Shaun Newman Podcast - #700 - Coutts 4 Roundtable

Episode Date: August 28, 2024

This is the 2nd instalment of the Coutts 4 Roundtable, if interested, head back to episode #689 for the first roundtable. During this roundtable we discuss the censorship of media, malicious prosecution, the Crown appealing and Ideology Motivated Violent Extremist (IMVE terrorists).  Danielle Slettede has been at everyday of the Coutts Trial,  has worked closely with Tony Olienick and is a strong advocate of all their innocence.  Gord Magill has 25+ years experience driving truck, writes for Newsweek and hosts the Voice of Gord podcast. Buck McYoung is a political and social critic who’s writing can be found on X. Clothing Link:⁠⁠⁠https://snp-8.creator-spring.com/listing/the-mashup-collection ⁠⁠Text Shaun 587-217-8500 Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcast E-transfer here: [e-mail] Silver Gold Bull Links: Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/ Email: [e-mail] Text Grahame: [phone]

This is Vance Crowe. This is Tom Longo. This is Drew Weatherhead. This is Marty Up North. This is J.P. Sears. And you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Wednesday.

And this marks episode 700. Hard to believe. I'm a little bit shocked, you know, as we sit here and we get ready to, obviously, you know, I've recorded it. You're about to listen to it. Episode 700. what a journey it has been and if you are listening today I would love I would love it if you would shoot me in Texas morning and yeah I guess I would love to know what your favorite episode over the last hundred episodes it's been so from six 601 to 700 you know I could go back

through the entirety of it but I think in the last hundred I would love to know what episode has been the one that's stuck out to you. And what I might add in, you know, depending on how many responses I get, I might try and do a little video on it of, you know, kind of the user, the listener, the community recap of the last 100 episodes, because it's been 700. And it has been a journey. It continues to be a journey. I'm so thankful that you continue to come along for this journey and be a part of it because one thing about all of you listening is I haven't gotten here

by my own certainly consistency on this end I'll pat my back for a couple things but some of the ideas, some of the guest suggestions, some of the connections and then all of you listening and giving your thoughts

have been beyond beneficial on this side. So you know, 601 to 700. Listen today and I would love if you, would shoot me a text message or an email if that's that's your thing with the episode in the last hunter that has stuck out to you and if nothing else I think it'd be a fun little thing to talk about maybe next week on on you know what all of you have found beneficial over the last

hunter before we get to today's episode obviously silver gold bull if you haven't checked them out or maybe you have they got an exclusive offer smaller than one ounce silver coins They say holding fractional silver gives you real optionality in a worst case economic scenario. While the low premium offered only for you, the listener, means you have a solid investment no matter what comes to pass. Make sure, before you buy anything, you text or email Graham down the show notes. That way you can get the best possible deal. If you're an SMP listener and you mention that, you're not only going to help this guy by analytically them, you know, seeing that people are paying attention, but you're going to help your own pocketbook by getting a better deal on the pricing.

So make sure you do that. Silvergoldbill.ca in Canada, silvergold bowl.com in the United States. Caleb Taves, Renegate Acres, we do the community spotlight. And, you know, we got some dates coming up when it comes to lives we're going to be doing in regards to Tuesday mashup live election coverage. Election coverage that doesn't suck. Saturday, October 9.

We're going to be doing the British Columbia election. We're going to be doing that live. Monday, October 28th is a Saskatchewan election, and we're going to be doing that live as well. And then Tuesday, November 5th, we're going to do a virtual live where we discuss the U.S. election. So coming up for the, you know, it's a little ways out, but make sure that you, you know, I just want to put that in the back of your brain. that there's going to be some live election coverage coming out.

Looking forward on doing that. Hopefully we can make it better than the first go around. We had, as everybody remembers, we had a couple of oopses in that first go of the Alberta election. And we're going to be trying to do that here. And so there's going to be some, I don't know, some fun times had. I think we're looking forward to that. So that's something to put on your calendar.

The deer and steer butchery, you know, August is slowly, Some might say it's quickly wrapping up. But if you need, you know, there's multiple things. We're going to have hunting season. It's a little ways out. But we're getting closer to that. We're getting to the end of barbecue season. If you need some cuts, you know, some, something stick in the smoker

or tossing the barbecue, make sure you reach out to Amber 780870-8700. As we get close to hunting season, keep the deer and steer in mind for your animals, you know, your wild game. They can get that done up for you. substack. If you haven't subscribed, make sure you're subscribed for free. I've been saying this a lot. It's right now Sunday night is the week in review. So you're going to get an email Sundays roughly at 5 p.m. Mountain Standard Time is what we're shoot for. That's going to give you a week and review video just basically on what's been happening on the podcast. One of the things I

do not do. And, you know, we're trying to make it add value to your life, not blow up your inbox where you're frustrated and go, why the heck did I sign up for this? So right now, Sundays 5 p.m. Mountain Standard time. You're getting a week in review video. So head on over down in the substack, down on the show notes, substack link is there. You click on that. You sign up. It's nice and free. If you want to support what I do and realize you're supporting independent media, there is a paid subscription there as well. We're going to be working on some things for the paid subscribers here over the next month to help give you some added value for doing that. And would appreciate anyone to go take a look at it. always open to feedback on that side. Friday, November 29th, the S&P Christmas party. We're bringing in the dueling pianos to the Gold Horse Casino and Lloyd Minster. If you're a business owner and you want to support, you can buy tables for that. There's only 24 available.

Saturday is already sold out. So looking to track down some business owners around the Lloyd Minster area that needs something for their employees. It's going to be a fun night. If you want more details on that, shoot me a text. And I'll get you all the details. Finally, five legacy interviews. From here to Christmas, I'm planning on doing five legacy interviews in studio, which means you've got a loved one.

You want to have their story captured. Reach out to me, shoot me a text or an email, and we can discuss. I can give you some different thoughts and a couple of different options, if that's something that you're interested. All right, let's get on to the tale of the tape. The first is spent every day at the Kud's trial. and has worked closely with Tony Olenick and his team, and is a strong advocate of all their innocence.

The second has 25 plus years experience driving truck, writes for Newsweek, and hosts the voice of Gord Podcast, and the third is a political and social critic whose writing can be found on X. I'm talking about Daniel Sletida, Gord McGill, and Buck McKeown. So buckle up, here we go. All right, welcome to the Sean Newman podcast tonight, a Sunday night. Another live, we're going to be live here talking Coots for,

and I'm joined with a whole cast of characters all over again. You may have tuned in previously about a couple weeks ago. We did this before when we had a group in talking about it. This is going to be the second iteration of it. We got a third one coming as well as there's lots of different things on the go there. And I'm not the expert. That's why I bring on different people to discuss that. So I'm going to add them in right now.

We got Gordon McGill, Buck Young, and Daniel Saledita. I hope I said that right. I did that, yeah. She threw me a curveball at the start, folks, by changing how I was going to say the name. And I'm like, oh, boy, as anyone who follows me knows, me and names have a real fight on her hands as we, as we, you know, you get things, you know, I got Newman. It's nice and easy. Regardless, what I want to do is I want to go around the, you know, the virtual table. I got two guys I can't see tonight in Gord and Buck.

So that is going to be interesting. I'm hoping they're going to help me out a little bit. and then of course Daniel every time your eyebrows move I'm probably going to be leaning on you but regardless I want to start with with Gord just uh you know Gord probably doesn't need any introduction you have been on the podcast before but uh you know just a little bit about yourself and then probably what ties you into the the Coutes for saga I don't know what else to call it at this point Gord so I'll if you want to argue with me on that that title give her away but uh fire away we'll start with you Saga is a good way of putting it.

It's getting real old. It's been ongoing now for over two and a half years. Hi, my name's Gord, a 27-year over-the-road truck driver that somehow fell into a side career in writing. I host a little podcast called Voice of Gord, which puts out episodes somewhat infrequently and not exactly on schedule, mostly talking about trucking. And in the last 16, 17, 18 months, it's been a lot of talk about Coots. I write about it often at my own substack. Thus far, I think I'm the only person to get any kind of media attention about it in the United States via Newsweek magazine. I've been working very closely with Danielle and some other people in trying to make sure this story doesn't get buried.

because if you follow my substack, one of my major criticisms is of the Canadian media and what a terrible job they've done in covering this such that they've done one at all. And I will talk to anybody about this basically, which is why I'm here. And thank you very much for having me. Oh, well, as Gordon knows, any time on this side.

Buck, you're up. Hey, wonderful, Sean. Yeah, I mean, I'm just a friendly, a non-X user. I started to hang around X-spaces six or eight months ago, and right around the time when the plea deals were coming out, I happened to hear about the story, really knew nothing other than, you know,

the bits and pieces that I read in the media, but then, you know, I'm a skeptical person of official narratives and police action. So, you know, I knew there'd be more to the story than what met the eye. And I've been digging at it. and just feel compelled to do some writing about it. So I've got a three-piece article, piece one is out now,

and two more on the tort of malicious prosecution. So I'm making the open source case that, you know, the RC&P and the Crown prosecutor owe these men some compensation. And Danielle, you are on mute, Danielle. There we go. Yeah, I've been involved since, the day that my friend Tony kind of disappeared and started getting worried about him. Yeah, it was a day and a half before we figured out it was actually him that had been arrested.

