On The Coutts Verdict, Part Two

The Crown has appealed the Men's not guilty verdicts and is asking for a retrial; it is beyond time to ask some deeper questions about the Crown Prosecutor and his bosses.

Since Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick were found not guilty late in the evening of Friday August 2, 2024, Crown prosecutors have worked diligently to keep them in custody where they will remain until sentencing hearings on their lesser charges wrap up; those hearings begin on August 26.

Last Thursday, August 15, the Crown filed an appeal to the “not guilty” verdict on ‘conspiracy to murder police officer’ charges, a move which was expected and unsurprising. Just look to Ottawa and see the ongoing trials of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, or the numerous other cases against regular working class people who took part in the Freedom Convoy, whom are, to a person, guilty of nothing. The Government, and the obsequious Crown who serves it, are incapable of admitting that the government overreacted in crushing peaceful dissent, and no expense will be spared in pursuing lawfare against these dissenters, who have been unjustly smeared in the court of public opinion, and have been dragged through the very expensive and deep mud of spurious and capricious court cases.

And then, to add insult to injury, we learned on Tuesday, August 20th, via documents released from Chris Carbert to Marco Van Huigenbos, that not only is the Crown appealing the not guilty verdict, they are also requesting a retrial.

Many of us watching what is going on here see the injustice of it all; now is the time to start asking about the location of the fires producing all of the smoke we see above these cases, and who is responsible for setting them.



There have been so many questions around this case since the beginning that to try and make sense of them all would make anyone’s head spin, and in this piece I am going to focus on the actions of the Crown Prosecutor, and the Trudeau government. With these questions, I will hopefully make the case that due to the extremely political nature of the prosecution and persecution of these men, that all Canadians must ask themselves if the accusations of conspiracy here were, at minimum, a fantasy, as was found by the jury, and, that if there is a conspiracy here at all, it is on the part of the government to legitimate their actions by falsely accusing these men of crimes they did not commit.

————

Part One : The Government

Everyone reading this should roughly know the story of the Freedom Convoy, how it was the largest peaceful protest in Canadian history, had millions of supporters across the country, and had become a worldwide inspiration as the largest and most successful populist backlash against two years of Covid Regime insanity. We all know how it was crushed by Justin Trudeau, how the Emergencies Act was invoked, and we witnessed the vicious use of violence in the street of Ottawa by the police, as well as the capricious financial warfare waged by Trudeau’s deputy, Chrystia Freeland, with unheard of freezing of bank accounts, asset seizure, and locking of innocent people out of participating in the economy.

We also know that several months later, as part of the legislation built into the Emergencies Act, an inquest was held into the whole thing, called the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC).

We know from revelations made at the POEC that the RCMP was already suggesting the use of the Emergencies Act within one week of the Freedom Convoy arriving in Ottawa, and when Prime Minster Trudeau testified at the POEC, he admitted that invoking the Emergencies Act was something they considered from the beginning of the protest.

Here he is at POEC before Shantona Chaudhury, co-lead commission counsel -

When we know that Trudeau and the RCMP were already itching to employ what amounts to the ‘Nuclear Option’, rather than speak to or negotiate with protesters, it only follows that in order to legitimate that ‘Nuclear Option’ in the eyes of the public, they would need to find a reason far more serious than trucks parked on the streets of Ottawa.

It should be no surprise then that the Crown and RCMP were co-ordinating at Coutts, and according to certain documents, were already monitoring the plans of protesters as early as January 25, four days before anyone arrived there.

And from what we have heard at the Coutts Men’s trial, we ought to ask questions about whether or not a fishing expedition was baked into the cake, given the lack of any violence or otherwise illegal activity in Ottawa - were they looking West for excuses?

In discussions with others in court, I’m told Corbett actually mentioned Curtis Zablocki, Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP, who reported to Brenda Lucki, who was working directly with Trudeau’s PMO (Prime Ministers Office) and its Incident Response Group, whom ultimately made the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. Notes from the final meetings about that decision remain sealed, and given the timing of those meetings and when orders came down the pipe to Coutts, it stands to reason that any orders of a fishing expedition could have come directly from the Prime Minister.

