Ezra Levant highlights the Coutts Four trial’s tense verdict phase, where Chris Parberts and Tony Olanek—held in remand since February 2022—face conspiracy to murder charges amid circumstantial evidence gaps, including unrecorded RCMP UCO interactions. Jury deliberations drag into Friday, questioning whether Olanek’s forgotten pipe bomb possession (used professionally) proves guilt. Meanwhile, the Coots III await sentencing, with Marco Van Hugelboss refusing a PSR interview over invasive personal questions, risking harsher penalties. The episode contrasts legal battles with viral outrage over alleged Indian beachgoers defecating on Wasaga Beach, sparking debates on cultural norms and media silence, while underscoring Coutts’ protest legacy as a flashpoint for civil disobedience and state response. [Automatically generated summary]
It's about time that we have a catch-up with Robert Kratrick.
He is our court reporter who's been in Lethbridge, Alberta, for the trial of the Coots 3 and the Coots IV.
Who are these seven men?
Well, they are charged with various crimes emanating from the border blockade during the trucker convoy of 2022.
He'll have the latest for us.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
And not only did you get the videos, you get the satisfaction of helping Rebel News.
As you know, we were one of the only people standing up for the truckers, and we actually crowdfunded a lot of their legal defenses, including for the Coots 3.
All right, without any further ado, let me invite you to subscribe to the video version of Rebel News Plus.
And here is the podcast.
Tonight, what's up with the Coots 3 and the Coots 4?
We'll check in with our reporter, Robert Kratchik, outside the Lethbridge courthouse to get the latest.
It's August 2nd, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious boobug.
Well, I mean, very focused on what's going on, not far from my own home, but across the country, three men called the Cooch Three are facing, well, a sentence.
They were convicted of mischief for their role in the Coots border blockade.
That was in February of 2022.
As you know, the main protest was in Ottawa, the massive convoy, but they were echo convoys around the country.
The one of the Coots Border Plot A was particularly effective because it was a choke point and it was very far away from large population centers.
So there was no large local police force on the scene.
Not only were there a lot of truckers who were blocking roads in Coots, but farmers got into the action too.
It turned into quite a showdown, but Trudeau used a judo move.
He tried to claim that what was happening in Coots was such a crisis that it required the country to put under a form of martial law under the Emergencies Act.
That is why the Coots III were charged.
And there's another trial of the Coots IV.
They were charged with much more serious offenses than just mischief.
They were charged with conspiracy to commit murder of a police officer.
Now, two of those four, as you know, took very minor plea deals, but two more of them are still on trial.
The man who has been covering all of these matters for us is our friend Robert Kratchik, and he joins us now to talk to us about what's happening in Lethbridge, the city whose courthouse he stands in front of.
Now, Robert, great to see you again.
Great to see you.
Well, thank you very much.
You have been out there for weeks now, I dare say even months, because there's two loosely connected trials.
Sentencing Near00:16:00
One of them has already been found.
The three men have been convicted by a jury, which I think packs more punch than if it was a judge alone.
That's in the minor, more minor cases of mischief.
So all that's coming up is the sentencing.
But the other case, the much more serious case, those two men have been in prison, well, for about two and a half years now, isn't that right?
Yeah, they've been in remand.
They've been in police custody since February 14th of 2022 when they were arrested.
Well, give me an update on both of these cases because similar background facts, but of course, the charges couldn't be more different.
Why don't you start off by telling us the latest in the Coots III?
Those were the more minor mischief charges.
The jury convicted, and now it's up to the judge to give the sentence.
Let's start there, and then we'll move to the more serious case.
What's up with the Coots III?
Marco Van Hugelboss, George Janssen, and Alex Van Herck.
So there's a sentencing hearing scheduled for late August, and then a final one expected to be in late September, I think 25th, 26th, 27th.
But more importantly, Marco Van Hugenboss himself did not participate in this interview with the probation officer to complete what's called a pre-sentencing report, this PSR.
Now, I've come to understand that these PSRs are created post-conviction in order to create a document that judges can use as guides or as just information upon which to determine their sentences.
And I spoke with Marco Van Hugenboss about this and asked him why he did not comply or why he did not participate in this interview.
He told me that he had previously spoken with Alex Van Herck about Van Herck's interview with his separate probation officer.
And the nature of the questions, according to Markovs, were too invasive, too private.
Questions about religious perspective, questions about political and philosophical orientations, questions about field staff.
And this is the state's business to not engaging in it.
He further told me that he has expectations that he will face more severe consequences, that's his word, from the judge, given that his lack of compliance may be interpreted as intransigence or recalcitrance or obstinence.
But we'll see how that plays out in terms of his anticipation of suffering worse consequences by angering the judge by refusing to do the interview to create this PSR.
Yeah, I mean, listen, Rebel News, I think, has been more closely affiliated with all these truckers than anyone else.
We were reporting on the scene.
We were embedded in that blockade two and a half years ago.
We crowdfunded for the men, not just for the Cooch III, but I think we had 55 other people who had some sort of ticket or minor charge emanating from it.
We chose not to defend the Coots IV because of the accusations of serious violence, conspiracy to commit murder, although we later set up a special crowdfund for one of the men.