We found out via the media. And the Emergencies Act had just been invoked. It was a very intense time. A lot of us had been hanging out with Tony. And so, of course, there was a lot of people that were a little bit nervous about themselves getting tied into all of whatever was going on. And it just went from there. Tony, a single guy and had his, you know, elderly mom. And that's all there was really to help out.

So me and my friend Nikki, Tom, yeah, we started getting involved pretty early on, just making sure his mom was okay and their animals were okay. And then quickly realized that they had accidentally hired a DUI lawyer. And I kind of started to get involved with more of the law stuff. at that point and shopping around for lawyers and trying to keep a few steps ahead of what that was going to mean going into meetings and trying to figure out what they were talking about was just something I dove right into, I guess. I knew that we were in for a big fight.

I quickly realized that the other three men were just regular nice guys that were getting kind of tied into this as well. That was a quick realization that there was something pretty serious going on here. and I mean, really what else did we do other than start depending on defense lawyers right off the bat? So I ended up kind of just taking an interest in the law. Like it wasn't some people find it excruciating to sit through court and deal with all of that. But I've managed to be in there. I think every day of pretrials since last year, I think maybe I've missed one or two days.

And I take notes and I keep ahead of things. I study up ahead of time. And really spend a lot of time with Tony as well, like making sure that he understood what happened in court because it's not easy, right, to sit there and figure out what that all meant at the end of the day. So that's just been, I guess, that and a lot of helping out with fundraising and keeping a group of people. Like we've got a really strong group of supporters that, I mean, have kind of stuck together and become family. And that's been a really amazing part of this is what's coming. of what's come of that is this strong core group of people who they and in day out are in court and supporting each other and supporting the men and watching that grow stronger as the case

kind of gets more and more attention has been it has been incredible as well watching people like gourd come on board right we we spent the first what year and a half almost like completely alone with no attention and trying to keep it together in our own ways and you know granny Mackay came on board and Gord and a lot of other people who genuinely took an interest in this case. It's incredibly complicated and it's hard to know where to help people jump into it because it is quite complicated. And there's a lot of moving parts and a lot of law. Whereas like, you know, you kind of lose some people when you start trying to get into that stuff. But it is a huge part of this to help people understand what kind of a broken system this is.

So yeah, we've got me and Nikki have also, Nikki especially has done a lot of work to try to move, move the wheels of like health care and whatnot and things like that inside the remand centers. And I know that's something that's really close to Tony's heart is helping the guys on the inside forever. I believe that'll be in his soul because he knows they're just not getting treated right in there. And he knows they don't have a voice. So we plan to let that ride out for as long as we're on the planet, I think, is trying to advocate for certain justices within just our remand centers as well.

Well, I appreciate all three of you hopping on this evening. And for anyone watching, one of the things, you know, that I think maybe we could start before we even get to, you know, the appealing, the acquittal is, you know, it's kind of been in this silo, right? This this Coots 4. You can, I've been text by a lot of different people from across Canada talking about, they knew nothing about it. And so if you're watching on X, I would ask, you know, like, share it, right? Share the live. That way more and more people hopefully can tune in and start to realize there's a little something up. I'm curious, you got, you got, in my mind, I'm sitting here and watching. I got Danielle who's been in it since the

beginning. Gordu comes in the middle. And I believe if I heard that right buck, you come in to towards the end. If I can work a little backwards here to start, Buck, what was it that stuck out to you? Like, what point does it grab your attention that you started to see something about the Coots for? Well, to be honest, it wasn't actually something about the Coots case itself.

It was more so the fact that I'd been watching live streams about what was going on in Ottawa and seeing what the media was saying and appreciating that we were deeply being lied to about what was going on. People in my own life were very, very, very, quite supportive, you know, the statements in the media and the demonization of Canadians are standing up for the rights and freedoms. You know, sort of, you know, when I looked at the Coots case, that was the orientation I was coming with is, you know, these guys are probably

have been railroaded in some capacity here to invoke the Emergencies Act, right? And so I guess maybe Mosley was also around that time coming out and I was just learning about the Coot's story. And it just wasn't adding up, right? It just, it was pretty clear that there was a big disconnect between what actually happened and what we were told. And I guess if I go to like the beginning of all this, Daniel, you walked us through and Gord, feel free to hop in because you're kind of like the middleman of bridging the two, you know, I think,

is like, Daniel, you talked early on about like how at the start, you know, like I talk about this lots because I was the guy in Alberta who, as soon as the gun picture came on, I was like, oh my God, I don't want to kill any cops, right? They used that old fear tactic, and all of a sudden I backed off. And I'm sure a lot of other people backed off. Daniel, you being that close and certainly, gourd giving, I feel like, among others, I should say, giving all of Canada, swift kick in the butt of like, hey, we got to start talking about this all over again.

You've seen how media has, this has been the hot potato issue since the beginning. just trying to shed a light on that. I don't know, your experiences in how media has dealt with this. Yeah, it was right off the bat. It was within the first day and a half, I guess, right when their names came out, right away there was Diagallon, Diagallon. And of course, I didn't know if Tony had been caught up with some people that he shouldn't have been. I just knew that he was innocent of that charge.

I knew that. And so I started digging around into that, which obviously, like looking back, that was a big tactic that the media actually did take. And when we get to court and start seeing what the disclosure actually is, it's not there. And I mean, there was definite trial by media immediately. And that was, I think, our biggest challenge so far was dealing with the fact that, that not like everybody turned when they saw that picture, right? And then when we hear in court about how that picture was laid out, we had an officer up on the stand, in fact,

talking about how, you know, after they went and took these exhibits from the trailers, they bagged and tagged and everything, and then they were tasked to go and set them up in a media room and unbagged them and do and set them up and put them up that way. And it was brought to them as that normal. And he said, well, we typically try not to tamper with the evidence as much as that, right? So I think it was just odd that that picture was out. It was out within hours of the arrests, right?

It was out within the first morning before any names were released, before anything was released. It was released in the media that there was conspiracy to commit murder charges before the men even found out that they had those charges. So that was another thing. Tony didn't find out until the very next day, like late into the day, where there had been media releases already. Something from Rebel News and Coots, where everybody was saying they were pulling out and this is that. We don't want nothing to do with this.

It was right off the beginning. So they actually used those videos. I know in Tony's interrogation video right off the bat to invoke some sort of response from him. It's been a ploy all along. And then it was just dead silence is what it was. So it was a bunch of us with a few people on our Facebook accounts. Like, what do we do?

Like I was on there constantly on when we had media on Facebook and whatnot. I was constantly on the comments section, just trying to battle the media. I was constantly trying to write the media and trying to get their attention just to write about it or talk to us. And nobody would respond. So we went for a really long lull after the initial kind of blubes. kind of blast for the first few weeks or maybe only two or three weeks where it was really kind of in the media and then nothing and then we had absolutely nothing they'd go through bail hearings there might be a little blip in the news but barely anything at all and then all of a sudden it came

end of it was about the end of September 2022 so we kind of went through summer it was getting into fall and the lawyers that we had we knew that there was something going on with the media making a request to get access to some of the ITOs, so the information to obtain from the search warrant. So it would have been one through four. So those were the initial search warrants and whatnot that were used in Coots. And the media wanted hold of them. They had just become unsealed.

The sealing order had just expired, and the media was coming in hard trying to get a hold of them. So there was a big thing in court. and unfortunately that was going on when three of the men were going through lawyer changes. And Tony's lawyer in particular, he didn't even bat an eye, kind of hired it out with one of the other lawyers. And nobody even paid attention to it. Next thing we know, it's just beginning of September and some stuff is starting to come out. And we're like, what's going on? And yeah, it turns out they had won that hearing and they were able to get access to,

it was a heavily redacted versions of the, one, through four ITOs, but it was enough that it started to get us going, what's going on. Like all of a sudden there's a bunch of attention on them again. And it got worse. The media went after them again. And this was when we were actively all switching lawyers. And they were able to get a bunch of paragraphs unredacted. And that would have been October 20th, 2022, because those are the articles while you see,

Tony sold his property to fight the cause, like some really big headlines starting. coming out again out of the blue and yeah we're kind of we're in mid lawyers change nobody knew what was going on and then again again it happens at the end of november so it was like november 30th again a judge lifts even more and that's when you saw headlines like you know bosses on the outside or like there's all this bigger group and it starts to kind of like make it it it starts to grow the story starts to grow at that point and you got to think that was right at the time of the the POEC. So as soon as like we kind of put that together that these paragraphs had been unredacted like that, it was a, it was another gong show in the media. And I mean, since then,

some of those things that they have published have been disproven in court, tossed out of court, right? Clarified in court. So looking back on them, they look a lot different to us now, of course. But even with it coming up, we've got Gord writing about it and taking time. And then you've got a few guys in court from mainstream media, but they're not putting in much effort. They're just not putting in. Right? Yeah.

Oh, my God. Yeah, really given it as all. Like, he really spent a lot of time on this, and he was with Rebel News. And that's, you know, about it for anybody who's actually doing it justice. So I expected that there, I mean, the tide is. has turned a little bit.

Like, obviously, it's not as harsh of a tone as it had been in the beginning days now that there is some, you know, oh, maybe they're innocent after all. Like, it's a little hard to deny what the verdict was. So I don't know. I think it's, I think they're going to try to make it go away again. Um, I don't know. That's, that's, that's, that's the vibe I'm getting. So Danielle mentioned.

something at the beginning about, you know, the media immediately releases this propaganda photo of all these guns, which, you know, was a stroke of genius on their part because they're taking advantage of the fact that most Canadians are urbanites. They live in Toronto or Calgary or Vancouver. They have no contact with rural people. They don't understand gun culture. Ooh, big scary guns. And to this day, like, there's articles. that still don't tell people that, like, they came from three different locations.

