Shaun Newman Podcast - #702 - Coutts Roundtable

Episode Date: September 2, 2024

This is the 3rd instalment of the Coutts Roundtables, if interested, head back to episode #689 and #700 for the first two roundtables. During this roundtable we discuss the truth vs what is said in court, sentencing and what it could mean for Tony & Chris and what Alberta/Albertans can do. Jason Lavigne is a citizen journalist who hosts the Jason Lavigne Show. Marco Van Huigenbos is a former town councillor in Fort Macleod and was the spokesperson for the Coutts Border Blockade. Viva Frei is lawyer, popular Rumble/YouTuber and political commentator. 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 Tom Mulango. This is Alex Craneer. This is Lila McElwade. Hi, this is David Collum. Hey, this is Gordon McGill. This is Kirk Libbymov. This is Chris Sims. This is James Lindsay, and welcome to the Sean Newman podcast.

Welcome to the podcast, folks. How's everybody doing today? Yeah, you heard that. It's a new start, which means it is a new month. If you're new to the show, that's what happens. We change out the start of every month, and we are sitting in September. Where did the time go? tomorrow kids back to school where I'm sitting

that's the big news here let's get to a few things before we get into a whole bunch of other things how about we start with silver gold bull uh Alberta's own precious metals dealer yeah they get their start in Rocky Mountain House and

if for you the SMP listener smaller than one ounce silver coins is what silver gold bull wants you know about 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. And Tews wants me to point out that if you are getting silver and gold from them,

make sure you mention that you're an SMP listener. Not only does it help me, but it can help you too by getting you cheaper pricing. You can text her email Graham down in the show notes for details on that. Cal Rock, your trusted partner in surplus oil field equipment, leading supplier, new, used, and recondition oil field production equipment in Canada, but that's not all tank fabrication, new and refurbish fluid, storage tanks, trucking, pump jacks, and demolition. Calrock.com.ca for all your oil field needs. Clay Smiley and the team over at Profit River, they want to give you the heads up, customer appreciation day. Customer Appreciation Day,

hello Monday. We'll be September 21st this year. They're going to have sales, giveaways, barbecue lunch, manufacturer reps in store, all the good stuff. And I'll be, as we get a little closer, I'm going to have a few extra details coming out. Of course, if you can't make it, you can always buy online. They service all across Canada, profitriver.com. If you're like, I got a hunter in my life, I just don't know what to get them. I don't understand it. Just get a gift card.

That's the easiest way. Hunting season is basically upon us. And you can always go online. and get a gift card or you can stop in if you've never been to the west side of Lloyd to see their location. It's a beautiful facility. They got a lot of stuff in there

and I don't think you're going to leave empty-handed. They are the major retailers of firearms, optics and accessories serving all of Canada. They got Customer Appreciation Day, September 21st this year, and you can go to Profitriver.com for all the details. Windsor plywood. Builders of the podcast studio table,

you know, I love the beginning of spring because I'm like, yeah, man, Dixie. season's right about us. But this past weekend, everybody was going to the lake or going wherever and starting to, you know, tidy things up before, oh, do I dare say it? Snowfall or, oh, man, I don't, yeah, this time of year. I know I dread it. Like, I'm excited for snow.

Don't get me wrong, but I'm not as excited yet for snow. Anybody, any Canadian here going, oh, yeah, I just can't wait to get to snow? You say you're out there. I saw Marty up north had a post where he's like, I'm, you know, I kind of like the early snowfall. I don't know, Marty. don't know if I can agree with that. I like summer. Either way, back to it.

When you were talking wood, Windsor plywood, mantles, decks, windows, doors, sheds, podcast, studio tables. Stop in the day. See Carly and the team. They will get you hooked up. Okay, we've been talking now about substack. We had Sunday night. This will be the third iteration of it, the week in review. So I've got a video compilation, roughly two minutes,

going to show you the week what's happened. And with that, you can, you know, tune in. I hear you loud and clear. Five in a week. It's a lot. I'm going, I understand. I'm trying to make it easier on you. If you haven't signed up for Substack, which is free,

all you're going to get from me right now is one email a week, Sunday nights, 5 p.m. And it's just going to come out. It's going to give you the weekend review. This is what's happened. And hopefully, you know, last week we did the Coots Roundtable Sunday night live. So if you were paying attention on Substack, you could hopped in and saw that live. That's the other thing. I try and, you know, update if I, best I can.

And a few personal things on there as well. So there's a, you know, a weekend review Sunday nights. You can subscribe down on the show notes for free substack. If you want to become a paid subscriber and support what I do. Hey, love it. And if not, completely understand. Friday, November 29th, SMP Christmas Party. We got the dueling pianos at the Gold Horse Casino and Lloyd Minster.

We'd love to work with your company. And if that's something you're interested in, text me down in the show notes. We got legacy interviews. I was saying we have five. Well, now for sure there's only four left. And I'm in talks for two more, which I'm only going to do five of these, folks. It takes... In order to try and capture what your family is about...

know why. There are some of the most important interviews I've done, but it sucks a lot out of a guy. Oh, this does. You know, so I just want to, I'm going to do five. I want to have a little bit of fun with it. I want to make sure that what I give you, you're proud of, and you're not like, oh, that sucked. And so one of them's already spoken for, and it's already booked. And so we got four spots left, but two are in talks right now. So it could be, you know, it could only be, you know, two left. So, hey, if that's something you are interested, reach out down the show notes, shoot me a text, would love to talk to you about them.

All right, let's get on to that tale of the tape. First is a former town counselor in Fort McLeod and was the spokesperson for the Coots Border Blockade, the second, lawyer, YouTuber, and political commentator, and the third and independent journalist and host of the Jason Levine show.

I'm joined on another Coots 4 roundtable by Marco Van Hogan boss, Viva Fry, and Jason Levine. So buckle up, here we go. Welcome to the show podcast folks. It has been, well, we're a couple minutes late and we'll probably have a couple laughs at Marco trying to get his audio to work and a couple other things. But either way, if you're tuning in, thanks for hopping on. It's another Coots for Roundtable live here on.

You can watch it on X and Twitter and Facebook and it's all over the place. But regardless, thanks for tuning in again. this is the third iteration on this side. We've been talking about it with different groups of people, trying to get some different information out to all of you, find folks that are watching and listening. So I'm not going to sit around here and dance this. I got three guests sitting in the background.

I'll bring them on. We got Viva Frye, Jason Levine, and Marco is having fun on his side, Van Hogan Boss. So, boys, thanks for hopping on today. Thank you very much, Sean. Thanks for having us. Oh God, that noise from Marco's mic. I was waiting for that.

It sounds like mischief to me. I don't know. I don't know. It sounds like he fell into a tin can. Okay, we'll stop. We'll stop. You know, today's going to be, should be interesting. You got, you got obviously, Jason who does his show.

You got Viva who does his show. You got me who do my show. And Marco is no stranger to being on different podcasts and talking to different people. So I guess I want to start, gents, I'm going to start with Jason and then feel free after that to hop in. And I just want to have another discussion surrounding this, you know, it seems like every time, you know, we do a mashup on our side where we're looking at the news headlines of Canada, you know, when it comes to Coots, it's pretty much crickets. And anything that is talked about it seems to not really dig into much of the details. So Jason, you've been pretty much around the entire trial. let's start there and let's bring everybody up to speed.

