Coutts Trial Updates, July 20 2024

As the trial enters the final stretch, some interesting court room reports, testimony, and contexts. And my opinion, of course.

A short update post for my loyal readers, hastily typed out in an as yet to be open for business beer tent at a music festival near to my home. (*update - the beer tent opened before the completion of this piece.)

Despite all of the crazy news of the past week, and the ongoing travesty of injustice taking place in Alberta, life goes on, and family commitments cannot always be ignored.

I just might end up in Lethbridge soon to report on this in the flesh; wether I make it or not, continue to stay tuned to this substack for updates on Canada’s trial of the century.

————

This week saw the men’s defense counsel get their turn at calling witnesses to the stand, and the testimony presented provide an opportunity for the public to catch up with information many of us have known for a long time now, but kept from the public by media malfeasance, if not ignorance of those of us who have been discussing it at length for some time.

Counsel for Tony Olienick, Marilyn Burns, had quite an opening statement for her defense on Friday, July 12, where she correctly stated that this was “a political, criminal trial that is un-Canadian”. Obviously, this is rhetoric that can be argued is not proper for a court of law, however, they are true, given the context and circumstance in which this case is situated, and will have to be argued about in another venue at a later time.

I know Justice David Labrenz must remain impartial and stick to the rules, but the denial of the political contexts of this story is, as I like to say, pretty damn obtuse.

"It is important to remind you that what counsel states and its opening address is not evidence. The evidence consists solely of the evidence you hear from the witnesses that testify, exhibits that are filed, and the agreed statements of facts.

Theories given by the by counsel in an opening address do not constitute evidence that you may consider."

If you are new here, please read the back catalog of this Substack, and avail yourselves of relevant information.

Burns called a number of interesting witnesses this week, one of whom disentangled a major, and one of the more incendiary, claims of the Crown, repeated ad nauseam by the media, that Tony Olienick was in possession of ‘pipe bombs’, with the intent to use them in the alleged ‘conspiracy to murder police officers’ which he and Chris Carbert are accused of.

Brian Lambert, a business associate of Tony Olienick, testified to the industrial use of the supposed ‘pipe bombs’ that were found on Olienick’s property; let us remember that Olienick ran a gravel quarry outside of Claresholm, Alberta, nearly 200km away from the protest site. If I understand correctly, the United States Military needs aircraft to deliver ordnance from such distance; Mr Olienick + Co. were not in possession of Predator drones or F-15 Strike Eagles. What Tony was in possession of, however, are municipal permits to use such small scale explosives, and I emphasize small scale, because the industry vernacular for these explosives is ‘firecrackers’.

A name I haven’t mentioned here at all yet is that of Corrie Toone, a fellow protester whom the RCMP had paid special attention, mostly because of FB Live videos Mr. Toone produced to keep the public updated on the situation at Coutts. Mr Toone was thought to be a leader of the Coutts protest by the RCMP, perhaps even higher up the phantom chain of command than Marco VanHuigenbos. He was also accused by the RCMP of operating a tractor ‘aggressively’ on the day of most of the arrests of those involved at Coutts, Feb 13, 2022. Evidence and testimony presented at trial show that Mr Toone, in fact, had left Coutts on February 2, and further, that the RCMP had continually confused Mr Toone with another Cory, a Ms. Corey Turcotte, who was providing assistance at Smugglers Saloon, the one and only bar in Coutts, that had become something of a meeting place/HQ for the protest.

One can forgive the Mounties for ‘not getting their man’, given the current zeitgeist and its infatuation with those whom would like to fight biology to the nth degree.

As an aside, and speaking of biology, another tidbit of evidence that has strangely been absent from all media discussion since this case got rolling in early June, is that one of the Undercover Officers testified overhearing discussion from a woman at Smugglers Saloon, to the effect that “one of the leaders of the protest is bringing me some Ivermectin” and that leader was … Tony Olienick. Heresay evidence, as again, no recordings of this conversation exist, but its interesting that the RCMP began to focus on Tony only after he helped someone acquire a non-toxic, over-the-counter medication, that its inventors had won a Nobel Prize for in developing, but a drug whose possible applications ran against the strictures of the Covid Regime.

Also interesting is how meta-analyses of studies looking into the use of this drug indicate that the all-out propaganda campaign against it was unwarranted.

