40:30.020Now, attorneys general are not infallible and they can make mistakes, but it's kind of a sober
00:40:34.960second thought. It's a review process from somebody that's possibly in a different city
00:40:40.380and it adds a healthy check so that the if if the maybe the local police are very inflamed or maybe
00:40:49.280they're responding to a lot of complaints theoretically police shouldn't do this but
00:40:53.280i've seen it happen where police get you know a half dozen complaints or a dozen complaints
00:40:58.360and and they'll they'll issue a ticket or or criminal charges and they know it's not warranted
00:41:04.740but you know they've had a lot of complaints well the attorney general if those uh if there's no
00:41:11.880basis for a prosecution would kibosh it the very fact that you have that review process means that
00:41:18.340it's a it's an appropriate restraint on local police local crown prosecutors well now that if
00:41:24.940bill c9 passes that'll go out the window so now we're all at the mercy of local police local
00:41:30.520Crown prosecutors who if they feel something is hateful or if they get a lot of complaints
00:41:34.920it's taking a step towards the situation in the United Kingdom where thousands of people get
00:41:39.880arrested over a mean tweet or an intemperate tweet and this doesn't take us all the way to
00:41:46.460that point but it's a dangerous step in that direction so small item of good news the government
00:41:51.120is largely back down on Bill C-2 and that's in response to so many Canadians contacting their
00:41:56.600MP is saying Bill C2 is bad. It violates my privacy. It outlaws cash, gives Canada Post the
00:42:04.300right to open letter mail without a warrant. And so the government took the immigration and refugee0.98
00:42:10.460and border components out of Bill C2, put it into Bill 12 as a separate bill, which is what it
00:42:17.000should have been to begin with. You shouldn't have, you know, five different topics in one piece of
00:42:21.620legislation. So they put it into Bill 12. They're going to push hard on that. They might get
00:42:25.900conservative support i have no idea and the really bad parts of bill c2 are kind of still
00:42:33.200stuck in bill c2 but the government's put it on the back burner so it shows what what what you
00:42:38.140can achieve it shows canadians what canadians can achieve when you contact your mp in large
00:42:43.560enough numbers uh they do listen good well that is uh now there's somewhat good news at least
00:42:52.160i hadn't heard that so that's great wow very informative when you go to the town halls by
00:42:57.500the way john i don't know adam mark do you guys do the town halls or not but when john does a
00:43:01.220town hall with the gccf it's very informative john gives a lot of information at those so if
00:43:06.060you see anything in the future make sure you go to your way and check it out well i just want to
00:43:10.340follow up a little bit if i can on the uh on the bill c9 uh because there's it's it's the new new
00:43:16.400offense of of willful promotion of hatred but there's also the new offense of uh intimidation
00:43:21.520of enumerated buildings okay so this is this is if you block essentially if you block certain
00:43:30.160uh buildings that they've enumerated which are um which include uh buildings that are uh places of
00:43:37.040religious worship um it it will result in uh an additional charge so for example you know during
00:43:45.020the the convoy protest imagine also being like if this were applied prior to imagine also being
00:43:52.220charged with uh you know this this new offense that that blocks let's say you know okay so a
00:44:00.440truck is blocking um a road and at the end of that road happens to be a church right or happens to be
00:44:07.940a synagogue or happens to be a mosque um this this will create this bill c9 will create an
00:44:14.120additional charge um that that has its own actus reus it has its own mens rea um and and will be
00:44:22.500will be pursued moving forward everybody involved in the in the in the trucker uh protest arguably
00:44:30.100could have been charged with this new charge that is on the books that is well that if passed will
00:44:36.860be on the books so and and that's of course a problem right i mean how you know everybody's
00:44:43.780supposed to do their due diligence i guess now to uh to see oh well okay if i if i block wellington
00:44:48.680how many churches are on wellington okay well this church this okay well i can't i guess i can't
00:44:53.180because this will be two charges or or instead of or this will not only result in a mischief it will
00:44:58.140result in a in a uh in this new enumerated uh building charge so it's just it's um you know
00:45:05.300it's as a result of, and it's, I think it stems from, from protest, right? I mean, what else could
00:45:11.840it, could it be the result of? So, you know, in our, in our view, it's, it's certainly,
00:45:19.380it's extremely overbroad, and it will capture civil, it will capture civil dissidents, it will
00:45:27.720capture legal dissidents, and it will capture people who are looking to legally protest more
00:45:34.040so than is already captured. How then can anybody be, if I have another phone call,
00:45:40.840how then can anybody be advised? Well, okay, do you have a church at the end of that street?
00:45:45.900How far up the street? We don't know. None of this has been tested. It's going to be tested,
00:45:50.780but you see the problems that will ultimately ensue.
00:45:55.860If you've got the Ottawa police, they'll park you in front of the church, even though you agreed
00:46:01.140not to and then you can go after them for induced error if you're lucky and even if you listen to
00:46:06.500them and move your vehicle after they tell you to you they'll find fault in that so hey yes well
00:46:12.020this is i mean i went through you guys uh the the recently i had to uh for for another matter go
00:46:17.460through the uh the plt chats and and it was it was uh and i was sitting in the courtroom for a number
00:46:23.060of them uh during uh during your trial and it was it was very apparent i mean you know all of the
00:46:28.580officers seem to be saying, oh, very cooperative, you know, assist. There was, you know, I don't
00:46:38.800recall reading any, oh, you know, Tamara was uncooperative here or Chris was uncooperative
00:46:47.460there in any event. So anyway, that's the ultimate problem that we're concerned about. And of course,
00:46:53.220it'll have a chilling effect on free speech, free assembly, and protesting in the future.