Thank you, Sean. Yeah, we now have a roller coaster in Lethbridge. It's called the coup's trial because it's exactly what it feels like. And this week was no different. We started this week off and it's really, I call it the sentencing week because it was a week about the sentencing itself. A lot of people don't realize that when you have a jury trial and there's a verdict of guilty, there's a fact-finding stage because you need the facts in order to align for a sentencing. And when it's a jury trial, you don't actually have the facts.

the jury does not provide responses or reasoning or anything. So you actually have to kind of like reverse engineer the verdict based off of the evidence that the jury was presented. And then what they may have come up with and what they rejected, what they accepted and how they got there. And in this particular one, it was kind of complicated because there was the charge for conspiracy to commit murder of a police officer. And then there was a charge of possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose to the public peace. And a lot of people, including the crown, felt that those two charges, were connected. So the dangerous purpose is to try to harm police officers. So when the jury came back with a split decision, well, not guilty on conspiracy, but guilty on weapons, it became actually

very difficult to try and figure out how they got there. So we started the fact-finding mission on Monday. And it was interesting. We could certainly break it down, but it was very interesting to hear both sides, crown the defense to try, well, for lack of a better word, guess at what the jury decided. And then on Tuesday, it was the judge's turn, so Justice LeBrens, his turn to do his guessing, but his guessing is far more powerful because it becomes the facts. And once he does his guessing, you can't change it. The only way to change that is an appeal in the future. So from that point on, you have to use it as if it was the actual facts. And that's difficult. But based on that on Tuesday, the defense and the crown had to prepare their submissions for sentencing because

their sentencing submissions are based on the facts. So we went back on Thursday yesterday and we had to sit there and listen to that. Now, if you've never been through one of these before, it's an emotional roller coaster because when the crown is doing their thing, you hear the justice pushing back as if they're a defense. And it's like, great, right on, we're going to be in good shape. But then when the defense does their side, it's the opposite. The justice will start sounding like the crowns.

Like, where are we going with this? But that's normal because the justice, his job is to kind of pull out all the information that he needs to do what he needs to do. And it's going to sound like he has an opinion or a bias, but he really doesn't. But unfortunately, or fortunately, and we can certainly get into that in a little bit, the decision was expected to be today, but it's now been reserved to September 9th. Now, I think it's a good omen. I think it's a good sign that he's taking a little bit more time on it, but, you know, everybody will have their opinion.

So on the 9th of September, we'll now finally hear. What we do know, it's going to be sometime between time served and nine years. That's the range that the justice is looking at. And that's where we're at right now. But it was quite the roller coaster because Tuesday, it really sounded like we're in bad shape. And then Thursday, after we got some case law, it sounded like we might be in good shape.

So it's been quite weak. You got to explain the fact-finding thing. They found guilty, and I sort of understand it, but maybe people don't. You put down submissions, defense and prosecution, as to what the agreed-upon facts were that the jury agreed upon in order to come to their verdict. Kind of sort of, yeah. So there's a great statement of facts which come out through the trial. That's easy because everybody agrees on that. But it's your reverse engineering, the thoughts of a jury that you've never spoken.

because the jury never gives us feedback in the trial or otherwise. So it's quite the process. But it's needed, Viva, because in order to line up for the arguments for sentencing, you have to have the facts similar. They're not always the same in case law, but they're similar enough. So that's why it's important to know what the facts of the trial were, and that's why they have to go through the fact-finding process, just to do that. I mean, I read your tweets summarizing the findings of fact. I saw what was written and what was reported in the news. it's kind of outrageous what the judge came to by way of finding a fact.

It almost seems to, I read the finding of fact and I say that that finding of fact does not coincidered or jive with the verdict. Basically, it sounds like what the judge is describing is there was weaponry for a war with police, which would far exceed a conviction on mischief. These are talking about the amount of live ammunition, ballistic vests, pipe bombs, which I know what they were, and it's not a pipe bomb. But it sounds like he's building it up for terrorism when that was never even the charge, let alone the conviction.

Yeah, you're not wrong. But let's take mischief off the table because I'm actually not referring to that yet. Weapons for a dangerous purpose against the public peace, that's the main one, because that one could be up to 10 years as well. You're not wrong. And unfortunately or fortunately, again, everything has two sides to it. But the justice explained to us very clearly that his role is to just work with what the facts were and then figure it out.

Unfortunately, he made some facts up. And some of these facts that he made up elevated Chris's culpability higher than it was. Throughout the trial, it was very clear that Chris Carbert had very little against him. He wasn't accused of making these outrageous statements about harming the police or anything like that,

which let's submit it. We've been through the trial now. Tony did. Tony had some comments that came out of the undercover operatives and admitted to, by the way, by Tony. So they didn't have to, the same conversations, they didn't have the same motivations, they didn't have even the same defense. Tony's defense was clear. He was going to be a sheepdog. So he was there to protect. Chris's defense was he wanted the mandates to stop because it would be a domino effect that can

eventually turn into losing his business because he was never going to take the backs. So they had two different motivations and defenses. However, what we heard on Tuesday, the justice completely disregarded Chris Carbert, basically called called him a liar and said he was there for the same purpose as Tony. So when we heard all of this, we weren't surprised about Tony's position because he, he declared it. It was in his interview. It was very clear.

He was going to use firearms against police officers if they were to shoot and harm innocence. He wasn't going to take the first step, but he would be like he called himself the sheepdog. But Chris was nowhere near that. His defense wasn't that at all. His defense was, it was just wrong. The government shouldn't be doing. doing that. And if we don't stand up, there's going to be another mandate for other, other people and eventually small business owners and he's a small business owner. He never

considered Kutz to be the final stand, whereas Tony, a little bit closer to maybe making that position clear that it was a final stand. But for the justice to completely disregard Chris and all the evidence for Chris and then elevate him all the way up to Tony on Tuesday, that was worrisome because he wasn't there for that purpose. but there you go. Can we talk about Justice LeBrens just for a brief second here? I've been, you know, like in some of the roundtables, I feel like, you know, it sounds like he's been pretty reasonable.

I don't know if that's the right word, but that's what I'll stick with. And then, you know, when you talk about findings of the fact and some of the things that came down, it seems like, is this another guy from Ottawa? Like I guess when you look and hear all the different things kind of, coming out about this trial. It's like, oh, they're put, it sounds like they said some things. It's like, okay. But nothing happened.

As far as I could see it with the explosives, they were nowhere near. When they tried to paint a picture of Tony with his phone, you know, like they went and they, and it's, you, all this stuff's coming out. It's like it was like they're making up a case. And yet when he comes out with his findings, it's almost like he paints a different picture. What am I missing? Well, he's kind of like the referee.

and when you watch hockey, you love and hate the referee, depending on whose whistle's blown for who. So that's the first thing I'm going to say there. So we're very, the Canadians, we have hockey teams, and we don't like the referee. He's the referee. So sometimes we're very happy when it's calls and sometimes we're not.

I think overall, and shoot me later on this one, pun intended, is that he is fair. Now, we'll find out, you know, after appeals and stuff, but we'll find out. He did throw out two warrants. He did throw out a whole bunch of evidence that the crown wanted to bring in. He threw out a lot of evidence that would have made it look a lot worse,

but it wasn't tied to these men. So, no, I think he was fair throughout the process. But for him to elevate Chris and then disregard Chris's credibility as hard as he did, that makes you think the other side. It's like, well, why? Like, it felt like he went out of his way, stacking together all of these facts that he came to, to literally, like, create a stairwell all the way up to bring Chris to the same level.

of Tony, which is the intent was to shoot at the police officers if they took action. So it's tough, it's tough. But I think at the end of the day, and maybe this is my naivety and my hope, I think he's fair. But we're actually going to go through appeals. The Crowns already give a notice for appeal. I know Carbert is looking at an appeal. I know that Tony likely is. I don't have that as a fact, but I know Chris is.

So there's going to be appeals all over the place here. So we'll see as we go through some of them. And did he make errors? Well, sure, he's a human. Are they fatal errors in that it should really affect the outcome of this trial? That's what the appeals for. So we'll have to argue that. What is the, oh, Hogan boss, Marco, I think you're on mute if you were trying to talk.

