Canadian Court Proceedings as Struggle Sessions - Anarcho-Tyranny in The Great White North
The New Red Guard is hard at work against Peaceful Protesters
Tuesday, July 9, 2024
We are now three weeks in to one of the most important court cases in Canadian History, and as expected, the regime stenographers of Justin Trudeau’s Presstitute Corps are attempting to salvage the lack of a case on the part of the Crown against Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick by failing to inform you of important countervailing facts and other items disadvantageous to their narrative. And why not? A couple of rednecks thrown in jail for decades is a small price to pay for the table scraps of the Laurentian Elite.
”There are laws to protect the freedom of the press’s speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press.”
Mark Twain
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
George Orwell
Bill Graveland is a reporter for the Canadian Press and has been one of the few mainstream media people to attach his name to any coverage of the trial of Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert since it got rolling back in early June. Bill’s stories have appeared in almost every single local and national media website in Canada, and why not? Its easier for them to syndicate than send their own reporters, or, you know, contact someone who is actually there.
Actually there?
That’s right …. Graveland is dialing it in from Calgary, a two hour drive from the Lethbridge Courthouse, which is apparently too much of journey for a seasoned reporter to undertake in 2024, especially with one of the biggest court cases in recent Canadian history, a case which has import for Graveland and everyone else’s rights to freedom of speech and protest.
One of the more interesting things we learned at the Public Inquiry into the Invocation of the Emergencies Act is that as early as the arrests themselves in the days surrounding Valentine's 2022, Mr. Graveland was exchanging direct text messages with with mayor of the Village of Coutts, Jim Willet, about how to label the 13 arrested people as “domestic terrorists.”
Before any bail hearings, any trials, or any acquitals, Graveland was already opaquely concocting ways to spin the narrative in a specific direction. I’d argue that if his existing work on Coutts and CP’s continued insistence on him covering this story despite a clear bias and absence of judgment is a superlative example of the gross incompetence of our mainstream media landscape.
I question both CP and Graveland’s judgment and commitment to covering this story competently or fairly. I'd always wondered if there existed a direct link between government officials and the regime stenographers and I think I might’ve confirmed it - but why even bother making a case for malice when pure incompetence will suffice. I physically attended the trial in Lethbridge, whereas Bill was nowhere to be found - despite living only a few hours away in Calgary.
I would love to be only 2 hours away from Lethbridge; as a lifelong professional trucker, 2 hours in and I’m not even warmed up yet - get back to me when I hit the Utah line.
That said, and in the interest of honesty, I myself am commenting on this case from the other side of the continent, but unlike Mr Graveland, I am in regular contact with those on the defense side, am privy to the entire story, and do not cherry pick salacious claims of the Crown and sell that to national media outlets as ‘news’.
If I could be in Alberta, I would be in that courtroom every single day, but that’s just me.
Let us review Mr Graveland’s coverage.
Here he is syndicated in the St. Albert Gazette, on June 14, 2024, a local Alberta paper near Edmonton -
Defence lawyer Marilyn Burns pointed to a number of heart emojis in text messages between the Mountie and Burns’s client, Anthony (Tony) Olienick.
The officer, who can’t be identified and was testifying under cross-examination from Burns, said a heart emoji in this context was a short form of showing approval for a topic, not a person.
"But it can also mean two people loving each other," said Burns.
"I'm not sure how other people interpret it,” replied the officer.
The lawyer pushed on: "It should have been apparent to you that Tony was beginning to be interested in having a relationship with you that was beyond friendly.”
The officer replied, "I didn't feel that way. That wasn't the impression I was getting."
Burns continued: “You were flirting with him."
No, said the officer: "I wouldn't say I was.”
Court has heard that undercover officers are forbidden both ethically and legally from using seduction to acquire information.
Interesting that litigants in a court of law are discussing the meaning of emojis; how very 2024.
What is more interesting about this particular report is that Graveland fails to mention that all of the testimony from the undercover officers is based on memory, and hastily written notes, with NO RECORDINGS TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY OF THE CLAIMS.