00:47:00.020What's case law going forward, especially with Tamarini's case, right, and the appeal process
00:47:03.780coming up? Do you feel, all three, do you feel it's very important that we appeal this and we
00:47:08.040try our best to beat this now for future generations that are going to face the
00:47:12.420consequences of this case law that's been presented in the last number of years?
00:47:17.480Look, if the Crown's appealing, then typically the accused person also appeals. I mean,
00:47:22.600I have no idea about your discussions with your own lawyers, nor do I want to know.
00:47:28.400But theoretically, a deal could have been struck and the Crown said, okay, we're going to leave it alone.
00:47:34.080And if the Crown had said that, who knows, maybe you guys would have left it alone.
00:47:38.400But when the Crown appeals, you're going to go up to the next level of court anyway.
00:47:43.320You might as well take your best shot at cross-appealing on other issues.
00:47:50.160I wanted to just add very briefly to this double standard with Bill C-9.
00:47:56.740It was frightening when the minister introduced it.
00:47:58.880He said, we are introducing this Combating Hate Act in response to rising anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, transphobia, and homophobia.
00:48:08.240It says nothing about the dozens of Christian churches that have been burned to the ground, destroyed by arson in recent years.
00:48:14.980Nothing. Not a word. Absolutely nothing.
00:48:17.800so combating hate it's all about anti-semitism islamophobia transphobia homophobia it's it's
00:48:24.700very ideological now those words are not um that's not in the bill itself it was merely the the
00:48:32.920minister's announcement when he was talking about the bill but i find that really frightening
00:48:38.160i'm not aware of dozens of mosques or synagogues i've been burned to the ground and in saying that
00:48:44.520I'm not minimizing the pain and anguish that people feel when you see spray paint on the wall
00:48:51.540of your house of worship. It's absolutely wicked and it should be punished. Although even there,
00:48:56.960you don't need to go after the emotions. If somebody's got the can of spray paint and you
00:49:03.760catch some spray painting, that's mischief right there. It's criminal behavior. But
00:49:09.840we've got to change the culture that's what's going to cure these problems it's a very long
00:49:15.000term project because if you have a culture in which the vast majority of people expect their
00:49:21.440governments to respect human rights and constitutional freedoms that culture is going
00:49:26.880to trickle up into the police forces the law societies the law schools the judges the crown
00:49:32.920prosecutors the teachers the university professors so that's the long-term goal is to transform the
00:49:38.680culture, because then the double standard will go away. We'll go back to a far better
00:49:45.120application of the rule of law, part of which is you're all equal before the law, regardless of
00:49:51.580your political opinions. I was going to say, during the COVID mandates, the lockdown era,
00:50:02.120um how many places of worship did you see the rcmp surround with a fence and arrest the leaders of
00:50:10.420those other um religious organizations across canada other than
00:50:17.120what jason kenny with uh the church in uh yeah jason kenny's yeah grace life church built the
00:50:25.560big fence around grace grace life church yeah early morning uh rcmp raid over 50 rcmp and they
00:50:32.880put up a fence for almost two months you know and uh tim coats i think spent 35 days in uh remand
00:50:40.96014 of that in solitary confinement uh we saw you know art or pelowski we've seen um we've seen a
00:50:48.580number yes yes we've seen i mean even in ontario we saw what happened with um uh hildebrandt in
00:50:57.860in the church there you know 270 000 in fines how many how many mosques how many temples how many
00:51:06.740other religious uh places of worship did we see that behavior take place zero from what i understand
00:51:14.260and i'm not trying to race bait or religious bait or anything like that but again i think it's
00:51:20.460important to not be politically correct all the time and hide behind the obvious things that are
00:51:25.920actually happening in front of us you know i think these are important things to as you know
00:51:32.020canadians to stand up and say hey i'm not going to be distracted by these dog whistles uh and these
00:51:38.280accusations and stuff i'm looking at the facts i mean right now we have over a hundred crime scenes
00:51:45.400at churches across this country and my understanding i haven't heard of any
00:51:50.600investigations i think there may have been one or two arrests where the people perpetrating the0.98
00:51:57.240arson were so stupid they got caught right away but again like these are facts these aren't emotions0.98
00:52:03.800and and it's not about the race baiting and the religious baiting it's just facts yeah we1.00
00:52:10.600as part of our review bill 63 that was the uh combating online hate bill and that was scrapped
00:52:18.280we reviewed some some some uh studies on okay it seems like an obvious question to to ask but
00:52:28.120do censorship laws actually lead to a more or less harmonious society and there was a study out of
00:52:33.800Scandinavia that did a meta-analysis of all censorship laws across various societies,
00:52:41.120liberal democracies and more authoritarian societies. And it turns out that censorship
00:52:46.040laws can make a society more harmonious as long as that society is authoritarian. For liberal
00:52:52.740democracies, when you enact censorship laws, it actually turns out that the society gets
00:52:57.720less harmonious. And that's probably, I would say, a result of a part of this
00:53:04.220parity problem you get, because it sets up a dynamic between ethnic, it provokes ethnic and
00:53:11.780sectarian resentment, right? Why them, not us? Why us, not them? And as John mentioned, it leads to
00:53:20.840bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, because people start to see that
00:53:27.320It's not fair, right? And maybe there's a good reason why they're going after some religions and not others, or maybe it just appears that way. It's not actually that way. But if people start to form the idea that their group is being treated differently, that's a problem for the legitimacy of the government.