That's probably the justice, the publication band, there. There you go. There you go. Yeah, so back to, you know, LeBrenton, has the Jessica Fair, or who is he, and how has he been during proceedings if he's been fair you know from day to day as a human being making the mistakes as you know justice on on pre-trial and proceedings that have been this lengthy then since Tuesday we're not dealing with a different man from and Jason can can probably share a bit more on this as well but I feel that the

notice to appeal that the crown put forward shortly after the acquittal and the verdict sorry the quidels and the conviction it's it's put some pressure on this on this gentleman gentleman there's this justice he's realized that the crown isn't okay with things with the way things went their mistakes the defense mistakes the the court has made and he and they're prepared to do something about it it's like they've fired a shot across the bow said we're watching you we have two serious convictions here on two serious charges, possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose, and mischief both have a maximum sentence of 10 years, in this case, but census them accordingly,

otherwise we filed a notice and we will appeal. And no justice wants their proceedings appeal. Like nobody wants that, that's like a, that's like a, uh, it's a negative for sure, right? And maybe this justice has, he's got a bit of a, um, uh, maybe he wants to, uh, maybe he wants he's got maybe he's climbing this grease judicial ladder maybe he's looking for a promotion down the future in the future and something like this wouldn't work in his favor wouldn't it's not a positive on his resume so back to something we mentioned before the sentencing has not been changed from today to September the 9th Jason Jason sees that as a positive maybe not 100% I see it as a negative I see that this justice it does not have the mindset that these men have

that have served 999 days today have served enough time let's get this done with let's make this decision let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's let's men out whether it be monday tuesday no this justice has already made the decision that these men will serve additional time it's just not sure he's just not sure on how much more time so what's two more weeks you follow i'm saying they're going to be in there longer they can appeal go for bail which would then hopefully release them that's just the appeals process after the sentencing But I feel that LeBrenz is of the mindset that these men are going to get more than time served. Maybe not what the crowd is asking, nine years, that's what's crowd's asking, but more than time served.

So what's the big deal in relation to having this sentencing today? Because his intention is ready to hold them longer. It's just he's not quite decided on how much longer. That's my view in relation to this ball getting pushed down the road. Has anyone done the calculation as to what their aggregate time served would already be based on what they've served? Three years, 299 days. Okay.

And that's different. It's different between the two men though, right? Jason, because Tony has some solitary. So he may have another 45 days on that or so. And that was the calculation based on as if the sentencing would be today. So we'll have to tack on another 10 to that for the 9th. But this is a great roundtable. So essentially four years.

Yeah. So round it. Close to. Yeah. The other question I had was the ballistic vest. In Alberta, I think I asked this before. Is that a regulated item in Alberta? Yes.

You need a permit to have one here in Alberta. And did they have the permit for the purposes of the? No. No. All we have is evidence right now, which was red in during one witness, was ballistic plates purchased in BC. So I guess in BC, you go. buy them, but Alberta is not permitted.

And so, I mean, what is the, I don't know the answer to this question. What's the regulatory process if you buy ballistic plates in British Columbia? You have to register them when you get to Alberta? No, it has to be for a specific purpose. You basically have to need a function, a job function that requires it. It's not a recreational thing. You just need to fill out a form for like a fishing license. You have to have a purpose and it has to be an approved purpose.

I don't know how many Americans are watching this from me having shared this. This is, it's wild. It's very wild, Viva. The pipe bombs, the pipe bombs, was there any finding of fact that they were, in fact, left over dynamiting for construction purposes? Well, they're not longer using the term. I mean, the media used the term. The nerves were separate over two years, almost two and a half years, but it's now an

explosive substance. And I mean, yesterday was, Jason, you can elaborate exact words of the crown in relation to preparables of a substance, explosive substance, you, me, or every single. everybody has in their house and if you don't use it for its intended purpose it could be an explosive device it's it's something that was passed down through the generations it was on the property whether Tony was aware or not wasn't necessarily relevant and it was of an explosive nature but it was found 200 kilometers give or take a kilometers away from Coots it's that in and of itself is a

discussion that I mean an appeal I feel will disconnect that charge from from the rest based you know you appeal that specific charge and i don't think there's sufficient evidence information to to uphold the the verdict or sorry the conviction but it's just it's like which farmyard would you drive on in this country and not find something of an explosive nature shit which acreage it's just it's that charge there is 110% proof that this is so political in nature and that they were looking for anything and everything to nail these guys to the wall And the fact that it could be explosive or it could be a volatile nature, depending on, you know, I mean a rock is a pretty dangerous tool. It's like, it's like, I've seen the biblical example.

Can you use a rock to beat able to death. But David used a rock to take down Goliath. It's not about the rock, right? So it's like an explosive device. I mean, a gerry can of diesel, if you add a little bit of something else to it, it's a pretty explosive device too. Are we going to go to rough to our farmers because they're unhappy with the government and they have explosive devices in their farmers? Anyway, Jason, you can talk about this hairspray arsenal or something that the Crown was mentioning yesterday, which just shows you where they're at and how, you know, in this country, they have the ability to weaponize anything and everything that you have in your house.

If there is, I guess, a conspiracy, if you're of the mindset that the government is a threat, they can find stuff and nail you to the wall. So what Marco's referring to there is the crown referred to a can of raid. So a can of raid has the explosive little symbol on it. And if you use it improperly, because there's two parts of it. There's possession and purpose. So the possession, that's clear. It was found in his home. But what was the purpose.

So even a can of raid, and this is what the crown talked about, has a little explosive symbol on it. It could become a bomb if the purpose is not just to kill bucks. So that's what Marco is referring to when it comes to that part of it. forgive me, Jason. So you're saying in the courtroom yesterday, they brought up a can of raid as being a dangerous thing if the intent is used to make it.

And what was their thought process of bringing that into the equation? To discuss purpose versus possession only. So what is the purpose of it? Because that could be a dangerous thing. And of course, the Crown's explanation of purpose is always the most extreme, like to harm people. So that's there.

There's a couple of things. do want to kind of highlight with this. And I prefer to call them explosives because the pipe bomb is the media and the crowns version of that. And the defense's version of it is firecrackers because that's what they called it. So I'll go in the middle and I'll use the proper term, I think, is explosive material. The crown failed miserably on the purpose of it. They didn't even show the outcome of it in any way, shape, or form. They didn't bring a witness forward that says, if we were to like this, this is what it would do.

They didn't do that. In fact, when they brought their chemical expert, because they had an expert for that, to say it is an explosive under a section two of the criminal code, they didn't bring an expert to say what it could have done. And it could have because they tried to, with the chemical expert, and the judge shut that down. Because the chemical expert is a chemical expert, not a chemical reaction expert, which would be the result of the chemical reaction.

So that part of the testimony got shut down, and the crown was unable to bring, or their choice was, not to bring somebody that would actually tell you what the damage would be. Second thing I want to note on this particular thing, I think it was completely political and unfair to have that charge on there. That charge could have been on Tony separately. They found it separate, it was a part of Coots. They found it in his home after search.

But by charging him with it during this particular trial, they brought it in so that the media and everybody else can believe that the explosives were actually in Coots. You'd be surprised to learn how many people think that the explosives were in Coots. No, it wasn't. It was, like Markle said, 200 kilometers away. Well, that's the thing about it.

That's what I say. When I start back out to where I started with this, right? The reason why I keep, you know, it's the third iteration of the Coots 4 Roundtable. It's when you search it online and you see what the media in Canada's reporting, it's like they were wearing the bulletproof vest. They were locked stock ready to go with explosives and everything. And then once you start looking into it,

the explosives with 200 kilometers away, It was old. It was corroded. It was handed down from his father, I think. Stop me if I'm getting any of this wrong. Well, you're saying things that were talked about, but some of that was not put in evidence. And that's important because we can only deal with evidence. Like this whole head right being from his father, that wasn't evidence. That wasn't brought in.

Tessie Olinick didn't testify. Tony Olinick didn't testify. So there is no evidence. It has talked about. It's been talked about by his defense attorney. And then, of course, his support. understand where they truly came from and it was his father. Jason's on by her.

