On The Continued Persecution of Canadian Political Prisoners Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert

Their Parole denial was baked into the cake.

A few weeks ago, on April 25, 2025, Canada’s most infamous political prisoners, Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert, who have been incarcerated in the low security section of the Drumheller Institution, a federal penitentiary in Alberta, faced their first parole hearing since arriving there in early fall of 2024. Tony and Chris, who have been model prisoners throughout their three and a half year incarceration, were denied day and full parole, and I am here to tell you that this decision was a foregone conclusion, purely political, and appears to have been informed from above, like every other part of this ongoing and gross display of persecution.

Documents I have been forwarded regarding the various stages of Tony and Chris’ parole process indicate a very clear political angle to discussions by parole officers tasked with assessing their case. Much of the case against Tony and Chris was built on things Tony is alleged to have said to Undercover Officers (UCOs) , with no recordings or evidence to back up these highly salacious and inflammatory claims, yet those claims heavily inform Tony and Chris’s parole decisions, just as they were repeatedly intoned by Justice David Labrenz during sentencing. The parole decisions for both men were essentially re-litigations of their trial, with any other factors more or less dismissed, which reveal the political nature of those decisions.

If you are a new reader, or are unfamiliar with this case, and all of the highly suspect peculiarities of the actions of the Crown, the RCMP, the media, and the government around it, I would suggest that you go through my back catalog of writings here, as well as those of various colleagues.



https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/p/coutts-four-trial-resource-mega-list

A comprehensive body of work from my friend and colleague

Roxanne Halverson

https://roxannehalverson.substack.com/s/the-coutts-four-chronicles

A number of updates since the conclusion of the trial -

https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/p/on-the-coutts-verdict-part-one

https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/p/on-the-coutts-verdict-part-two

https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/p/guest-post-on-the-malicious-prosecution

https://autonomoustruckers.substack.com/p/exposing-cbc-lies-about-coutts-again

From friend and colleague Ray McGinnis -

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/mcginnis-questions-linger-after-coutts-verdict/57414

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/mcginnis-what-was-the-dangerous-purpose/57416

As I move through the rest of this piece on their incarceration and parole process, I am going to assume all readers, whether old heads or those new to this situation, will now know what I’m talking about, and there will be no further drilling down into deep explanations of every component of the case. If anyone does end up with questions from what you read here about it, go back to the referenced work above; if you are still unsure or feel something is missing, feel free to email me - my address will be listed at the end, as it always is for my readers.




——————



After having been found not guilty of conspiracy to murder police officers in a jury trial, yet found guilty of lessor, trumped up offenses, Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert were moved from Lethbridge Courthouse up to Calgary Remand for a short period of time. Tony was quite familiar with Calgary Remand over the various moving around he was subjected to during the two and half years of pre-trial custody he endured. This is the same facility where Jerry Morin was kept in the gang unit for his two years of custody, before having all of the original charges against him dropped. Like Tony, Jerry also spent a great deal of time in ‘administrative segregation’, the euphemism given to the more commonly understood term ‘solitary confinement’.

Tony and Chris were eventually moved onwards to their current digs at the Drumheller Institution, a low to medium security federal institution in the town of Drumheller, Alberta. Drumheller is known as the gateway to the ‘Alberta Badlands’, a type of terrain typically full of gullies and other erosion features which make travel difficult to impossible, or a ‘hard journey’, if you will.

Upon arrival, Tony and Chris received something of a heroes welcome from the other prisoners, whom were all acquainted with the tender mercies of the Canadian ‘Justice’ System, even if those prisoners had legitimate reasons for their stay, contra Tony and Chris. Everyone at Drumheller had heard the story, knew the trial was a political sham, and that their new prison mates were sent there for the horrific crime of exercising their once protected rights to Freedom of Expression in defense of everyone in Canada against the capricious and punishing Covid Regime of Justin Trudeau. These sentiments had been shared by every other prisoner and staff at all the remand centers that the two had been guests of since February 14, 2022, when their long nightmare began. The political nature of their incarceration was likewise acknowledged during the intake process by various staff at Drumheller, whom I cannot name for obvious reasons. It was indicated to both that their stay would be made comfortable and as short as possible.

Initially, they were kept in the medium security side of the facility, but in late November Chris Carbert was moved to the minimum security side, and about two weeks later, Tony was likewise moved to minimum security. Their perfect behavior in previous remand facilities and throughout the entire ordeal resulted in very low risk assessments; Tony and Chris quickly got jobs at Drumheller.

Tony works in receiving, running a forklift and unloading trucks which bring supplies to the prison. This is considered a pretty strong vote of confidence, as the receiver would be an entry point to the prison for contraband such as narcotics. Reading through various of the paperwork I have been forwarded regards their incarceration, it is immediately apparent that most of the corrections officials involved with this case are capable of acknowledging reality - “OLIENICK has no known gang affiliation” “OLIENICK ran a successful business” “OLIENICK dynamic factors -low need” “OLIENICK first time offender”. Tony has the lowest score possible on something called a ‘Custody Rating Scale’ which means he is essentially a zero risk inmate for causing any problems. Thus they trust Tony enough not be involved with merchandising activities within the facility, and let him deal with inbound freight.

Chris has likewise been quite busy. Having dropped out of high school and eventually starting his own very successful business, he never did get back to completing a secondary education. While inside, he has finished his high school diploma and is now enrolled in distance communications at college. Chris has had a number of jobs at Drumheller, including working in the welding shop, as internal grocery delivery throughout various parts of the complex, in snow removal, and has even been granted out of prison jobs, most notably in park maintenance with the town of Drumheller.