00:53:48.540And there's no easy way out of that for the government. The government can't just easily say, look, we don't mean to target you guys. It just looks that way. We're not really doing it. That's not a good enough answer.
00:54:03.240And so they're setting themselves up if they enact these censorship laws, you know, if they treat people differently.
00:54:11.480So I don't know. I think that's a problem that's insurmountable for them, which is why you shouldn't erect these laws, basically.
00:54:20.420And it's hard to stand up as Canadian citizens and voice our opinion to our elected MPs,
00:54:25.780which I think too many people in this country right now are busy trying to feed their families and stay working.
00:54:33.240And I think that's all by design, unfortunately.
00:54:37.300Well, and like John was, I think it was John that said it earlier.
00:54:40.800You know, it's the numbers that we need.
00:54:44.840It's the, like you said, you know, there was a successful petition with regards to C2 or some pressure on it.
00:54:49.960But I mean, when you have a situation like, say, well, the Freedom Convoy or the Ostrich Farm, when you, like I said earlier,
00:54:58.520we have these institutions that are put in place to protect the rights of canadian citizens
00:55:04.680to give us a voice and to ensure fairness and so i'll just use katie and the ostrich farm for
00:55:10.840example they went to their mps they've had politicians come out there that failed they've
00:55:16.120tried um the judiciary now they've they've um applied for you know to the supreme court for
00:55:21.480stays of applications completely dismissed so what do average canadian citizens like what is
00:55:27.960is your advice for average Canadian citizens who want to do these things they want to make a
00:55:33.780difference and have their voices heard but they just seem to be getting ignored every door that
00:55:40.300they knock on. I think one like a very simple straightforward not that hard thing to do right
00:55:46.980now Canadians should contact their MP and say please vote against Bill C-9 it violates free
00:55:53.320speech it's bad legislation you don't need uh you don't need a you know lengthy scholarly essay on
00:56:01.060on on all the ins and outs of it if you let your mp know vote against bill c9 and because it was
00:56:07.880there was that kind of uh broad-based uprising peaceful uprising against bill c2 and and they
00:56:14.300got so much so much pushback from so many different quarters like it wasn't just the
00:56:18.380justice center and the democracy fund but there was the uh you know canadian civil liberties
00:56:22.740Association and various all these groups and people say everybody's saying they don't want
00:56:28.120Bill C2 the Liberal MPs heard that as well and it lowers the level of enthusiasm in the caucus
00:56:33.260now the Prime Minister is is a tyrant over his own caucus and and probably to our leader of the
00:56:41.020opposition's a tyrant over their own caucus but even even a tyrant has to listen uh right so if
00:56:47.680Although if a lot of Liberal MPs are saying, I don't like Bill C-2, my constituents don't like it, you know, it does sway matters.
00:56:56.540So something practical Canadians can do, you know, tonight or do it while you're listening to this podcast, you email your MP and say, vote against Bill C-9.
00:57:07.100And, you know, when enough people do that, it makes a difference.
00:57:11.340The other big thing is to take out a membership in a political party.
00:57:14.140we got political change in alberta because there were thousands and thousands of people who took
00:57:19.400out a membership who were very angry justifiably so with with jason kenney who's a tyrant and a
00:57:24.880human rights abuser and thousands of people took out a membership in his political party and then
00:57:30.760when it was time for a leadership review he barely got 51 and he resigned as leader and then all of
00:57:37.840these party members they were eligible to vote in the leadership race that came up not long thereafter
00:57:42.500so now we have a very different premier who I think is much more sympathetic to
00:57:48.000the ideals of freedom and asserting provincial jurisdiction how did that
00:57:55.940happen well it happened because people took out a membership in a political
00:57:59.180party so that's another good means of having more influence over what goes on
01:06:14.680If Take Back Alberta was sort of its own group with its own membership, if those
01:06:18.580people hadn't taken out a membership in the United Conservative Party, then Take
01:06:22.380Back Alberta would have achieved nothing.
01:06:24.260They achieved it because people took out a membership in the political party.
01:06:28.260and it was a very strong thing now it's got to go another level now it now has to get to the point
01:06:34.740where it's not just about okay i'm gonna i'm gonna upset the incumbent put in who i want
01:06:40.480now it has to be hey we put you there for a reason okay so act accordingly so it has to
01:06:47.020keep going like this is what eva chip you always says democracy is very hard it's a it's a really
01:06:53.940i would say it's a i'm not gonna it's like a marriage but it's a work in progress it's a
01:07:02.420absolutely there's beautiful things there's crazy things yeah exactly yeah yeah and look at this new
01:07:08.900mutt that they've got out in um you know nova scotia who just crossed the aisle and joined0.96
01:07:14.420the liberals right and and we've got this month doing this there's two from rumor has it there's
01:07:21.380two more that are considering doing it as well and if they do we now have a mark carney with a
01:07:27.300majority government that nobody in this country wanted nobody elected nobody and so this is why
01:07:33.520i say there's more work to do within the parties because in you know and the system because in my
01:07:38.380view it's clear to me i think it's a major catastrophic flaw in our our system of government
01:07:44.820where you're just allowed to join the other party screw your constituents you know you should have
01:07:50.460to resign and then run in a by-election to get your seat back that's that's it right there though
01:07:55.480the key figure about that right now is it's two parties that run this country right now and you
01:07:59.160vote for the party instead of voting that independent mp in your district and that mp then
01:08:03.780represents you in the house of commons they represent the party and i think that system's
01:08:08.660flawed it needs to be looked at i mean absolutely we all understand the limits of a parliamentary
01:08:15.460system and you know in the united states it's a lot different is it better for worse i i don't
01:08:21.940know but look my mother in the 60s she was a bank teller and she complained about her wages she's
01:08:29.720like how do i how do i get more you know how do i raise my wage and her father who was ahead of
01:08:34.720the stelco union said well form a union and and she she did now i don't know how to form a union
01:08:41.420But my mother, at, you know, 27 or whatever, formed a union. And, and she went, she organized all the women tellers. And she, she went to her, you know, to the board and said, we're a union now, and I'm going to negotiate, I'm going to bargain for more money. And so that's the example I give. If you want something, you got to go organize and get it, no one's going to give it to you.