Go for Marco. Well, I mean, like I understand what Jason is saying. It's like my own proceedings, I mean, in April where, and I said it the other day, I said, the truth in the court isn't necessarily the truth. It's what is just, right? Like what, I mean, I'm thankful that, I mean, there's a lot of things that were brought up to the court

that I'm like, okay, well, I mean, that wouldn't necessarily benefit it. rest of to being brought up to the court in relation to our defense but it skews the whole actual story about coupes like the real story about those 18 days on the board right so jason's saying well this isn't entered into evidence so that's what the court's using in relation to their sentencing etc but we're not under oath there we're having a good old chat about the actual details of of the whole proceedings and the reality is is that this was 200 kilometers away this was an explosive substance that was literally in a chest of

of items from his dad passed on to his son including some warmer maybe metals or memorabilia something like that and it was something his dad had built for the industry that they were in I mean homemade okay you know so it's now what use for a dangerous purpose it's like it's like Tony isn't and I don't know if this came up in proceedings it might have been a pretrialist from what I remember from but I've seen in the I feel in the disclosure seeing as my disclosures pretty much identical to this but

the gentleman is in mining in the mining business so when you have a quarter section of land you'll go do test plots you'll dig holes and in different parts of the of the quarter section to determine the quality of the gravel in different parts of the land that you own and you just dump the rest beside it so it's a hole with a mount and when they went did when they went and raided his property the third week of February when they were in lockup at this is 2020 22 they identified his property in such a manner that it was of a military nature you know he had a shooting range he had certain areas of his of his property that was used for for preserving life canning things like that

and then they had foxholes they used you know the term you know the term foxholes that's not a that's a military term so they would i i could see foxholes out the window here if we're gonna if we're going to use their the crowns term so this gentleman has experimental plots for gravel mining or five feet deep there's a mound of dirt on top of that and they're calling that the foxholes like the narrative that was set from day one and i mean from day one being one of the one of the people that's it's time to leave coots we've been infiltrated by an extreme element that was making us like as a spokesperson among other things the media set the narrative they set the narrative and the media ran with it and they built off of it and when the media did challenge the initial publication bans during pretrial applications in the fall or spring of 2020 22 2023 only certain details were released to the public and it built on the narrative of a violent showdown with the RCP officers. What we're now seeing is the truth, a lot of truth, unfortunately, the misinformation and disinformation, literally, I'll use their terms, that we're fighting against,

that this court is fighting against, not this court, this defense is fighting against, it's a mile high and it's difficult because even the jury would have gone in with a certain amount of information. They would have been asked, can you judge these proceedings based on the information in the court without bias sure but the narrative was set and that narrative it's to some to agree holding especially when you go on twitter these days i mean there's a lot more people day by day even today this show people will become aware of the true story of these gentlemen are coots but the whole truth it's not even it's not even it's not even it's not out there yet i mean it's because there's so much fear ottawa coots there's been so much fear around coots because of these

prosecutions, ours, theirs, and it's shut people up. Nobody's talking about it because, well, look at what they're doing to these guys. Like, you want to talk about being made an example? We've got examples here of what they do to people that stand up to the tyranny that we've experienced in Canada, among others, right? Yeah, and the foxhole thing, I could you touch on that one. That's one of the pieces of evidence that got tossed. So there were pictures of what Mark was talking about, just this gravel pit, a bit of a dugout

And I don't think Marco's wrong at all with his assessment of it. But that's an example of something the Crown brought forward is one of the pictures from Tony's place, these holes, and he called them foxholes, but the judge tossed that, along with the bunker. So Tony has a bunker on his property. It's actually not really a bunker. When you use that term, you think, like to go against nuclear bombs. No, it's actually just an underground.

It's a cold seller. But the crowd would call it a bunker. But that got tossed as well. So that's kind of showing you, the narrative versus reality versus the problem. Well, all the things that Marco and you were talking about, where I come from, I'm like, you go on any farm, and there's probably a shooting range, there's probably a whole bunch of stuff. Even when it comes to explosives and different things like that, farmers are pretty creative folks, right? They got to solve. So we're not going to call the farms anymore.

We're not going to call them. We're just going to call on military bases now. Is that what we're doing? That's what we're doing. We're using terminology that is so far-fetched. that it makes it dangerous to old a farm. But you think if your audience is, you know, take a look at Canada. And Viva in the States, it'd be the same thing.

Your audiences is becoming more and more urban by the day, roughly. I mean, certainly there's been an exodus from lots of cities. But, you know, look historically over the last 100 years, the population of a city is growing, which means they're getting further and further away from rural life. Put that in whatever context you want, folks. but when you're when you're on a farm when you're on an acreage you start to you know have to worry about different things yet you uh you uh you just think of the things you come accustomed to and so when you

get in a trial and you say oh you had a shooting range it was dangerous it's like what are you talking about i go to farms all the time and they got shooting ranges where they go whether it's they shoot targets or or or they uh shoot clays or you know like heck i grew up on coming on to my parents deck as a kid shooting gophers in the yard or my grandma's yard, she hated squirrels. So, you know, when we were knee high, she'd hand you the old double barrel shotgun. And it was like, nail a squirrel for me because she loved birds. So like when you get further and further away from the rural life, I guess, I'm posing this,

is it easier to change the terminology because people don't understand it and they equate that with what you're talking about, like a bunker. And yet half the audience here would be like bunker at this point in time with possible world three around the corner doesn't seem that far fetch to me. Yeah, no, and I agree with that. I just want to correct one thing about the explosives. The explosives were never shown to have been used on Tony's property. Okay, so I want to clarify that because I know Marco kind of alluded to maybe it was used as part of the gravel thing. Was it shown to have ever been used?

Okay, so the story of the ones that were brought forward by a witness. So Tony and his father had a contract in 2008 to 2010 at a sandstone query, and that's where it was used because Tony didn't have the equipment to unstick We got a new sound here. To unstick stuck red bits. So there was a way to do it with these little firecrackers. This is why the witness called him firecrackers. Tony's father was a munitions person in the war.

So he actually knew how to put this stuff together. And it is believed that his father is the one that created these for the quarry mine of sandstone. It's not on their property. They had a contract somewhere else. They got the contract ended in 2010. His father died in 2017. Tony got all of his property in 2017, brought it to his place, so his father's deceased father's property, put it into his storage,

and that's where the police found it. So it was never used actually on Tony's property. Tony didn't put that for it as a defense. The only defense was it was used at the quarry between 2008 and 2010. And then he didn't know about it. And I believe him. I believe Tony when he says this, because it was in his dad's possession from 2010 to 2017.

His father died. Everything came over to Tony's place. He didn't necessarily go through all the stuff to see what he had. Put a whole bunch of boxes that had memorabilia in it. And some of it's missing, by the way. Some of the memorabilia went missing after the search. But these two, and they're six inches long, one inch wide or diameter gunpowder. So it's black powder, not super volatile.

And they had firecracker fuses on them. That's what they were. So there's a really strong argument that Tony actually had no working knowledge that it was there. In fact, that question came up from the jury during the deliberation. They specifically asked if Tony forgot he had them, is it still possession? And then the answer turned out to be yes. It's still possession if the jury finds that he knew at some point in time and then forgot. So I just wanted to clarify that because I don't want people thinking that Tony's property has all these holes on it because he likes explosives.

That's not the case at all. These were left over from a contract from 2010. Leftover from a contract and the age of these explosive materials was adduced as evidence, correct? No, actually. The age was, it was admitted that you can't figure out the age. It's such shelf. There's no serial numbers on any of the material? No, it is homemade.

It is homemade. Okay. So it's made from pipe. Yeah, even still, I would imagine there's some way, but if they're not testifying, then you can't. Well, here's the thing. Black powder is very stable. And the chemical expert for the explosives is the one who testified. You can't date this stuff.

Only the person who put it together. No, but date it with ancillary pieces, the type of plastic tubing. That's wild. So as far as the jury knew, this was contemporaneous, like modern, recent explosive materials that they had at their place 200 kilometers away. Yeah. Now, the good news around this is the justice in his finding. He did say, we can't date. this so we don't know if it's fresh because that would be the more important thing is it

brand new because if it was brand new then maybe he was planning to do stuff it's not brand new it precedes his father um and another uh fact that was found was um uh how what was the purpose so there was no purpose proven by the crown so the judge took the purpose from the witness that tony brought the purpose was to break sandstone so there's some good news there and then the the crown only asked for two years this one could have been up to life. That specific explosive charge under the criminal code, it depends on the purpose. So if you have a declared purpose like bodily harm or property, then it's 10, 14, or even life. Because there's no purpose declared by Tony in any way, he didn't say to any undercover,

let's go boom, let's go do something like that never came up. It never made its way there. Because of that, the justice did take. But Jason, sorry, the undercovers never had a recording, never wrote anything down. Did I get that right? Like it's just going off their memory. Well, hold on. Let's be very careful with that. On the stand, they said there's no recording.

I think we have evidence there is a recording. They didn't declare one and they didn't disclose one, but I still think we have evidence. Yeah, but I mean, okay. But like there's an envelope. We're not allowed to know what the heck's in that either. So like we can go, oh, well, there's a recording somewhere.