From a previous Substack where I discuss the timing of orders coming from the RCMP, and what they knew when, and what they were telling the public -

Given what we know about communications between the highest levels of government, however, disorganization and incompetence merely serve as a smokescreen for something far more sinister.

On February 13 2022, (now former) RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki was in a meeting with (now former) Public Safety Minister Marco Mendocino, where she advised him about these ‘imminent harms’, and then Mendocino relayed this to Trudeau with unhinged verbiage about a ‘hardened cell of individuals, armed to the teeth with lethal firearms.’ Trudeau advised Mendocino to keep it to himself, at the time.

Except the warrants were not executed until the following day, February 14, and there was no way for Lucki nor Mendocino to back up the claims they had made the day before.

Much of these claims about the ‘imminent threat’ of violence revolve around maximally negative interpretations of rhetoric that was written down by Under Cover Officers; as mentioned above, when a wire tap was put on Olienick and Carbert’s phones on February 11, nothing was found that indicated anything illegal, right up until they were arrested.

It pays to remember that the minutes of those final meetings of the PMO/IRG, where they decided to bring the hammer down with the Emergencies Act, are still redacted and unavailable to the public, along with 87% of all government documents pertaining to the Freedom Convoy.

From the Toronto Sun -

In a report to MPs and senators, the Privy Council Office said it gave 31,844 documents to the inquiry investigating cabinet’s use of the Emergencies Act against the Freedom Convoy protesters in Ottawa.

However, 27,815 of those (about 87%) were kept confidential by the Public Order Emergency Commission.

Concealed records included 16,632 classified as “secret” and 372 as “top secret.”

Only commission counsel and the judge leading the inquiry, Justice Paul Rouleau, had complete access to all 31,844 document, said the report.

Imagine having nearly 400 hundred documents rated ‘top secret’ as it pertains to a totally peaceful protest; sounds to me like they’re trying to save their own asses.

Here is Prime Minster Justin Trudeau in 2015, telling us about how accountable his government is going to be -

We expect you to hold the government accountable … That is why we committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in Ottawa. Government and its information must be open by default. Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government to make sure it remains focused on the people it was created to serve – you.

We can assume that accountability doesn’t apply when there is significant evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister’s Office and the RCMP were working together to set up their own citizens in an effort to justify imposing near-Martial Law.

Another player to consider in wether or not a fishing expedition was ordered, either by the PMO or Brenda Lucki, is the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), a publicly subsidized ‘social justice’ organization who exist solely to find Nazis hiding beneath every Inuksuk in Canada, and whom have a long history of using that money to attack critics. Before the Freedom Convoy had even been breathed into life by the likes of Brigitte Belton or Chris Barber or Tamara Lich, a fixation of CAHNs peculiar fetish for attacking regular people in Canadian society was a podcast fanboy club called Diagolon, who regular readers of this Substack will be familiar with.

The close relationship between CAHN and the government of Justin Trudeau was on full display during Freedom Convoy, when we saw Diagolon invoked in both the upper and lower houses of Parliament, and in the unhinged media pressers given by the likes of Marco Mendocino, who were desperately trying to turn this podcast fanboy network into a legitimate threat to the nation, and also use them as a connection between Coutts and Ottawa, where none actually existed.

All of this nonsense was disentangled and debunked by independent journalists Elise Hategan and Caryma S’ad in their #HateGate report, who exposed documents from RCMP, CSIS, and various other government agents, showing that the threat from Diagolon was non existent, and that CAHN, the media, the government, and the RCMP, were all passing claims about them back and forth in a closed circle, and having no evidence to back up any of these claims, were using that circle to achieve legitimation laundering. To hear more about the #HateGate affair, I recommend you listen to my interview with Caryma S’ad from last year.

The involvement of an advisor to CAHN, someone initially requested to testify on behalf of the Crown, Barbara Perry, might also be of interest to readers, and you can find out more about that here.

It should also be noted that 23 separate charges against Jeremy Mackenzie, the man in whose imagination ‘Diagolon’ was conceived, in 5 separate cases, across three provinces, were all stayed or dropped. So much for the mastermind behind a supposedly armed insurrectionist group.