Ivermectin could reduce the risk of MV requirement and AEs in patients with COVID-19, without increasing other risks. In the absence of a better alternative, clinicians could use it with caution.

Political meddling in the Doctor-Patient relationship regards prescribing this drug has also had its hand slapped.

The lawsuit was filed in June 2022 by Drs. Rober Apter, Mary Talley Bowden and Paul Marik against the FDA, the US Department of Health and Human Services and their leaders. It claimed that the agencies were interfering with their ability to practice medicine by overstepping their authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

“Today’s settlement with the FDA is a major win for the doctor-patient relationship,” Marik said in the statement. “It vindicates our position that the FDA overstepped its regulatory authority by trying to dictate appropriate medical care.”

Jaclyne Martin, wife of Jerry Morin, one of the four men who was released back in February after pleading out on a completely fabricated statement, took the stand, and apparently Martin’s presence gave Crown Prosecutor Steven Johnston a case of the vapors. Johnston only found out about Martin as a witness 4 minutes before she took the stand, and according to those in the courtroom “whined” to Justice Labrenz … even though this case is now entering 30 months since the arrests, in no small part to Johnston not giving the defense proper disclosure, dumping it on them at the last minute, and thus necessitating further delays.

The whining was so bad that Justice Labrenz felt it necessary to remind the prosecutor that (paraphrasing) - ‘Not everything Ms Burns does requires an application.’

Johnston gave away his frustration at not having a case by badgering Martin about sharing a meme on social media about a real problem with the case, an ‘envelope’ supposed to contain evidence of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Johnston, which has unfortunately been sealed, and was described by Tony Olienick’s previous lawyer, Tonii Roulston, as “crime fraud”.

Let us remember that in this case, we have already been delayed by arguments about the meaning of emojis, amongst so much other irrelevant and distractive detritus brought to us by none other than Johnston himself.

Turnabout is fair play, and all that.



Another of the claims made by RCMP UCOs was that a ‘camoflauged’ bag was being delivered to the accused at the protest site, containing guns or ammo or maybe the remote control to a Predator drone (just kidding), but as Martin, and others have shown is that the bag in question contained ….. fresh socks and underwear.

If I’m thinking about socks, and jocks, and Cops ….. a war movie is not what comes to mind, but the sort of film genre that required their own section at the video store.

Remember those?

Another claim about deliveries to the Coutts protest site was also put to bed this week, care of the testimony of Lindsay Butler, a prominent country singer in Alberta.

UCOs claimed that they had heard about the delivery of a ‘guitar case’ to the protest site which was code for ‘guns’.

The case contained a guitar which belonged to the late father of Tony Olienick, that Butler was to play for the assembled protesters at Coutts.

Perhaps the fantasists within the government were recalling the famous sticker on American folk musician Woodie Guthrie’s guitar, and felt that they were legitimately in danger from music. Somehow, however, Marilyn Burns brought that very guitar into court …. and no one was killed, especially not any ‘fascists’.

Another witness called to testify by Burns was Nolan Yorgason, a trucker involved at Coutts, and who was stopped by the RCMP, when the RCMP were attempting to block roads and otherwise stymie the protests.

Yorgason, cross examined by fellow prosecutor to Johnston, Matt Dalidowicz, was asked why he did not have photos of a police helicopter that was providing aerial coverage of the site.

At the time, according to Yorgason, 30-40 cops surrounded his truck, and many had ‘thick Eastern European accents.’ Think of that what you will.

While his truck was being blocked by the police, this helicopter came down so close to Yorgason’s truck that snow was being blown up from the ground onto the hood, and our obtuse and decidedly ignorant prosecutor had come to the conclusion that Yorgason’s lack of photos of the helicopter meant ….. something?

Maybe this is a problem people in Canada have less reason to worry about, but, rightly, in my estimation, Yorgason was concerned about lifting anything within sight of the cops, much less his phone/camera to take a photo. The RCMP presence at Coutts was heavily militarized, and protest participants would have been within their right to be worried about itchy trigger fingers.

As it pertains to this case, however, Johnston’s queries of Yorgason follow a pattern where Johnston is trying to paint a picture of people who, according to the taxpayer subsidized fantasies of a certain “social justice” organization, were about to wage war against the Federal Government of Canada.