Most of them didn't belong to the guys. You know, like, there's all these questions around them that the media didn't bother asking. You know, Danielle just mentioned that there's been a few mainstream media people in court. I went to Lethbridge myself here a few weeks ago and had the, you know, a significant misfortune of laying my eyes on a fellow named Bill Graveland, who's a writer for the Canadian press. And, you know, even as recently as, you know, this week, you know, the National Post, they're still repeating stuff like allegations from the undercover officers

and from these ITOs that Danielle referenced that have been either disproven in court or there's no evidence for them, right? Like there was never any recordings. A lot of the stuff they said just has no basis in reality. or they're twisting Tony's words out of context, or there's just nothing to it. And as the court proceedings have gone on for the last few months, there's been countervailing evidence brought.

Any reporter, be it for the National Post or the Canadian Press or anyone else, could get a hold of Lethbridge Courthouse and get transcripts of what's taken place in court. It's public record now. You can get this information and check. check it yourself. They're still not doing it because they're still following this script that started from day one is that, you know, and I believe this follows what Buck has been saying about the malicious prosecution is we believe, or at least I believe, they knew that they didn't have a case from the word go.

They knew that these guys were basically innocent. They knew that they were concocting a fantasy. So from the beginning, they had to smear everybody in the court of public. opinion to get the public on their side. Two and a half years later, they're still doing it. Even though we've got those court cases now over, the receipts are in, the transcripts are in, all the testimony's been argued, all the facts of the case have been educated, the jury saw through all the gaping holes in the Crown's case, but they are still

repeating outright lies and smears. Because that's the point. They don't care that these guys are innocent. They need them to be guilty. And even if they're not, even if legally they're not, the government needs them to be guilty in the minds of the public. Thus, we see what we see in the media. Yeah.

And the thing is that the media won't respect the fact that there's a not guilty. There's an acquittal here. Right? And just because like in the same way that the government appealed the Mosley decision before they could even read it. And when Christia Freeland gave that press release, of that press conference and said, here are all the reasons why we are going to

appeal the Mosley decision and none of those reasons ended up being in the appeal to the Mosley decision. 14 minutes later. They announced the appeal 14 minutes after the decision came down. Yeah. And so like observers like myself and Gord

and Danielle, you know, spoken to witnesses, followed the proceedings, combed through the atip disclosures of you know, the RCMP and C.m. and CIS, you know, I think we are all absolutely gutted last, you know, a couple of weeks ago, we found out that they were appealing. But when you consider what's going on here, I think it was a foregone conclusion that they were going to appeal it just for the just for the political optics alone. And the reason I say this is because so that there's two types of malicious prosecution.

There's a conspiracy to commit a malicious prosecution that the criminal, offense, it's in the criminal code. And then you have this, you know, the, the, uh, common law tort of malicious prosecution, which is a, on a civil standard, like a balance of probabilities, more likely than not. And, and in that in the tort of malicious prosecution, there's four elements, okay, I'll just, uh, forgive me for going into a little bit of legalese, but it's important that the audience understands this. If, uh, to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove that the prosecution was one, initiated by the defendant.

So that would be, you know, the RCMP or Stephen Johnson. Two, it must be terminated in favor of the plaintiff. Well, the acquittal is the termination of the prosecution in favor of the plaintiff. Three, it was undertaken without reasonable or probable cause. We know that because the ITOs lack substance. You know, they did the imminent harm wiretap with no judicial authorization. I say in my article, there was a narrative that the government was constructing months before the truck started showing up at the border or in Ottawa. And there was a narrative constructed that was looking for a crime.

Right. And we can talk about some of the reasons why I think that's the case. But, you know, I think it's established through the Coutts 2 trial that they did undertake this investigation without probable cause. They were profiling people on the basis of their PAL status, which with no allegations or evidence that there's guns or a conspiracy, right? You know, and then the fourth element of that tort of malicious prosecution is that it was motivated by malice. Well, that's pretty hard to prove because, you know, you need to prove a mental state or, not and, or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect. And so if the purpose was to deliver a narrative for the Emergencies Act, an invocation, which has been deemed unlawful, right? Or, you know, they were engaged in unlawful behavior in the investigation like vandalizing people's private property without a warrant on private property, right? This is an unlawful purpose. And so if the crown was to let the acquittal stand, then the four elements of the tort of malicious prosecution, are easily made out in the public record,

which means that these men could bring in the civil court a case and essentially get the validation that I think everybody is seeking here, that, you know, to an public acknowledgement and some sort of compensation that proves like this was all a stitch up by the government to concoct the narrative. Do we think they can pull that, If I'm understanding you correctly, Buck, and I think I get the gist of it. Essentially, they can prove malicious prosecution. Essentially, just nice and simple, boom, and we can break, you can go through it,

well, you can rewind this and go back through what Buck just said. In today's Canada, do we think that's even possible? Well, it's not possible so long as the case was ongoing. The appeal essentially forestalls these men's ability to bring. a case before the court. If they did file now, you know, whoever seized of the matter would just say, well, look, it's, you know, it's, you know, we don't have a final outcome here. So let's wait till that appeal is done. And, you know, and so I think this is really about delaying accountability for the government malfeasance until the government's out of office. Right. It's kicking the can down the

road. Yeah. Right. Which is, which is part of the case for malicious prosecution against Stephen Johnson. If he has no basis, right, like court of appeal comes back and says, don't like your arguments here. We're tossing this thing out. And he's opposed bail and kept these men in remand, even after the acquittal. He's just hanging himself, you know, with his own rope here. You know, and so I think the truth of the matter is that there are members of the RCP investigations team as well as the Crown Prosecution Office. that have personal and professional liability in this situation. And stalling it out doesn't really help them.

But what I intend to lay out in the third part of my series is that they're not doing it for their own sake. This is not, you know, some hillbilly cops and a young, you know, crown prosecutor with a heart on to make a name for himself. This was really a conspiracy that came down from the top, right? And I can't, I can't prove that, right? we would need a Royal Commission of Inquiry, which is one of the things I call for in my article of the appropriate forum for justice to compel testimony and disclosure of documents and challenge the national security, solicitor client, cabinet, and, you know, the privileges that would be asserted in a civil trial, they're going to say, well, hey, we don't have to disclose this,

right? But if the next government that came in recognized that we've got a loss of trust in our institutions and the way to remedy that is to have a, you know, a full accounting, let the sun shine clean out and sterilize what's gone on here. You know, I think wise governance would recognize that we need, we need some justice. And even if these guys had their day in court and they got a nice compensation package from the taxpayer for all the harm and suffering that they've been through. And I definitely think they deserve that. It still doesn't address the societal harm that has been caused by the government intentionally invoking the Emergencies Act without justification, right?

Like David Lamede is one of the most detestable human beings in Canadian history. And he has somehow escaped any public scorn for his actions and the invocation of the Emergencies Act. He's now a partner that, you know, the Moseley comes out. It's now the law of the land that the government was acted unlawfully and impoverly. and impose martial law. And what does he do? Quits cabinet and now he's a partner at Faskins. He's a pox on the profession and that firm.

And part of what I'm trying to do here is, is build a public consciousness around who are these despicable people and what have they done to our country and our institutions. I think I heard all three of you say a similar thing. And once again, I can't see Gord or Buck. So I'm, you know, there's, There's guard, right? He's laughing at me because I'm like, I'm trying to watch, you know, facial expressions here, folks. Normally when you do a roundtable, you got people sitting around, you get to what, you know, oh, you know, and me, I'm looking at the screen going, well, I can't see anybody. They're all laughing at me. That's great. Thanks for tuning in, folks. I think I heard all of you say something along the lines of you weren't surprised that they're appealing what's going down, right? That they didn't get the conspiracy charge. Why when you say you're not surprised is that because you know my brain just goes well the current government's still in charge and until they're out

They're gonna drag this thing out so are you expecting these guys to somehow still be in jail by the time the next And I shouldn't even say jail and remand until the next Election goes on like is that has that cross people's minds or do you think am I way off base and this is going to be they're gonna be out sooner than that I mean it's crossed my mind but I think it's unlikely. I do expect that they will be given. I mean, we've got a sentencing coming up here in a week or so, right? You know, I think the presumption has switched now and the notion that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute to keep guys, you know, charged with a conspiracy to commit murder in remand, well, that's different now that you've got an acquittal. I think it would that the same argument cuts the opposite way now, not to say that it's not possible. And if that is the case, like, we need to mobilize and do something about that because there's no way that they should be waiting in there until court of appeal decides whether to grant a leave to appeal.

And if they do grant leave to appeal, well, I mean, you know, we got to raise some money for a Jordan application to get these guys out. But I don't think that's going to be the case. They don't want finality on the issue. They don't want the guys to be able to bring a tortious claim forward. And this is a way of stalling it out. But, I mean, maybe this is wishful thinking, but I'm pretty sure these guys are we're going to see them shortly. Gord, you got a different take on that?