01:09:06.460people are going to tell you no people are going to tell you can't do it you're going to fail and
01:09:10.580it's going to be hard but uh that's all you can do otherwise you're just going to have to
01:09:14.360take a lower wage um you know so you got to make that's my example that's every time i'm feeling
01:09:21.160down and i can't you know this can't be done that's what i go back to it's i've said i've
01:09:25.840seen it done um so you gotta that's amazing just gotta get up and do it if she can you can't that's
01:09:33.560absolutely yeah and you know look at Matt Strauss I just saw the comment there Matt Strauss was a
01:09:39.540doctor who the CPSO was targeting him and trying to destroy everything that he stood for and what
01:09:45.460they trained him to be and he's now a conservative member of parliament you know you got Aaron Gunn
01:09:52.400he you know great guy community member exposing the actions of the government you got Andrew
01:09:58.580lawton who was at the convoy with us now a federal mp so it kind of gives you a little bit of hope
01:10:06.100that you know one of the establishment parties is willing to take on people that they would
01:10:11.060otherwise have considered fringe right so that's kind of hopeful that they're taking them in but
01:10:16.740to go back to your earlier point tamara i i really hope that guys like that can go into the system
01:10:24.420and improve the system as opposed to they go into the system and they get crushed by the system
01:10:30.820and that's where if they're willing to stick their neck out and go and fight for us then we have to
01:10:36.260get involved and get their back and to tell the party you're not gonna you're not gonna do that
01:10:41.380to these guys right and and to go to your point john yeah you got to get involved you have to
01:10:47.380get involved you just can't sit back and wait for some political messiah to show up and make
01:10:53.540everything uh great it doesn't work it just doesn't we have to do it yep without you know
01:11:00.580that's the thing a lot of i think a lot of canadians um even we've experienced they're
01:11:05.300waiting for a savior they're waiting for somebody that's going to come in and swoop it all but the
01:11:10.020responsibility lies with us all um if we don't stay vigilant with our freedoms they're gonna
01:11:16.580try and take them away just as we've seen i mean that's human nature that's what's been happening
01:11:21.220since the beginning of time and i think um you know we can blame mark carney we can blame pierre
01:11:27.460folly we can blame justin trudeau but i've always maintained that the fact of the matter is is that
01:11:32.660canadians have let so much stuff happen because we are passive and we all want to believe that
01:11:38.740our government has our best interests at heart and they would never lie to us and you know so
01:11:45.140you know what i mean you know where i'm going with that right so um well i just lost my train of
01:11:49.780i thought which happens completely all the time was i saying get organized get organized take
01:11:56.180take better notes but yeah exactly um it's it's um i don't yeah i don't want to sound blackpilled i
01:12:02.820agree that people need to get involved i'm so happy to see aaron and andrew and matt strose and
01:12:08.580some really great um mps that have been elected and so that gives me hope for sure that gives me
01:12:14.260hope but again we have to take responsibility canadians have played a big part in we are all
01:12:20.820individually and collectively the product of the choices we make it is my philosophy
01:12:27.700and so you know if we've let it get this bad or maybe not let it get this bad but it has gotten
01:12:33.620to a very serious point in canada we know that with the same numbers coming together that that
01:12:39.620we can still make a difference in some way you just got to find something that you're interested
01:12:43.780in you feel passionate about and get behind it can anybody give any updates on the on the travel
01:12:51.140mandates um appeal that was in in process here was it last week i believe
01:12:57.540with uh carl and um i can't believe i just lost his name sean the uh the maintenance case yeah
01:13:06.420yes sean record yeah yep yes i i followed it a little bit i didn't have a chance to sit in on
01:13:14.340the hearing i know the hearing was just a few days ago but i don't uh i actually don't know
01:13:19.300things kind of happened in our lives of last few days so i've been busy uh talking to all
01:13:24.180my lawyer friends and you know i've been trucking yeah i i don't know what the outcome is either but
01:13:32.020i do know that uh they were pretty active on social media giving out the the login codes and
01:13:37.780everything like that and it was extremely well attended on on zoom from my understanding but i
01:13:43.300don't know what the what the result was or if it was no offense to the lawyers a lot of lawyer speak
01:13:49.940um that everyone just kind of went get get to the get to the ending so i don't know
01:13:56.500some of these court cases they even when there's a loss there's still good that comes out of it
01:14:09.300um like the justice center provided lawyers for brian peckford and there were four different
01:14:14.480court actions and many good people involved in addition to to the justice center the government
01:14:21.300officials when they were cross-examined they admitted under oath that there was no medical
01:14:26.140or scientific basis for the travel mandates there's no medical reason to bar somebody who
01:14:32.940didn't get injected from getting onto an airplane this is something that came out that apart from a
01:14:38.460court action there's no way that that the prime minister or any politician would admit at a news
01:14:45.420conference that there's no medical basis for their repressive human rights violations but yet in the
01:14:52.140court action because people are being questioned under oath which doesn't provide an absolute
01:14:59.580guarantee against lying but it does reduce the amount of lying quite a lot when people are sworn
01:15:04.700in and they've promised to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them god
01:15:09.820and you can be in serious trouble if you get caught lying uh you know in in a court action
01:15:16.060so in that court action you have bureaucrats saying no there was no medical basis there was
01:15:20.860There's no scientific basis for keeping millions of Canadians off of airplanes and trains.