Oh, that's good and great and grand. But what is it actually say? What does it actually do? I'm like, okay, we're talking about this explosive. Yet we can sit here and go, it's old. It's from his father. He probably didn't know about it. It was rusted.

It was wrong. It was rusted. I'm like, this is, this is, I understand we're going on the facts. And I'm glad we got a lawyer above me. And I'm the two guys who've sat in this, this room. And I'm just some knucklehead. But I'm like, this is, this sounds just like, I'm like, okay. So I'm not 20's lawyer by any stretch of the.

imagination and I'm sure they, me even commenting on it, I, I just want to be full disclosure. You can get mad at me. But I'm just like, couldn't you just say, listen, folks, it was 200 kilometers away. And there was no intent. There was no purpose and hell if we knew it would even work anyways. Like, I mean, they could be, they'd be able to say that. Would they not? But they're not being able to be.

That came out. So that was the time for that to come out because they'd bring another witness forward for that. But that came out yesterday during the sentencing arguments. And I think it worked because even the crown came in on. the low end for explosives. They could have gone higher. If they could have said or proved that it was actually to be used against police,

it would have been 10 years or so they would have asked for it. But the crown didn't have a purpose. They just found possession on his property. So two years is what they're asking for that. I'm no rocket science here, Viva, Marco, Jason, all three. There's nothing to make sense of here. This is a sham. Everything about this is.

What precedent does this set if they convict, Colonial, Lennox, of explosion, explosive charges, with all this being, like, sitting there. And while we're only asking for two years of something that has nothing to do with anything, other than it was on his property. As Marco pointed out earlier, if they walk in and find a can of raid in the future, they could then make a case that you were possibly going to use said product for an explosive to go against law enforcement or what have you. Am I wrong on that?

Like, would this not set a bad precedent, like an insane precedent? Well, if they found moonshine, they could have charged him because it's illegal and then said that that was explosive material as well. That's kind of how this rolled out. They just found something on there that he maybe shouldn't have had in his possession and then made it into something it's not. Calling it a pipe bomb, saying it's a box of pipe bombs. Which is technically true. There was a box and two pipe bombs, but it's plural. But it makes everybody think that there was a box of pipe bombs in Coots is the way the narrative made this happen.

And it's not even close to true. Well, and what we need to do here, what you're saying, Sean, is the precedence here is that in Canada here, the authority that the authorities have and the courts have, it's unheard of it. Now, they don't go around charging innocent people, but it does happen. And when it happens to you, they can make your life, you know, very difficult for a very, very long time. Right? even just the story about this explosive or the pipe bombs away from kutes away from god the way from an international border crisis um they could you know he could have been acquitted but they could have drug it out for two and a half years to the tune of 200 000 to defend yourself

or something that your dad built back when we didn't have amazon and you needed it today i don't know like seriously the authorities they have the authority that the courts have for example i'll tell you something that i'm dealing with right now um i need to do a pre-sentence report it was court ordered after my conviction it's it's a two-hour interview with probation officer in relation to who you are philosophy theology religion family business finance it's like who is marco other than you know who's marco the convict because i'm convicted and another one, a pre-sentence report, and it's information that all parties get. We didn't, I didn't know that at the time, but my two co-cues got them done.

And I had, I just wasn't feeling it. I mean, I'm a bit stubborn. And I'm just like, this is wrong. Like, none of your damn business. Sorry, excuse my friend, but, um, I declined to do it. And our first, it's like, well, you're being difficult. And then we had our first court date where the, the crown was looking for. and the justice said well you got one one month to do this and then I became aware

that Alex Fennirk who is my co-hues had his final report in that report there was a condition that would have to be enforced by the justice that Alex be my best friend lifelong friend now has a probation officer's recommendation to no longer have contact with mr. van yuganbus so I was like yeah no this is not happening I'm not even going to entertain this this crazy request this is an invasion of my privacy so here's what my lawyer said he says marco you're 100% correct this is a this is definitely an invasion of your privacy a two-hour interview about who you are as a person your your history your philosophy your theology your your politics but guess what the court has the authority to make your life miserable

and to pressure you possibly even remand you that's not where we're at but possibly even remand you to get this information. Now, I can decline, but they can jail me for declining, even though it's an invasion of my privacy. That's what we're talking about here. That's what, that's the powers that we've seen the courts

execute in relation to these prosecutions, persecutions that stemmed at the protest across Canada in the early months of 2022. So that's dangerous precedence. Well, there's more than one precedent here. They want to make sure. I said, for a while. Owning a gun in Canada is not a right. It's not even a privilege. It's a liability.

And they want to make an example out of this. The ballistic vests, you're not entitled to have any weapon for the purposes of defense. And I'm using the word weapon and not fire on it. This is the point. They want to make everybody afraid to even think of owning anything for self-defense. And they're going to use these guys as examples. It's first on that, Viva. And I want to read something to you right here, right on that point right there. This came from the, uh, yesterday. Okay. This is Stephen Johnston. And this is where you got to the point of weapons for dangerous purpose. And it's just going to take me like a minute to get it all out. But you got all the time, Jason. Fire away. But Viva, you're going to hear why this is super important because of the comment by

Stephen Johnston. So he starts by saying, weapons for dangerous purpose against a public peace. This is the most serious offense. Weapons located at a protest is dangerous to the public peace. Also political ideology is an aggravating factor. These men possess several firearms. Tony Olenick stated it was his intent to have a shootout with police. Sheepdog is not a defense. You cannot plan to take up arms against the government. Justice cuts in here. Some people would like that to be able to carry firearms. Parliament has made it clear that is not desirable. Stephen Johnson's response, there is a country that allows that. It is not Canada. So, you're absolutely right, Biba, and it's a little bit more than just self-defense.

The Second Amendment in the United States is for the purpose of standing up to a tyrannical government, a well-armed militia for the purpose of standing up to a government, a tyrannical government. Canada's a complete opposite. They want you squishy, you can't stand up to the government. And they're declaring that, according to Parliament, by this justice. It's not desirable for Canada, for Canadians to stand up their government with firearms. And his comment there, there is a country that allows that. It is not Canada.

That says everything to me. Oh, yeah. So here we said. Yep. So here we said, 929 days. And I haven't feel it. I mean, my approach with my own stuff and even with Chris, Chris Carver is at this point, prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

and that's the only way you don't actually get on and disembark this roller coaster every couple weeks it's a horrible ride but um 900 929 days now September the 9th um they're gonna get what they've almost done four years and they're gonna get sentences of six because the crown wants nine like this is this is this is this is just it's so wrong on so many levels and you know the stupid thing is nobody in any position in a position of authority has the back home to do anything do anything about it Alberta justice here in this province there's nobody that wants to touch it we can blame Ottawa but if I was interfering it's because Alberta justice is allowing it that's the way it works in this country I've done my research on on on yes it's a federal criminal code legislated by Parliament it's you know enforced by Parliament but it's executed by the provinces the provinces the provinces the justice minister this General, the Attorney General, that's provincial.

This is Chief, this is Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor, Stephen Johnson. He works for Alberta Justice. He's a special prosecutor for Alberta Justice. He answers to the chief prosecutor who answers to Mickey A. who is our Justice Minister. So why, if you're sitting there as the Alberta government, right, and, you know, you can get involved in this, why aren't you? Why aren't you like, I mean...

Because your wings are... I don't know. I asked and yelled the question. I asked your question. What does wings clipped mean to you, Monica? Okay. What that means is end of May, 2023, so last year,

into the first week of June. We're now in the writ, the general election Alberta last year. Do you remember? When this new story broke about Dennis Modrie calling Pastor Arkipelowski, on behalf of Daniel, or sorry, with Daniel Smith as a mediator, and this was recorded and leaked to the media,

and the NDP utilized it. What it did, Sean, in actual political terms, it cost them five points, three weeks before the vote. We almost lost the general election to the NDP because of this reporting, but nobody's asking our Premier to call Tony Olionic or Chris Carver. We're not asking her to do anything other than to get to, we're asking her to make sure that her cabinet minister, slash in this country, they wear the same hat in the States too. That's why we have all these malicious prosecutions against Trump is because you get Democratic attorney generals. Democratic, it's not an independent, it's not a separate, no, it's a Democratic.