If nothing else comes from the testimony of this case, and the events around it indicate, it is that certain ideologies which have animated the ‘discourse’ are also being fully internalized by our rulers, and they are none too keen about accepting any disagreement with them.

Worthy of note that this is Marilyn Burns first ever criminal case - Burns is a civil lawyer, and, as yet, has never defended a criminal case. Talk about being thrown into the deep end of the pool with this one!

Later in the week, we heard from Chris Carbert himself, who was the first witness called by his counsel, Katherin Beyak.

Beyak’s questioning belied a strategy to show Carbert for what he is - an avid outdoorsman who regularly hunts and camps, a bona fide gun enthusiast, and someone who comes from a rural culture where the presence of guns does not cause a meltdown. It should be noted, while we are here, that Carbert’s guns, such as they pertain to this trial, were legally acquired, registered, properly stored, and kept on private property *away* from the protest site, and not weapons meant for murdering police officers.

Beyak also questioned Carbert about his rationale behind taking part in the protest, in an effort to show that he had legitimate grievance with the government, and was not some kind of radicalized dissident acting on emotion.

She also directly asked of Carbert -

(Once again, for on the ground, consistent, and impartial reportage of the trial, you should go over to Twitter and follow Rob Kraychick.)

Chris Carbert, in answering Beyak’s questions, was removed from the ‘Hannibal Lecter’ like plastic enclosure where he is kept with Tony Olienick, and stands in the witness box with armed security at his side.

Theatre of the absurd continues.

Katherin Beyak continues her defense on Tuesday, July 23rd, and at some point soon, we should expect a verdict.

This trial started on June 6, and ever since, according to all commentators, the Crown has not brought forth a single piece of evidence which shows Carbert and Olienick conspired to ‘murder police officers’, nor engaged in ‘mischief’ (though on that count, the conviction of the Coutts 3 weighs on all concerned). It appears any Crown allegations about guns and pipe bombs have been addressed.

As I have suggested many times, this case is about other things besides the charges brought against Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick, something far deeper even than legitimating the invocation of the Emergencies Act or Trudeau’s imposition of a wicked and punishing Covid Regime on Canada.

Your ‘rights’ to protest, to have an opinion, and to express it, are under threat if these men are convicted.

This case is a ‘trial’ balloon for the odious Bill C-63, erroneously titled the ‘Online Harms Act’, which is nothing more than an attempt by the government to control what you can say, and as demonstrated by the writings of Orwell or Solzhenitsyn, is really a regulation by which the government seeks to control what you think.

A conviction of Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert, which has, as I and others have reported, relies on ‘not very much’ besides Tony Olienick’s expressed words and opinions, none of which contained any allusion to murdering police, nor anyone else, would give the government precedent on which to convict those first charged under this new legislation. The government, quite literally, wants the power to convict you of WrongThink, and they are using innocent men, who, like millions of others around the world, organized with their fellow citizens to say ‘No More’ to the Covid Regime we all just lived through.

There has been much discussed and implied about the actions of Crown Prosecutor Johnston, and other members of government and the RCMP, which indicate that the real conspiracy the men are involved with is a conspiracy against them, orchestrated by the highest levels of the Trudeau government, with possible incentives given by the Biden Administration.

This question will be the subject of more writings after the verdict comes down.

As my friend

Trish Wood

likes to say, stay critical, ‘Truth over Tribe’.

Myself,

Stevland Ambrose

and

Roxanne Halverson

recently appeared on Trish’s podcast to discuss developments in the case, and you would do well to check it out.

Normally it would be up on her substack by now, but it is not, so you can listen in on the excellent free speech podcast platform, PodVerse -

Here ya go

Roxanne also discussed the appearance here -

Exploring Coutts Four Case on Trish Wood is Critical Podcast

For more questions and analysis about the trial, see Ray McGinnis most recent piece here at Unanswered Questions.

Thanks for reading, and stand by for more updates in the coming days.

If you have a few bucks to spare, my fundraiser for the men’s legal defense remains open over at GiveSendGo - we are just shy of 50 grand, maybe you can help push it over this symbolic number.

https://www.givesendgo.com/trudeauspoliticalprisoners





As always, questions, comments, suggestions, corrections and Hate Mail are welcomed and strongly encouraged - gordilocks@protonmail.com