Chris’ parole documentation and various other paperwork read like Tony’s in that it is acknowledged that Chris had a successful business, was a productive member of society, and showed no risk for anything, really. The only difference between the two is that Chris has kids, which has made this ordeal that much more difficult, and that he, of the original Coutts Four, is the only one of them with a criminal record, which stems from being caught with MDMA or ‘ecstasy’ pills as a very young man. Given that MDMA is now legal to use in clinical trials, and is widely acknowledged as extremely useful in psychotherapy, it will be somewhat ironic if Chris ends up being prescribed to use it upon release in order to deal with all he has been through at the hands of the government.





——————

Under Canadian incarceration standards, most prison terms are only served at 2/3 of the sentence until statutory release, and many prisoners are released earlier after successfully applying for parole. Every case and prisoner is different, and there are various levels of parole and the conditions under which it is issued. Typically, a newly incarcerated prisoner is issued an ‘intake parole officer’ for initial assessments, and within a few months will be issued a ‘general population’ parole officer for the duration of their stay.


Those initial assessments and processes began with intake parole personnel soon after Tony and Chris were sent to Drumheller; their ‘general population’ parole officer was put on their cases in early January. The differences in rhetoric and assessments of their cases between these two groups of parole officers could not be more stark, and indicate a high likelihood of political interference.


An ‘Initial Correctional Plan’ for Tony dated December 4 2024 reveals everything we know about Tony and his case already, and it appeared that corrections officials believed Tony needed very little in the way of any interventions or assistance, and would have been a candidate for early release to parole.

The opening sentence makes this clear right out of the gate.

The purpose of this report is to create an Initial Correctional Plan for OLIENICK and respond to his application for Day Parole and Full Parole. The CMT supports Day Parole and then Full Parole upon successful completion of a period of Day Parole.

Various quotes from the report -

OLIENICK’s index offenses are the extent of his lifetime convictions.

According to Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) information, OLIENICK was found Not Guilty of his charge for Conspiracy to Commit Murder (2024).

OLIENICK has no organized crime connections/gang affiliations or terrorism-related convictions. It appeared there was an ideological basis and a political motivation to OLIENICK’s actions. However, there were no terrorism—related convictions in his case.

OLIENICK denied any past or current affiliations with any Security Threat Group (STG).

There are no active incompatibles listed on the OMS. There is no information at this time to suggest OLIENICK is engaged in the institutional subculture.

OLIENICK has conducted himself with respect at the Drumheller Institution. Accountability is assessed as Medium and Motivation is assessed as High; OLIENICK is considered Engaged in his Correctional Plan.

REINTEGRATION POTENTIAL - HIGH

Taking into consideration the Custody Rating Scale score of Minimum, the SIR of 17 and the Static Factors rating of Low; his Reintegration Potential is assessed as High.

There’s a type of calculation for those considered for parole called a “Statistical Information on Recidivism” which is supposed to generate a score which indicates the likelihood for re-offending. Tony’s score indicates that he is in a bracket called “4 out of 5 offenders will not commit an indictable offense after release.”

The only negative aspects of the report, aside from discussing his convictions, were several references to Tony’s ‘attitude’, which is to say Tony correctly believes he was railroaded by the government and that he is innocent.

OLIENICK did not plead guilty in court and his case went to trial. OLIENICK did not express regret for his actions. He also advised that he is currently appealing his convictions and sentence. OLIENICK did not express any negative attitudes towards correctional staff. However, he stated that he felt his sentence was unfair and that he was mistreated by the courts and some police.

The conclusions of his initial parole officers are positive.

OLIENICK’s Day Parole Eligibility is 2025-03-09 and his Full Parole Eligibility is 2025-07-27. He has applied for Day Parole and Full Parole. OLIENICK has a Day and Full Parole hearing scheduled for 2025-04-01. OLIENICK is supported for a Day Parole. The CMT is also supportive of a Full Parole release upon successful completion of a period of Day Parole.

OLIENICK is supported for a Day Parole release based on his lack of a criminal history, non-violent crimes, positive community support and positive institutional behaviour. The CMT is also supportive of a Full Parole release upon successful completion of a period of Day Parole.

I do not have Chris Carbert’s intake documentation, but his parole denial notice references similar assessments.

No institutional concerns are noted during your time in remand custody. During your federal incarceration, there is no evidence of any involvement in the institutional subculture, and there are no charges or institutional incidents noted. You have not been subjected to urinalysis testing. No concerns have been reported in your engagement with correctional officers, who indicates that you are quiet and respectful. You have not demonstrated any evidence of an attitude of disrespect for authority. You are not identified as a member or associate of any security threat group.

While on remand and during your sentence, you have held a variety of jobs and participated on a work ETA for one week in the community.

You did not meet the criteria for referral to correctional programming, however since remand, you report having completed a variety of courses. During your federal sentence, you have completed some vocational tickets, you are taking part in Bible Study, attend chapel regularly, and are taking a course at the Bible College.

You are institutionally employed, with positive comments noted by your work supervisor, and you are enrolled in educational upgrading.

As we can see from both men’s intake assessments and track records during incarceration, they appeared to be model prisoners at low to zero risk for ‘offending’, and ought have been released on parole at the earliest opportunity.



In early January, however, Tony was issued new parole officers, and things took an immediate turn of focus away from facts of their incarceration which ought determine their parole eligibility, and back towards the trial, including allusions to the highly salacious and unsubstantiated testimony of undercover officers.




In an assessment from Tony’s new parole officer, a Gulag Camp Guard by the name of Stephanie Henry, she makes some pretty wild claims about him, and employs rhetoric one might expect from a hectoring school marm. It has been reported to me that Ms Henry expressed out loud at one of these meetings in Drumheller -

”I wish more of you guys were arrested at the border.”