I'm going to demur to Danielle first. And then I'll jump in. Go ahead, Danielle. Yeah, I fully expect that. Tony's coming home next Friday. From what I can see, like they've got four years in there, the equivalency of four years. And so for the charges that they've got, looking up case law, it's incredible. You wouldn't believe what light sentences and conditional type sentences that people get for weapon of a dangerous purpose.

I encourage people to go look up on Canley and try to find some stuff about it. It's incredible. People prohibited from using firearms altogether have prohibited, weapons that they're using to intimidate people and they're getting like four months probation or six months in jail. So comparatively, if I believe, I'm not, I can't speak for Chris Carbert's situation, but I know with Tony, if he comes anywhere near four years, it would be amazing. So I believe next Friday he'll be getting out.

And once he's out, honestly, like I don't, I don't, we're really not surprised that they're appealing. Absolutely not. From day one, these guys have been formidable shitheads. And every time we do something, they put another roadblock in front of it that was 10 times bigger than the last. And that's just been how it is. So when they come now, it doesn't really feel like as big as it might seem to somebody else, I guess you could say. I also think that we really trust Justice LeBrens.

We think that he was incredibly thorough. People were upset sometimes that it took him so long to do a decision. but he was incredibly thorough. And he really likes his case law. He's got his decisions covered. So it'd be very, very surprised to find, like a three-panel judge to go in on his stuff. He wasn't by any means trying to get the job done quickly. He was trying to get it done so that there wasn't any room for an appeal.

He really did. So we honestly have confidence in him that way. and I think, you know, I think we also raise the case law for this particular case up to the appeal court level, which would be a win in our books, in fact. Before we hop to Gord, Daniel, just quickly, how many, what does time serve, when they're in remand, what does that equate to? You mentioned four years. What is the, for every day served in there, what does it equate to? Yeah, it's a day and a half. Okay. Tony does have, I think it's, 90-some days that he was in solitary on administrative solitary.

When he was in transportation, he ended up in administrative solitary for quite some time throughout all those court hearings. So we do believe that we can apply for at least request a two-day-to-one ratio for those days. Just so I'm clear, in remand, day and a half, in solitary two days then. I don't know what. I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this because I heard a couple different things. And when you say administrative solitary, that means he's traveling or not traveling? Traveling. So when he was in Medicine Hat and he would have to go to court in Lethbridge, sometimes we'd have three days here or a week there or three weeks here, sometimes a day.

He would end up getting transported. You'd say like Medicine Hat is here and Lethbridge is here. So you think they would just bring him down for court and then bring him back. but in fact they would bring him over to Calgary where he would spend the night and then get transferred down to Lethbridge where he was in, because they all had a separation order, and there's only two units in Lethbridge at the remand center. So Jerry and him, because they were traveling from different remand centers, would end up in administrative solitary, which was lockdown mostly, because that's the only place that they could hold them. So he ended up doing that where he would come down, have a couple of days of court, where actually he'd be here for a couple of the days prior to court. And there was a time before Christmas last year where he,

it was like the 23rd of December and they still hadn't transferred him back or whatever it was. And we ended up having to make a lot of phone calls because he had been there for weeks. They just didn't transfer him back. And nobody would answer why or anything. We're like, just put him on the damn bus and transfer him back. Well, Daniel, we ended up flooding the remand. We ended up flooding the Lethbridge remand. The head security guy there ended up having to admit, like, it was his job to get him on the bus.

And sometimes it just doesn't happen. They're full and this and that. Yeah, but Daniel, like a lot of those experiences. He got upset because he said 150 people phone the remand. He's like, I'd have been getting him on the bus, but 150 people calling me. It's like, it was a little much. And he says, somebody called me a Nazi. like, what are on the bus? Like, what are you doing? So he ended up spending 90 days like on the road in administrative segregation because of that.

Daniel, I would be very skeptical of these claims about, oh, well, we had no choice and we had to do this. And we got this separation order and we couldn't get them on the bus. To be honest, I think it is, it is, you know, fair debate here that this was this administrative detention. was engineered and put on these men and used to coerce plea deals so that the government could get its narratives. I'm highly skeptical that that much solitary confinement and the whole reason to have the separation order, but then at other times they're together, like none of it makes sense. It doesn't seem like, you know, the corrections service was operating in good faith. And I think the crown, again, it's the crown has an obligation to try a case if there's a reasonable prospect of conviction.

But looking at the evidence presented, I mean, there's no evidence. And, you know, something that happened early on that I think probably got swept under the rug because very little was published about it. So it would have been summertime of 2022, these men were direct indicted. So that kind of waived their preliminary hearing. That's what it did. And a preliminary hearing is where like the Crown prosecution would have to present what they had to the courts and say, like honestly, is there enough to go forward? And the courts would have to decide at that point if there was enough evidence to go to trial. So the Crown prosecutor made an application to the Attorney General, which I'm not, that's what they say.

It can go either way. The Attorney General can also make the request. And so I'm not really sure if that's the truth. Either way, it was approved. And it was like, oh, in order to speed things up, we're going to go straight to trial, which ended up being like another two years later. So that's kind of a little bit unheard of. Sometimes you hear about direct indictments with a case where it's, you know, 12 people saw you shoot a man. And there really don't need to be, you know, quite clearly this case is going to trial,

whereas this was such a complicated, what that allowed them to do was to keep the investigation open and ongoing. And all they had to do was name a couple of people that they deemed suspicious that they never spoke to, never charged, never even let them know that they were actually on a list somewhere. And that allowed them to keep that ongoing investigation to continue up until right up until trial. Yeah. And we had disclosed on us over 25, 30 times at various times throughout this. And that contradicts the intent for a direct indictment. you know, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you got your case together and it's like, okay, I got everything I need, let's move forward direct indictment. Sure. But then to dump a document on on defense counsel right before the court case and then have to delay like that again.

We're supposed to go to trial in June 2023. And because we didn't have enough disclosure, it ended up getting, you know, abandoned at that point and put off for another year, which they continued to dump disclosure on within the year. after they were supposed to have gone to trial. That's just been how it is for the last. Yeah. And speaking of the media is something that drives me insane, and I'm sure it drives Danielle and everyone else crazy too, is you'll see these, am I allowed to swear, Sean?

Fire away. You'll see these fuckos online in social media, Twitter, whatever, and they'll say, well, you know, the trial took two years because the defense kept asking for, extensions and delays. It's like, no, no. The Crown delayed disclosure dumps it at the last minute. You can't go to trial. The lawyers and people like Danielle need to go through all this stuff, right? Like, you cannot just walk into court having

only got the documents that you're going to argue about last night. Right? So the defense has to ask for these delays. Now that's on the other hand, on the other hand, the lawyers that were some of the lawyers that were on board last year when we started pretrials were fairly new. And it's not all on the crown. I think we are defense lawyers in the past share a big burden as to how and why it did take so long. There should have been people making applications back the day that they did the direct indictment. There's no reason that we didn't start doing pretrial applications for another year, nearly right before we were supposed to start trial.

So you got to think, I think it counted this morning, I believe it's 13 or 14 lawyers amongst the four men, total, that have been used. So we're down to the last two and thank God for them because they are the most honest and hardworking ones that have been left at the end here. But that's not been the case. A lot of stuff that we've gone through, we have done a lot of lawyer changeovers, which really is quite like starting all over again. So, and that the crown would literally use those opportunities to do another pile of disclosure dump. We'd have a bail hearing, but for one of the guys, pile disclosure dumps. So the lawyers really haven't been able to keep up a lot with that. But I'm going to put a lot of the burden on them as well.

There should have been applications made like a long, long time ago so that it wasn't so pressured at the end. I don't know that we still had trial last June, but I think we would have had a lot more. more opportunities to even have more answers than we were able to get. We had what, 22, 23 void years throughout this process. Probably wouldn't have been a trial, Danielle, to be honest, if like some good lawyers had been there from the beginning. Yeah. Well, I don't know.

These are going to hang on to these guys. I don't think without a plea deal. I don't think this case was going to go anywhere. And I honestly believe, like, what is it? 3% of cases go to trial. 3%. So when people are surprised about an appeal, when you think about it,

anything going to trial alone is already a rarity led by people who are obviously pretty committed. So it's not that uncommon. There is a lot of case law in Alberta appeal court. So it does seem like there is, it just seems like the next step is kind of how it looks like for a lot of trial cases. On the fact that it didn't get the trial, like, I know some people are still sensitive to publication bans or getting in trouble for things, but I can say things because I'm in the United States so I can say them and I've obtained permission from certain people

to say them. The Crown tried to offer Jerry Moran and Chris Lysak eight years on sedition. They turned it down and then they had their other plea deals happen.

They did the same thing to Tony Olionek. Johnston probably didn't think this was ever going to go to trial but then when Tony and Chris are like, okay, cool, we'll see you in court. I don't think they expected that. But now that it is in trial, now that we have gone the distance, and now that we have shown that the crown didn't have much of a case to begin with here,

I think this sort of tells us a little bit about why they're appealing it, right? Because, like, now they look bad, right? And then, you know, over and above that, there's these other zoos. doubt issues about why we have an appeal, right? So Buck mentioned there's this possibility of the tort for malicious prosecution. The men could possibly take them to civil court. There's also the problem with, again, the political ramifications. So as long as this is still in court and still being litigated, the government can wipe its hands of it.

