As I understand it, Justice Labrenz's words to the jury before their deliberations included "Please keep an open mind, for my own understanding of this case has done a 180° turn since the beginning of the trial." The seemingly sober, measured instructions to the jury that included this comment, have morphed into a viewpoint that looks set to agree with the Crown's recommendation of 9 years for both men. I understand the shooting of 4 police officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, in March 2005, had an impact on the psyche of the province. But, when those found guilty for actually murdering four RCMP officers back then get 7 years, and two men in Coutts were found not guilty by a Lethbridge jury of conspiring to commit murder are plausibly going to see longer sentences, it's hard to understand (understatement).
It seems pretty clear that someone got to Judge Labrenz, someone with an interest in maintaining the campaign that the federal government upgraded on 14 February of 2022. The aim of that campaign was and is to criminalize and treat as terrorists a representative group in the Freedom Convoy Truckers movement. Bernie Farber is prominent among those driving the smear and disinformation campaign pointed at the Truckers and their supporters. Farber is a very influential lobbyist, Canadian media darling, and probably a mentor to Justin Trudeau. Farber has a big voice in Trudeau's political heartland, Toronto.
It seems that Judge Labrenz has been won over not only to Steven Johnston's unrelenting campaign but also the the Canadian Anti-Hate Networks ridiculous narrative about Diagolon which most of the MSM uncritically swallowed. In another era when we had a country with a credible federal government and judiciary, the treatment of the Coutts 4 and the Truckers movement more generally would already be the subject of some sort of Royal Commission. A decent NDP would have sided with a genuine outpouring by working people of their well-founded grievances.
But we now live in a different country than the one Justin Trudeau inherited in 2015. The invocation of a Royal Commission or something like it is not too likely to occur given the stark prejudices of Trudeau's bought-and-paid-for media, but especially failed public broadcaster, the CBC. Global News is a powerful platform spewing most of Bernie Farber extreme and ill-founded positions.
With regard to Johhson's response. You might want to ask her why, when the CBC reporters covering the Tamara Lich trial they do interview the defence lawyers. Or at the very least record interviews being conducted by other reporters at the trial. I have never seen them interview a defence lawyer and that is primarily because, unlike the defence lawyers, they are never seen outside the courthouse, at lunch hour or after the trial, to make themselves available for interviews. Just an observation on my part.
You might want to consider rephrasing this item more carefully. I imagine you have a substantial argument to offer. Please share it with us in a more accessible fashion.
I'm have no problem with the message. But I found the prose hard to understand. I was sometimes left confused by the way you explained the relation between defence lawyers, CBC reporters, and other reporters at the trial. Then came the last sentence with, "unlike the defence lawyers, they are never seen outside the courthouse, at lunch hour or after the trial, to make themselves available for interviews." it was unclear to me who the "they" were. Maybe it was impertinent of me to intervene in this way.
I have been writing quite a bit about the trial for a couple of years now. Sometimes stuff happens that is hard to explain. A focus for me is the sealed envelope matter which is hard to explain. I've been reading your stuff and learned from it. I am attempting constructive criticism. Thanks for responding to my comment.
It would seem you might be confused. I wasn't writing about the Coutts trial, as I mentioned I was writing about the Lich/Barber trial in Ottawa which I have been attending on and off since it began in September of last year. I was simply commenting on the CBC response to Gord Magill's criticisms of how they have covered the Coutts trial, which is where she said that they do not seek to interview prosecution or defence lawyers during the course of a trial in order to maintain 'fairness'. My point was, that at the Lich-Barber trial CBC reporters have regularly interviewed the defence lawyers, and/or asked questions when taping a group of reporters interviewing the defence lawyers for Lich and Barber when they are departing the courthouse during breaks i.e. lunch, or at the end of the day. So this seems to be at odds with what Ms. Johnson was saying in terms of how CBC covers court cases. I simply noted that they don't interview the prosecutors because they do not make themselves available, as I have never seen either of the Crown's team step outside the courthouse during any of the breaks. I hope this clears things up. As for the Coutts trial, I have never been to the trial, but have only followed the story from media reports, talking to Magill and a few others who have actually been at the trial.
I'm glad you are staying on top of this AT. You write about "the very concerning rhetoric of Justice Labrenz." It goes much beyond that I'm afraid. As I understand it, Judge Labrenz was making a verdict on August 27. He has yet to hand down the sentence based on his verdict that Tony and Chris are guilty of many things and that the Undercover Officers are pretty much beyond reproach.