*(I have been advised of claims that Mr Mackenzie might be a Fed Operative in the mold of a previous infamous Canadian FedOp named Grant Bristow, but that is a rabbit I haven’t the time to chase at present.)


Another question we have to ask on the part of Justin Trudeau, the PMO, and his cabinet ministers, is if they had been hitting the paranoia crack-pipe hard enough to make Rob Ford blush, in an effort to smear the Freedom Convoy and manufacture Fear and Loathing in the minds of Canadians, is it not then possible that they had begun to believe their own bullshit?

According to Tom Korski, managing editor of Blacklock's Reporter, Canada’s best muckraking and federal accountability organization, whose story on 87% of Freedom Convoy documents being classified was cited by the Toronto Sun above, it appears that Trudeau and his cabinet ministers had, in fact, got very, very high on their own jenkem.

In a recent interview with former CBC Fifth Estate journalist

Trish Wood

on her great podcast, Trish Wood is Critical, Korski, in examining the 13% of unclassified government documents related to Freedom Convoy, explains -

Tom Korski - When we talk about what may be in those concealed records, one of my favourite documents that was released were minutes of a teleconference between the Prime Ministers Office and the Premiers … this happened literally hours before the Prime Minister dropped the hammer. And there were comments from the Premier of Alberta, and they were very instructive, and he said -

”Folks at the core of this movement are not rational, prone to conspiracy theories. Invoking what they will see as Martial Law will be seen as a serious provocation.”

(Jason) Kenney … was advising ‘Don’t do it.’ But he went on

”A declaration (of the Emergencies Act) risks further radicalizing thousands of sympathizers in Alberta. It could turn the operation into a magnet for every crazy in the province.”

What’s my point? Even a guy like Kenney, who was highly unsympathetic to the protesters, to the means they used, even he said I don’t want this kind of Emergency Power declared in my province.

Elsewhere in the interview -

Trish Wood - The thing I wonder about too, and maybe it is in these documents … why the Prime Minister or an emissary of his office didn’t just go out and say ‘Lets take a meeting, guys, you’re Canadians, I respect that, we might have a difference of opinion … Why didn’t he just be a leader?’

Tom Korski - There (is) documents … we’ve seen among the 13% that were released … they give you the vibe; I think they were actually frightened … they whipped themselves into a frenzy …. they were wetting their pants. The minister of immigration … talked about the ‘trauma’ of his wife being at a mall, blocks away from the protest, and someone gave her a hard time because she was wearing a mask … it must have been these monsters. The attorney general, David Lametti, testified that he was so afraid … he fled the city, he went to Montreal … he was asked “Did anyone say anything, did you get roughed up?” … he said no, ‘but they could have recognized me.’

I think they were scared, and … they were scared because they didn’t go to the same high schools that you and I did. They saw a bunch of young men with beards and ball caps and inexplicably came to the conclusion that this is my January 6th …”

It appears that in the very highest halls of power in the land, we have a Prime Minister and advisors who were looking for an excuse to employ the most powerful emergency powers in the nations arsenal against a protest in its earliest stages, and in planning to do so, they needed a legitimating incident. As everyone knows by now, not a single whiff of violence ever took place at any Freedom Convoy protest site, except at the hands of the police; they needed something, anything, to make it appear that the Freedom Convoy were the bad guys Trudeau and his gang of lying thugs were making them out to be. They needed to meme January 6 Nord into reality.

And they did it based on Fear that they had generated amongst themselves, believing, rightly, in being the pathetic nerds that they were in high school, but wrongly, that the guys at the other high school, the guys who took autoshop instead of running for student council, were going to beat them up, when the last two years had proved the exact opposite had happened at a society wide scale.

We need to be asking more questions about who was giving orders to those RCMP and Crown in Coutts, what those orders looked like, and wether or not the Coutts Four were a target of opportunity that walked into a trap which had been set up as such.

We ought also consider, as suggested by Marco Van Huigenbos, what role has been played by provincial authorities in Alberta.

From the tweet where we find out about the Crown request for a retrial -

Earlier today, I stopped by the Lethbridge Correction Center to pick up a document Chris Carbert had put out for me. It's the document that he was served with last week. Notification that crown prosecutors Steven Johnston, Matthew Dalidowicz, and Aaron Rankin have requested to appeal the acquittal of "Conspire to Murder Police Officers".