I guess what I'm saying is that Rebel News and our friends at the Democracy Fund have spent an enormous amount of time defending these men, promoting these men, and crowdfunding the legal defense of them.
So we're obviously very sympathetic advocates for them.
But I have to tell you, nonetheless, the idea of not filling out a pre-sentence report sounds very counterproductive to me.
If the idea is to dispute the conviction, then the thing to do is to appeal it.
If the jury got it wrong, if the judge got it wrong, then appeal it.
If the judge gets the sentence wrong, then appeal it.
But to accept the jury's conviction, which these men have done, and then to not participate in a pre-sentence report, which I've got to think could only help the men, I find that worrying.
And if, you know, if there was a particular question that someone didn't want to answer, don't answer it.
I just, I'm nervous when you tell me that, because I think, although I don't know the judge in question, I know a little bit about him.
I've got to think that this looks like intransigence and defiance.
And that actually is a factor in sense.
And we all know that.
We know if someone is remorseful or repentant, things go easier on them in a sense.
You can understand why if someone is defiant till the end, well, the place for defiance is when you're fighting the trial, not afterwards.
I'm very confused by that.
And I hate to say it, but I think it could wind up getting Marco Van Hugenboss a jail sentence.
And if a jail sentence was already in the wings, a larger one.
I don't understand that.
And I can't imagine that his lawyer funded by the Democracy Fund would have advised that.
Listen, I hope he's not punished harshly, but I think this is poking the judge in the eye with a stick.
I had a very similar conversation with him, and I echoed a lot of what you just said.
So we're actually of one mind on this.
And I sort of asked about the strategic implications of this decision to not comply and the interview to create this PSR.
And I also offered him the idea of not answering certain questions that you find invasive, but perhaps complying or answering others that you find innocuous or acceptable.
And if I can just speak for him or relay what he communicated with me as accurately as I can recall, it's just that he thinks the entire process itself is invasive and wants to bring attention to it.
Moreover, you said it a moment ago, and I said something similar to him, that this PSR ostensibly could help him if he's able to describe himself in a way and just present a picture, an accurate one, of course, in which you can obtain leniency from the judge, given his discretion and understanding of your scenario, your circumstances, perhaps your mindset.
And Markovenboss's genuine perception is that this PSR will only be used to hurt him, given that if he answers these questions honestly in terms of his political perceptions, he does not changed his point of view that the protest itself was a justifiable exercise of civil disobedience to oppose this entire so-called public health apparatus that they were in opposition to.
So his point of view is that the PSR would only be used to undermine him.
And he's basing that on what he understands has already been asked of his fellow co-accused convicts, in this case, George Jansen and Alex Van Urban.
You know what?
I'm not going to pile on the guy because I think he's facing prison time.
If you look at the conviction of Arthur Pavlovsky for inciting mischief, now his case, that's the Christian pastor who came down, gave an 18-minute sermon to the men to encourage them.
He was convicted of under the criminal code of inciting mischief.
And his sentence, I believe, was for time served, which I think was something like 52 days, if I'm not mistaken.
So Arthur Pavlovsky left the court immediately and went home because, like I say, he had already served his time.
And so the punishment meted out to him didn't require him to serve more.
But that's a precedent, a very close precedent.
It was about the Coots blockade, about mischief, very, very similar to what these three men are facing, at least in the name of the charge and the gravity of the charge.
And I mean, I suppose 60 days or 50 days in prison is not the end of the world, but I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to do it unless I absolutely had to.
I just don't quite understand it.
And listen, I hope it works out, but I don't know if being defiant when you've already accepted the conviction is it seems like out of order.
If you don't think you did anything wrong, then appeal.
If you accept the conviction, then do your best to make it easy on yourself and your family.
Listen, I'm not the guy Who's waiting in the wings here?
I'm not the guy whose liberty is at stake.
So I'm just an armchair quarterback here.
But I find it confusing, especially since the lawyers that we've mustered for these three men are excellent.
And I've just never heard of this being done ever.
The opposite.
When I know people who are on occasion convicted of crimes, they want to get letters of reference.
They want people in the community.
Yeah, they want people in their church to say this is a God-fearing man who does good deeds every day.
Yeah, you want to be able to marshal your friends and family and everyone you've ever done something good to to put in a word with the judge.
But what can you do?
It's, I mean, let me say this: Marco Van Hugobos is the captain of his own ship.
He's conducted himself for two and a half years as a very public advocate.
And I suppose there's some poetry of him finishing things up as a defiant advocate.
I just certainly hope it doesn't yield a longer conviction.
And I guess we'll see.
I mean, these are three severely normal guys who've never done a criminal thing in their life.
And in their hearts, they don't believe they did anything criminal.
I get it.
I don't believe they did anything criminal either.
That's why we were such passionate advocates for them and crowdfunded their lawyers.
He's listen, that's Alberta for you, especially southern Alberta, stealth-style guys, mavericks, freedom-loving guys, guys who are defiant and skeptical of authority.
So perhaps it's a poetic ending.
I just hope it doesn't put him in jail too long.
That's all.
You mentioned letters of recommendation.
While I don't know that that's a part of the PSR process, that's something that, of course, I imagine is still available to him.