01:15:31.060So there's really good things that come out of these court cases, even when we lose in
01:15:36.760terms of informing the public and getting some transparency and even some accountability,
01:15:43.620not as much as we want, but we get some accountability through them.
01:15:47.300well you know an interesting thing about that particular case so the day that we at the convoy
01:15:54.400actually on the day that trudeau uh invoked the emergencies act which was valentine's day because
01:16:00.460of how much he loves us all um in that conversation that conversation that we had had with him and i
01:16:06.860don't know if you remember this tamara but it was very very specific and and brian peckford had said
01:16:13.220me he's to all of us he said look we considered even a pandemic because section six the mobility
01:16:21.220rights are exempt from uh section one in all of the other restrictions he said we even considered
01:16:28.740a pandemic and we did not believe that that was justification to stop people from traveling
01:16:34.420inter-provincially or in and out of their country it was a bridge too far uh for the people that
01:16:39.860drafted that and he said they specifically talked about pandemics and they said it still wasn't a
01:16:44.820good enough reason so you know if if the people who framed this and created the charter believed
01:16:51.380that to be true then it's amazing to me that a judge would say oh that's moot that's no longer
01:16:58.580that's not a valid argument it's like wait a minute you've you've actually just fundamentally
01:17:03.540um done damage to the charter itself and i think it personally was this is my belief is that
01:17:11.860there was no judge in this country that wanted to have brian backford
01:17:16.020come into their courtroom and try to tell brian peckford about the charter you know like i i don't
01:17:24.500think there's a single judge in this country that wanted to face him in a courtroom and they were
01:17:29.940looking at any excuse to say that oh well okay well if that's how you write it or wrote it
01:17:35.780uh then i guess you know what you're talking about i'm just an interpreter
01:17:41.300remember our courtroom when our current prosecutor didn't know who brian peckford was which i will
01:17:44.980keep bringing that point up because i find it quite embarrassing adam were you there that day
01:17:49.220or i don't i don't believe i was that might have been alan yeah no i think that sounds familiar
01:17:55.220yeah maybe mark was there yes yeah but the judges are a product of of of culture and they were
01:18:01.900corrupted by fear it's the title of a book i wrote about these court cases the judges were so afraid
01:18:07.420that they actually in some cases they they just wrote the media narrative into their court rulings
01:18:13.060we had a case in uh in manitoba challenging the lockdowns in manitoba and the judge
01:18:18.280wrote in his judgment that covet is is unprecedented and it's the worst pandemic
01:18:24.260in a century. Well, COVID is not unprecedented. The Spanish flu of 1918 was far worse, far more
01:18:30.600deadly. And even in the past century, the Asian flu of 1957, the Hong Kong flu of 1968,
01:18:37.720both of those were more deadly than COVID. They were both global pandemics.
01:18:42.060So the judge is writing a false assertion into his court ruling, and there's just no evidence
01:18:47.040to support it but the judges were corrupted by fear and the judges are a product of of our culture
01:18:55.120so we're going to win in the end when we change the culture because that's going to it will trickle
01:18:59.200up to the law societies the law schools the lawyers the prosecutors the police and the judges
01:19:04.800and the politicians of all parties that culture is going to trickle up and that's why even if
01:19:11.680things get worse uh in the short run which they may um we're we're on track to to win in the end
01:19:19.600because truth always vanquishes the lie and by the way i was just talking to somebody yesterday
01:19:26.320john that was reading a corrupted by fear and they had high high praise for it i think it might
01:19:31.040have been my dad actually oh yes thank you nice to hear that uh ask a quick question and any of
01:19:39.040of the lawyers can answer this. What is your thought on the subject specifically related to
01:19:47.240judges regarding judicial notice? And the reason I ask this question is, you know, I view that we
01:19:57.120have three branches of government for a reason for checks and balances. But when a judge gives
01:20:03.480judicial notice on something that affects the rights and freedoms of every Canadian in this
01:20:08.680country. Don't you think that the judges had a responsibility to be the check and balance when it
01:20:16.240was so important in this particular case? This is something that I can't get a lot of agreement on
01:20:22.880with any lawyer. I've had a lot of different opinions on this, but I think it's important
01:20:28.940to kind of pick away at this idea that far too many judges took judicial notice with the actual
01:20:36.140government with the evidence that was, they just sided with the government. They didn't want to
01:20:41.560look at the evidence. And so one of the questions I'm seeing in the thing is, what is judicial
01:20:47.000notice? So I'm going to throw it out to anyone who wants to take a swing at that. And don't
01:20:54.400everybody rush to the microphone, but go ahead. Judicial notice is, it's a tool in the judge's
01:21:01.100toolbox and like any tool it can be used for good or evil you can use a hammer to pound some nails
01:21:08.260into a piece of wood conceivably you could use a hammer to kill somebody so judicial notice is
01:21:14.740supposed to be used only in a situation where a fact is not disputed by reasonable people and it
01:25:17.700What you thought was indisputable, it turns out to be disputable.