"The relief sought is that the acquittal be set aside and a new trial ordered."

Grounds for Appeal

1. The Trial Judge erred in excluding relevant and admissible evidence.

2. The Trial Judge erred in his instructions to the jury.

3. Such further grounds as counsel may advise.

I have attached the first 2 pages of the document. I really want everybody to take a look at these pictures. Does anybody see Ottawa or federal crown prosecutors on these documents? Do you see anything federal at all? If you take a closer look, you will see titles such as "Court of Appeal Alberta" or "Alberta Crown Prosecution Service"

The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of folks still like to pin this on Ottawa, specifically Trudeau. Well, I have news for all of you who remain willfully ignorant!

Alberta Justice is its own entity, it has its own courts and crown prosecutors. We even have our own Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta, aka Mickey Amery.

Alberta Justice administers justice provincial by the standards set in the Federal Criminal Code. The criminal code can be revised by an act or legislation that stems from Parliment. All decisions to prosecutor, appeal, etc. in Alberta are within the jurisdiction of the Alberta Crown Prosecutor Service.

So, while Trudeau will go down in history as Canada’s worst Prime Minister, and I definitely won't make any excuses for him, the Coutts prosecutions and the travesty of justice we are seeing before our eyes is a provincial affair. We all like to think that Steven Johnston is buddies with the Prime Minister and keeps him updated daily!!

Regardless of all the anger, gossip and speculation the fact stands that the people who are persecuting Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick are on Alberta’s payroll.

One wonders, in how many of those classified documents discussed above, are to be found communications amongst authorities in Alberta, or between authorities in Alberta and Ottawa, about what they had planned for the Coutts protest.

————

Part Two : Crown Prosecutor Steven Johnston

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.

Here is a copy of hand written notes from someone who was in the courtroom during the ‘crime fraud exception’ motion involving Tonii Roulston -

Justice David Lebrenz

Accused: Jerry Morin (Greg Dunn), Tony Olienick (Tonii Roulston), Chris Carbert (Katherine Bayak), Chris Lysak (Shaun Leotchko) 

Lethbridge courthouse

June 29th 2023 

-Recusal of the Crown application by defence. Crown consents

-Roulston

B- “there was advice given by Johnston and Matt Dialowitz that unlawful in nature and may over ride privilege”

-“not dealing with legal advice, dealing with crime fraud”

-“we have evidence of how the police conducted themselves after the advice” 

-“prior to 6:30 pm, there were grounds for firearms, they spoke with crown, then suddenly it was binoculars and mischief'“ 

July 25

“When crown gives legal advise that is unlawful, it defeats justice”

“Legal advise given, goes against the RCMP & Crown to be full, frank and fair to the administration of justice” 

“They didn’t know what they were looking for.  We’re not dealing with legal advise, we’re dealing with crime fraud” 

“Not legal advise.  It was facilitating and promoting unlawful acts” 

“(We) the defence are arguing crime fraud and abuse of process”

“Misleading justice and possible obstruction of justice”

“Illegal conduct will demonstrate an abuse of process” 

“Innocence at stake” 

July 26 

“Mr. Johnston is conspiring with RCMP.  It’s evident in the advise, and the actions” 

“The illegal advise affects not only the 1st search warrant, but 8 subsequent searches..including intercepts and wiretaps” 

“Defence would like to use this disclosure evidence to apply for abuse of process.  Crime fraud is our highest accusation, but the other needs to be addressed to prove interception was not warranted” 

“Johnston and RCMP are the conspirators” 

“Defence filed applications on multiple chapter 8 breaches” 

July 27

“Innocence at stake holds a higher standard then crime fraud, which is sufficient to exempt solicitor client privilege”

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.


For those who would like to read these documents themselves, feel free to download the ATIP document release below; it also shows that RCMP were profiling people at Coutts based on if they had a PAL, Possession and Acquisition License, amongst other factors.