So Marco Van Hugenboss can get letters of recommendation from people who have esteem in his community or people who have esteem in other ways to speak to his character.
And perhaps that can still be submitted because that is not in violation of what he's describing as his principled opposition to invasive questions that he views as none of the state's business to volunteer information about positive feedback or descriptions of his character from people that he's come to know over time.
That is a bit separate.
So maybe he can still complete that and submit that sort of thing in an attempt to ameliorate or lessen severity.
Well, listen, I'm not going to play, I'm not going to play homemade lawyer.
I'm just going to watch.
Democracy Fund is going to crowdfund the lawyers, although it sounds like his lawyer is being sidelined a bit here.
And Rebel News is going to support your continued journalism.
Let's put aside the Coots 3 for a bit.
Those are the three guys we've just been talking about, who I think, if I had to make a prediction, and I hate to do it, I think they're going to get 30 days in jail, perhaps more, based on what Arthur Pavlovsky got.
And I hate to say it in the case of Marco Van Hugenboss, because the judges will see what he's doing as an act of defiance.
I hate to say it, I think he's going to get more.
But two men who have been in prison for two and a half years are Chris Parberts and Tony Olinek, who were two of the four so-called Coots IV.
These were the guys who I think Justin Trudeau trumped up as the reason to bring in the Emergencies Act.
These are the guys who they said, oh my God, they've got guns.
Oh my God, they have a conspiracy to kill.
These are the folks they sent the undercover cops to listen to.
These are the folks they wiretapped.
These are the folks they got search warrants for.
And they certainly presented this as the shocking reason why they needed martial law.
In fact, after the police had their big ta-da, look at these arrests moment, the rest of the men in Coots packed it in.
They said, this isn't what we're signed up for.
We want to shut her down.
We've made our point.
So, actually, the coups for arrest and the shock and awe press conference that the RCMP had, it actually ended the peaceful protest in Coots because no one wanted to be associated with it.
But it turns out it doesn't sound like the government has the case they claimed they did in that press conference.
Like I said, they cut a sweetheart, and I'm not going to say sweetheart, they caught a very minor plea bargain with two of the men.
Now, that was after they were in prison for a while, so it was still atrocious.
But, you know, mishandling a firearm or like just something that is so minor that if it weren't associated with this matter, there would be no custodial sentence at all.
It would be a slap on the wrist and, oh, you go, you can't use firearms for two years or something.
Like, it would be so minor an offense.
I think that was a clear sign that the Crown had no case, but they're going after these last two guys.
They're going to the wall.
I actually think they're in jeopardy for 10 years in prison, if my recall of this criminal code section is.
Tell me how this case is going, because it's wrapping up too, isn't it?
The jury is about, or has the jury been instructed on this matter already?
Yeah, the jury received its charge, its instructions from the judge on Wednesday.
They began deliberating shortly after.
That was a very long day.
It ran until about six o'clock in the evening, our time here, Mountain Time.
The jury had supper and then deliberated for about an hour and a half.
So here we are.
It's midday Friday.
The jury is still deliberating.
So the verdicts for these charges against the two defendants can be issued at any time.
So I'm sort of on journalistic call right now, let's say, awaiting these decisions to be made.
And as far as how it's going, well, I mean, I'm trying to think of how to go about this.
From what I've observed, and I've been there every single day of the trial, I missed some of the pretrial because I wasn't able to get here on time with some work scheduling conflicts.
Essentially, all of the evidence presented by the Crown in this trial is of a circumstantial nature.
It's not direct evidence.
The Crown is inviting jurors to make inferences of Gill based on ownership of firearms, based on political statements and predictions of the future of the state of Canada.
And let's say, in an associated way, colorful language, to put it charitably, coming from primarily Anthony Olanik, that was captured both in digital intercepts of phone calls and also text messages and also statements that Olanik made while being interviewed by the RCMP shortly after his arrest.
So why am I telling you this?
Why do I think this is important?
Why do I think Canadians should care about it?
Because if convictions are secured, if the defendants are found guilty, either of them or both of them, of this conspiracy to commit murder charge, it's laying a sort of informal or de facto precedent that ownership of firearms constitutes evidence of some sort of intent towards a crime.
It further sets a precedent, informal de facto or otherwise, that being concerned about a collapse in Canada economically, socially, being concerned about the ushering in of a totalitarian state in this country is somehow indicative of criminal conspiratorial intent.
Women's Suspicions Unveiled00:10:19
And given that a lot of people in the Rebel News audience, myself included, I share some of these concerns.
I spent a lot of time when I was younger reading about the Soviet Union, where my family came from, studying Nazi Germany, given that I went to private Jewish school for nine years.
These are things of interest to me.
And when I draw parallels as I see them between contemporary events or social and political developments in the contemporary West and what we've seen historically, I don't want to be viewed as some nutcase who has some sort of criminal intent towards law enforcement or the broader government.
And that's why I think this trial is very, very important to Canadians broadly, particularly the Rebel News audience, who I think are more sensitive or astute towards these sorts of assessments.
Yeah.
You know, I have visited Chris Carbert, one of the two remaining accused in prison, and it's been extremely hard on him.
And like you say, it's not in a gentle holding cell.
It is in a hard line detention facility.
He told me that he just wanted to see some grass, green grass.