On August 27 Judge Labrenz handed down what is now the Crown's most authoritative interpretation of "the facts." I have seen a point form account of Judge Labrenz's statement of the facts. I could not be in court to hear his verdict because, as you know, Judge Labrenz has banned me from the full trial proceedings based on an accusation by the Crown prosectors. I was given no opportunity by Judge Labrenz to answer my accusers.
Essentially Judge Labrenz's account of "the facts" presents Tony and Chris as terrorists. His "facts" conveniently fulfil the federal government's political objective since Feb. 14, 2022. His "facts" have essentially pre-empted the "not guilty verdict" of the jury. How does that work? What is the case law on such a weird judicial manoeuvre?
I started to become uneasy with Judge Labrenz's handling of the case ever since Steven Johnston was invited back into the proceeding after suspicions had been raised by Tonii Roulston, then Tony's lawyer, about the Crown Prosecutor's alleged role in a sequence of "crime frauds." Before being banished by Judge Labrenz, I used the term "crime fraud" quite often in the hallway of the court, sometimes in the presence of Steven Johnston himself. As a refugee from the live proceeding in the Lethbridge Court House, I am still using the term here in this free speech bastion of Substack.
Why was Ms. Roulston so insistent in placing such great weight on the seriousness of the sequence of alleged "crime frauds" she attributed to Mr. Johnston. To this day Mr. Johnston remains innocent until proven guilty while the Coutts 4 were put in jail from day one. Their case exemplifies the application to Canada of the legal regime of the Global War on Terror. The Coutts 2 still remain in jail due to Prosector Johnston's original case against them that they were so dangerous they should be denied bail.
The Crown prosector, who delivered the same verdict on all of the Coutts 4, subsequently determined that the two of the four were not guilty of participating in the alleged conspiracy to kill cops. Then the Crown came to the conclusion that only two of the 4 had conspired in this way. What is wrong with this picture? Does Judge Labrenz's verdict in his version of "the facts" overturn the NOT GUILTY verdict of the jury?
As I understand it, nothing has been done to this day to explain those accusations delivered into the court proceedings during the sealed envelop fiasco which continues yet. Judge Labrenz is still sitting on top of the sealed envelop. Does he know what's inside of it? What negotiations may have led up to his non-disclosure order?
Was Steven Johnson really the "lawyer" for the RCMP at Coutts? Isn't it a major conflict-of-interest for the RCMP's lawyer to become Chief Prosecutor of the Coutts4/2? Isn't Mr. Johnston to this day essentially defending the judgment calls he made at Coutts as the RCMP's lawyer? Is the law of solicitor-client privilege appropriate in this relationship between the Crown's prosecutors and the Crown's Royal police? Were the RCMP acting at Coutts as clients of their lawyer, Steven Johnston?
What confidence should the public have in a court proceeding when the primary evidence on the crime fraud fiasco is being withheld by Judge Labrenz's order.
It is legitimate to ask who is directing Mr. Johnston on this matter and who might be directing Judge Labrentz? There may be a well coordinated plan underway to fend off a possible accusation to expose and resist a Crown Conspiracy to Commit Malicious Prosecution.
That sounds terrible and so utterly corrupt and unjust and vile. I guess the government never runs out of tax payer dollars to prosecute innocent victims.
These two men were part of a freedom convoy movement to help free Canadians from the GOVERNMENT AND PHARMA tyranny with their obscene COVID mandates.
Most Canadians don't care that these men are being railroaded to a nine year jail sentence ... for protesting a bad government policy in a supposed FREE country?
Canadian courts have been weaponized against any opposition to JT and his clapping-seal Libs.
Vote for the Conservatives in the next election and let the libs know we aren't tolerating them.
Just watched all 3 of the podcasts you included with the links, I just have to say you warm my heart for still giving a damn about Canada and our Coutts men, it was unexpected and so much appreciated!
All of the information you provided re what is going on in the trucking industry was completely unknown to me and a total surprise and not in a good way! As you were talking my mind went immediately to the 2018 Humboldt Broncos horrific bus crash with the semi truck pulling out right in front of them, I even said possibly like Humboldt not knowing any
details about the driver whatsoever and then you said like the Humboldt crash..
All I remember is that the press spoke about the government possibly removing his Canadian citizenship and deporting him which was so controversial at the time it caused a lot of mixed reactions.
