Coutts Four Trial Finally Underway
Coutts Four Trial Finally Underway
And a new piece at Newsweek, with updates on the trial.
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note today to update you on the goings on with the Coutts Men’s trial, and to let you know about a new piece I had published yesterday at Newsweek, which shines some criticism on the atrocious coverage of this case by the regime fellators who make up the ‘mainstream’ media in Canada.
Read the Newsweek piece here -
Lawfare Comes To Canada as the Coutts Four Get Their Day in Court
some snippets -
Their assumed guilt is tied up with Trudeau's larger effort to legitimize the use of the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors; an inquest into Trudeau's suspension of civil rights surrounding the Freedom Convoy hinges on a conviction in the case of the Coutts Four. Needless to say, Trudeau and his supporters are anxious to win the case. Complicating this effort is the fact that two of the four men were released from prison and had all the original charges against them dropped.
———
In the meantime, Olienick and Carbert have been kept in a form of carceral purgatory called "remand" since being arrested for exercising their once-protected rights to protest. In this purgatory, where they do not have the normal rights afforded convicted felons, they have been denied access to necessary medical care, among other indignities, and Olienick had spent over 90 days in solitary confinement, which is considered torture in most civilized societies.
The story comes apart under the lightest scrutiny: A group of young female undercover officers were ostensibly sent in to investigate protesters tarred as extremists, who their superior officers suspected of having weapons and an intent to kill them. Yet these officers were sent in with no wires or recording devices of any kind, and no weapons to defend themselves.
Does this not raise some pertinent questions? Who authorized this undercover operation? Was it not convenient to make these allegations, given that the day after these men were arrested, the Emergencies Act was invoked? Why has it taken 28 months for such an important case to get under way? Why did two of the co-accused, Jerry Morin and Chris Lysak, have all of the original charges against them dropped?
And it seems that the fix was in from the start - documents have surfaced today which show that the RCMP were casing the Coutts protest site on at least February 2, 2022, and were profiling protesters immediately.
With thanks to Twitter poster Buck McYoung -
Given that we know Trudeau was considering invoking the Emergencies Act fairly early on in the protest, perhaps the dragnet was being prepared at the same time.
Today, we also learn something that confirms my hypothesis about why Chris Carbert has been kept along with Tony Olienick, who seems to be the only accused that the Crown has talked about at all.
From Robert Kraychick at Rebel News (click the link to watch the video)
Tony Olienick, being an extremely outgoing and friendly person, and probably a bit naive about the situation he found himself in, and having an Instagram account, has the only ‘evidence’ available by which the Crown can attack him for ThoughtCrime.
Problem is, the most serious charge is “Conspiracy to Murder Police Officers” and the term ‘conspiracy’ implies more than one person …. thus Chris Carbert is being brought along for the ride.
I know a few things about what the Crown has been up to in the background, and I have been asked to keep them to myself, but put it this way - dragging Carbert along to get a conviction against Tony is the least of the loathesome shit the Crown is guilty of here.
—————
As always, I have been extremely busy, and due to this situation, as well as trying to stay on top of what is happening to my comrades out in Alberta, I have been unable to get out much in the way of content, much less Trucking content.
I PROMISE you, that is in the pipe, and as soon as I get some time, I have plenty to say, and plenty of people to interview about that.
In the meantime, I should have a podcast out tomorrow where I discuss the Coutts Case, amongst other things, with fellow Substacker and Citizen Journalist
I’m looking forward to bringing you Roxanne and more of her work ASAP.
Thanks for reading and paying attention.
Gord
Questions, comments, suggestions, corrections and Hate Mail are welcomed and strongly encourged! - gordilocks@protonmail.com
I am from Lethbridge and I have been attending the trial since the bail hearings when written testimony from the undercover RCMP assets was used to keep the four in prison for more than two years. Back at the beginning of this dubious procedure, I thought that the written testimony of the female police plants in the bail hearings was a violation of due process. In the bail hearings the accusers of the four men could not be cross examined.
In the culminating trial currently underway, the undercovers' identity is still being protected because they testify from behind a sheet and in a room separate from the public gallery. The long and short of it is that the identity of the three RCMP assets is being kept concealed by the Crown. These front-line accusers do not have to take personal and public responsibility for their accusations. In my view a dangerous precedent is being sent, one of many exposed over the course of the extended "pre-trial process" in this guilty-until-proven-innocent case.
I have been instructed by the presiding Judge Labrenz that I cannot attend the trial. Here's the reason why. In my view the status in this case of the Chief Prosecutor is dubious and worse. I could give many reasons but one stands out. A former legal defendant for Olienick referred in the trial proceedings to secret RCMP material that had earlier been accidentally released to her.
On the basis of what she saw, lawyer Tonni Roulston reported that RCMP records led her to the following conclusion: Crown Prosecutor Stephen Johnston had committed a series of "crime frauds."
This accusation was derived from how Johnston is said to have instructed the RCMP on what its officers could or could not do vis a vis the Coutts demonstrators. (Like maybe send in government plants to entrap Olienick et. al.) Is Johnson guilty of participating in entrapping the Coutts 4 and then taking their criminalization in court to reach a pre-ordained outcome?
This is speculation on my part. Like most observers and practitioners involved in the Coutts trial, I have not seen the document that led lawyer Tonni Roulston to the conclusion that Stephen Johnston had committed "crime fraud." But when she explained her thesis at some length in court, the professionalism of her presentation was commended by Judge Labrenz.
Certainly the accusation of crime fraud in the Crown prosecutor's relationship with the RCMP in this case-- the very RCMP unit that accused the Coutts 4 of conspiring to murder them-- puts Mr. Johnston under a cloud of suspicion. This cloud is dark enough that he should have left the proceedings voluntarily if he had any respect for professional ethics.
In any case when Johnston would walk by me in court after he faced the "crime fraud" accusation, I would repeat the damning phrase in a low tone of voice. I tried to be loud enough that Mr, Johnston could hear me but not so loud as to create an incident. Free speech?
I used the term "crime fraud" when Crown prosectors were walking out of court. At that moment the proceedings had been adjourned so that Mr. Johnson could consult privately with his RCMP colleague in order to instruct him on how he should respond to questions involving serious issues concerning the role of third-parties (maybe the Ottawa government?) in the decision to do wire tapping procedures.
To me, this collusion among Crown officials didn't seem at all appropriate in a court proceeding. I had an added incentive to whisper the term "crime fraud" as Mr Johnson and all the Crown entourage were leaving the court room.
When the court reassembled one of the junior Crown prosectors rose to ask that I be ejected from attending the duration of the trial. On hearing this, I immediately left the court room and waited outside. A Sheriff soon exited to tell me Judge Labrenz complied with the request of the Crown prosectors as he usually does in this case.
As the full-fledge trial started earlier this June of 2024, I learned from another close observer of the proceedings, Farrell Segall, that he had been arrested and jailed for scribbling messages on sidewalks surrounding the courthouse. Farrell told me that the main message was that the Coutts 2 had been in jail for 840 days having been convicted of nothing. To me the court itself is involved in criminal activity that is worse than lawfare.
Anthony James Hall
Emeritus Professor
University of Lethbridge
Great link to the Newsweek piece. Maybe there is hope that the evildoers in the gov will be held accountable?