You know, he'd been in a terrible facility.
for two and a half years.
And I compare that to so many cases, including some actual terrorism cases where the accused are let out on bail.
It's just an astonishing political double standard, at least it appears to be that way.
That said, I reviewed some of the material that was in police information to obtain.
That is a legal application to a judge to get a search warrant.
And some of the comments that Tony Olanek boasted about in some sort of political braggadoat show, tough talk, to pretty girls who were undercover officers for the cops.
You know, I tell you, there's a saying, loose lips sink ships.
And I think there is something about you have 50 or 100 guys.
And by guys, I mean men, holed up in a saloon in their trucks for a couple of weeks, not a lot of women around.
And they're revved up politically.
They're the center of a political storm and a journalistic storm.
They're feeling like heroes.
And in a way, they are.
And then a couple of gals say, tell us more.
Tell us more.
You're so brave.
And I'm not saying they entrapped them, but they sort of encouraged some of these guys to embellish and to, you know, how young men are.
They tell a story and maybe they embroider it a little bit.
I'm a little bit tougher than I really am.
I'm a little bit braver than I really am.
I mean, you and I are storytellers.
I think we have maybe a drop of that in us as well.
To be a journalist, you have to love to tell a good story.
Trouble is when you're telling stories about how tough you are and how brave you are and what will happen if the cops come in.
Well, if you're telling that to a cop, and if Justin Trudeau has said to the cops, I want evidence of an insurrection.
I want to replicate that U.S. January 6th insurrection narrative.
I want to be the good guy.
I want these evil Albertans with guns to be the right-wing bad guys.
I want to, and so if you're telling these cops, if the order comes down from on high, find me evidence of an insurrection.
And then you've got some regular Joe who's feeling, maybe he's got a few beers in him.
Maybe he thinks, well, I might get with these girls.
I haven't seen girls in a while because I'm hanging out with all these fellas.
Maybe they're going to embellish.
But I have seen some of the statements he allegedly made.
And I'm not saying they're a crime, but boy, there were stupid things to say to an undercover cop.
I'm worried about that.
I'm less worried about Chris Carbert, who so obviously was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Now, that's, I have not been there day after day in court.
What I've just said to you is based solely on watching some of your reports and when I read this information to obtain police document a few months ago.
You've been there in court.
You've heard what the jury has heard.
Would you say that Tony Olinek has come across as just a young man who's puffing out his chest because he's talking to some girls?
Or does he come, has he come across to the jury as perhaps an actual threat of violence?
Because that's what he's being charged with.
He hasn't been charged with talking top.
He hasn't been charged with being a big shot.
He's been charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
What do you think the jury has seen from him?
I don't think you can overstate the sexual dynamic aspect of the female RCMP undercover operators.
They use the acronym UCO that were deployed to engage in this ostensible investigation of criminality at the Coups protest and blockade.
There is no way that does not have an impact.
I won't even get into reading the minds of the RCMP architects of this investigation.
I have my suspicions over what they were or were not aware of with respect to what happens, as you just described it, with respect to, you know, bracketocious young men, perhaps they have some alcohol in them, storytellers, you know, men perform, women select.
We're all aware of that, but let's just pretend that the RCMP managers are oblivious to that.
They're totally conditioned into, you know, men and women are exactly the same and all that.
The dynamic is still real and still exists there.
So insofar as jurors are aware that men and women are different and that men and women interact between themselves differently than they do just between same-sex interactions, that cannot be overstated.
So Marilyn Burns, counsel for Anthony Olanik, had made statements about this.
She stated in her closing arguments that there was an aspect of Tony Olanik seeking to impress girls that he did not know were RCMP officers that he wanted to impress, that he had a crush on.
There was some other evidence that we had seen with respect to text messages that were indicative that Chris Carbert himself had this awareness or the suspicion that Tony Olanik was fancying or attracted to one of the girls that was a female RCMP UCO sent to investigate the demonstration.
And you also mentioned the alcohol component.
There was evidence towards that where even though circumstantial, Chris Carbert had mentioned that Tony Olanik had a flask with him and presumably had hard liquor in there.
So combine all that together, the things that you mentioned, the absence of females, the scarcity of them, I should say, the hyper-masculine nature, if I can use that term, given that the vast majority of protesters were men, the isolation aspect of it, the intensity of it, given that this is a protest with a large police force, this tension aspect.
Now, one more thing that's super important is that the RCMP undercover operators did not have any digital recording devices included in their investigations.
That's so weird to me that it's all just, I remember this and I remember, I've just never heard reporters have devices.
Everyone has a cell phone.
You don't even have these days, the idea of is he wired doesn't even mean, and it says we all carry with us our cell phones.
We're all, quote, wired.
You could push a button and record it.
That makes me extremely skeptical that nothing was recorded.
Go ahead.
I interrupted you.
I totally agree with you.
It's so weird.
And we also know that it is weird, or at least not necessarily the standard operating procedure of undercover investigations by the testimony that we heard from the UCOs.
So when the UCOs were being questioned by Stephen Johnston, the lead prosecutor, when they were invited to testify, he asked them, I'm sure Stephen Johnson was anticipating people like yourself being, why didn't they record this with some mic or some camera?