Consider this rhetoric as you read the rest of this.

Like many others in this process, Henry repeats unverifiable and inflammatory claims made by Undercover Officers working the Coutts protest site, who we should remember had no wires or recording devices of any kind, and once they did get a wiretap on Tony (and the other Coutts Four men, said wiretap having run illegally over its time allotment and most of it ruled inadmissible anyways) he never said anything that was actionable nor akin to the rhetoric the UCOs claimed he was spitting, and was part of the reason why he was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder police officers. Henry also cited the ‘pipe bomb’ nonsense, which has been thoroughly debunked as having anything to do with the protest; a guilty verdict was issued on a rusty piece of industrial explosive that was a decade old and a leftover from Tony’s deceased father, found in storage 200km away from the protest site. Failing to have a permit (they may have had one, but funny how the RCMP are not in the habit of providing exculpatory evidence) is not the same thing as having the intent to kill people, which would have implied the device in question being functional, and on the site of the protest - not buried in a box in storage and long forgotten.

I’ve spoken on this many times before, and everyone knows it, yet pigs in employ of the government still believe it.

Pigs going to pig.

I’m going to pull some direct quotes from Henry’s assessment and offer my own commentary.

The author is of the view that OLIENICK’s social boundaries and sense of entitlement is distorted. There are contradictory statements on his file that he does plan to approach some things differently. However, in the next statement he contradicts responsibility for his actions.

Social boundaries? The man has been behind bars for 3 and half years. How do you measure this? What does that even mean? As for contradictory statements, you put a man in a box for that length of time, and constantly grill him about a conspiracy theory that the Crown created to put him there, and yeah, he might say things that don’t line up. Have you ever heard a politician speak, Ms Henry?

The offender is untreated for extreme behavior that impeded the rights and liberties of Albertans and Canadians During heated exchanges, OLIENICK’s actions could have escalated to conflict between law enforcement and blockade supporters to the extent of violence or harm to innocent Canadians or Law enforcement.

“Impeded the rights and liberties of Albertans and Canadians”

Are we discussing parole for former Prime Minister Trudeau? Wouldn’t it be nice if he were behind bars, for everything he has done to Canada.

All kidding aside, ‘could have’ here is a stretch, as it is built, again, on baseless accusations from UCOs, and ignores Tony’s own videos where he implores the cops to come have coffee and talk, and also ignores that Tony surrendered peacefully and has been 100% co-operative with everyone involved in this travesty of injustice, which is a lot more than I would have been in the same position.

It bears repeating here that the Coutts Border crossing was only ever completely closed for about 3 days, Feb 12-15, at the direction of Canada Border Services, not the protesters. There were two other border crossings within a half hour drive that anyone could have used instead, Tony’s dump truck was parked on the shoulder and didn’t block the road, and, finally, the only place where Alberta Provincial Highway Four was completely shutdown and any rights were impeded was at Milk River, care of the RCMP.

Ms Henry is certainly entitled to her own opinion, but she is not entitled to her own set of facts.

After a through file review, the consultation identified that domain scores in Personal Emotional, Attitude, and Associates may have been under rated. All are direct contributing factors in OLIENICK’s offending and appear greater than noted previously. At this point the need for programming may not be fully understood. Furthermore, the offender does not appear neither to accept nor understand the impact of his actions on others as he is appealing his convictions. That lack of understanding should impact a decision for release.

Let us review the facts here - Tony Olienick never robbed anyone, hurt anyone, nor expressed any desire to do so, unless attacked first by the state. Tony is not to blame for the RCMP closing the highway at Milk River. When Tony realized that his shotgun and gopher rifle were in the back of his pickup truck, which SOMEONE ELSE DROVE TO COUTTS, he made the reasonable step of asking to store them in Chris Carbert’s camper trailer which was parked AWAY FROM THE PROTEST SITE on private property.

Tony and Chris’s trial was a sham, rife with prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, and later in the piece, I will discuss how the Crown and Justice Labrenz are continuing to cover their tracks. They have every right to appeal, and the fact that they are appealing has no bearing on whether or not they should be issued parole. Appealing a decision is not a criminal act, nor does it imply that they will commit one, nor be in any other way a danger to the public.

The only people possibly at risk in any appeal are Crown Prosecutor Steven Johnston and Justice David Labrenz, though any punishment they might accrue has a very, very long shot of ever happening, nor of correctly balancing the scales. They will, most likely, only face accountability from their Maker, who is perfect in every way and cannot be fooled like so many dimwitted CBC Canadians.

Officer Henry reported that she noted the domain area’s of Personal Emotional, Attitude, and Associates may have been underscored upon OLIENICK’s arrival at Drumheller. She reported that during her contact with him he seemed focused on whether the institution would accommodate him with real butter rather than a traditional dairy substitute.

OLIENICK stated that he may advocate for inmate rights to make changes. She noted to the author that OLIENICK failed to identify that he is an inmate himself and that this was for his own needs.

Officer Henry reported that the offender does not meet the criteria for institutional programming. However, she is unsure of any change occurring without at the very least treatment to address personal emotional deficits.

Asking for real butter for yourself and your fellow inmates equals personal emotional deficits, and is worthy enough in the mind of Henry to note as a factor in denying parole.

OLIENICK has demonstrated both poor and careless decision making while placing the public at risk. His actions suggest an anti-authoritarian attitude tempered with a sense of entitlement. OLIENICK needs to make changes to be a manageable risk in the community.

Again with re-litigating the trial rather than any honest assessment of his eligibility for parole. It appears the changes required are that Tony completely alter who he is as a person, and kiss the ring of Pigs like Stephanie Henry.