01:25:21.220well this is the go ahead no sorry i was just gonna say that's the issue right there because
01:25:26.460it's you know it requires um you know if you're accepting a fact is true without any evidence
01:25:32.420as it is in judicial notice it's not subject to reasonable dispute so and this is this is this
01:25:40.180is the issue this is how it can be abused because it's it's solely within the judge's discretion
01:25:45.380what is within reasonable dispute right and and they're going to to to lean on you know the whether
01:25:53.640it's capable of immediate or accurate demonstration and um and you know uh as as john pointed out
01:26:01.920there's there's instances where um what is reasonably disputable is uh is is i mean this
01:26:09.560is a this is this is a test that is that is subjective so um you know if if if you've got
01:26:15.420an individual if you've got an expert and i mean and we saw this during covid rampant throughout
01:26:20.420covid you've got individuals doctors who are who are disputing um the uh the the evidence that is
01:26:27.300accepted as truth uh by the uh the the public by the judiciary um and um and if there is judicial
01:26:36.420notice taken in these contexts, I mean, that's obviously a problem. I mean, it's, there is a
01:26:41.600reasonable dispute. You've got an, you've got an expert, you've got an individual who spent his
01:26:45.200life, um, you know, educating himself, um, and, and, and learning about a specific, a specific
01:26:51.120subject. He's an expert, uh, who can reasonably dispute it. And, um, and so that is not what
01:26:56.340should be captured by, by, uh, by judicial notice. And I think that's, that's the point that, uh,
01:27:01.720that john made clearly and and mark fleshed out thanks thanks for answering that because i i just
01:27:10.760um i've got some conflicting feedback from uh lawyers before um but that's good and i think
01:27:18.280that the public should actually know more about this um but yeah thanks thanks for answering the
01:27:24.760question i've got one here from laurie mckenzie carmichael who says asks do judges earn their
01:27:31.880title or are they voted in at some level judges in canada are appointed as far as i am aware uh
01:27:39.640voted i think they're voted in in some states in the united states maybe all of them i don't follow
01:27:43.800that that closely nope that's it exactly when people often say you know we should elect our
01:27:51.480judges i'm not convinced that that would improve the situation because if you have a rotten culture
01:27:57.400where fundamentally the problem is i hate to say it but it's canadians it's we ourselves right there
01:28:05.160are a lot of canadians don't care about freedom uh they don't care about uh governments respecting
01:28:13.640human rights they don't they don't care if if the government takes away their their freedom
01:28:18.440as a speech or religion conscience peaceful assembly travel mobility bodily autonomy so
01:28:23.960there's a lot of people that don't care so that's that's a rotten culture that we have to fix is get
01:28:29.720it to a point where we've got you know 60 70 80 90 of canadians that really uh cherish and
01:28:36.360appreciate the free society and want government as a servant not as their master but because we've got
01:28:43.800got a rotten culture if we did elect judges i don't i don't think it would necessarily be an
01:28:49.500improvement it might be a little better it might be a little worse but um no but they're they're
01:28:55.080appointed and and uh you know the they're appointed by our elected representatives so
01:28:59.640if if you don't have good if you don't have enough elected representatives that truly appreciate
01:29:04.900freedom and and uh placing limits on governments if you have these authoritarian minded elected
01:29:12.800representatives they appoint judges who think like themselves basically and so if you want better
01:29:19.440judges we got to change the culture yeah i agree it goes right back to that culture again i agree
01:29:25.440go ahead sorry mark yeah i i should know more about it's a good question i should know more about
01:29:30.400the appointment process than i do but i as far as i'm aware is a judicial selection committee
01:29:37.200And that is formed by the government in power.
01:29:42.320But one complaint I have heard, and this is from a judge who had retired, was that that isn't usually nonpartisan.
01:29:50.100So the government has no, there's no pressure on the government of the day to form a nonpartisan selection committee.
01:29:59.400So they can pick whoever they like without any pushback.
01:30:03.220And I believe there probably should be a nonpartisan committee to produce some balance in the selections so you don't get lopsided judges that are all of one mindset that you want to mix.
01:30:21.400And we have great judges now, obviously.
01:30:24.200But over time, if that's the selection process, you might get a buildup of people who all think one way.
01:30:49.980Okay. Well, that's even better. If he did us a solid, we'll take it finally.
01:30:56.840Yeah. When do you guys suppose we're going to expect an answer on that? I know they had the
01:31:00.500hearing, I think back in February for the appeal on Mosley's decision, but I find it odd that
01:31:05.740we're now coming into mid-November and we still haven't heard anything as a result.
01:31:11.520It's not uncommon for them to take a year and a few months. It's unfortunate. I really think
01:31:19.140we have too few judges in canada because like in the united states when they were challenging
01:31:27.400lockdowns and you know church closures this that and the other thing they got decisions from courts
01:31:33.760within weeks or months in in canada it's just one example there'd be many we we sued the alberta
01:31:42.480government in December of 2020 over lockdowns, we finally got a court ruling July 31st, 2023.
01:31:51.360So it was a little bit more than two and a half years. We're talking about the violation of our
01:31:57.160charter freedoms of association, expression, religion, conscience, peaceful assembly,
01:32:02.600pastors locked up in jail. This is a violation of our charter rights and it takes two and a half
01:32:07.860years to get a ruling now there's only two explanations i can think of either the judges
01:32:13.280are lazy and they don't work hard or we have too few judges i think it's the latter uh i've i've
01:32:19.060known i currently know some judges i've known judges over the years i think they're very hard
01:32:22.760working people uh they're doing the best they can to you know not keep people waiting but when
01:32:28.480you've got too few judges and and the work just it's like a waiting list for medical procedures
01:32:32.760If you've got either too few doctors or too few operating rooms or whatever, you're going to have these wait lists.