He said, do you folks use surreptitious recording devices as part and parcel of your investigatory techniques?
And they said, yes, not always.
So it's not alien for them to use these things.
One more secondary aspect of this is that they also conceded that they did not use any recording devices, either video and or audio, at the location of interest.
They didn't place a sort of secret camera inside the smuggler saloon where most of this investigation was taking place.
So that's very weird.
And of course, that's deliberate because since we know that they use these sorts of recording devices, at least in some of their investigations, a decision was made not to use it.
Now, again, we don't need to read minds.
Let's just look at objectively what's true.
What's objectively true when you don't record these sorts of interactions is that the jurors do not get a complete picture.
This was 2022.
This was not 100 years ago.
I think jurors may come to this point where they expect these things to be standard.
The standards of evidence change as technology changes across time.
So I'm sure they also think it's weird.
And all that you get, again, objectively true, is testimony from a female UCO telling you what she recalls and what she recorded.
One more interesting thing on this in terms of the incompletion of information provided to jurors given the lack of use of these recording devices.
When being cross-examined by Catherine Bayak, one of these female UCOs acknowledged that the vast majority of the notes that she composes contemporaneously shortly after these interactions, where she documents what she thinks was noteworthy, what she thinks she needs to recall for a potential future trial, is that it's almost entirely of the target.
What was it that Tony Olinick did or said, or that I think he said or did?
What was it that Chris Carbert said or did, not what she did.
So to your comments earlier about what was it that the female UCOs may have been doing or not doing or saying or not saying to elicit these sorts of comments, we don't know because not only do we not have any audio or video of it, but the female UCOs acknowledge themselves that they do very little note-taking in terms of what they recall themselves doing in terms of their ostensible investigation.
Jury Work on Weekends00:06:13
Let me ask you this question.
I was there in the courthouse when the jury was selected for the Coots III, and I saw these men and women one at a time be screened by the lawyers and the judge.
And I came away thinking they've got a pretty fair panel.
It looked pretty representative of Southern Alberta.
In fact, I looked at those jurors and I thought, boy, that's a pretty good jury if I'm for the defense.
And I think that the three defendants felt that way too, which is why I think they were slightly stunned with the conviction.
But also, at least for a couple of them, they accepted the judgment of their peers because they looked at these people and said, yeah, that's my community.
What's the jury like for the Coots 4, the remaining two in the Coots 4?
Is it the same way?
Is it the same?
Does it feel like a cross-section of the community?
How do you feel about them?
Does anyone stand out as, I mean, it's tough to just look at people and know, but you can tell a little bit by how people dress, how they style themselves, if they have green hair maybe or something.
How do they look?
Okay, you're right.
I guess I'm just so hesitant to make these sorts of analyses.
I don't want to come across in a weird way at all.
It's somewhat of a cross-section.
It does look like the type of person that I've come to see in Lethbridge during my time here.
There is a lady there that seems a bit unusual.
She seems, I almost wonder if I shouldn't say this, seems androgynous, perhaps.
But I love your term severely normal.
And let's say this jury, in my very limited understanding or perception, I don't consider myself very good at this sort of analysis.
I consider them moderately normal.
Moderately normal.
Well, let me ask you one last question.
You've been very generous of your time.
It's great to catch up with you on this important subject.
You say the jury was instructed or directed rather by the judge.
So the judge sort of, you know, it's a process where the judge sort of sums up the case and reminds the jury what their job is and how to do the job.
And It's a very sensitive thing because the jurors are looking for guidance because they've never done this before, and there's very serious matters.
So, anyway, you say that was on Wednesday, if I understand, and then everyone went home that night.
So, they've had a full day, and you and I are talking.
It's in the early afternoon out there in Lethbridge.
So, they've had a day and a half.
That's not a short period of time.
Um, you know, a very quick jury is if they all just sort of had come to their conclusion a long time ago, guilty or not guilty.
Day and a half now, maybe two days, they might take the weekend.
We don't know.
I mean, for all I know, as soon as we hang up our interview, they're going to have the result.
But what do you make of that?
Is that a good sign or a bad sign that the jury is in their second full day of deliberation?
Well, forgive me to bunting towards you, given I think that you have a much deeper experience observing these things.
But, you know, my humble opinion is that it is a good sign, given that there was no immediate determination, which is typically, from what I understand, people that I've spoken to who spend a lot of time around trials indicative of certainty of guilt.
Now, there's more to this that I can give you that, again, it's sort of circumstantial evidence of perhaps a jury that's unconvinced of the theory of the case as provided by the prosecution.
Anthony Olanik, unlike Chris Carper, is being accused of unlawful possession of an explosive device.
It's one of the charges he's facing.
And one of the questions that the jury asked the judge after they had already been retired for deliberations is whether or not it is relevant to determination of the charge or issuing of a verdict on that charge if the defendant forgot his possession of this explosive device.
In this case, long story short, Anthony Olanik years ago used to work in this sandstone business, and his former business partner testified in this trial that Anthony Olanik used these sorts of tools, these so-called pipe bombs, to dislodge stone.
So, Anthony Olanik has on the record testimony that indicates that professionally he had a purpose for these things.