We are to believe that these young, female officers, who were definitely not sent in to a protest mostly made of up of dudes who their superiors believed had murder in their hearts to use their gender ….. errmmm ‘socially constructed identity’ … to gain favor with the protesters, but with no wire or recording devices whatsoever, and no side arms to defend themselves.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
attributed to Voltaire
The next piece by Graveland has been strangely removed from the internet …
To his credit, he follows up in his next piece for the CBC with an acknowledgement that indeed, the undercover testimony is based on Vaporware.
The defence has noted that the undercover officers did not make audio recordings to substantiate their recollections of what was said with the accused.
You would think in a case where the legitimacy of invoking the Emergencies Act was in the balance, and people’s lives were alleged to be at risk, maybe, just maybe, we could use some recordings?
This is beyond the ken of Mr Graveland, who, as a member of the Canadian media, is paid not to inform, but to tell people what the government wants them to know.
The trial judge addressed that with the jury. Justice Dave Labrenz said officers can't secretly record those conversations without prior approval from a judge.
"In this case, the undercover police officers and the police did not have the judicial authorization," Labrenz said.
Somehow, though, the RCMP, using these same allegations, executed an imminent harm wiretap, which are good for 24 hours, after which they must obtain a warrant for further surveillance.
They failed to obtain the necessary warrant for the additional 48 hours of surveillance that continued.
Graveland did not inform the public that those extra 48 hours of wiretaps made by the RCMP were ruled illegal, and inadmissable in court, during pre-trial motions. He also failed to inform you that no actionable evidence was obtained from ANY of the wiretaps, legal or not.
Yet we are lead to believe that officers testimony is to be accepted as gospel without question, while what recordings that do exist show nothing of what the accused are alleged to have said. Huh.
Bill can repeat text messages presented in court by The Crown without any context, and fail to inform you that despite the fact that our brave RCMP officers were facing down TERRORISTS bent on mowing them down with GUNS, they managed to, between dodging all of those bullets and running for their lives … also shovel some pizza down their gullets.
Many thanks to Rob Kraychik for keeping it real out in Lethbridge.
Not to be outdone in the field of Regime Fellating, we have Allana Smith of the Globe and Mail taking a full length of the Trudeau Regime, which may have prevented her from voicing countervailing evidence or context to the case.
Once again we hear directly from the Undercovers testimony, with no mention of the fact that there were no recordings made to substantiate the claims, and an utter lack of curiosity on the part of Ms Smith with regards to the claims of the Crown and RCMP superiors, who have already been found to have failed at informing their own officers of the alleged threats to their safety made by the government against the protesters.
Ms Smith also fails to mention some key points about the co-accused.
Jerry Morin and Christopher Lysak, the other two men charged in the murder-conspiracy, pleaded guilty to lesser charges in February, receiving sentences of 3¼ years and three years. Both jail sentences were satisfied by the time the men had served in remand.
Lesser charges? Every single one of the original charges being dropped, including the ‘conspiracy to murder police officers’, might have been useful information for her readers to know, but I guess that might not help the Crown’s case in the court of public opinion.
She, like Graveland, also fails to mention that Jerry Morin was barely at Coutts whatsoever, had no guns at or near the site, and spent around 90 days in solitary confinement in remand while at Calgary, amongst legitimate murderers, rapists, and other hardened criminals, all the while having never faced trial, and denied bail for two years.
This is how you obtain false confessions.
You can read more about the mistreatment of Jerry Morin and the rest of the men here, though I doubt Ms Smith or Mr Graveland will tell you about that while engaged in a Presstitute Threesome with the government.
A little more locally, we have a young fellow named Landon Hickok, working for an outfit in Lethbridge, who appears as wet behind the ears as his voice in this clip would suggest, and has seemingly gone to the same school of journalism as Graveland and Smith, where you are taught to only present one side of the story … the government side.
Hickok regurgitates claims about text messages found on Chris Carbert’s phone, but as per his training, fails to mention that Carbert and Olienick have made applications to the court showing evidence tampering on their phones, which they did not get back from the RCMP until a few weeks ago … after having been in custody for two years.
How is defense counsel supposed to organize when the Crown has delayed returning evidence to the accused, and has also been alleged to have been tampered with by the RCMP? Why did Hickok not know this? Are these reporters prevented from asking questions or speaking with the other side of the case? Is it not germane to the story that the Crown has repeatedly delayed disclosure, and even up to right now is failing to offer any schedule to the court about which witnesses they are calling, thus, in the words of Tony Olienick’s lawyer Marilyn Burns, has resulted in her having to play ‘Whack-A-Mole’ while trying to build a defense for her client?