01:32:40.020And so we really need, in my view, we need to have, if we appoint more judges, even if 1% of them are lazy, if we have more judges, we can get rulings on criminal, family, constitution, any kind of case.
01:32:58.420You can get a ruling within weeks or months.
01:33:01.060I think it's a complete disgrace that we have to wait for years to get a court ruling on something
01:33:06.480that's really important. And I think the solution is to appoint more judges.
01:33:12.420So you're saying instead of hallway medicine, we've got hallway lawfare, in a sense?
01:33:19.600You know, it's the truth. And I mean, and they're all time sensitive, right? Because if it's a
01:33:22.940criminal case, whether you're the accused person, or whether you're the victim of the crime,
01:33:26.720both parties you want you want a quick resolution you don't want to have to wait for
01:33:30.760one two three years to finally get a ruling you know is this guy guilty yes or no if it's a family
01:33:36.260law dispute maybe you're you know having a very unfortunate tragic fight about where the kids are
01:33:41.540spending christmas you don't want to wait uh if it's a contractual dispute somebody cheated you
01:33:46.420out of ten thousand dollars in a contract so you're suing them you don't want to wait for two
01:33:50.540or three years. So this one can get fixed. Now, of course, if we appoint more judges, I would hope
01:33:56.960that they would be good ones, right? That's a separate issue. But we would get court rulings
01:34:03.100faster, I think, if we appointed more judges. Yeah, we just, Adam and I have spoken about this
01:34:10.280before, but we have scarce judicial resources. And we do have a problem with how the Crown's
01:34:19.560office allocates those judicial resources, right? I mean, complain about the decision,
01:34:23.940but the fact that they're spending 45 days on a mischief trial, you know, for you folks
01:34:31.460is a decision that someone in the Crown's office made. And that's valuable judges, you know,
01:34:38.940courtroom time that they spent on you guys. Did it need to take 45 days? I don't know. I don't
01:34:49.100know how it got up to 45 days because that's a lot of time and we're over 50 probably i think
01:34:58.420to mark's point like it's 45 days now now there's appeals i mean we're looking at you know by my
01:35:08.880estimation i'm saying you know i'm thinking 2027 is is the likely maybe march maybe you know february
01:35:15.1402027 is a likely date of a hearing and then and then what and then there's a decision there at
01:35:21.700at the court of appeal uh in ontario and and where do we go from there well probably the scc
01:35:29.300right and then what's that i think 29 2031 yeah exactly i mean do you think it's going to take
01:35:36.18015 months just to get to hearing adam sorry sorry tamara do you think it just to get to a hearing
01:35:40.980you think is going to take a year and two months just to get to a hearing before the court of
01:35:44.860appeal i would have ventured to guess for like four six eight months which is still too long
01:35:50.000but i mean this is probably a better question put to polymarket but i i think uh you know i i would
01:35:55.700i would guess about a year i mean and now we're in the trenches we're in the we're in the lower
01:35:59.820courts almost exclusively so uh so it's it's a it's a different kettle of fish there but uh we're
01:36:06.040we're not seeing any, any short order court appearances, even for a day or two. Like,
01:36:10.900like you said, I mean, I think this would only be a day or two, even with the, the joined
01:36:14.180appeals. So yeah. So I would guess at least a year would be my, would be my best guess.
01:36:23.120And Lawrence told me a few months ago, he speculated it would be minimum six to eight
01:36:28.500months to get this to the appellate courts also. So wheels of justice don't grind very
01:36:35.900fast and if they grew ground any slower we'd be going backwards in my opinion but so as we as we
01:36:44.780spent all those days in court there was people probably sitting in remand centers that were
01:36:48.480looking for a day to sit in front of a judge to get a bail process too and that was one of the
01:36:53.500things that was on my mind um you know the amount of people that took second place to that for you
01:36:59.120know over 50-day mischief trial it's not just that it's also more serious offenses how about
01:37:04.140people can you know charged with murder how about people charged with aggravated sexual assault
01:37:08.540this is all this is all put on on the back burner i mean 45 days is it's it's extremely
01:37:14.460i mean that that's a that's a a massively long trial uh by paul bernardo's trial lasted 40 days
01:37:22.620there you go there you go case so perfect exactly so adam i want to i want to add a0.50
01:37:30.780ask a question adam because you brought up the supreme court of canada oh okay sorry i dick0.97
01:37:37.740wagner sorry i can say that you guys you three shouldn't but dick wagner uh during the convoy
01:37:44.300publicly wrote some very disparaging comments about the freedom convoy in the middle of the
01:37:49.900freedom convoy so any case that goes before the supreme court of canada related to the convoy
01:37:57.020they're going to be one person down and it's the key guy right because there's no possible way
01:38:04.460that he could preside or be a part of any case involving the freedom convoy after he publicly
01:38:11.020came out and disparaged the convoy at the time of the convoy so how are we going to have a supreme
01:38:16.780court with no chief justice i mean you have to be able to you have to be able to look at that
01:38:24.220Um, you know, and, and if the, the judiciary is, is, you know, with the assumption that the judiciary is functioning the way it should, you have to be able to say, okay, he can, uh, this, these are individuals who can divorce their, you know, uh, political or other opinions, uh, from their, uh, uh, opinions, uh, as it relates, uh, to, to cases of law.
