Jun 19·edited Jun 19Liked by Autonomous Truck(er)s
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.
Which evildoers? All of them? They're all in on it, aren't they? So who's going to hold them accountable? The judiciary isn't going to stand up on its own and hold the dirty cops and politicians accountable, are they?
No, the government will not hold itself accountable. True. Unaccountability is one of its super-powers. That and being able to arrest and imprison citizens.
I guess we the people will have to find a way to hold them accountable. Is that impossible? I don't see why.
The "Evidence(?)" given by "An anonymous undercover Police Agent", would not be accepted in a Real Court. I don't think it amounts to more than "Hearsay". The "Officer gives evidence she cannot substantiate??
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?
Insallah
Which evildoers? All of them? They're all in on it, aren't they? So who's going to hold them accountable? The judiciary isn't going to stand up on its own and hold the dirty cops and politicians accountable, are they?
No, the government will not hold itself accountable. True. Unaccountability is one of its super-powers. That and being able to arrest and imprison citizens.
I guess we the people will have to find a way to hold them accountable. Is that impossible? I don't see why.
Not impossible, just unlikely. I'm confident the Good Lord will hold them accountable, and do a better job than we the people ever could.
Free Canadian Coutts Political Hostages N.O.W!
This is nothing but a 'Kangaroo Court"!
The "Evidence(?)" given by "An anonymous undercover Police Agent", would not be accepted in a Real Court. I don't think it amounts to more than "Hearsay". The "Officer gives evidence she cannot substantiate??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9msRaiuN_vQ
TheyLied. Join the campaign to Take Action and Raise Public Awareness at
www.TheyLied.ca
.
Video
https://theylied.substack.com/p/theylied-time-for-action-and-raising
.
Raise Public Awareness
https://theylied.ca/SpreadTheWord.shtml
.
Take Action
https://theylied.ca/TakeAction.shtml
.