Couttsatipdocs1

8.52MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Couttsatipdocs2

14MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Couttsatipdocs3

14MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Couttsatipdocs4

8.52MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

a meme regards Johnston shared on social media last year

I don’t know what motions it is going to take to have that envelope unsealed, or what other information pertaining to Johnston is redacted in those 17,000+ classified/top secret documents, but it sure seems to me like there is a case to be made that this Crown Prosecutor is worthy of being investigated for, at very least, prosecutorial misconduct, and conspiracy “to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that they did not commit that offence”, as it seems quite likely that the Coutts Four were framed based on hastily assembled circumstantial evidence, and heresay brought forward by a bunch of imported ‘hot young thing’ undercovers who delivered the necessary messaging they were told to look for.

In another peculiar action on the part of the Crown, in closing statements at the end of the trial, an allegation is made against ‘un-indicted co-conspirators’.

Isn’t it interesting how the Crown can just make allegations like this against an entire group of people, claim they were ‘in’ on this ‘conspiracy’, yet not a single one of these men were called to testify? How about the fact that charges of ‘conspiracy to murder police officers’ were dropped against both Chris Lysak and Jerry Morin? Why sneak this in to closing statements after which the defense has no chance to argue? Johnston also made allegations, at the last minute with no chance for Chris Carbert or his counsel to defend against, that Carbert had traveled to Milk River to pick up guns for the protest on February 11. No evidence, nothing at all said previously throughout two months of trial, just dropped in to closing statements out of nowhere.

I hope all of these men would consider pursuing Johnston for libel or defamation.

In another piece of evidence which shows Johnston may have been ‘conspiring to prosecute’, which also includes Mr Morin and Mr Lysak, and until now has been kept from the public -

Remember how Jerry Morin and Chris Lysak were let out on a plea deal where all of the original charges against them were dropped? Where Morin, psychologically suffering after lengthy periods of solitary confinement, signed off on a document that everyone involved knew was false, and that Justice Labrenz told the jury could not be used to determine anything about Carbert or Olienick because of the known unreliability of the claims in such plea arrangements?

Several months before that, Johnston offered Morin and Lysak to plea down to a charge of ‘sedition’ and take an 8 year sentence instead of what they faced if convicted of the original charges.

Lysak and Morin declined, and eventually got a better deal because … Johnston had NOTHING ON THEM.

Guess who else was offered this arrangement, and rightly told Johnston to pound sand?

Tony Olienick.

It is fairly common for the government to throw multiple charges at someone they wish to prosecute, on the assumption that the defendant, realizing the David and Goliath nature of fighting the government in court, takes at least one guilty plea, even if they are innocent, so as to avoid a protracted and expensive legal battle at the risk of losing.

This practice is so common that it has its own name - prosecutorial overcharging.

In the case of the Coutts Four, and the circumstances I have just described, this overcharging seems like it amounts to its very own conspiracy. And by God do I hope someone takes appropriate action, although with Johnston just losing what is most likely the biggest trial of his career with the not guilty verdict, and given the high level political ramifications which flow from that verdict, it appears quite likely that his career as a Crown Prosecutor is over. Maybe these circumstances also explain his desire for a re-trial, or maybe its just that Johnston has access to bottomless pits of taxpayer money which which to engage in Lawfare for as long as he pleases, even though by his very own plea deal offers HE KNOWS HE HAS NO CASE.

Perhaps this also explains the fact that Johnson is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert are not sentenced with ‘time served’ or less; it is assumed that he wants maximum sentences, despite the flimsiness of the convictions on the minor charges.

As mentioned in a previous Substack,

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.

In addition to fighting the passage of Bill C-63, it is imperative that Tony Olienick and Chris Carbert be released from prison as soon as possible, and appeals launched against their lessor convictions, in part, so that the government of the authoritarian tyrant Justin Trudeau doesn’t get a chance to use their case as some kind of sick precedent in a possible future trial should C-63 pass.

Given what we have seen in recent weeks in the UK, where anyone protesting the insane immigration policies of the government are rounded up and thrown in the clink on spurious charges, it only stands to reason that Trudeau is looking across the ditch and rubbing his hands together with glee, and awaiting his turn.