Moving forward, OLIENICK is expected to demonstrate during his incarceration an understanding of his crime cycle. This includes both his health and Christian impulses, his anti-authoritarian perspective, and the justification that accompanies that style of thinking. Thus far, no mitigation strategies have taken place. His decision to ignore country wide decisions regarding a pandemic can only be interpreted an unrealistic sense of entitlement.

A directive approach to supervision will be required to ensure OLIENICK has in place appropriate resources for these issues.

Henry really thinks that Tony’s concern for his own health, his Christian faith, and skepticism of state power, are reasons enough to deny him parole.

I’ve been saying since this started that what Tony and Chris are really guilty of is Thought Crime and I want to thank, if thank is the correct term, Parole Officer Henry for demonstrating that I have been correct this whole time. She is one of these people who is a perfect fit for her role in the Maple Gulag, as she has clearly read 1984 as an instruction manual rather than a warning.



I’m going to move on to some clips from transcriptions of the parole board hearings themselves. Before we get into that, however, I want to point out that Chris Carbert’s parole hearing was originally scheduled for the second week of April, but was then rescheduled for the same day as Tony’s, April 25, and additionally that Chris’ would take place directly after Tony’s. Seems awfully strange, and follows a pattern with this case where Chris was brought along for the ride to make the ‘conspiracy’ charge stick, when most of the rhetorical offenses alleged by the Undercovers, whose claims initiated this case, were against Tony.

In Tony’s parole hearing, the ‘index charges’ from the case are re-litigated once again, with the usual allusions to the fake pipe bomb, bogus claims of economic harm (once again, two border crossings nearby remained open and the main part of the highway closure was care of the RCMP. It ought also be noted that assumptions of economic harm are about as reliable as the climate change modeling that lead Al Gore to claim that the north pole would be completely ice free by 2007) and a whole lot of huffing and puffing about the scamdemic.

It starts to get interesting a few paragraphs in.

There is nothing in your personal circumstances that might explain your criminal behaviour. Indeed, you had a good life and a good home. You had ample positive community support, were self-employed and enjoyed many benefits in life such as a stable community, opportunities in business and supportive family.

It appears that your thought processes, specifically the cognitive distortions that you utilized, led to an anti-authority attitude towards the police and government more generally. As found by the Court, your offence was politically motivated. Through the use of inappropriate thoughts and justifications, you convinced yourself of the righteousness of your criminal actions and abandoned your previous law-abiding lifestyle. Social isolation, economic strain and your political beliefs contributed to your decision to engage in the index offences.

While external factors are certainly contributors and triggers, the deeper issue is your own cognitive processes, decision-making and justifications.

Gee, when are they coming to arrest me? Thinking for yourself and drawing your own conclusions about a government run amok?

Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Important Risk Factors

Your identified risk factors include distorted thought processes, lack of consequential thinking, poor emotions management, association with negative peers and inappropriate problem-solving mechanisms.

Your Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR) score is 17. Research suggests that 4 out of 5 offenders will not commit an indictable offence after release. It is important to note that all actuarial risk measures are based on group statistics. Your actual risk may be higher or lower depending on your personal circumstances.

Statistical estimates of risk are also limited by the factors selected for inclusion in the tool set and do not take into account factors not expressly included. These limitations mean that while actuarial risk measures are a helpful starting point, they are not determinative.

What they’re doing here is handwaving away Tony’s low risk for recidivism by implying that his ‘distorted thought process’ are not to be trusted and therefore he ought be kept in prison.

Again, thought crime.

Behaviour During Current Sentence and Participation in Interventions

During your current sentence, your institutional behaviour has been unproblematic. However, as positive institutional behaviour is not necessarily correlated with positive behaviour in the community, this is a neutral factor in the Board’s assessment of risk.

You did not qualify for core programming. However, even in the absence of extensive interventions, the Board must nonetheless consider any evidence of change because it is relevant to your risk of recidivism. In this regard, the Board takes into consideration the fact that, as a first time offender, the reality of incarceration in a federal prison often has a deterring effect. On the other hand, the Board must also consider the CSC reports indicating that you lack insight into the harm that you inflicted on the public, that you lack accountability for your actions and that you appear to demonstrate very little change in your thought processes. File information suggests that you plan on approaching problems differently in the future but at the same time, you seem to deny responsibility for your actions.

No public was harmed, and again, Tony is being persecuted for his ‘thought processes.’

There are many support letters on file from family, friends, employers and community supports including a journalist from New York. These letters assert that you are a person of good character, high integrity and superior work ethic. Some of these letters express shock and disbelief that you could have committed the index offences. Others attempt to paint your actions in a non-criminal light calling them “peaceful” or emphasizing your good intentions. After reviewing these letters, the Board draws two conclusions. First, that the index offences are out of character for you in the sense that you are not a person who is previously involved in any serious criminality. You did not live a criminal lifestyle and generally conducted your life in a prosocial manner. This tends to suggest a lower risk of recidivism. Second, that despite this previously prosocial lifestyle, your strong beliefs and political or social-economic stance led you to engage in a course of conduct that is criminal and dangerous in nature as evidenced by your index convictions. To be clear, the Board is not here to pass judgement on your personal beliefs. Rather, the Board must assess whether you are capable of managing your behaviour in the community to ensure that you do not offend again, no matter what your beliefs. There are legitimate ways to protest government actions and policies but committing criminal offences is not one of them. The many sources of positive community support that you continue to enjoy is generally a factor that weighs in favour of conditional release because it means that an offender will have the necessary assistance to facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration. However, the key determinant remains whether you will be able to express your viewpoints in a non-criminal manner — sometimes despite what others might think (for example, if you surround yourself with the same individuals that you did during the blockade).