So we have UCDP or NDP Justice Minister slash Attorney General. We have a Solicitor General here, or Attorney General here. who's not doing his job. He can't interfere. That's not what we're asking. I've been very clear about this. He can intervene. Not in the prosecution.

No, he could look into the behavior of this crowd. He could look into the malicious aspect of this. Which would cause a spotlight to be shown on this, right? Or Sean on this, right? Exactly. By just announcing that,

now you put a spotlight, now people have to pay attention to it. Then stories like, we're talking about here start to become a little more mainstream as it become more mainstream then people start to question why the heck that's going on and then maybe the pressure gets put on the court system to get this wrapped up am i am i right in that thinking 100% last year in emminton there was an ePS officer who i think you know there was a shooting and he killed the guy might have been a criminal or something anyways it was it was a it was a bit

of an issue i look at the story a week ago i'd have to pull it up again but The prosecution service declined to proceed charges against this officer. So they looked at it, they said, Maybe it's not a public interest. We're not interested. Maybe we don't have the evidence, etc., etc. That didn't sit well with Justice Minister, Mickey Amory, and possibly the political side of things.

So they did an inquiry and investigation into whether that was the right decision. So that's the opposite of what this is. But what I'm saying is that people say they don't have the ability to make to do an inquiry. That's effing bullshit. That's complete bullshit. Are we saying that the proxy that the judiciary across this country are beholden to nobody? No, that's not true. They are beholden to, or not beholden, they are put in place.

There's a prosecution agreement where the prosecutors have an agreement with the province of Alberta to then prosecute based on the criminal code, the Youth Act, a couple other things, right? whatever the justice in this province looks like every province is different but they all adhere to the federal criminal code the code is that's the charge but it's executed by the province the solicit general administers and overseas probation centers rematch centers that's that's that's that's that's provincial jurisdiction so we have here a malicious prosecution clearly we're not at day 300 right now we're not at day 600 no we're at 929 days we are at an acquittal with two convictions we are at men that have been denied bail on Chris Carver's side multiple times and I think Tony only went once because well Carver tried

for everybody and he they why spent 10 grand when you your buddy just couldn't just try to fail so we're at a point now where we have the crown instead of saying okay you know what we use the powers and the tools we have in our tool box which all these tools are disgusting but they did that they failed but no now they're proceeding with a notice to appeal and possibly do this all over again with a different jury and judge or judge

and that depends on the defendants plus these men would get additional time I just had a Melissa McKee, I'm curious your guys' thoughts on this. Melissa McKee, guest of the show just commented she goes, I know nobody is shocked but I'm with Jeremy

McKenzie on this. Crowdfund to hire a PI to look into this crown perhaps the judge, every single person who knows about this case knows the only reason those boys are still in jail is because the system is corrupt. What do you think of that idea? Let me take that one, because not only do I know, Melissa, that was in response to my post. Jeremy put that on my post. And I've spoken to people about that. Not a good idea.

Sorry, Melissa, you know I love you. And Jeremy, I'm a big fan. Not a good idea. That's interference with the justice system. You could get yourself into trouble. However, let's take this a small step to the side. I absolutely believe that. I'll add to that, Jason.

One, one sentence. Talk to John Carpink. Manitoba, right? He did. Yeah. What you should consider doing is maybe investigate the situation, try and find some witnesses, do another investigation, a private investigation is a good idea,

but it can't be focused on the judge, the prosecutor, the jury, or anybody that is involved in the justice system. Yeah, you're getting yourself into trouble there. And that would be wings clipped for those people too, because Danielle Smith's answer, and I spoke to her just last week at the town hall in Drayton Valley about this in person, I asked the exact question, like why? I brought it up. I brought up coups. And then she said, I can't interfere.

And her biggest worry is the NDP calling the RCMP again, because that's what they did about Arthur Pelosi. But she did commit that there's an opportunity for an inquiry after the appeal process is done. So when the justice is done, then look at an inquiry, and she's well, aware of that. So that is on the table. I want to circle back just quickly to one thing about this justice to try and not so much counter what Marco said about his worry about whether or not these men will be time served. Can anybody hear the word, can anybody hear the word circle back and not immediately think of Jen Sacky? I'm sorry. Yeah. American trauma. Yeah. I'm still on it too. But this justice, he presided over a trial where four RCMP officers were killed. The sentence he handed out was

7.5 years. Four our CMP officers killed, 7.5 years. So there's nowhere near eight or nine years for this one. And when Marco's thought that the delay was a bad sign, I think it's a good sign. And I kind of want to just justify that. He was also given the option because one of the lawyers wasn't really available in the ninth. So she proposed the 23rd. And he says, no, we're not waiting that long. Let's try harder for the ninth. And we ended up being the ninth. So if he was thinking multiple years on these people, then it wouldn't matter if it was the 9th or the 23rd. At least that's how I read that one. And I also think he came in with a number.

Yeah, and there's a second part to that. I also think he came in with a number, which was more time. I actually do agree with Marco that he started Thursday with more time for these men. However, FLQ crisis, the Oka crisis, that situation, and this came out last minute, like Thursday morning, that this was found by the defense. four years, and that included weapons for dangerous purpose of public peace, presented to the police officers, one police officer dead, tear gas was deployed, and that was a four-year sentence.

So I think what ended up happening on Thursday is when this case law came in, including that one, because that was also the War Measures Act. In fact, it was also Trudeau, senior, so we have two true droves. Like the fact-finding on this is very similar, and in that one, it was four years. And nobody knew about that until Thursday. morning, including the justice. So he may have come in with, like, my guess was going to be 1.5 more years, but he may have come in and heard that. He's like, wait a minute. Well, an officer died in that one. It was only four years. And I got to follow precedence here. So I think that's

why he wanted more time to change his sentencing lower. I don't think he's going higher. He handed out 7.5 years for four dead RCMP officers. Nobody was even brandished, let alone threatened. So I think after yesterday, I think we're looking at time served, to be honest with you, on the 9th for both men. The sentencing, it's going to be done orally, but is there going to be a written judgment on the sentencing? Yeah, that's why it's taking more time too, because you've got to refer to appeal on that. Yeah. Yeah, because of course the crown is going to appeal, because I really think he thinks he's going to let them out, and he wants to make sure that that sentencing decision written version of it is good enough to survive an appeal.

That's, but I'm T-Leave reading here, but the 2030 is like, no, that's too late. Like, let's do this sooner. You are, you are. We both are. We all are. We all too. None of us, no, but I mean, prepare for the words, go for the best. I'm sorry, it's just been my go-toe the last three years.

And it's, well, that, that L-LQ, that LFLQ sentence was, he was surprised. He didn't know about that. And he wants to go double-check, I get more authority, because it was through a McGill university brief is how we found out about it. And as far as facts are concerned, that lines up to this situation better than anything else, other than nobody actually got hurt. So for years, we should be looking at less than that. I think you touched on it.

Just a question. I don't know, like you don't have the pardon power like you have in the states in Canada, certainly not at the provincial level. If I missed it, what is or would be Danielle Smith's power? What could she possibly do to not intervene, but get involved even if she wanted to? I don't think she has much power to do anything, right? So, I, well, a little bit, but she has, she has to wait. They can't be during an active legal process.

But it's not hers. It's not hers. It's a position in her government. The Justice Minister slash Attorney General, it's in his jurisdiction. He could oppose her. He might lose his position, but it's his ministry. The judicial system. But she has no authority.

She has no authority. No, it's a federal issue, not a provincial issue, so it's not like there's a governor's pardon. And this is the point I'm getting at. She can't, I don't think she can do anything, even if she disagrees into sentence. Yeah, we don't have pardons at that level. You can apply for pardons, but it's not through our Premier or Prime Minister, like the state of the States. But if I heard you correct, correct me if I'm wrong here, gents. When the sentencing comes out and all that, then Alberta province, which would be Daniel Smith, could go, we're going to have an inquiry into what has gone on with these men, correct?