Right. So Danielle mentioned we had Tony in administrative segregation. That's an interesting term. Administrative segregation is like one of these fake words to cover up what it actually is, which is solitary confinement, right? Yeah, like enhanced interrogation. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So we have Guantanamo Bay. Oh, it's not torture. It's enhanced interrogation techniques. It's not torture. Oh, it's just administrative segregation. it's not putting a guy in a cell for 24 hours with no human contact, right? They use all these trick words and weasel words, which eventually are about, you know,

keeping them from ever being held to accountability for any of this, which is why they're, you know, we see this appeal. And to zoom even further out, I mean, you know, some might say I'm getting into conspiratorial territory here, but just look what's happening in the UK. coming down the pipe in the federal government is this Bill C63, the Online Harms Act, which contains a pretty major component, which allows the government to basically convict you of pre-crime,

put like a monitoring bracelet on you based on things you say online, a lifetime sentence for, you know, advocating genocide or whatever. They're going to have this committee of like five people who are going to determine whatever you said is hate speech, right? When this bill, if it passes, they don't have any precedent yet. There's not really any case law for a new law, right? But if you look at how the case against Tony and Chris

has been prosecuted, and Danielle will speak to this, is it's been mostly about Tony's words. What he was alleged to have said by the undercovers, text messages, other communications, they're basically trying to hang Tony on the contents of his mind, things he said, right? So if they get a conviction on the conspiracy against Tony and Chris, they can then point to the fact that most of the evidence they used was their own communication. What happens when Bill C-63 passes if it passes?

And then some person says something on Twitter, puts a video on Rumble or whatever. Talks on a podcast roundtable. Talks on a podcast roundtable that the government doesn't like, right? They just, they'll just pick you up, you know? And it's something I've been saying since the beginning about this, is that, like, you have to ask yourself this question. If the government can pick you up at a protest, right? You're supposed to have a charter protected right to assembly

and to protest and to have freedom of expression. if they can just pick you up, concoct a fantasy about what your intentions were, oh, you were conspiring to murder somebody, throw you in jail for two and a half years, what right to protest, what right to your self-expression do you actually have if that's hanging over you, right? Like there's much deeper, darker things going on with this case. And as we see with the appeals, like, that, that, tells you something like they need this case to land the way they want it to land well well gordon it's not conspiracy is conspiratorial at all to say that the government was engaged in in constructing a narrative

and shaping perceptions of the events of coots and and and the convoy as as early as uh the beginning of January 2022, the U.S. and Canadian federal governments had been monitoring the intensity and frequency of anti-mandate protests in the country, which had increased more than 12-fold, right? More protests in one month than had happened in the previous year. They introduced this framework for domestic terrorism that they call ideologically motivated violent extremism, right? This is a new framework for for a new taxonomy for looking at domestic terrorist threats, except the designation of IMVE does not require either a violent action or violent intent. It literally characterizes folks who are IMVE domestic terrorists as people who were anti-mandate,

right, anti-government, anti-vaccine, right? Like they equated half of the Canadian population's opinions with domestic terrorism, right? And none of this has been proven in a court of law. To my knowledge, no one has been convicted or proven an IMVE terrorist. But this is the framework that the government was propagating before trucks even started heading out. January 13th, parliamentary protective services, a branch of the RCMP that deals with the House of Commons, and the politicians, headed by Anthony Rhoda, the Speaker of the House who's notorious for inviting a standing ovation

to a Nazi in the House of Commons, he's the one who's activating the ideologically motivated criminal intelligence team of the RCMP, who three days later distribute a report called Strategic Intelligence Assessment, Racial and ethno-nationalist motivated threat landscape. That's the lens, that went out to, every department in the RCMP, all the divisions, all the branches and services.

So by January 17th of 2022, where'd have gone out that you're supposed to interpret these convoy and trucker protests as some subversive splinter element who's intending to use these protests to engage in violent extremism. And there's no evidence of that. Nowhere. Where that was cited from was open source. It came from groups like Canadian anti-hate, which are partisan political hacks paid for by the taxpayer. And so the RCMP is sourcing from Trudeau party operatives. And then that gets leaked to a journalist like the Guardian, right, who are now saying that this intelligence is coming from the RCMP. It did not have. all, right? This whole thing was construed. It's narrative wandering. It's narrative laundering by going around in a circle and that everybody just keeps

repeating it and pointing back to each other. Right. And so this is that and that framework is coming, you know, I think in conjunction with the FBI who also uses these designations. Gorda was in your piece there. You pointed out ammo land had done the FOIA request showing that, you know, Trudeau and essentially. DHS, Department of Homeland Security and the Disinformation Governance Board that Orwellian Ministry of

Truth that they tried to stand up in the United States. They were actively going and kicking people off of META and off of Twitter who were convoy supporters because the Americans were recognizing that this was catching on in the States too. Maybe that's why I got kicked off Twitter four times. A hundred percent it is. No question. So we had the Crown Prosecution tried to bring this woman named Barbara Perry, Dr. Barbara Perry, and actually Chris Leisett got in trouble in court,

because every time they said doctor, he would do that. He actually got in trouble. It's awesome. But yeah, so she is the director of the Center on Hate, Bias, and Extremism from the Ontario Tech University. She works with the RCMP, of course, and the liberal government. She is the pioneer on the extremism, this ideology-motivated violent extremist. That is who she is.

She came into this country after spending too much time maybe in the deep south of the United States. I don't know. And came back with a vengeance thinking she was, this was, what, 2014 and started, making a lot of money on grants studying this. She was one of the first ones. So the Crown Prosecution actually tried to get her qualified as an expert in court so that she and they gave her a report on what had been extracted from the men's phones. And they were to do, she was to do a report on what her take was of these men.

And thankfully, she didn't make it very far. she did end up admitting that some of the top, I think it was the top of the list for ideologies, she called them ideologies, was if you were white, was up at the top of the list. If you were a male was at the top of the list. And so was Christian. And she named a couple other things, but I think once those three words came out, it was like every man in the room, including the judge is very likely a white male Christian. And so, yeah, luckily, the crown after she testified just kind of did the Homer Simpson

backed into the bushes with her. It was not happening. And they did kind of eventually tell the judge that they weren't going to be pursuing her as an expert any longer. And he says, well, that's a good idea. So it was kind of refreshing that he understood, like what the things that she was saying, she didn't even know what a meme was. So her version of what a meme was was something that only a small group of people understand. It was coded language and really only the people would understand it.

It was like an inside joke. And that's not what a meme is fundamentally. So I don't think she was going to get very. This is the type of person. Yeah, it's nonsense. So this is the type of person as she's up there in her pajamas on CCTV because she couldn't even come to court was. really unprofessional and that's basically what was her name daniel daniel you said barbara i'm going to share this with you if you can share a screen with me i'll do that right now i hope she's

not in her pajamas this not on this one but please let us know give us a trigger warning yeah but no this and so she actually did help co-start um she was uh consult a for the anti-hate network in the beginning when they started up they consulted with her quite heavily and then she's definitely then she was able to get what did I do the math I think I sent it to you Gord after 2014 it was like a 900% increase in grant money came towards this woman and she got her own division she got a UN chair on hate crime hate studies immediately after Right. Well, that follows the sort of arc of the wokening, right? Like if you, if you sort of see how this type of thinking gravitated out of academia into the rest of the culture, it sort of started around 2012, 2013, and she was on the very leading edge of it. That's correct. But here's the thing is that in the context of criminal law and where you have procedural fairness and you have the charter. This kind of thing rightly gets tossed out as as trash, right? We don't, we don't need

experts to tell us, you know, I mean, the jury is supposed to decide, you know, matter of law. They're supposed to come up with their own opinion. They're not supposed to take an extra... But the point I'm trying to make, Danielle, is that this is still the way that the national security state operates, right? This all started with the invocation of, the national security apparatus by invoking these terms, right? You know, you think of the flag people and that like whole debacle. Like that is what they've done. They've applied these labels that gets you outside of the realm of the charter.

When you're dealing with national security, you don't get to see the evidence or, you know, in front of you. You know, they can go out and do operations and stop you from doing things. I mean, the reason they went out and busted it up, those excavators is because they were treating this as a national security matter. So it didn't matter what the Constitution says, we got the state to protect, right? And so the important thing not to lose in all of this because we might just focus on the symptom and I want justice for these men, I want compensation for these men, I'm focusing my time on

bringing attention to them. But if we only treat the symptom and we don't deal with the rod, this is going to come up again and it could be far worse next time. You got to understand too. In Coots, there was two investigations. The main one was the national security investigation. So that's where we had Inset and everybody else there. The second investigation ended up being the one that they branched off. Originally, we're checking out the Netherlands Reform Church in Fort McLeod.

And that kind of branched off into Tony and these guys. So there was two separate things going on in Coots. complete separate things. The inset division, in fact, were able to wiretap smugglers inside and out. That part of the investigation in Coots. Yeah, anybody that was around that smugglers building after February 10th in and around the building

was being listened to and watched. So we learned a lot in court about what the other side, what the other part was going on. And according to them, they didn't really mix. That was totally separate. But Daniel, you know that's not true because there's text messages that came up in the trial that they didn't, they could have through the wiretaps that they had. So they were. Did all our ITOs was working with Inset at Coots.

And that's who they had come in and do the ITOs for the search warrant because they just happened to know he was there. No, no. But what I'm saying is they presented evidence at trial that they didn't have the authority to have. So they had to get that through the national security investigation, which doesn't have to get a judge to authorize the wiretap or does so in private. Which thing in particular are you talking about? Text messages from early on, like beginning of February, before any of the imminent harm wiretaps.