How nice of them to mention me, ‘journalist from New York’. Bummer the court in Lethbridge wouldn’t give me a media credential when I went out there in person.

No matter.

The board is not here to pass judgement on your beliefs … but every bit of reasoning they have for denying Tony parole is based on them. Ok, you lying sacks of shit.

In written submissions from April 2025, you discussed your release plans referenced above. In addition, you talked about your plans to rebuild your business and pursue employment. You have secured multiple employment opportunities in several locations. As previously stated, this information attracts minimal weight. Your work ethic, employment and entrepreneurship are not in question. These factors are largely irrelevant to your offense cycle.

Offense ‘cycle’? They’re giving it away, again, that the offenses in question are the thoughts and personally held convictions within Tony’s mind that are the problem. ‘Cycle’ indicates more than one case of criminal offense, of which there aren’t any.

They also seem to disregard Tony’s long history of being a workaholic, and that he already has multiple gigs lined up for as soon as he gets out of prison.

Maybe if he was an unemployed thief from sub-saharan Africa or a Subcontinental drug runner he would have been given immediate parole and we wouldn’t even be here. Different strokes for different folks.

With respect to day parole at the family farm and full parole, the Board struggles to accept these expanded forms of release. There is insufficient evidence that you have changed your thought processes, gained insight into your offence cycle or developed more productive ways of handling conflict and disagreement. Given the serious nature and gravity of the index offences and your high degree of responsibility, there is simply insufficient positive information weighing in favour of conditional release. It must be remembered that at the heart of the matter, your index offence is about challenging the Rule of Law. This is no trivial matter. The Board must see evidence of real and sustained change prior to consideration of any conditional release.

Decision

For the reasons set out above, the Board denies day parole and full parole.

Kiss the ring, end your appeals, proclaim “I LOVE BIG BROTHER” and then we will let you out.



It goes without saying that Carbert’s parole hearing went about much the same way.

Mitigating factors include your lack of criminal record, your good prior character, and that you were otherwise a law abiding and productive member of society before your arrest.


The CSC assessed that the legislated criteria for serious harm were not met.

Ok, off to a good start.

You report that although not against vaccinations in general, you felt strongly against taking the Covid-19 vaccination. You became consumed with the restrictions imposed by the government and distrustful of government mandates. You began stockpiling food and preparing to live off the grid. Your thoughts became distorted and you did not consider alternatives.

Oh no, Chris is a prepper who disagreed with the government, and a WrongThinker!

You injured yourself exercising after the birth of your son, and were prescribed prescription pain medication, which you used for about two years. You became addicted, transitioned to Suboxone, and then Sublocade, and have not used any opioids since you were in remand.

Remember that CBC hit piece on the trial that came out after they were found not guilty of conspiracy to murder police officers? The pure propaganda drivel that they had to put out in an effort to make sure the public continued to believe in their guilt and the necessity of holding these guys in pre-trial detention for two and a half years, even though they have no history of violence nor criminal records?

In that piece, the CBC showed you interrogation footage of Chris Carbert, and he does not look good nor healthy, and in fact it appears he needed immediate medical assistance.

He was denied access to those medications while he was going through extreme withdrawal. Nice of the RCMP to put him through an interrogation in that state, wasn’t it?

I’ve been advised by a journalist friend of mine to not use a certain word I’m partial to, so I guess I won’t. It rhymes with ‘hunts’.


They go on to note

You scored 7 on the Criminal Risk Index (CRI). Research found that 6% of male federal offenders in this category committed an offense within 3 years of release.

The Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale was administered, yielding a score of 11, which indicates that 4 out of 5 offenders will not commit an indictable offense after release.

You are currently assessed as a minimum-security offender with low institutional adjustment, low escape risk, and low public safety risk.

Again, by the parole board’s own metrics, Chris, like Tony, is essentially almost zero risk to re-offend.

They go on to discuss a release plan, and acknowledge that Chris wants to live with his son, who he has obviously been separated from all of this time. It ought be noted here that Chris’s father and one of his brothers passed away while Chris was in pre-trial detention, and that he was denied a pass to attend their services.

It is also noted and acknowledged that Chris, like Tony, already has work lined up, and has business associates and friends who have purchased equipment on his behalf so that he can get his old business up and running again.


Despite all of that, the parole board goes on for pages and pages and pages of re-litigating the trial, and quoting Justice Labrenz sentencing at length. It must be asked - are parole hearings meant to be a review of the prisoners conduct and behavior inside, and to determine if there is legitimate likelihood of re-offense, or are they meant to be a Struggle Session one might associate with the Red Guard in China under Chairman Mao?

You felt that the world was going in the wrong direction, people should have a say in what goes in their body, and that protesting was the correct thing to do.

You also mentioned that there was a lot of information missing from the file information because 21 GB of data had been removed from your phone. Because of this you didn’t have a fair and total defense of your actions.

You have also participated in ETAs, without concern … while the Board considers this to be mitigating …. the weight given is … reduced … you demonstrated poor decision making and thought processes which lead to the committing of the index offense.

There is no evidence that these interventions have changed your mindset in a meaningful way.

Again, Chris, like Tony, is perceived to have not bent the knee, kissed the ring, and proclaimed his love for Big Brother.

Therefore, when all … factors are considered, the Board denies Day and Full Parole. It is the Board’s opinion that you present an undue risk to society if released …. and that your release will not contribute to the protection of society by facilitating your re-integration …

None other than Justin Trudeau passed a piece of legislation that was meant to reduce the prison population and reduce stress on the justice system, in part by releasing offenders immediately on bail, and by expanding the issue of parole. Since the passage of Bill C-75 in 2019, the release of repeat violent offenders has increased to the point that the National Police Federation, the union representing RCMP Officers, issued a report in 2023 asking for changes to these parole and bail reforms that were only four years old, noting a number of “on duty deaths of police officers” involving offenders who were out on bail.