It appears that coverage of the trial by our friends in the mainstream media will look exactly like the coverage they offered when the men were first arrested - the bad guys have been caught, and further thinking about how this relates to the invocation of the Emergencies Act is to be discouraged, and no further questions nor curiosity will be offered. The narrative has been set, and you can all go back to bed.
Later this week we should see, finally, witnesses for the defense called to the stand, and perhaps some of the Crown’s bogus narrative around this case disentangled.
In the meantime, colleague and comrade
I’m very happy to share Roxanne’s work with you, as she has picked up a lot of the slack that my two jobs and two kids having ass can’t pull off myself, and displays more curiosity and skepticism about the government than our entire Fourth Estate.
Read on -
The questions -
The Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, was a far more important border crossing, in terms of the economic impact it had on Canada, compared to the tiny town of Coutts stuck in the middle of the windswept prairies. Criminal charges were laid against quite a number of protesters at the Ambassador Bridge, yet most have since either been either withdrawn or quietly settled through alternative means. A number of protesters charged with mischief resolved their cases by agreeing to make cash donations to a local charity. Charges were also withdrawn against the ‘alleged’ leader of the Ambassador Bridge protest William Laframbois. The Emerson protest was resolved without injury, incident or arrests according to the Manitoba RCMP. There has been little, if any media coverage of what occurred at the BC border protest. And we have just recently learned, according to a recently obtained via FOIPOP request, the RCMP at Coutts were profiling protesters as early as February 2, 2022, based on the fact that they had Possession and Acquisition Licences (PAL) indicating that they owned a firearm – a legally obtained and licenced firearm. What was that all about?
There were a total of thirteen people charged as a result of that dragnet of raids carried out by the RCMP in Coutts on February 13-14, 2022. What happened to the nine other people who were charged, along with Carbert, Olienick, Lysak and Morin? According to what the RCMP told the media they were also part of this ‘organized, dangerous and armed group’, at least according to the headlines in this Globe and Mail report and dozens of other media reports.
What’s with all the crying and weeping theatrics by RCMP officers at the Coutts trials? We have seen three examples of this odd behaviour, which most people would find somewhat unbecoming from seasoned veterans of the RCMP given the circumstances they were recounting.
Roxanne goes through all these quite thoroughly, and you will learn more details about the intricacies of the various Freedom Convoy protests and the people involved than you will ever get from the clickbait and smear merchants in the media.
—————
The trial of the men in Coutts is but one of many taking place in Canada right now, some very high profile, such as the longest running mischief trial in Canadian history against Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, or the trial against Pat King, some not so high profile, such as that of another regular person like Evan Blackman, who, acquitted of spurious charges laid against him for taking part in Freedom Convoy protests, is having his acquittal appealed by the Crown and being dragged back into court, just like previous guest of my podcast, Christine Decaire.
It seems the government is going to great lengths and expending millions of dollars that it does not have while clogging up an overburdened court system to pursue cases against peaceful protesters, all the while violent criminals are instantly given bail, as well as thieves involved in the biggest gold heist in Canadian history, and the police are telling people to let criminals steal their cars.
What is going on here?
There is a theory often discussed in dissident circles you may or may not be aware of, that has some great explanatory power for the situation Canadians find themselves in under the government of Justin Trudeau and the worst ruling class in human history.
Anarcho-Tyranny
“[Anarcho-Tyranny is] where government increasingly lets criminal and dependent elements dominate public life while directing the heavy hand of the State onto people who are basically peaceful, who are not subsidized, who earn their keep and don’t steal, murder, and grift their way through life. That heavy hand is the increasing burden of the regulations progressives love.”
“laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals” routinely go unenforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens.”
Fellow Substacker, author, and contributor to the Blaze,
, discusses Anarcho-Tyranny in the US, from which you can extrapolate to the situation in Canada.
The breakdown of law and order is common in nations that are in a general state of collapse. As the Constitution reminds us, the primary duties of a government include establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility. A nation that delivers neither will usually exhibit a wider range of systemic failures that would doom the larger civic project.