Those were extended. So those were extended off. No, no. Before. Before. They didn't have access to your text messages before. Yeah. Well, we can take it offline, but I think there was a piece of evidence presented at the trial that suggested that they were, they either went and hacked a phone and obtained.

We don't understand. The guys were also texting with the undercover officers, right? So they gave the undercover officers their numbers and there are text messages, but they would only be the ones that they were messaging with those undercovers at the time. They were underwriting. We can disagree. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case with the. respect to what I'm talking about, but I'll dig it up for you. But like the point here is is that of course these investigations were tied together because if RC&P are going around and committing

vandalism on private property, right, that is contaminating the other investigation, right? They're not separate by the very fact that they're happening at the same place with the same characters at the same time. Right. And so like I know these are the things that they're telling us like, Oh, the investigations are separate. And, oh, it was administrative detention. But, like, you can't let them have these narratives. If we've learned one thing at this point, it's that they're, that they absolutely will lie and misrepresent what's gone on to protect themselves from accountability. And so you can't, you just can't take anything they're saying at face value.

Like, receipts or it didn't happen. And we need a discovery's process. we need a Royal Commission of Inquiry. We need to compel testimony and documents to get to the heart of this matter because even with this trial, we only saw just a glimpse of what was going on. Speaking of receipts and documents, something I wrote in one of my recent substacks south of the verdict here is that there's an organization in Ottawa called Blacklocks reporter.

Tom Korski, Holly Dawn. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yep, they were just, were they on your show as well? They were on with Trish Wood here a little while ago. Yeah, yeah. For the listener, I just had Tom on Tuesday's edition. And Tom is probably, you know, and I don't want to slight any journalist in Canada, but Blacklocks, I don't know of anyone who breaks more stories than those,

they're married couple. him and holly are like insane at what they're able to do and tom's been a journalist in canada for 40 plus years and follows the money wherever it goes in ottawa and whenever there's a story that breaks you know there's i put my money on it being coming from blacklocks cord right so tom uh has shown that there's all these documents related to the freedom convoy right some of them were discussed at the poec there's like 30 000 plus and of all of those documents, 87% are considered classified now. Even like at POEC, only legal counsel and Justice Rulow got to see them. So there's something like 17,000 classified documents. And of those, another 700 are considered top secret. All right.

So you have to ask yourself, we have these competing investigations at Coots. we have the whole envelope drama where there's allegations that Stephen Johnston was engaging in directing the RCMP rather than advising them. Possibly he should have recused himself and or committed some kind of crime himself. And so there's all of this smoke everywhere, yet we can't see any of these documents. 17,000 classified documents over a peaceful protest, right? Like, how many of them, if we could get our hands on those 17,000 documents, how many of them are going to be about Coots? How many of them are going to have Stephen Johnston's name on them

and his, you know, deliberates or, you know, his assistance? And how many of them will help us put together the pieces of all the things we're talking about here and make more sense of it, right? How do we get that stuff? I don't know. You know, in his show with Trish Wood, Korski suggested, like, you know, you have to get either a friendly attorney general

or as Buck has suggested some kind of Royal Commission. But, like, you know, the answers are probably there. There are documents that are classified that will probably tell us more about what's going on here. I got, I know I got some time commitments that we got to deal with. So with the 17,000 documents, I don't think this is anything new. Is it Gord, when it comes to how governments try and bury a whole chunk of the story, it's going to take some heavy lifting to pull that out.

Certainly, if anyone wants to comment on that, Danielle, I know you've got time constrictions. If you want to hop back on and have a couple extra thoughts, I don't know what Gordon Buck have for time and whether or not we keep going after Danielle leaves. But I do realize we cross the hour threshold, and that's kind of a signal of where we have to end the conversation here at some point. But Daniel, if you want to hop in before you hop out, fire away. Yeah, I'm excited about the Royal Commission idea. There definitely has to be something.

There's an accountability list, and it has to be dealt with sooner or later, appeal all they want, but it's going to come down to, there's so many, you were right, but many questions that haven't been answered. Yeah, I'd maybe take a few things into the back channels if that's all right, because I just want to ask some stuff, and I know there's some sensitivities around it. I mean, you know, from the outside and somebody who doesn't know anything that I shouldn't know, you know, whatever happened in that envelope, you know, I think is, is a smoking gun. At least that's the impression that folks had when, you know, it came up at the time and there was a lot of kerfuffle about it. Like, it definitely ruffled feathers, right? And correct me if I'm wrong, but Lorenz doesn't know what's in that envelope. It's sealed without his. He does know? He did? He does. Okay. I mean, the notion that solicitor clients,

privilege would conceal a criminal act or a unprofessional, unethical, or, you know, unlawful act doesn't make sense to me. So if the, if the, if what's in that envelope is significant as, you know, as many folks speculated and maybe one defense counsel, counsel had suggested, another type of privilege may have been invoked, not solicitor client between, you know, obviously the issue at hand here is whether the RCMP and the crown are working in properly. Well, we need to see those documents to know if they are. You know, that should be part of a Stinchcombe application

and given to the accused and their lawyer to be able to be used. And so if it's not, right, then why isn't it? What, you know, what could supersede the rights of the accused in this circumstance, right? And I'm purely speculating here, but like something like a national security or cabinet privilege is the type of thing that could. Right. So anyways, I'm, I have no, no inside baseball knowledge on this. I'm purely speculating, but it seems to me that that document is quite important. and I think it tells us something that we didn't get to see it. Yeah, well, I'm going to sign off.

I got to get going, but it was nice. Daniel, thanks for hopping on. You know, the first Coots roundtable I did a few weeks ago with Granny and the group, they met Nikki and Steveland. They talked about you, and so to get you on this side, I appreciate you giving us time tonight. If Gord and Buck are good to stay for a few extra minutes, I want to talk one other thing before I let them out of here. So, Danielle, thanks for hopping on tonight.

Thanks, guys. Great to meet you, Daniel. Yeah, you too. See ya. Have a good night, Danielle. Talk to you later. You too, Gord. Talk to you later.

Buck, Gord, I got to ask, one of the things I've seen come up in the chat was about Daniel Smith and probably just the Alberta government as a whole. I forget if it was your article, Gord, or if it was Bucks, I can't remember everything's mushing together. is there a part the Alberta government plays in this? You know, everybody points to the federal government points to everything going on with the liberals, Justin Trudeau, etc., etc. When you two gentlemen stare at this, do you see more the Alberta government could have done or are they complicit in it? What are your thoughts? I think what you're alluding to is a tweet from Marco Van Hoiggenboss about the Alberta Crown Prosecutor services. and the sort of, you know, the provinces will administer things for the feds,

and then they have like their own bureaucracy. And Marco believes a lot of this blame lies with Alberta. I can't argue with that. He's probably right. I would only add, you know, you had Nikki on, and Nikki has been doing the best work as far as chasing down how the men were treated. And I think the province of Alberta has a lot to. answer for with the remand, with the court system scheduling, the fact these guys were kept in solitary confinement.

You know, so you have Alberta Health Services, you have Alberta Corrections, and, you know, the Crown Prosecutor's Office, the Alberta Provincial Courts or Court of King's Bench, so like, yeah, as much as there's, you know, lots going on when you zoom out with Trudeau and Ottawa and they were possibly directing traffic here. and there's lots to involve with auto law, Alberta is likewise not without any blame. Just to build off of that, Stephen Johnson, I think, is one of the first lawyers appointed to the Alberta Special Prosecution Service, right? So, you know, this is under the authority of the Alberta Attorney General. The appeal itself is a political decision, just like the appeal of the Mosley decision was a political decision. decision, you know, Premier Smith saying that she can't get involved is a pure red herring. It's cowardice. And, you know, and unfortunately, this is why we don't have accountability in our politics

because most people just buy the excuses that our politicians give us. So if I was in Alberta, I would absolutely, particularly in the middle of a leadership race, be letting it known to every person that's affiliated with the party. that my political support is contingent upon the government, the cabinet, her cabinet, pulling this appeal. And what I think is being offered is a provincial inquiry, which will be toothless to deal with any of the national security related matters because it won't have the authority to turn over federal cabinet or national security matters.

that's what's being offered to us as a substitute for a Royal Commission of Inquiry called by the federal government, which would give us everything we need for a national reckoning. All right. One more for you guys, because I hadn't heard this term and then you guys rattle it off, and I tried desperately to scramble to write it down, and then I got it half down. I am VE terrorist. Did I say that, right? Mm-hmm.

Ideologically motivated violent extremists. Violent extremists. Holy man, just stick a whole myriad of words together and you get that mumbo-jumbo. Ideology motivated violent extremist. I said that right? Yes, and there's another one associated with that in this new 2020 domestic terrorism framework, the religiously motivated violent extremists, right? And so, you know, that was the focus of national security law sort of coming out of

you know, 9-11 and the Five Eyes Intelligence and the Drag Nets surveillance apparatus that was constructed that that was aimed at, you know, dealing with terrorism of this sort of jihadi flavor, right? But now this infrastructure has been expanded to these ideologically motivated violent extremists, which can be as simple as, you know, we've equated a fuck Trudeau flag with an insurrection, right? You see in these documents by the, um, I, ideologically motivated criminal intelligence team that, you know, they're comparing this to January 6th before anybody's even left their home, right? Like, they're already calling this an insurrection and constructing this narrative about violent white nationalists who are going to

splinter off and engage in stochastic terrorism. And none of this is true. It was all made up. No, and I submit to you that that is part of a deeper problem. with the Canadian establishment constantly comparing itself to the United States and or castigating the United States depending on which party is in power in the U.S.