Given Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert’s peaceful, non violent existence, and lack of substantial criminal record before being framed to justify Justin Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act, perhaps their places in Drumheller ought be occupied by the types of criminals the National Police Federation were discussing. Then again, that might depend on the cop.

The lead official on the Board who denied Chris and Tony’s parole is a gentleman named Mark Chatterbok, a retired cop with nearly 40 years of service, including quite a stretch as the Deputy Chief of Police for the City of Saskatoon. You would think that a former police officer might not be the guy to oversee such a hearing, given the highly inflammatory charges of ‘conspiracy to murder police officers’ that were leveled at Chris and Tony, even though they were found not guilty. I am without a doubt that Mr Chatterbok would have been unable to set aside any prejudice within him, and I am also without doubt that this is why he was chosen. I can almost guarantee that Mr Chatterbok, before coming into this case, would have only heard the mainstream media smears against the Coutts Four, and would have had no idea about any countervailing evidence. Why would he? The Canadian Media were active participants in trying to convict them in the court of Public Opinion, and other than myself and a tiny handful of others working as citizen journalists, there was no one discussing the defense side of this case, much less speaking with any of the men or their families. Chatterbok went into this parole board hearing prejudiced and ignorant by design.

How about Justice David Labrenz, who oversaw the trial against Chris and Tony? He was the prosecutor on trial for the guys who shot and killed RCMP officers in cold blood up in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, back in 2005. You think he was chosen with the belief he was going to rule on this case with any degree of impartiality?

If there were any doubts about Labrenz and his prejudice against Chris and Tony coming into this trial, the transcript from their sentencing would disabuse you of any of them, as Labrenz leaned very, very heavily on unsubstantiated accusations from the Undercovers, and then used wildly inappropriate case law to bolster a sentence that was clearly designed to tamp down on any threat of appeal from Crown Prosecutor Steven Johnston, and to protect Labrenz’ own standing in the Club that none of us are in.

One of the cases Labrenz cites in sentencing the boys involved a guy named Corey Hurren who stormed Rideau Hall in Ottawa by driving his pickup truck through the gates and undertaking a very short lived lookout for the Prime Minister, or anyone he could talk to about the state of the country, while also carrying a hell of a lot of heat. He was intercepted by police and arrested without incident.

If Justice Labrenz was willing to compare Chris and Tony to a guy whose life was a mess, having a psychological breakdown, and then actively drove his truck through the gates to the Prime Minister’s residence, what else needs to be said? Chris and Tony stood around at a border crossing in the middle of nowhere, mostly drinking coffee and doing not very much. Labrenz comparison of the two situations, although they share some shallow, surface level resemblances, is laughable. Labrenz’ failure to throw out the ‘pipe-bomb’ accusations based on the facts of that matter also indicate that he came into this trial prejudiced against the men, and unwilling to deal in reality, or the pernicious and obvious malice of the Crown Prosecutor.

Speaking of the Crown, in assembling documents and preparing for appeal, I am told that requests for court transcripts relating to the ‘envelope’ drama are being denied by Labrenz. Let us take a brief look back to one of my posts about Johnston and what is thought to be going on with this “envelope”.

Let us now bring attention to Crown Prosecutor Steven Johnston, and the ‘What’s in the envelope?’ controversy from last year, amongst other questions raised by his actions.

During pre-trial motions in July of 2023, it was revealed that Johnston, and fellow prosecutor Matthew Dalidowicz, were targeted in a motion to override solicitor client privilege, as Olienick’s former council, Tonii Roulston, claimed to have witnessed evidence indicating that Johnston and Dalidowicz had been giving unlawful direction to the RCMP, which changed the nature of the RCMPs investigation on February 9 of 2022. Roulston referred to a ‘Crime Fraud exception’, and that the innocence of her client would be at stake if that privilege was not overruled. Unfortunately, that evidence was sealed in a closed door session with only the Crown, Roulston, Greg Dunn, Katherin Beyak, and Justice Labrenz present.

What happened in that closed door session? It has been mentioned to me, by those more familiar with the law, that the only way such evidence might be suppressed, evidence that would clearly exonerate a defendant, or at very least bring the prosecution into serious question or disrepute, would be for that evidence to be overruled by a considerations of ‘National Security’. If, in fact, this is the case, who in Ottawa was sending orders and documentation to Johnston claiming the imprimatur of ‘National Security’? What national security was at risk by revealing the contents of ‘the envelope’?

Were claims of such based on the disproven nonsense brought to us care of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network? Or were the ‘National Security’ considerations more economic in nature? We must remember that a great deal of pressure was being exerted on Trudeau to deal with the border blockages at both Windsor, Ontario, on the Ambassador Bridge, and at Coutts. We know that US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was heavily involved in talks with Chrystia Freeland and other Canadian officials in having these blockages dealt with, and that in meetings between Justin Trudeau and US President Joe Biden on February 11 that Trudeau had told Biden he had a ‘plan’ to deal with the Freedom Convoy.

Did that plan include concocting a fantasy about the Coutts Four, which included having Marco Mendocino appear in foaming at the mouth pressers, where he attempted to scare Canadians about a heavily armed group who wanted to take over the country? Seems like something they might use to overrule revealing exonerating evidence about one of the enemies of the state they had just fingered.

If the evidence Tonii Roulston saw had seen the light of day, perhaps the men would not have gone to trial at all, and Steven Johnston would instead stand accused of ‘conspiracy to prosecute’, which is an indictable offense under Canada’s Criminal Code when one seeks to prosecute someone knowing that they are innocent.