Bad enough the young driver has to live with all of the innocent young lives he took but to learn he was so under qualified for driving a big semi truck in the first place makes it feel even worse for him probably. Oh God I wouldn’t want to be him and have that on my conscience for the whole rest of my life even with a jail sentence…
Think I will also copy and paste your twitter/X friend’s article and send to Danielle Smith and Mickey Amery..
Have you heard of Northern Perspective on Youtube, they are teaching Canadians how our parliamentary system works and many Canadians are now writing letters or emails to government mp’s regularly making them very much aware of the fact that Canadians are now watching them very closely and letting them know what we think of all the corruption and new ethics scandals almost weekly squandering 60 million on the arrive scam app and almost 1/2 Billion on The Green Slush Fund and another 9 million for a condo in Manhattan for JT’s buddy and it just goes on and on with absolutely zero accountability from JT and his government and bureaucrats.
The Conservatives have an almost 20 point lead in the polls and I want to believe getting Trudeau out will make a difference but it feels like all western countries are turning into Commie countries following the globalists plans to get rid of most of us and turn the remainder into part human part bots controlled by AI.
Hopefully enough people wake the f up before it’s too late and we can thwart their plans for their “great reset.”🙏
Doesn't sound good for these guys. The system is going to crush them. Not based on evidence but perception; feelings over facts. Canadian "media" meet Canadian "justice."
The CBC. Seriously. Will someone pull the plug on this bloated gaslighting regime outfit?
As I understand it, Justice Labrenz's words to the jury before their deliberations included "Please keep an open mind, for my own understanding of this case has done a 180° turn since the beginning of the trial." The seemingly sober, measured instructions to the jury that included this comment, have morphed into a viewpoint that looks set to agree with the Crown's recommendation of 9 years for both men. I understand the shooting of 4 police officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, in March 2005, had an impact on the psyche of the province. But, when those found guilty for actually murdering four RCMP officers back then get 7 years, and two men in Coutts were found not guilty by a Lethbridge jury of conspiring to commit murder are plausibly going to see longer sentences, it's hard to understand (understatement).
I was there for those jury instruction.
The Labrenz from Tuesday does not square with the Labrenz I saw myself.
Exactly. Someone got to him.
It seems pretty clear that someone got to Judge Labrenz, someone with an interest in maintaining the campaign that the federal government upgraded on 14 February of 2022. The aim of that campaign was and is to criminalize and treat as terrorists a representative group in the Freedom Convoy Truckers movement. Bernie Farber is prominent among those driving the smear and disinformation campaign pointed at the Truckers and their supporters. Farber is a very influential lobbyist, Canadian media darling, and probably a mentor to Justin Trudeau. Farber has a big voice in Trudeau's political heartland, Toronto.
It seems that Judge Labrenz has been won over not only to Steven Johnston's unrelenting campaign but also the the Canadian Anti-Hate Networks ridiculous narrative about Diagolon which most of the MSM uncritically swallowed. In another era when we had a country with a credible federal government and judiciary, the treatment of the Coutts 4 and the Truckers movement more generally would already be the subject of some sort of Royal Commission. A decent NDP would have sided with a genuine outpouring by working people of their well-founded grievances.
But we now live in a different country than the one Justin Trudeau inherited in 2015. The invocation of a Royal Commission or something like it is not too likely to occur given the stark prejudices of Trudeau's bought-and-paid-for media, but especially failed public broadcaster, the CBC. Global News is a powerful platform spewing most of Bernie Farber extreme and ill-founded positions.
We're in communist Canada, complete with Soviet-style show trials.
Thanks for the ongoing coverage, Gord.
Prayers for Tony and Chris, and their friends and families.
With regard to Johhson's response. You might want to ask her why, when the CBC reporters covering the Tamara Lich trial they do interview the defence lawyers. Or at the very least record interviews being conducted by other reporters at the trial. I have never seen them interview a defence lawyer and that is primarily because, unlike the defence lawyers, they are never seen outside the courthouse, at lunch hour or after the trial, to make themselves available for interviews. Just an observation on my part.
CBC Calgary ‘Director Of Journalism’ Tracy Johnson - tracy.johnson@cbc.ca
CBC GM Brodie Fenlon - brodie.fenlon@cbc.ca
CBC Ombudsman Jack Nagler - ombud@cbc.ca
What's the email to send complaints to the appropriate authorities about the entire Coutts 4/2 proceedings like the one I wrote above?
As far as the CBC goes, that’s them.