————

Part Three : The Incarceration

In July of 2002, a young fellow by the name of Omar Khadr, born in Canada of an Egyptian father who was a known member of several terrorist organizations, and a Palestinian mother, was injured in a firefight in Afghanistan, where his father had taken him after the Americans had invaded, ostensibly in pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. The fifteen year old Khadr was accused of murdering an American medic named Christopher Speer. Later that year, after recovering from his injuries, Khadr was transferred to the infamous American prisoner facility at Guantanamo Bay, where he stayed, and was tortured, until being returned to Canada in 2012.

In September of 2002, Maher Arar, a Syrian-Canadian citizen, during a stopover on his way home from holidays, was picked up at JFK Airport in New York City by American authorities, who accused him of being a member of Al-Qaeda. Arar was sent on to Syria in an example of ‘extraordinary rendition’, and tortured by Syrian authorities during his year long stay.


The Canadian media, rightly concerned at the treatment of its citizens by the hands of foreign governments, made Khadr and Arar into household names. The coverage of these men’s cases was wall-to-wall, and in the case of Khadr, lasted nearly two decades as his story played out. Almost every Canadian heard about their torture at the hands of the United States and Syria, and the Canadian government’s complicity in that torture, especially during the Harper years, when the opposition Liberal Party, which Justin Trudeau assumed leadership of in 2013, made righting the wrongs against Omar Khadr a central point of debate during many Question Periods.

Omar Khadr was freed from Canadian custody in 2015, and in 2017, after winning a civil suit against the Canadian Government, Khadr was cut a check for $10.5 million, and was issued an apology by Trudeau’s later to be thrown under the bus minister, Judy Wilson-Raybould.

Maher Arar was likewise cut a check, this one for $11.5 million, and was also apologized to, by none other than Stephen Harper himself.


What has this got to do with The Coutts Four?

LOTS.

Jerry Morin, Chris Lysak, Tony Olienick, and Chris Carbert, were all charged with ‘conspiring to murder police officers’, which is as heavy duty and damning an accusation as one can make, short of accusing them of actually harming someone. Police are held in pretty high regard by most of society; knowing this, the government and their loathesome, lapdog media, engaged in a smear campaign against these men as soon as they were arrested, flooding the news cycle with these accusations, which included the very salacious and now disproven allegations made by UnderCover Officers (UCOs) which were made into ‘Information to Obtain Documents’ used by the Crown to get search warrants on the protest site, as well as various private properties. These ITOs were so inflammatory, yet based on so little evidence, that they formed the locus of the first publication ban imposed on this story, as the defense was correctly concerned that obtaining an impartial jury of peers for their clients would be impossible with this untested and unproven information circulating in the media.

It is also this highly inflammatory allegation against the men that saw them denied bail even though all four of them passed what are considered ‘primary’ tests for bail - no criminal records, no history of violence, not a flight risk, etc. One of the judges who denied the men bail, at least twice in the case of Chris Carbert, Justice Johnna Kubik, cited these allegations as reason they should not be released.

Here is her statement with regards to Jerry Morin, verbatim, who later had ALL OF THE ORIGINAL CHARGES AGAINST HIM DROPPED

In considering the tertiary ground, | have considered the strength of the Crown case and any defences that arise. the seriousness of the offence including its perspective punishment and the circumstances around its commission, including the accused's alleged role and whether the offence involved the use of firearms.

As I have already noted the Crown case, despite its circumstantial nature, is reasonably strong. The offence alleged is perhaps one of the most serious recognized at law because it contemplates the murder, with firearms, of police officers in the execution of their lawful duties. In this case, the alleged plan to carry out the conspiracy would have placed members of the public, who were engaged in the protest, at significant risk of harm. The crime alleged attracts a lengthy sentence.

I have also considered the previous good character of the accused and his presumption of innocence and the fact that a trial will not be held until June 2023. In balancing all of these factors, I am satisfied that a reasonable person, a thoughtful dispassionate member of the public, properly informed about the presumption of innocence, the legislative provisions governing bail, our Charter values and the circumstances of the case would find that the detention of the accused is required to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

As a result, Mr. Morin has failed to meet his onus on the tertiary ground and judicial interim release is denied.