01:38:45.600So so that's, you know, that that's all I'm going to say about that, I guess, as it relates to the Supreme Court and as it relates to Justice Wagner.
01:38:55.120um it's uh it's you know it's i guess that would come down to you know this is an individual who
01:39:02.540also wants to be able to freely express uh his opinions politically and then um the question
01:39:09.080i guess uh that you're asking is is is this going to be a foregone conclusion as it relates to
01:39:13.640uh what he would would rule legally and um and he's charged with with separating those two things
01:39:19.660that's his that's his it's his undertaking that's something that he's he's sworn to do so so you
01:39:25.820know that that's what the assumption i guess i guess is that's my sort of non-answer to that
01:39:30.520question i guess tom no and and sorry if i cornered you on it but i would say what's really
01:39:35.900disturbing about this is that you know he he knowingly did exactly what he did and he knew
01:39:42.380what the consequences were going to be and i would think that the the chief justice of the supreme
01:39:47.180court would have the wherewithal to keep his opinions to himself in an ongoing situation
01:39:54.220uh so that there'd be no potential in the very future to um to be in a position where he would
01:40:01.640have to recuse himself i i don't know if that's ever been done um but even if it did come to that
01:40:07.480i don't believe for a minute uh that his his hubris would be uh pushed aside and he would
01:40:15.440recuse himself in any envoy-related case. I just don't believe that. But John, you had a thought
01:40:22.820on this one. Well, a few points. It was part of a judge's job description that you not comment
01:40:30.300publicly on anything that might ever come before you. And so it's just completely out of place.
01:40:37.020It's not a problem that he's got an opinion. All judges have opinions. All judges have biases.
01:40:42.800You know, they might they might love unions. They might hate unions. They might be pro-life. They might be pro-choice. They might believe in big government, small government. They all have their opinions. That's perfectly fine. Part of the job description, and this is to not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, is you just you shut up, you keep your mouth shut about your personal, you know, other than private conversation with friends and family.
01:41:06.540I've had many dinners and lunches with judges over the years and they speak freely and frankly
01:41:13.860in a private conversation. That's fine. If you've got a microphone in front of your face,
01:41:18.080you don't comment on what do you think of the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. It was totally out of
01:41:23.420line. I wouldn't bank on him recusing himself because there was a formal complaint filed
01:41:28.360against Wagner before the Canadian Judicial Council, which exists to uphold good standards
01:41:36.520of conduct and behavior for judges so it's not a body you know if you disagree with the court
01:41:41.760ruling you got to appeal it to a higher court but this is about judges uh behavior and so
01:41:47.940there's there's a bunch of lawyers um that that that that signed on to this complaint against
01:41:54.440wagner and the canadian judicial council uh dismissed the complaint against wagner and said
01:42:01.620the complaint has no substance no merit for which they provided no reasons because i mean obviously
01:42:05.860did have substance and merit but they just dismissed it so um i wouldn't bank on on wagner
01:42:13.460recusing himself uh if if your case goes to the supreme court or or any other case related to
01:42:20.420freedom convoy well you guys we have uh been online here for an hour and 42
01:42:35.620minutes um and i want to be very respectful of your guys's time i know that you agreed to come
01:42:41.460on very last minute of a frantic phone call after chris's brilliant idea yesterday so i so appreciate
01:42:48.100you guys do you have any any final thoughts anything you want to add um before we let you
01:42:53.700guys go home so i want to thank you chris and tamara for the stance that you've taken and
01:42:59.380you've endured a lot of suffering and i'm very cognizant of that and tamara when i think of
01:43:03.620of your 49 days in jail it just makes me angry and and very sad and you you've paid a big price
01:43:10.360and I I really appreciate what you and Chris have done and and so many other people uh as well
01:43:17.440really uh taking it on the chin and and suffering for the cause of of truth and justice and freedom
01:43:24.040so I'm just really grateful to to you and and to uh you know so many other people that have that
01:43:32.180have really suffered a great deal and uh thank you we appreciate it john you've been starting
01:43:38.740and we we'll never forget that so we we've pretty it's been an honor standing with you
01:43:43.860yes absolutely yeah for sure john because you know what i've i've known about you a hell of a
01:43:49.060lot longer than you've ever known about me because you guys were out there right from day one uh you
01:43:55.300know helping and supporting canadians and um you know i i donated whenever i could to the jccf i
01:44:02.500donated to uh at then fight the fines um you know back in the days when i was still employed as a
01:44:08.900teacher uh because you guys were doing amazing work and uh to be unfortunately being represented
01:44:15.460by you guys um not a position i wanted to be in none of us did but we're just grateful that you
01:44:22.020do exist and you are in our corner so thank you to all of you absolutely everything that uh you've
01:44:29.540done for us the jccf was was there literally right from the start they came in like nights on uh
01:44:37.140nights on white horses really you know when a bunch of us because we didn't we're not legal
01:44:42.740people we were just there to ask for a conversation and ask to be heard and so john thank you for
01:44:50.180everything that you and your organization have done great people over there um i highly recommend
01:44:55.780you go check out their website both of these organizations are charitable organizations so
01:45:00.740any donations that you make towards legal fees or anything um you will you will get a tax receipt
01:45:06.500back um and like i said they've helped so how many cases would you estimate john from just from
01:45:12.180the freedom convoy alone that you guys represent well at one point we had 300 cases in in total
01:45:20.180and uh and i think that the democracy fund to to its credit had even more had an even larger number
01:45:26.900i think mark and adam can speak to that so yeah yeah you betcha and again mark and adam i mean