You know what I forgot to do - put her email address in there so y’all could express these kinds of concerns yourselves. Stand by.
Thank you, good idea. Not that it really ruffles their government armored feathers any... yes, into the sun.
You might want to consider rephrasing this item more carefully. I imagine you have a substantial argument to offer. Please share it with us in a more accessible fashion.
i am not quite sure what you mean by that comment
I'm have no problem with the message. But I found the prose hard to understand. I was sometimes left confused by the way you explained the relation between defence lawyers, CBC reporters, and other reporters at the trial. Then came the last sentence with, "unlike the defence lawyers, they are never seen outside the courthouse, at lunch hour or after the trial, to make themselves available for interviews." it was unclear to me who the "they" were. Maybe it was impertinent of me to intervene in this way.
I have been writing quite a bit about the trial for a couple of years now. Sometimes stuff happens that is hard to explain. A focus for me is the sealed envelope matter which is hard to explain. I've been reading your stuff and learned from it. I am attempting constructive criticism. Thanks for responding to my comment.
It would seem you might be confused. I wasn't writing about the Coutts trial, as I mentioned I was writing about the Lich/Barber trial in Ottawa which I have been attending on and off since it began in September of last year. I was simply commenting on the CBC response to Gord Magill's criticisms of how they have covered the Coutts trial, which is where she said that they do not seek to interview prosecution or defence lawyers during the course of a trial in order to maintain 'fairness'. My point was, that at the Lich-Barber trial CBC reporters have regularly interviewed the defence lawyers, and/or asked questions when taping a group of reporters interviewing the defence lawyers for Lich and Barber when they are departing the courthouse during breaks i.e. lunch, or at the end of the day. So this seems to be at odds with what Ms. Johnson was saying in terms of how CBC covers court cases. I simply noted that they don't interview the prosecutors because they do not make themselves available, as I have never seen either of the Crown's team step outside the courthouse during any of the breaks. I hope this clears things up. As for the Coutts trial, I have never been to the trial, but have only followed the story from media reports, talking to Magill and a few others who have actually been at the trial.
Judge Labrenz's Verdict on "The Facts"
by Anthony James Hall, 30 August, 2024
I'm glad you are staying on top of this AT. You write about "the very concerning rhetoric of Justice Labrenz." It goes much beyond that I'm afraid. As I understand it, Judge Labrenz was making a verdict on August 27. He has yet to hand down the sentence based on his verdict that Tony and Chris are guilty of many things and that the Undercover Officers are pretty much beyond reproach.
On August 27 Judge Labrenz handed down what is now the Crown's most authoritative interpretation of "the facts." I have seen a point form account of Judge Labrenz's statement of the facts. I could not be in court to hear his verdict because, as you know, Judge Labrenz has banned me from the full trial proceedings based on an accusation by the Crown prosectors. I was given no opportunity by Judge Labrenz to answer my accusers.
Essentially Judge Labrenz's account of "the facts" presents Tony and Chris as terrorists. His "facts" conveniently fulfil the federal government's political objective since Feb. 14, 2022. His "facts" have essentially pre-empted the "not guilty verdict" of the jury. How does that work? What is the case law on such a weird judicial manoeuvre?
I started to become uneasy with Judge Labrenz's handling of the case ever since Steven Johnston was invited back into the proceeding after suspicions had been raised by Tonii Roulston, then Tony's lawyer, about the Crown Prosecutor's alleged role in a sequence of "crime frauds." Before being banished by Judge Labrenz, I used the term "crime fraud" quite often in the hallway of the court, sometimes in the presence of Steven Johnston himself. As a refugee from the live proceeding in the Lethbridge Court House, I am still using the term here in this free speech bastion of Substack.
Why was Ms. Roulston so insistent in placing such great weight on the seriousness of the sequence of alleged "crime frauds" she attributed to Mr. Johnston. To this day Mr. Johnston remains innocent until proven guilty while the Coutts 4 were put in jail from day one. Their case exemplifies the application to Canada of the legal regime of the Global War on Terror. The Coutts 2 still remain in jail due to Prosector Johnston's original case against them that they were so dangerous they should be denied bail.
The Crown prosector, who delivered the same verdict on all of the Coutts 4, subsequently determined that the two of the four were not guilty of participating in the alleged conspiracy to kill cops. Then the Crown came to the conclusion that only two of the 4 had conspired in this way. What is wrong with this picture? Does Judge Labrenz's verdict in his version of "the facts" overturn the NOT GUILTY verdict of the jury?