Highlighted sections by me, as has been thoroughly proven at Olienick and Carberts trial now that a) Jerry Morin never had any guns at Coutts, b) all allegations that he was conspiring to bring guns to Coutts were proven bullshit, and, c) all charges against him were dropped in February 2024, another 8 months past when these clowns thought they would finally get a trial in motion.

The various statements made by both Justice Johnna Kubik and Justice Vaughan Hartigan, who oversaw all of the men’s various bail hearings, are about the same, and are about as convincing now as they were when they were made.

When you consider that 77% of Justices in Canada are donors to and members or appointees of the Liberal Party of Canada and that violent criminal offenders who stand accused of actually murdering police officers are often given bail, and that these violent criminals getting bail on the regular are a consequence of a piece of legislation championed by Justin Trudeau, Bill C-75, that passed in 2018 and massively expanded bail in Canada, one must ask oneself if there is a possible political problem here.

I’ve mentioned it in many of my other articles before, both here at Substack, and at Newsweek and Compact magazines, that Jerry Morin and Tony Olienick were both kept for long periods of solitary confinement while awaiting trial. You can read about that, and all of the other poor treatment they and the others received in remand while awaiting trial here -

The government likes to pull a funny linguistic trick in those few times they will deign to speak on this problem at all, and what they do is rebrand ‘solitary confinement’, which is a recognized form of torture by the United Nations (and just about everyone else in polite society) as “administrative segregation”, which, as in the cases of Khadr and Arar, might as well amount to saying “enhanced interrogation techniques” instead of “torture”.

Are the Coutts Four going to be cut checks for over $10 million a piece for what they have gone through at the hands of this government? They were not spirited away to Syria, or kept in Gitmo - their torture and absolutely disgusting treatment took place here in Canada at the hands of their own government, for charges that were FALSE.

We know that the final crumb and morsel of Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act hinges on these guys being guilty, that Rouleau’s POEC ruling hinges on these guys being guilty, and that for two solid years, the Trudeau Government waged a campaign of scapegoating and outgrouping against his own citizens that disagreed with his handling of Covid, which is what lead to the rise of the Freedom Convoy in the first place. With so much riding on the guilt of these men, maybe it is Federal Pressure, taking place behind closed doors and in ‘confidence’, that sees Crown Prosecutor Johnston seeking a clearly malicious retrial.

He might get it, he might it not, but the fact he requested one is telling.

We know that it is absolutely, 100% clear that these four men spent two years in prison, and that two of them remain there, 31 months later, over charges which have turned into vaporware, and that the heavily politicized Canadian judiciary denied them bail because of these charges, and, because these Justices are beholden to the party and the system which keeps them employed.


I am not a lawyer, and do not know or understand what is possible to do to remedy this situation. Civil suits, directives from a principled Attorney General, a Royal Commission? I don’t know, but something has to happen, because four men became political prisoners in a modern western nation state that prides itself on being anything but the torturers and criminals they have shown themselves to be.

I would advise all of my fellow Canadians to start asking questions, and start filing complaints, right now.


You can start with your local Member of Parliament, and you can find out who that is (if you don’t know) and how to contact them here -

https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en

File a complaint about Johnston here -

https://albertacrownattorneys.ca/Contact

and here -

https://www.alberta.ca/contact-the-alberta-crown-prosecution-service

Continue to demand answers about why Jerry Morin and Tony Olienick were kept in pre-trial solitary confinement, and why all of the men were denied necessary medical treatment and otherwise treated like shit -

https://www.ombudsman.ab.ca/patient-concerns-resolution-process/

Contact Alberta Corrections -

You ought to also contact our loathesome public broadcaster, the CBC, and demand to know why they smeared these men, and refuse to ask any questions of the government about what went on with this case. I contacted them, and they actually responded, so why not you?

Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsman
ombud@cbc.ca

————

This case has incurred significant legal costs to the men, at least another 100k since the trial got rolling in June, and god knows how much more will be incurred in launching appeals. They will be leaving remand in some pretty serious debt.

My GiveSendGo remains open and accepting of your generous donations; if you have already donated, thank you, and if you haven’t and can spare a couple of bucks -

https://www.givesendgo.com/trudeauspoliticalprisoners

————

As always, questions, comments, suggestions, corrections and Hate Mail, are welcomed and encouraged.

gordilocks@protonmail.com