And, you know, this is like, there's like a deep psychological, you know, in the Canadian collective psyche of constantly comparing ourselves to the U.S. and importing American pathologies, right? So this whole January 6th thing

was like, oh yeah, we get to have our party too and Trudeau was like rubbing his hands together just waiting to be able to pull off you know whatever Biden did to the January 6 protesters and to be able to have his very own thing too and when the freedom convoy failed to deliver you know they they had to find somebody else and I think that's why they were looking towards Alberta and what the situation at Coots Yeah, but Gord, the January 6th thing was a, quote, insurrection that was not an insurrection. Nobody has been charged and prosecuted for insurrection for associate with Jan. Oh, no, of course.

This is all public relations. They say it's an insurrection. And it's not. So the point I'm making, though, is that what you see here is the construction of a narrative in the exact same fashion as the intelligence agencies and the political actors in the United States did at January. the way six. And so what I actually, you know, and you and I disagree on this, I think, but my contention is that what you're seeing is that they are pushing their intelligence operations methods and frameworks onto us, that this is a recognition of a loss of national sovereignty and policy coming from, coming from the United States. It's not the Canadian people

with a chip on our shoulder about the Americans or some like, like, like, no, they, They are pushing policy on Canada from the mandates themselves, right, to the national security invocations to deal with the protest to it. I don't think we disagree. I would say why not both? I think both is going on. I think there are elements within the Canadian government who are happy to accept that push from the South, as you put it. Now we're getting into the good stuff. Sean, we're going to get your podcast canceled if we keep going here.

Well, I hate to break it to you, Buck, but we've been, I've been in murky waters for several years now. So this is nothing, this is nothing new. I just, I'm sitting here listening to this going, you know, one of the things was a stark realization, and I don't know how long ago it was. But, you know, when you, when you go back to the word ideology, motivated violent extremists, they're talking about us. And I go, you know, like, I'm trying to go like, it's wild to be in a world where, I know I'm not that, but that's what they're trying to portray to society that you are. And they're doing a very good job of it. They're inverting reality.

Correct. And so you go, okay, is that what we're doing tonight, you go, you might get canceled. I go, well, if we're getting canceled for this, then, you know, I'm not a firm believer that there's no hope, right? But that would suggest to me if this got me canceled that, man, all hope is getting close to lost. and I'm not, I'm a positive guy. I hope it's completely the opposite that you're starting to see the push go the other way. I don't know exactly what that all entails, but when you start rattling off, you know,

I am VE terrorists and even throw in a Christian or a faith-based at the start of that, I laugh because I'm like, this is insane, and yet they have found a way to get government behind that to fund it against us. So not only do I think it's insane, the government is funding it to attack us, which is just, it's a whole lot there. They want to make disagreement illegal. They want to make dissent illegal. And the only way to do that in the eyes of the public to get people on board with it is to reframe it, right? Because simple disagreement does not imply violence. It does not really imply a problem other than people not wanting to pursue a particular. particular policy, not wanting to agree on something.

So in order to get the public behind it, in order to move this forward, they have to turn the people that are disagreeing with into these like bad guys. So they come up with these weasel words like, you know, ideologically motivated violent extremist. I mean, there's no violence. Buck mentioned a term earlier called stochastic terrorism, right? Can you expand on that buck because I don't think there's actually any terrorism. And stochastic is another one of these weasel words to insert like violence and bad stuff where it's only actually just disagreement.

Well, yeah. So I mean, what they're doing is they're trying to turn words into actions. Right. And so one of the examples I have is from the threat highlight from ITAC. they say an online supporter of the convoy and protest espoused if anything we should grab Trudeau by the neck and kick the shit out of him for what he's done. So this is what's being cited in the terrorism surveillance report

that's being sent out and briefed to the cabinet. This is the national security catastrophe we're having is somebody saying we should kick the shit out of the prime minister. Like that's not violent. right and and then if anybody is like hung out with some hard talking folks in this country that there's no intent behind that right like i have spoken to enough folks to know that that that is just somebody shooting their mouth off there's no violent intent behind it so you don't have violent action and you don't have violent intent right you have no mens rea and you have no

actus reus there's no crime here right but they're using this to say, well, like, you know, if you say that, then that causes some loony bin somewhere else on the internet who saw your words to then go do a violent act because now you've sort of condoned violence in the public sphere by posting a statement like that online. Right. And so the notion of stochastic terrorism is that you are indirectly responsible for somebody else's violence because you said something that might have provoked some random other person that you don't have an affiliation with or an association with to do something violent. Or even worse, you are indirectly responsible for the possibility that they might be violent

without any violence actually taking place. Is there a thought then, if I can quell stop this conversation or whatever, you know, the grab Trudeau by the three. throat and you know I I I've been in several rooms where that's condom a common sentiment right and it's blowing steam off because people are frustrated right so sure in their in their mind if they can stop that right they can outlawed then they're trying to stop the guy from going in I don't know shooting up a school or what have you because there's nothing to incite him is that the thought process well or

Or they're cynical and it's just like, well, this is just how we criminalized dissent, right? Like this is that this is how we figured out, how do you invoke the national security state to avoid charter scrutiny and judicial process so that we can go after people. And we don't need to convict them, right? We'll tie them up. We'll bankrupt them. We'll put them in remand. Right. We will construct the narrative in the media.

Right. Talk about buying it. It's not just buying Canadian anti-hate. and this expert lady for the trial, it's 35% of media jobs is a subsidy from the government. The journalists, all of them, not just the CBC, everyone who works in establishment media in Canada is getting a 35% subsidy to their wage from the government.

So we just have nothing but government-funded media in this country, right? And so now you start to appreciate that through these, quote, civil society organizations, and by proxy of the powers and unaccountability of the national security apparatus, we've totally invalidated civil liberties and constitutional protections in Canada. Right. Something else they've invalidated. I want to follow what Buck said here, because he made a very good point. And he made a very good point about the fact that the media are subsidized, right? So something I tweeted out the other day, south of announcing a substack article, was that the Canadian media, the mainstream media,

two and a half years, they have not talked to anybody on the defense side of the Coots case, right? I'm only, I'm partially incorrect about that. I believe the Fifth of State tried to get a hold of Danielle and Margaret and maybe Tessi Olionek. And because the mainstream media had basically smeared the guys and like the defense tried to get this publication ban on the ITOs,

they told Fifth Estate to get lost. Nobody's bothered asking anything about anybody on the defense side. The only guy who might qualify as mainstream to have done that, it was Ezra Evin. You know, Ezraal Evant interviewed Betty Carbert. But Ezra, love them or hate them, whatever your opinion is of them, by most people in Canada is not considered a mainstream journalist, right? CBC, CTV, Globea, Mill, all of these people, National Post,

not once have they called Danielle, Margaret, Tessiolinick, Betty Carbert, Mike Lysak, right? The only time that the mainstream media did actually try and talk to any of them was when they barged into Mike Lysak's house. I mentioned this in one of my substacks last July, right, because I was talking to Chris Lysak on the phone, and then I talked to his dad. three days after Chris Lysak was arrested, Toronto Star sent a couple of clowns from wherever their offices are in Alberta to Mike Lysak's house.

They knocked on the door, one of Chris Lysak's daughter's answers, who's only like nine or ten years old. These guys let themselves in. Mike Lysak's heart of hearing asked where a hearing aid and couldn't really answer their questions very well. They'd turn around and write a hit piece against Chris that, you know, they put words in Mike Lysak's mouth.

they said all this garbage right and to this day like two and a half years later they still haven't talked to anybody on the other side of the of the case right so like what buck is saying here is correct like they don't even want to hear the other side of a story they want to have full narrative control and this idea that like there's two sides of a story and that you even get to have an opinion or the people being charged by the government or the people being charged by the government or the people being affected by what the government is doing even get to have an opinion? Like they're just trying to eliminate that.

And we see that with this good thing. And again, I'm repeating myself here. Two and a half years, almost zero discussion with anybody on the self-defense side. Like, what does that tell you? And the other side of it too is the social media. It's the mainstream media

plus the censorship of social media. That's how the complete narrative control was achieved. and like it's only in the last, I don't know, year. Like, Gord, when, when were you able to get back on? Like, how long were you off for? I've been kicked off Twitter four times. And I think the only reason I got back on was this torment account I'd created in 2009 that I'd forgotten about.

And it was after Musk had taken over and, like, maybe cleaned some house with his own people with the security people at Twitter. I don't know. Yeah. The Twitter files. That's the beginning of free speech on social media again. But it's weird, Buck, because I was telling Gord, you know, I had Granny and Nikki and Steveland on, and then some weird stuff went on with my, with the podcast. And I get taxed Gordon.

I'm like, what the heck? Like, you know, I'm trying to rattle through all the different things that have gone on in that short little time. And certainly in that time, you had the Coots Roundtable, followed by a clip of Daniel Smith on the podcast. from the beginning of the year going insanely viral on immigration. And then all of a sudden statistics just start, you know, because you start to follow the trends of what your podcast is doing. And it dropped me back down to your one month one of statistics. I'm like, well, that isn't weird, right?