And if the jury is asking that question, it suggests that they believe that testimony of a witness that was invited by Anthony Olanik's lawyer, and that perhaps it sort of slipped his mind.
That's not the kind of question you would expect to hear from a jury that was convinced of at least one of the defendants' guilt.
One more thing: this is anecdotal because obviously I'm thinking about these things all the time.
I'm here all day.
I've come to know some of the sheriffs that work here, and sheriffs work here for a long time.
They don't just do two-year stands and go somewhere else.
They work here like 15, 20, 25 years.
I'm speaking to one guy who's been here for a while.
He's seasoned, at least 20 years, he's been working.
I asked him today, what's the longest you've ever seen in terms of deliberations for a trial?
He said he's never seen anything go beyond a few days.
So here we are.
It's two and a bit days.
Juries do work into the weekends.
They continue deliberating if they don't decide by this evening.
And they have discretion to determine for themselves.
Let's say it's seven, eight o'clock at night.
They're tired.
They want to relax.
They want to refresh their minds.
They can call quits, retire for the evening, wake up in the morning, continue again.
If they don't decide by today, they will work into Saturday.
They will work into Sunday.
So it's just nonstop till they decide.
He's also said to me that they are motivated to conclude their jobs and they want to get back home to their real lives, their families.
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if they want to make the decision before the weekend.
Well, we don't know and we don't know what's in their mind.
And we're so close to the case that we don't have the perspective of 12 peers from the community.
Robert, I want to thank you for being stationed out there for so long.
I mean, I know your home is in Ottawa, and you've gone out there to southern Alberta on our behalf.
You've made a lot of friends and you've covered some important journalism.
So thanks for doing that.
Beach Pooping Controversy00:15:19
And we'll hear from you when things conclude.
Folks, if you want to support us positioning Robert out in Lethbridge for these trials, you can go to truckertrials.
Thanks, my friends.
Thank you.
Talk to you later.
Well, that's our show for today.
But let me leave you with an interesting, funny and sad video by my friend David Menzies.
He was at a beach in Western Ontario, and they have a problem that, I don't know, I don't really want to talk about on TV, but David does.
Check out this crazy video of life in Canada in 2024.
Good night, everybody.
And I told my kids, if we're going to go on the beach, watch out so you don't step in any human poop.
I've heard people are using tents and they're just like doing it in the sand so no one can see.
I think it's really gross.
They're digging holes and they're pooping and putting tents up because they don't want to go to the washrooms.
And I'm here to fact check that because that's not a lie.
So it makes me not want to swim and not want to be on the beach.
To be a responsible parent, you should be showing your kids how you can actually throw out their diaper in the washroom, not bury it at a beach.
Some of it's just common sense.
Like, why would you do that?
And they dig a hole and they use it for their bathroom.
David Menzies for Rebel News here in Wasaga Beach, Ontario, the world's longest freshwater beach.
But you know something, folks?
There is something a little more putrid on the beach these days.
Indeed, a local resident by the name of Natty, she recently took to social media in which she accused newcomers, mostly from India, of defecating on the beach and then burying their excrement in the sand.
There are Indian families that dig holes and put tents and poop.
They do it on the beach now and they do it.
They did it off my backyard.
There was like three different families of maybe 25, 30 people that came for barbecues.
They would set up right on the fence of my backyard.
I seen them digging the hole and I seen them put the tent.
When they left, there was poop.
That happened three separate times.
I've had to yell at people for shaking on the borderline property line of my backyard.
And yes, it was Indian families.
So that's not false.
You can check my town's page where they say there are Indian people pooping on our beach because there is.
They're digging holes and they're pooping and putting tents up because they don't want to go to the washrooms.
And I'm here to fact check that because that's not a lie.
So Natty's video has gone viral.
Most of the comments are, as what you would imagine, people expressing their disgust with this situation.
Naturally, because it's 2024, some have accused Natty of being racist.
But the thing is, we have reached out to sources and they confirm that Natty is 100% correct in her assertions.
For example, we communicated with an ex-Wasaga Beach bylaw officer and he says, not only are people defecating in the sand and then burying the evidence, but they are also burying used diapers.
What's more, he says, when you see some of these tents, what you might think of a structure for people to get out of the scorching sun, well, in some cases, those tents are nothing more than temporary outhouses.
This is where certain people are going to do their business.
Again, it's absolutely gross.
Also, as we understand from this ex-Wasaga Beach bylaw officer, when he would ticket people who he caught defecating on the beach, he was accused of being a racist.
And sometimes he and his colleagues would be swarmed with groups of up to 20 people.
They wouldn't throw punches, but imagine being in that situation where you're outnumbered 20 to 1 and people are calling you every nasty name under the book simply for doing your job, simply for telling people do not defecate on a public beach.
Also, we reached out to our source, Ted Smith.
He is originally from India.
That's not his real name.
He uses a pseudonym to protect himself.
But he says, yes, indeed, this is a fact of life on Wasaga Beach, as well as some other beaches in Ontario.
And he attributes it to a cultural mindset.
Namely, people who are well off in his community who come to the beach have the idea that they will defecate, they will leave their used diapers behind, they will leave their litter behind from a barbecue because somebody lowered down on the cast totem pole, if you will, employed by the town, will come and clean up their messes.