As I understand it, nothing has been done to this day to explain those accusations delivered into the court proceedings during the sealed envelop fiasco which continues yet. Judge Labrenz is still sitting on top of the sealed envelop. Does he know what's inside of it? What negotiations may have led up to his non-disclosure order?
Was Steven Johnson really the "lawyer" for the RCMP at Coutts? Isn't it a major conflict-of-interest for the RCMP's lawyer to become Chief Prosecutor of the Coutts4/2? Isn't Mr. Johnston to this day essentially defending the judgment calls he made at Coutts as the RCMP's lawyer? Is the law of solicitor-client privilege appropriate in this relationship between the Crown's prosecutors and the Crown's Royal police? Were the RCMP acting at Coutts as clients of their lawyer, Steven Johnston?
What confidence should the public have in a court proceeding when the primary evidence on the crime fraud fiasco is being withheld by Judge Labrenz's order.
It is legitimate to ask who is directing Mr. Johnston on this matter and who might be directing Judge Labrentz? There may be a well coordinated plan underway to fend off a possible accusation to expose and resist a Crown Conspiracy to Commit Malicious Prosecution.
That sounds terrible and so utterly corrupt and unjust and vile. I guess the government never runs out of tax payer dollars to prosecute innocent victims.
Glad to see you are covering this part of the saga Ray McGiness. Let's talk about things. Email me at raprockprof2@gmail.com
These two men were part of a freedom convoy movement to help free Canadians from the GOVERNMENT AND PHARMA tyranny with their obscene COVID mandates.
Most Canadians don't care that these men are being railroaded to a nine year jail sentence ... for protesting a bad government policy in a supposed FREE country?
Canadian courts have been weaponized against any opposition to JT and his clapping-seal Libs.
Vote for the Conservatives in the next election and let the libs know we aren't tolerating them.
The Conservatives are also controlled by the Anti Hate Network where all of this evil is coming from.
😭
Just watched all 3 of the podcasts you included with the links, I just have to say you warm my heart for still giving a damn about Canada and our Coutts men, it was unexpected and so much appreciated!
All of the information you provided re what is going on in the trucking industry was completely unknown to me and a total surprise and not in a good way! As you were talking my mind went immediately to the 2018 Humboldt Broncos horrific bus crash with the semi truck pulling out right in front of them, I even said possibly like Humboldt not knowing any
details about the driver whatsoever and then you said like the Humboldt crash..
All I remember is that the press spoke about the government possibly removing his Canadian citizenship and deporting him which was so controversial at the time it caused a lot of mixed reactions.
Bad enough the young driver has to live with all of the innocent young lives he took but to learn he was so under qualified for driving a big semi truck in the first place makes it feel even worse for him probably. Oh God I wouldn’t want to be him and have that on my conscience for the whole rest of my life even with a jail sentence…
Think I will also copy and paste your twitter/X friend’s article and send to Danielle Smith and Mickey Amery..
Have you heard of Northern Perspective on Youtube, they are teaching Canadians how our parliamentary system works and many Canadians are now writing letters or emails to government mp’s regularly making them very much aware of the fact that Canadians are now watching them very closely and letting them know what we think of all the corruption and new ethics scandals almost weekly squandering 60 million on the arrive scam app and almost 1/2 Billion on The Green Slush Fund and another 9 million for a condo in Manhattan for JT’s buddy and it just goes on and on with absolutely zero accountability from JT and his government and bureaucrats.
The Conservatives have an almost 20 point lead in the polls and I want to believe getting Trudeau out will make a difference but it feels like all western countries are turning into Commie countries following the globalists plans to get rid of most of us and turn the remainder into part human part bots controlled by AI.
Hopefully enough people wake the f up before it’s too late and we can thwart their plans for their “great reset.”🙏
Doesn't sound good for these guys. The system is going to crush them. Not based on evidence but perception; feelings over facts. Canadian "media" meet Canadian "justice."
The CBC. Seriously. Will someone pull the plug on this bloated gaslighting regime outfit?
CBC 22 Minutes Satirizes the Truckers Movement "emboldened bigots"
CBC... a force for Disunity in Canada
https://thecanadianindependent.substack.com/p/watch-the-latest-episode-of-cbcs?utm_source=podcast-email&publication_id=1088813&post_id=148312636&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_content=watch_now_button&r=jn12i&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Canada is a colony of Pavlovian midwits.
And proud of it.