Conspiracy

465 (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that they did not commit that offence, is guilty of

(i) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or an offence punishable on summary conviction, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term of not more than 14 years, or

(ii) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or an offence punishable on summary conviction, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than 14 years;

Though Johnston and his assistant are not named explicitly, in documents disclosed in an Access to Information and Privacy Act (ATIP) request, we see that the Crown was involved with ‘advising’ RCMP. It is also alleged that documents exist showing that Johnston was involved in communications from Coutts to former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.

In a ‘voire dire’ during pre-trial hearings, we also find out from an RCMP investigator by the name of Breanne Taker that Johnston was, in fact, giving directions, rather than advising.

Its a fine line between ‘advising’ and ‘directing’, and it seems quite likely Johnston and Dalidowicz, who were working with RCMP the entire time at Coutts, crossed that line, and thus should have recused themselves from prosecuting this trial, given the conflict of interest.

Given everything we know about this trial, how the men were held for two and a half years of pre-trial custody and denied parole explicitly based on the charges for which they were found NOT GUILTY, and that there is a legitimate question as to the actions of Crown Prosecutor Johnston not only in the malicious prosecution of the case, but in the possibility that he directed the RCMP to engage in illegal activity at the Coutts Protest site, it should be no surprise that the men are going to appeal.

The fact that Labrenz is, from what I am told, either refusing to allow certain documents or transcripts to be made available for Chris and Tony’s legal counsel, or actively interfering in their availability, really casts ever more doubt on Chris and Tony’s perceived guilt on the lesser charges for which they remain incarcerated, and also casts doubt on the denial of their parole. Wouldn’t want them on the outside talking to just whomever they want, eh? Given my media contacts, it is within the realm of possibility that The Crown, and the government of newly installed Crime Minister Mark Carney, would not be interested in Chris and Tony possibly appearing with one of the biggest media personalities on Earth to air out Canada’s very dirty laundry, thus bypassing the tightly controlled North Korean style media that passes for a Fourth Estate in Canada.

Canada, over and above this ongoing case of political prisoners, has plenty of other problems right now. The recent election returned the Liberal Party to a minority government, though a series of tense recounts has nearly given them an edge. Due to that minority position, Mark Carney is refusing to table a budget bill, lest it fail and another election is called. Parliament hasn’t sat for debate since Trudeau scuttled it with his bogus proroguation in early January, which was a cynical and politically calculated move meant to save his own party’s hide, and scuttle the momentum of Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party in the polls. The gambit worked - Carney was parachuted into the Prime Minister’s seat, and the election was turned from a referendum on the results of nine years of Justin Trudeau’s Woke Authoritarianism and mismanagement of everything, into a referendum on the President of The United States, a ruse to distract the clapping seals of the Canadian electorate from having to contend with the consequences of their previous decisions.

Making the seals clap is easy enough to do in Canada, where the government now spends $1.7 billion on the CBC per annum and has spent nearly another billion subsidizing the supposedly private media since 2019. Hey look over there, Orange Man Bad!

Is it no surprise, then, that the clapping seals have no idea about Chris and Tony’s case? It would probably be beyond them to consider the grim possibility that Chris and Tony’s journey in Lawfare is only just beginning, that maybe Johnston and the Gang are gearing up to appeal the not guilty verdict*, and that keeping the two of them locked up without parole is all part of the plan. Hey, these guys were so dangerous that we denied them parole after the trial, too; see, give us another conviction! Don’t look at the CrimeFraud behind the curtain, your freedom of expression is safe with us!


* note - on the eve of publishing this missive, I am informed that the Crown’s simmering appeal of the not guilty verdict on the conspiracy to murder police officers charge has been withdrawn this very morning. Thank Heaven for small mercies.

Will dropping of the Crown’s appeal be cause enough for the parole decision be revisited?

I don’t know, but with everything else that has gone on with this case, I wouldn’t be getting any hopes up.

King Charles the Third is set to deliver a speech from the throne when Parliament re-opens later this month, and I highly doubt that any of the rot which is consuming Canada will be discussed in his presence, or in that chamber at all after he leaves, much less will there be any discussion of the fact that this once proud nation continues to punish innocent men for daring to stand up for rights which have been dissolved by acids poured over them by our technocratic managerial state.


I sent requests to Chris and Tony’s lawyers for comment on the parole denial, and for reasons I’m sure you will understand, they have no comment at this time.

---

Addendum

Since I began writing this, none other than the CBC has finally weighed in on the parole hearings, and to their credit, they did not engage in a total smear job this time.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-blockade-protesters-carbert-parole-request-denied-1.7537628

Some interesting tidbits here that confirm even the CBC knows, or has unwittingly acknowledged, my thesis that the real reason the boys were denied parole is failure to bend the knee, not any threat they pose to the public.

Another problem the board found was that Carbert refused to discuss certain aspects of his crimes because of a pending appeal.

When this happens, the parole board reverts back to the judge's findings, said Amy Matychuk, a lawyer and the founder of Prison and Police Law, a firm that specializes in prison justice and police misconduct.

"It might not be the fact that the appeal is pending but just that the parole board considers having an appeal pending as being an indication that someone doesn't take accountability … they are so focused on accountability."

Matychuk suspects the board was looking for Carbert to identify risk factors that led to his offences.

"They wanted him to say 'my risk factors were, I was isolated: here are the steps that I'm taking to make sure I am not isolated … my risk factor was that I was radicalized online: here's what the steps I'm taking to not become radicalized online anymore,' and he just didn't seem willing to admit that he had been radicalized, perhaps," said Matychuk.