In fact, Ted says in India, there really is no such thing as civic duty.
Now, please, folks, don't shoot the messenger here.
I'm just quoting somebody who is originally from India and has a real good handle on what's going on.
Now, we have reached out to the town of Wassega Beach.
I never heard back from anybody with the town, but just earlier today, the mayor issued the following statement.
Quote, the town of Wassega Beach takes all resident and visitor feedback seriously.
However, we reject the premise of complaints that lack evidence and promote misinformation.
While the town cannot speak for the Ministry of Environment or Ontario Parks, who operates, patrols, and manages all the beach areas within Wassega Beach Provincial Park, we can speak to the facts, end quote.
And some of those facts, the mayor goes on to point out, folks, is the fact that there are several public washrooms available for people to use at Wassega Beach, which is undeniably true.
But it is also true that this is not so-called misinformation.
We have spoken to two people who say they have witnessed this firsthand.
We have seen the social media of Natty, who has called out this situation.
I mean, I think the mayor is just terrified about going to the third rail of race.
As we've been told, it is mainly people from the Indian community that are doing this.
And I'm not trying to malign anyone.
I'm not trying to be racist.
I'm not trying to be culturally insensitive.
But we are living in a province, in a country, in the first world, and this cannot and should not be tolerated.
So for the mayor to say that this is hearsay and isn't supported by the facts, it's not true.
In fact, he reminds me of the movie Jaws when the mayor was dismissing the shark attacks, because, you know, that would have an adverse effect on tourism.
Nah, that's not flying with me, Mr. Mayor.
I pulled a tooth the size of a shot glass out of the wrecked hull of a boat out there, and it was the tooth of a great white.
It was Ben Gardner's boat.
It was all chewed up.
I helped throw it in.
You should have seen it.
Where is that truth?
In any event, folks, my cameraman Lincoln Jay and I, we're going to walk around the beach.
We're going to see if any of the beachgoers have anything to say about this very disturbing situation.
And hopefully, we'll even bump into a member of Bylaw Om Patrol and see what they have to say about the excrement issue.
Let's go.
I heard about that, yeah, people are in the beach.
Yeah.
And then they're burying it like, you know, nothing happened.
Why would people do that?
I mean, sir, we're right next to a washroom here.
It's not as though people are being denied facilities.
I just feel like some people, you know, they don't know life yet.
So they just sh ⁇ , you know?
And they are defecating on the beach.
Yeah, I have heard about that.
What do you make of that, ma'am?
I think it's disgusting, honestly.
I think it's really gross.
People could step on it.
I know for a fact, and it's not just Beach One here.
I used to, a property on beach, Allenwood Beach, and we had that problem there.
And of course, we could find it because kids would be playing in the sand, making a sandcastle or whatever, and there would be poop in the sand.
And it's a thing, it's without sounding like a racist or anything like that, and it has nothing to do with being racist.
It's just, in different countries, people have different traditions and different things.
Yeah, it's very bad.
You feel very sad about it, you know.
It's not a good thing, yeah.
I think it's horrible.
I think it's terrible.
They should not do that to the beach.
It's like a great place.
It's not very cool because it's a beach, a public place.
And yeah, I think we should respect that and the fact that there's other people around it.
Things like that.
Pure disrespect of our beaches, of Canada, of just everything.
There are public washrooms.
There's no charge to use the washroom.
Why would people do this?
I don't know.
It's gross, I think.
There's washroom days right there and there's everywhere, so I don't know why they do that.
It's crazy why people do this.
People coming to Wasaga Beach, and if you can imagine defecating on the beach and burying it, burying dirty diapers.
What do you make of that, sir?
I hadn't heard anything about that, but I'd prefer it not to happen.
Yeah.
The question is, why is it happening?
I can see in walking distance, there's plenty of public washrooms.
You can see that one just across the street.
Why would somebody do that?
I couldn't tell you.
It doesn't seem necessary.
We've heard about it before we came here and we were doubting whether we should come here or not.
Oh, is that right, eh?
Yeah, that's right.
Okay.
So far it's been okay.
Yes.
We haven't seen any problems.
Okay.
But we were doubting ourselves before we came here and we thought we would take a chance and see how it is.
But isn't that sad?
I mean, the idea of going to the beach is to relax, to enjoy this beautiful water, this beautiful sand, and the idea that, you know, there might be a horrible surprise package lurking beneath the sand, that kind of ruins the day almost, doesn't it?
It absolutely does.
It's not just on Wasaga Beach, it's beaches from all over, from the Muskokas, all over Lake Huron, everywhere.
They're defecating everywhere and it's totally disgusting.
Why would people do this?
You got me, I can't think of a real good reason.
It's kind of gross and disgusting, if you ask me.
And folks, I think it's important to point out that it's not as though beachgoers are being denied an opportunity to use a bathroom.
Right here on the main drag, there are washroom facilities.
It's literally just meters away from the main beach.
So in addition to this whole idea of defecating on the beach being disgusting, is this not an example of outrageous laziness that people don't want to simply walk over to where the washrooms are?
It's not as though people are being denied the opportunity to go to the bathroom.
So can you explain why people would be not only so disgusting, but so lazy?
I don't know.
I honestly don't know.
Nowadays, everyone's lazy.