And so you go, like the censorship of this story is almost at insane proportions. And I'm going to slide in here right now that I don't get 13. 35% from the government. I'm an independent podcast of Western Canada who for the majority of COVID, people would text me daily because I do this insane thing still do where you can text me. And they're like, carefully, you don't get a black bag over your head. And, you know, like, that's a terrible thing to save me at the time because I was pretty nervous back then. But regardless, the amount that my podcast got shut down back then from places like YouTube specifically, this story seems to have

something even more attached to it where the media wants nothing to do with it and you know I'm just reading between the lines of they've been instructed to just kind of like not get involved and Gord you pointed to it perfectly with them not talking to the defense because

I mean over time at the start I've pointed out in this conversation alone at the start when I saw the picture and I went to Ottawa I should have saw the picture and been like well that doesn't make any sense but instead you know like I backed up for I don't know what it was four months six months does it matter it was long enough and then as you start to talk to more people you start to see the story and you're like how the hell did we fall for that like that makes zero

sense and if you're sitting on the side of you know you're still wondering about it all you got to do is listen to a little bit just a just a little bit you start to go that doesn't make any sense There's a hell of a story here. And majority of Canada has no clue about it because, as Gord's pointed out, none of them are talking about it, right? Like little independence such as myself and, you know, I can list off a handful of others. Yeah, it's lying by omission. Right. They're just not talking about it.

They're just like, if we don't mention it, nothing happens. But, Sean, it's worse than that. They're complicit in this. You've got people like Justin Lynn who are literally part of this conspiracy. a narrative laundering you've got that Bill Gravelyn Calgary Herald like he he was not acting in accordance with journalistic standards and integrity and did in and like he's helped shape the narrative and and you know do some bad faith journalism so you know and then and then you've got the you know the the general deference to government and uncritically reporting everything that's

handed to them without uh doing any fact checking or or uh you you know, speak to any other experts. I mean, it's not just the Coots matter. It's everything, right? Like this CBC is a shadow of the institution it once was, right? So it's not that they're just ignoring it. They're complicit in it. It's at this point that I inject a little bit of comedy.

You know, Kelsey Peterson commenting, I'm a homeschooling Christian mom. Trudeau's extra afraid of me. Yeah, you're... Yeah. You know, when you get down to, to it. If you're listening from down in the States, right? Because on this side, we do have American listeners. You know, it's trying to understand what's going on here in Canada, specifically

the freest place in Canada, right? It's Alberta. And a lot of what's going on is very difficult to try and piece together. The Americans have their own stuff going on. I shouldn't say they're free of any of it because, I mean, obviously we're seeing what's happening down there. You come back to the complicit of media. You're not wrong, Buck. Certainly, At this point, if you haven't started to ask more questions, it's the omission part that Gord brought up. Gents, any final thoughts here? You know, I appreciate you both give me some time. This is, I don't know.

It's a second edition. Later this week, I'm sitting down with Viva Fry, Jason Levine, and Marco Van Hogan boss. So that should be interesting. You know, one of the things on this side is, you know, it's sitting in my home. And I, you know, I sit and I stare at this and I try and raise as much awareness as one little podcast can. And certainly by trying to bring different people such as yourself and different voices with different views and staring at it from different angles. Heck, in Gord's case, a different country and Buck's place at different province. Just trying to, I don't know, get the word out, raise some awareness.

And hopefully, you know, as Buck pointed out, which I find very fascinating, you know, started listening to different. different conversations on it and that's what drew them to it and now here's Buck talking about it and raising some very valid points so if there if you got any final thoughts gents fire away um the take go ahead Mark go ahead oh thanks the takeaways i want to drive home art we need political action from the executive branch in Alberta uh the attorney general needs to act and quash this two these men need their uh compensation and three For the national conversation and the restoration of our faith in our national institutions, we need a royal commission.

Just like we did after the last time, Trudeau invoked martial law and the RC&P got involved in some unlawful behavior. We need that reckoning here in Canada. So that's what I'm asking people to activate on. I fully endorse everything Buck just said. And as far as the reckoning goes, people need to have one. inside themselves and be willing to admit that, A, they've been lied to, and B, because of those lies, they came to the incorrect conclusions inside themselves, right?

So you're talking about Alberta, yourself, you're there, Sean. When I went to Lithbridge, I've got a guy I used to work for, who's in Rolling Hills, Alberta, about 30 miles south of Brooks, drove truck for him for him for a few years, ran the ice, did a bunch of hauling up. in northern Alberta. Then I worked for a buddy of his in Brooks, Holland Grain.

Good guy. Southern Alberta guy, Wild Rose guy, take no crap from the government. But when I was talking to him about this case on the phone, he just believed everything the media said, oh, they were talking about slit in the throats of cops,

and they're going to do this. And somebody needs to keep an eye on them, guys. Like, this is someone, like, who's 99% on our side of things, our side of the street. But the media got to him. right and i had to like have a long debate with this gentleman who's a good friend of mine and and to get try and get him to understand how much BS there is around this case

like it's going to take a lot of internal work on the part of all of us and a lot of like talking with people one on one and trying to explain like guys we've been lied to it's okay to admit that we've been lied to. It's okay to admit that you thought the wrong things because you were lied to. It's okay to admit that and then keep moving forward because as much as we want the Royal Commission's and we want whatever authorities in Alberta to do stuff,

they're only going to respond if we demand it. We are not going to demand it if we continue to believe the wrong things. I'm saying the Royal we here like other people, right? You're going to have Marco on later this week. You asked me a question about Alberta before. Talk to Marco. Like he'll be able to... As soon as you said it, as soon as you said it, Gord, I was like, that's where I read it.

I couldn't piece together all the different things I've been reading from, you know, like to me, that's what's surprising right now is you have different people not realizing how bad this is or not realizing where it's at. Maybe they aren't even paying attention to it anymore. And when I read, you know, not to blow smoke up either of you, you know, when I read both of your, the way you've written it, I'm like, oh, here's like a good recap of where things have gone and why things are like, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You know, once you start piecing together how, you know, the emergencies act comes to be, you know, and if you're on this side and realize, was Ottawa violent? Well, no. Did anything there? No, okay. Well, how did they get the Emergencies Act in?

Then it leads you to this story. I feel like it's the most logical way, if you're sitting believing everything in Otto. Am I wrong on that, Gord? No, you know, the funny thing is, is that the Emergencies Act didn't get declared until after everybody in Coots got arrested. Like, the guys and Coots were dealt with without the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act just got hooked on them because there was nothing of any violent activity anywhere. There was no reason for it.

So they had to backfill it in with these poor guys and coots and then make up this fantasy about them. And the jury just saw through it. This conspiracy to murder police officers thing was total hokom. Like if it was that important, they would have recorded, the undercoverers would have recorded. There would have been more, there's just

no evidence. And the appeal is going to be stupid too. There is no universe on earth where these guys are guilty. The crown's got nothing. They are appealing this for other reasons. Kick it down the road so that Trudeau doesn't have to look after it so that people in the Alberta government don't have to be held accountable for it. This is completely political. Yeah. Yeah. Boys, I appreciate you hopping on tonight and continue to

do your work because, you know, if you haven't, well, actually, I'll start here. Guys, how do they, how do they find you? I think by now, people on this side with Gord specifically, probably know but in saying that gourd if they want to find your writing on this where do they head to and then buck right after please uh i publish fairly frequently at autonomous truckers substack.com occasionally you'll see me a newsweek um you can also follow me on twitter at gourd m gill m a gill i'll you can only find me on x at buck mick young uh but you can check out my tweets, my articles, and also come and join me in a space and have a conversation with me. I spend a lot of time there. So I hope to speak to some interested folks.

You know, I hate to extend this for two more minutes. But is there anything that gives you to hope when it comes to the fact you got, you know, those spaces, I just think of the Jasper Wildfires and some of the people that I got to go listen to in the spaces. Is there things like that that give you a bit of hope, like maybe things can change, not only just change, but change rapidly? I mean, I think the social audio phenomenon and the ability to communicate this information across the network is a profound democratizing tool. We're able to collaborate in these loose collectives of people and share information in the DMs and in spaces. Like, I've written articles literally through collective research projects over an eight-hour Twitter spaces. Right.

And so, like, yes, I am extremely optimistic that just passionate people, who are doing it because it's it's important to them that that's way more agile way more capable and frankly impossible to suppress um you know at scale so um yeah get get people on to x that's what i want right on gordon buck thanks again for doing this and uh to all the people who tuned in shared it everything do appreciate that i'll say it one more time you know being independent and not having a billion dollars blown my way. It does help to have people shared on X or, you know, on Facebook or wherever you're listening, Rumble, you know. It was just this week, you know, another guy, I'm forgetting his name right now, Pavell in France.

Anybody know what I'm talking about? Oh, the guy that wrote Telegram. Telegram, thank you, locked up. And you know, you just don't know where it goes. So it doesn't look like it's going anywhere good that way. So as you're watching this, if you're enjoying it, you know, I remind you, we're independent on this side. I would love it if you guys would continue to share, like, et cetera. It does help get our voices out because like I told Gord after the last one, strange things occurred.

And, you know, you could easily back away from the topic. Instead, we just like to steer a little closer into it and we'll see what happens. So please share. Thanks again, everybody, for tuning in on a Sunday night. And thanks, gents, for hopping on.