The CBC likewise notes that Justice David Labrenz engaged in editorializing during sentencing, and used unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims from Undercover Officers that lead to the not guilty verdict from the jury in his sentencing on the lessor charges. If there were any such thing as Justice in this country, Labrenz would be the one in jail for judicial misconduct.

In sentencing Carbert and co-accused Anthony Olienick, the judge noted there was a credible threat to police and the public.

"Both armed themselves for the purpose of using those weapons against police," said Justice David Labrenz.

"Fortunately, neither man decided the timing was right for a surprise attack."

If you read the whole CBC piece, nowhere do they mention that the lead parole officer was Mark Chatterbok, and that Chatterbok is a retired cop. You’d think this little piece of the story might help the public understand the denial of parole, maybe raise some questions about the decision. Not relevant according to the state broadcaster.

Thus far I haven’t seen any commentary from other mainstream media, especially not from Bill ‘Massive Co-Morbidities’ Graveland of The Canadian Press, nor Alanna Smith, the obese ‘health reporter’ from the Globe and Mail’s Calgary office, both of whom played key roles in lying to the public about this case. Maybe they did, but I’m not going to bother reading it, because what’s the point?

Friend and fellow regime critic Alex Zoltan has likewise written a piece on this parole hearing, which you can read here. (I’d quote from it but I’m busted and don’t have a subscription to Juno News - maybe you do?)

There’s something else regarding other actors in the media I’ve been keeping to myself for a long time, and in the past couple of months, these actors have done some things which really, really irked myself and many other people, and with parole being denied and this disgusting and loathesome persecution continuing, I am not going to hold it down any longer.

Rupa Subramanya, a fairly high profile journalist who used to work for the National Post, and was one of the few media personalities in Canada to treat the Freedom Convoy fairly, reached out to me about this case some time ago. Though she had left the National Post and had gone to work for The Free Press, the wildly popular journalistic project of former NYT writer Bari Weiss, Rupa had been hearing enough about the Coutts case and all of the questions around it that she was planning on doing a story about these political prisoners for her new employers. Rupa called me and we spent about 90 minutes on the phone; I shared a great deal about what I knew, as well as contacts for a number of people involved out in Alberta. She told me she herself would fly to Alberta and get to the bottom of this story.

Then, nothing.

And many more months of nothing.

I asked her about it on Twitter; no response.

A few months ago, Rupa appeared in some kind of Congressional Committee talking about censorship and freedom of speech, which I thought was a bit rich, given that she and her employers just gatekept out a massive story on political prisoners in a modern western nation state where it is assumed we have the right to protest and to freedom of expression.

When I questioned Rupa about this seeming inconsistency on Twitter, she blocked me, and I have yet to hear from her since.

I was put in contact with Suzy Weiss, sister and collaborator of Bari Weiss of the FP. After several weeks of being lead on about the possibility of writing something about The Coutts Four case for the FP myself, they scuttled the discussion.


And then there is Dr. Jordan Peterson. Yes, that Dr. Jordan Peterson.

Peterson has recently rankled some by comments he made on his most recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast regards a manufactured PsyOp called ‘the woke right’, a sort of overton window enforcing maneuver manufactured by intellectual midgets beneath Dr. Peterson’s consideration. Is it now “woke right” to stand up for peaceful political prisoners?

To Dr. Peterson’s credit, when we were put in touch via email in the summer of 2024, he read all of the material I had sent him about this case. After all, Dr. Peterson is very famously Canadian, himself from Alberta, is aware of this case, and was very publicly on the side of the Freedom Convoy protesters. Dr. Peterson is also well known for his support for free speech, and his vociferous call to make sure the west does not itself fall to levels of evil seen in the Soviet Union. The Gulag Archipelago is a work that Dr. Peterson quotes often, and you would think he would prioritize criticizing a Gulag like situation developing in his own back yard.

After several back and forth emails, Dr Peterson suggested that he would speak with the producers at his current employers, the Daily Wire, about having me on to discuss the case. This would have been a major win for Chris and Tony, to have the platform of one of Canada’s most well known Freedom Advocates from which to tell their story to Peterson’s millions of followers.

It was not to be; I got a very short email from a Daily Wire producer indicating they “didn’t have time in the schedule”. This is the polite way of telling me to get lost, and that they had (maybe?) overruled their own star.

Is Peterson a hypocrite or a coward for ignoring the development of a Maple Gulag in his own backyard, of the plight of political prisoners who have been incarcerated for three and half years under extremely dubious circumstances and a trial conducted as if a scene described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? Is it the fault of The Daily Wire for killing Peterson’s suggestion to have me on? Either way, it doesn’t look good, and two innocent men continue to rot in prison, separated from their families, downstream of heeding Peterson’s call to stand up and tell the truth in the face of a government crushing its own citizens with lies.

Nevermind Mark Carney or the fucking Laurentian Elite or Justin Trudeau or the goddamned bought and paid for media in Canada - we are actually in much deeper shit if those few in the media who claim to be on the side of freedom of expression and Muh Democracy turn out to be cowards just like the rest of them.

---

We are still collecting your kind donations for Chris and Tony’s legal costs.

In Canada you can donate via Interac Email money transfer -

helptony@protonmail.com

helpchriscarbert@gmail.com

In the United States or Internationally, my GiveSendGo remains open for your kind and generous donations -

https://www.givesendgo.com/trudeauspoliticalprisoners


I would request that you continue writing letters to the boys, but it appears Canada Post might be going on strike this week.

If you want to write and guarantee delivery of your letters, you can follow instructions in this post I made back before Christmas, though I may have to reconsult with my friends in Montana about making any deliveries from outside the country should Canada Post actually go on strike again this week.


As for Jerry Morin and Chris Lysak, they are moving on with life, working and spending time with their families.

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