I've seen it with my own eyes.
Okay, so you can tell me different.
And Brian Smith is a great mayor.
Our council is a great council.
They're doing a great job here.
But I think he's just trying to appeal and appease, right?
He probably hasn't witnessed it himself, personally.
This is the world's longest freshwater beach.
It's a gem.
And then to desecrate it with excrement and dirty diapers, this strikes me as being beyond gross.
I mean, I guess some people are in raised rate.
This is the best way I can explain it.
I mean, I haven't seen those yet, but if I see s I'm definitely gonna fight someone.
Why would somebody go to the bathroom on the beach and cross the street?
No, you know, like, I will not recommend to anybody go into our sea, so you will do washroom.
It's not good thing.
Yes, I agree.
What do you think about that, ma'am?
If you ever had to go to the bathroom, you're not going to do it on the beach, are you?
Personally, I wouldn't use the bathroom on the beach because that's just really disgusting.
And I don't think anyone, I wouldn't want anyone seeing me use the washroom on the beach.
And you seem like nice ladies to me.
If you have to go to the bathroom, you're not going to do it on the beach, are you?
Is there a cultural disconnect?
Because what's been reported, and we've talked to ex-bylaw officers, it's mainly people from India that are doing this.
So maybe this is a cultural norm back home.
Maybe there's no public bathrooms back home, but that's not the case here.
No, it's probably bad.
There's public bathrooms everywhere here, but also it's like if you're coming to Canada, you're kind of trying to embrace the Canadian culture.
Why would you bring your culture with you, you know?
Well, 100%.
And I mean, isn't it a public safety issue?
Yeah, it's definitely a public safety issue.
But if we were to go to India and bring our culture over there, I think we'd kind of get frowned upon for doing that.
So if they come here and do the same thing, you know, it's kind of a thing of mutual respect, right?
Is it time to ban fully enclosed tents on the beach?
In theory, yes, but in practice, it's hard because a lot of people use enclosed tents just to cover or get cover from the sun.
Right.
So what about something like that?
You see this canopy.
You can get out of the sun that way, right?
It just becomes, it's kind of grayer, right?
You might have some tents that are kind of enclosed, kind of not enclosed.
It might just become too difficult.
We're here with, you know, family, friends, our kids, our grandkids, and you got to watch where you walk.
It was never like this.
Well, folks, as luck would have it, I was able to flag down a vehicle with Parks Ontario and spoke to a park ranger.
And contrary to what the mayor is saying here, she is aware of this issue and she was able to tell me what the fine threshold is if they catch somebody going to the bathroom on the beach.
Here's how my interaction went.
We're just up from Toronto.
That's my cameraman, Lincoln Jay.
We're doing a story about people who are defecating on the beach and you know, burying it, burying dirty diapers.
It's based on a local who made a social media posting that went viral.
Do you have any information that you could share about what's happening on the beach?
No, I do not.
Okay, have you heard about this problem happening?
Yes, I have.
Okay, then.
How do we stop it from happening?
Unless we see it happening, we can't really do anything personally.
Would You Support Banning Tents?00:02:24
Okay.
But yeah, other than that, that's all we can do.
Is there a, do you know what the fine is if you catch somebody doing this?
Yes, we do have a fine.
Oh, and how much would that be, ma'am?
The fine is $155.
Okay.
Maybe we have to raise the fine.
Maybe.
Okay, then.
Thank you for your time, ma'am.
Would you support the idea of banning tents on the beach?
I would support that idea.
Closed in tents at least.
Okay, then.
Yeah, if you can still see what's going on within the tent, then I think that's okay.
But once you start closing it off, it's questionable.
And it's all as simple as just banning tents.
That's all.
They ban alcohol for crying out loud.
They ban smoking.
Even if they had, you can only have a clear, if it's clear for everybody to see in there.
It would be like a greenhouse in the sun, though.
Yes, exactly.
But if that's the only way it's going to stop or ban them completely, have a sun umbrella where you cannot enclose anything.
Well, folks, my cameraman Lincoln Jay and I have spent several hours here at Wissaga Beach.
Everyone we spoke to, well, they were unanimous that what is happening on this beach is disgusting and gross.
And well, quite frankly, it is the height of laziness.
As you can see behind me, here are some public washrooms.
We're maybe, I don't know, 30 meters away from the beach.
Are you telling me people can't walk this distance and take care of business properly?
And please, let's park allegations of racism and cultural insensitivity.
Defecating on a beach, burying used diapers on a beach.
Calling that out is not being racist.
It's not being culturally insensitive.
It is taking a stance for public safety, hygiene, and sanitation.
This has to be stamped out.
Maybe the mayor of Wasaga Beach is quite literally burying his head in the sand in terms of addressing this grotesque issue, but we have to take a stance.
We have to do everything we can to prevent the world's longest freshwater beach from being desecrated in such a grotesque way.
For Rebel News, I'm David the Menzoid Menzies.
Bringing the Other Side of the Story00:00:28
Well, folks, I know you appreciate it when Rebel News brings you the other side of the story.
And let's face it, most of the mainstream media would never cover a story like this.
It's too third rail given the race issue.
But we need your help.
We don't receive a nickel from the Justin Trudeau Liberals.