Did I hear that right? After the appeals. Yeah. So our charter. Yeah, so our charter requires finality first. So it has to be after the appeal processes. So whether they're filed, if they're filed, then you have to finish them. If they're not filed, then that window closes, then then you're.

you're done, but there are appeals coming. So this is going to be a couple more years. Sorry, go for it. I want to quickly back up to what Jason was saying before on, you know, case law, rulings, et cetera. And this is something that the lawyers have said multiple times. Nothing is going the way it normally does. So while we bring in case law, this is my counter to where time served,

I'm not here to be that bad guy. I'm just, we're having this round table. And that is that nothing has happened the way things normally happen in relation to the proceedings. And that's why I feel that what happened Tuesday, thankfully yesterday was a bit different than Tuesday, but Tuesday was a bad day. And I thought, man, they're going to nail these guys to the wall. They can give them eight years, seven years. Now, maybe it's six, five. Either way, I feel that because of the precedents that have been set with this proceeding,

and it does not align with anything at like I mean no bail denied or sorry bail denied that's not aligned with our current bail system correctly correct everybody can't it's a problem but everybody gets like whether I agree with it or not everybody gets bail in Canada except these guys okay that's one of a hundred things that is abnormal in relation to these proceedings that's why case law all you know Previous sentencing, previous convict all of this stuff that gets brought to this court This court it's almost like it falls on deaf ears and it's irrelevant because this thing is an animal of its own and that's why I worry

That this is about sending a message this isn't about Protecting you know public safety This is about sending it's about to worry I don't have to worry this is all about sending a message. I mean it's sending a clear message I mean it's sending a clear message It's always been about sending a message, but I'm looking up the judge. The judge was appointed in 2018 by the looks of it. I don't know who was in power in 2018.

Trudeau. Well, this is, well, I'm an idiot. Justice Minnis. Jody Raymond Wilson was the Justice Minister, the one that. Yeah, and his rulings throughout this case has been to keep them in jail in the interim. What was the old? No, he doesn't. He's not the bail judge.

Oh, okay, fine. Yeah, that's relevant then. Okay. When is the sentencing? The 9th. September 9th. Oh, the 9th. I thought you said tonight.

Oh, no, I wish. September 9th, yeah. I'd still be there. I'm back home now. I just got back home like 10 minutes before the show. How far drive is that? Five hours. Yeah, that's nothing.

It's okay. I don't mind. You do that back and forth in a day. Yeah. If that isn't the most, five hours, five hours is nothing. That's the Alberta way. There's one gas station between me and there.

No, I'm just kidding. But, yeah, it was fine. But I hear what you're saying, and even Marco, like, I can't really argue him. A lot of the things he's saying is absolutely true. Like, where I'm kind of stuck is I'm using the legal system as I know it, but there's always a twist with this case. There's always a twist.

It's never normal. We all want to trust the system. We all want to trust the system. I get it. We want to, but it's just broken. Yeah, it continues to let us down. I don't, you know. And if there is more time,

that will just be more evidence that it's absolutely like something's really wrong with this one because there shouldn't be more time on this one. It should be time served from what we saw yesterday. So if there is more time, then something's wrong, like really wrong. You know, boys, I aim for these to be right on an hour. Bang, there goes. There's an hour on the button. You know, like if anybody's got some final comments,

We can go for, you know, as long as we want, but I'm cognizant of our conscious of everybody's time and want to make sure that, not that we overstay are welcome, because I've been really enjoying this chat. It's been enlightening as these Kootz roundtables have been. But if there's any final thoughts, fire away. Any final questions, fire away. Otherwise, we'll wrap up and appreciate everybody hopping on. But Jason, Marco, Viva.

Any final thoughts? I do have one quickly for you. They're sending a message. I get it. But they've also overplayed their cards and now we see them for who they are. And yes, this sucks right now. But please, bear with us.

They're not going to get away with it. That envelope's going to get open. Jeremy McKenzie and others and a whole bunch of people want to fund raise in order to get justice here. So that envelope, we're going to find a way to get that open through the legal system.

There's going to be justice reform. Daniel Smith, when she can, can, absolutely is probably ready to go because of people like Marco, who's been all over her, she's got to do something about this. This cannot go away. And because of people like on this panel right now, it won't go away. So that's probably something they weren't expecting. And Viva, when you did the streaming in the convoy, they weren't expecting that. And because that happened, I think you exposed a whole bunch of things. This is why we have Bill 11, Bill 18, so thanks a lot for

that. But that is exactly why we have these now, because they didn't expect that to happen. same thing's going to happen here. People like Marco, Sean, and others will not let the story go away. This is going to haunt them. And I know this, and I got proof of that. Yesterday, Stephen Johnson walked out in the hallway, and a gentleman said to him, what's in the envelope? And he freaked out.

He freaked out. He got to sheriff. You want to know why he freaked out? Well, I'll get there in a second. But I know it's on his mind. I know he knows what's in it. And I know he doesn't want us to remember. So this is proof in my mind.

He is worried and good. He should be. We all should be held accountable. shouldn't we Stephen Johnston? Do you have, you know why you said? Yeah, well, I know why. It's because the gentleman that said it wasn't directed.

It was under his breath. It was loud enough as the prosecutor walked by. But he is in proceedings as well. And an accused or convicted cannot communicate directly to the prosecutor on the other side of the aisle, right? He could have walked away too. Oh, he was pissed. Oh, he was pissed because it was on purpose. but I'm going to read something.

Oh, he was losing it. And I think, like, what's his name? What's a junior prosecutor? Aaron Rankin. Rankin wanted to punch him. Like, he was, he was pissed. Do you want to punch Johnston or the other gentleman? No, he wanted to punch by Colcubes.

And it stems from the fact that we just got, we just got, no, I know, but he's, I've seen it on him. He wanted to get physical. He would never have done that. He's way smarter than that. but this stems from the fact, because we got our facts sheets yesterday for our prosecution, so we got all the stuff that the Crown is using for sentencing. And the biggest thing, I don't say this lightly, but I'll explain why,

but the biggest thing that they're going to use against me and my co-accused is that fact that there's no remorse. Right. I mean, they have their evidence. There's no remorse. And particularly Alex and myself, George has been quieter. He's a quieter gentleman. But my argument against it is, well, I'm sorry, I'm not big on lying, and I can't do fake

crocodile to. We did what we did for a reason. But it's a whole different discussion there. But I want to read something here before we run out of time. And it's a broad statement. It's something like I said. Once again, Marco, don't feel like you have to rush. I didn't mention the hour to boot us off.

Just that, you know, if there was important points to get to, instead of going two and a half hours, I had got informed everybody. So please, yeah, read away. So this is from a legal beagle and I'll leave it at that. I'll read it work forward. It is a political prosecution in the sense that Minister Amory has legal authority over the prosecutorial arm of his ministry, but it's choosing for political reasons not to exercise it. The best way to understand it is as the exact opposite of what Kenny, Shandro, and Madu did during COVID.

They fully exercised their political authority, right? This is what they did. They say they don't have no ability of influence. Back to the document. They fully exercise their political authority over the prosecutorial function to criminalize people like Chris Scott, Art Toulowski, Jesse Johnson, Ty Norcott, James Cote, Timothy Stevens, and of course the Coots Protesters, Coots 4, Coots 3, there's a bunch of others. Amory and Smith probably see their inaction as the retrenchment from the Kenny approach.

That might be so, but the public has now been conditioned to expect government to pay politically in terms of crime prosecution. What I have told Daniel Smith is that Coots is a political prosecution that the criminal justice system is screwing up and badly. It requires a political solution, but not the game of chicken they are playing now. Mr. Johnson is a COVID zeal who acts as a modern-day rubbish fear. He has judicial aspirations and has stayed his entire career on this case. He cannot be seen as weak or a loser.

Ingram really hurt them. You know the Ingram decision? Ingram really hurt them. They're still angry about it, hence the appeal. It would take great courage for the Premier to step in now and stay these charges, freeing these men and ending finally the Kenny era of COVID prosecutions. She would receive skating criticism from everyone who will never vote for her, everyone who will never vote for her support the ones she seems help and

upon winning over but there would be such a cry of freedom in Alberta and she would preserve for life the fealty of everyone who does support her and also many of her skeptics to quote dr. Dennis Modry what would Maggie do Margaret Thatcher what would Maggie do the answer in this case is rhetorical the problem required right action not political expediency or a false consensus about the rule of law. Put simply, these men are not criminals, they never were, they are political prisoners

being used as pawns by power brokers. Everyone knows this, but as the immortal Fred Flintstone once philosophies it, knowing it is half the battle. Practically, I would fire Stephen Johnson or at least remove him as a lead prosecutor.