America, however, is perfectly capable of collecting taxes, surveilling its citizens, and fighting a proxy war against a nuclear-armed opponent in order to maintain a global empire. The destruction of rule of law by our leadership class does not seem to be a product of general incompetence, but a specifically engineered outcome designed to terrorize the average citizen. Conservative commentator Samuel Francis coined the term “anarcho-tyranny” to describe a state that is still capable of performing most of its essential functions, but intentionally chooses to use the selective enforcement of the justice system to punish law-abiding citizens while rewarding the criminal actions of its political supporters.
No one learned a more brutal lesson about the nature of anarcho-tyranny than the January 6 protesters. The BLM and Antifa riots functionally received state endorsement, as law enforcement knelt in submission, politicians and celebrities raised money to bail out participants, and corporations made major donations while altering their logos to show solidarity. It seemed perfectly reasonable to those who gathered outside the Capitol that they would be able to enter the building, whose doors were in some cases opened for them by police, without penalty.CNN may have described the BLM riots as fiery but mostly peaceful, but the Trump protesters received no such media cover. A story about murdered police officers was quickly fabricated from whole cloth, and no celebrities came to the aid of those arrested on January 6. Many still face trial on wildly exaggerated charges while their lawyers are denied access to critical exculpatory footage.
Sound familiar?
While thieves run rampant in Canada’s cities, and the murderous chants of Hamas Enthusiasts go unanswered by authorities, our court system is busy, two and a half years after the fact, attempting to get convictions against Bouncy Castle enthusiasts who spent 3 weeks in Ottawa feeding the homeless.
As an aside, an example of tech-tyranny is that Google etc will show you many links of a debunked story about Freedom Convoy protesters stealing food from a homeless shelter, but zero stories about the 6 different kitchens that the Convoy had set up in Ottawa, who fed everybody and anybody that showed up. Thank God for
And all of what is happening here is set against the backdrop of the Trudeau Government attempting to make having an opinion illegal with Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act.
The bill also creates a new Digital Safety Commission, which will be responsible for enforcing rules and holding online services accountable, as well as a separate Digital Safety Ombudsperson, which will support and advocate for users and make recommendations to social media services and the government.
Given that the Crown’s case against Tony Olienick is thus far centered around what he is alleged to have said to Undercover Officers, and maximally negative interpretations of shit talking text messages, rather than having physically done anything, and having also said plenty which runs counter to the Crown’s narrative about him, it only follows that the Coutts men’s troubles at the Lethbridge Courthouse can be seen as a trial balloon for C-63, where the government can get away with convicting you for an opinion they don’t like. Its the same with the trials of Lich, Barber, and Pat King - most of the cases against them involve long slogs through text messages and social media posts, where the Crown is literally spinning interpretations of neutral and non-criminal speech into something which it isn’t; many would argue that Pat King wouldn’t even be where he is if he didn’t spend so much of his time online mouthing off with WrongThink.
One might also see these cases as a new and updated version of Maoist Struggle Sessions.
Click here for a very biting parody of one of these sessions, using a clip from the film ‘The Three Body Problem”, which gives us a look at Trudeau’s proposed ‘Digital Safety Commission.’
Special thanks to Comrade
Stay tuned for more updates from the trial, and for daily videos from those in attendance at Lethbridge, you should follow
This is his latest upload of a video from Kyle Cardinal.
In the meantime, if you have some money to spare, all of the lawyering required to fight off Canadian Anarcho-Tyranny is very expensive, and any donations you can make will be well appreciated.
https://www.givesendgo.com/trudeauspoliticalprisoners
As always, questions, comments, suggestions, corrections and Hate Mail are welcomed and strongly encouraged - gordilocks@protonmail.com
Everything about the Canadian government is corrupt, and they’ll do anything to hide it
Another great installment — keep up the good work!
Just have to say that I truly, deeply hate the term “anarcho-tyranny” though. (I know it's not your term but was coined by Samuel Francis as you point out and has been used by many others.) Anarchy just means a decentralized, non-hierarchical, and non-coercive form of social order.
I understand what Francis was trying to describe with “anarcho-tyranny,” but it is just a maddeningly non-sensical term. What he was talking about would be better described as a kind of authoritarian kakistocracy guided by critical theory. (Of course I realize that “anarcho-tyranny” sounds punchier though.)