I would replace him with someone who was not an NDP COVID-Z law. A pragmatic prosecutor, it is odd to have the trial counsel doing the appeal. which requires objectivity that cannot be shown by the trial counsel. Besides that, appellate work is a specialty distinct from trial advocacy. This signal that Amory has taken his hands off the wheel and handed it to Johnson, so making a jury justice minister.

That gives aiming distance and plausible deniability. Again, they fear being exposed as we did to Kenny and company in the Ingram decision. And that, I'm telling you that that's so bang on, and nobody has the bottom. to do anything about it. You do. I want to see you do a run for that office one day. Yeah, well, I'll be. I'll say just my one closing thought on this is that

I think there's not the same political pushback in the overall Canadian environment that there is against the judicial system or abuse in America. But that is what it kind of takes. I don't deny, I don't doubt that these judges follow the news. I just don't think there's enough news covering this from a mainstream perspective

that the judges feel any pressure for real justice, but all you can do is keep up the pressure on the alternative media sites and make sure that people don't forget about it, and hope the judges might be listening. Well, and I agree with you there. Mainstream or as... Shadow. Sorry, shadow would say the corporate, blah, blah, blah.

What do you say, Jason? Leftist corporate media or Mark's corporate media. Or call it the regime, the regime media. But they're following. on that way to court yesterday and i had i had filmed a fifth estate episode in my living room that hasn't aired yet they were going to air it then they got to push back from the legal because it was all these prosecutions ongoing this was in the fall of 2022 so they've fallen yesterday on the way to court and they wanted to be here today so this is cbc fifth of the state with the investigative

journalist and they want to add to this but they're of the mindset at this point as well that there's something so completely wrong so i mean this is media this is cbc but this is the investigative branch of, they've got some okay stuff here and there. I mean, they pick and choose, but I think we're starting to see more. I don't know. I'm trying to be nice here. Come on, man. Help me out, Sean.

I'm telling you what, we just watched the 22 minutes little skit they did earlier this week on Willie Tonka and this little song and dance. If you haven't done yourself a favor, go watch that and make sure your kids aren't around as you sit there and stare in disbelief at that two minutes of just absolute debauchery. And I'm supposed to hold my tongue on the CBC doing okay work. I don't think so. Gentlemen, I'm ducking out. I just don't want to say goodbye first.

And I don't want to kill this. Thanks for helping on. We appreciate it. I got to go tend to something. I'll see in a bit. Take care, Viva. Thanks, my apologies. To me, I know you're trying to be, like, here's the I'm supposed to be the guy that's, like, not getting fired up.

I'm just like, to me, the C. And you ain't getting a kind word at my mouth at this point. And have they started to see the trend that maybe nobody's paying attention? Sure. Like we're seeing layoffs at epic proportions. We're starting to see the government questioning their fearless leader of CBC and the bonuses. But that's coming from black locks. That's coming from, you know, forgive me, the Canadian taxpayers federation and all these different people following the money.

and starting to expose like they're doing horrifically and they're still giving off giant bonuses. And I don't mean to pull this off to media. It's just when we try and give media like, well, they're doing okay. It's like, no, they're not. And we all know they're not. So I'm not going to sit here and be like, oh, media is doing an okay job. No. If I'm going to get harassed for not going hard after certain things, meanwhile, this is what we do.

It's like, well, we're not coming on here to give CBC a break. Uh-uh. CBC wants to start pulling its weight. Start pulling your weight. Start looking into this. You're watching this. Start doing something. You're right.

Okay. I'm going to counter. I'm not here going to defend CBC. That's not what I'm doing. I know. We can't say okay. No, no. I mean, I'm taking the individual's approach.

So I have a lot of connections in, I mean, independent media, but also in media because the last three years. Connections with the individual, with the reporter. I remember this. I can't even remember her name down in Coots. And she was heckling me, like, day and day out for the first four days. If you don't give me an interview the world doesn't know what's happening. I was like I don't need to give you But eventually we realized the world need to know what was happening and you know we were they were censoring

Facebook telegram you name it right it was just tough to get the message out and I remember looking at her one day Or in the morning up like day four day five I says you know what I'll give you an interview But you can bet your ass I'm gonna be watching tonight and it'll depend on whether you get another one tomorrow or ever again that lady through the rest of those 14 days reported the most factual news and the US CBC I've ever seen from pretty much mainstream media but it was a personal connection we we we we a relationship we established I pretty much told her don't screw me because you're done I don't even want you around her anymore like we're gonna harass you like get out of here and she was good and I

mean to me it's the organization that that's definitely corrupted, but there are still individuals that, yeah, they're doing a job and that's not an excuse, but there are still reporters that try to send great stuff to their editors, but I think it's the editorial level that quite often screws things up. But I can be wrong. So, I mean, I'm just talking about a personal story here. No, and it's fair. But, I mean, I just, I got no time.

Like, at this point, I got no time for the CBC. I just, you know, and I'm with you. Listen, right? I don't know. Like, you just watch it. Like, I mean, where's the coverage of what's going on here in Alberta or elsewhere in our country? And at some point, are you just for the love of God going to look into the other side? That's that's all.

That's where I get so frustrated when it comes to media specifically. I can hold my tongue on a lot of things because I'm not sitting here acting folks like I know everything when it comes to a lot of different things. But like when it comes to these different issues, I mean, there's one side and that's all they stare at. That's all they talk about. We just do, all of us sit in there and watch it. You know, there's a large audience that talks about it over and over and over again. And they just sit on their hands or whatever. And the bosses say we can't do anything.

Okay. You got a choice. Everybody's got a choice. And Canada right now feels like it's just burning. And we're all just, you know, not, you know, it's my rant off. My rant off free today, folks. CBC, okay. I'm sorry. That line irritates me.

Jason, Marco, any final thoughts before I let you out of here? Yeah, I got several, but I'll kind of narrow it down to one. I'm going to ask people to just hang on the next couple of weeks. Let's see if there's a big twist. If it is going to be a time served, we may be on track. If it's not, then we definitely, definitely have a problem with the justice and self, not just the system. So stay tuned for that. And I don't think that answer's been done yet. So we'll figure that out soon.

Okay. Okay, Jason. You know what? You got me. I heard you. Guys, park those tractors. We're not doing this shit yet. Pass them up. Get them ready. I promise you. I promise you this shit, like there's going to be a response to this. Jason, voice of reason. That's great. Well, there's a line being drawn in the same. and I'm not here to watch like I'm not I can't continue to watch this with my hands in my pockets it's disgusting I'm not here saying that somebody needs to go out and kneecap Stephen Johnson that's not what I'm saying if anybody says it I tell you man you shouldn't do that that's not what we're here to do but there has to be a response and we use the tools that we have that's all I'll say and what I'll do on this is side, you know, knowing that September 9th, correct, Jason, that's the next big date. Is, uh, on this side, you know, like we've done three of these because I think it's, I don't know, I think it's really important to keep it in the, the view of the public.

And at times it can kind of go to sleep and not from any of you to specifically and others that I've had on. Um, just in general, right, as it drags on, we're seeing, you know, you just pick any freedom fighter that's in trial right now. and you can see how it can just fall to the back page of any paper or any storyline. And what we'll do on this side is we'll make sure September 9th and maybe we'll just have to plan another one. You know what? Jeremy McKenzie's come up here multiple times. He was supposed to come on before summary. Just schedules didn't align. So maybe there's another roundtable in the works and we'll make sure we try and keep it in the purview of not only Albertans but Canadians.

and I appreciate you both coming on and continuing the work that everybody's doing. You too, among everyone, Viva Fry for hopping on here. And to all the fine folks who shared and tuned in for us today, if you're listening to this next week when it airs on the podcast, make sure to share it with Albertans and others because I think it's really important that people continue to hear different sides of what's going on. And to have people in the court watching and listening is really,

important as well as just getting people to comment on it. So thanks, gents, for hopping on and thanks to everybody for tuning in until next time. Thank you, Sean. Thanks for having us. See you, Sean. Nice, see you, Marco.