All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
01:07:20
Coutts 4 Conviction / Acquittal Update
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This looks like locals and rumble.
Okay, amazing.
Let's go to channel.
And I can see who I'm talking to in a second.
My channel here.
Coots for Conviction, acquittal update.
It looks like we're live.
I'm going to send this one around.
Alrighty. Let's do this.
Ladies and gentlemen, how's it going?
It's going great.
So I have both lawyers here, both from Alberta.
We've got Alberta well covered.
One from Edmonton, one from Calgary.
Catherine's been around for the entire trial basically since the bail stuff was done.
So Catherine, you can update us on that.
And then Marilyn came in January 2024.
It was divine for her, the path to the Lethbridge Courthouse.
And I believe she did a great job.
And now we are totally able to get into some of the questions, some of the stuff that was pub-manned is no longer pub-manned, and we don't have to be as careful.
We do have to be careful with the ITOs, the crime fraud envelope, any witness names that were protected, including the undercover operatives.
Other than that, we're good to go.
Let's also, I think you might want to give a recap for anybody who's presumed to not know what's going on, because not everybody on my channel will be as up-to-date.
Is my camera crooked here?
You look good.
Okay, that's a little bit too much of this.
It doesn't matter.
Okay, so, 30,000 foot overview for anybody who might not know the full details.
I mean, Jason, you've been talking about it every day for months.
Colloquially, the Coutts Four, I've talked about it a number of times, this is the four gentlemen who were accused of conspiracy to commit murder for this plot in Coutts, Alberta, used as the basis for invoking the Emergencies Act, used as the basis for ratifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Two of the four struck plea deals after two years in pretrial detention and remand, and then the other two went to trial on the conspiracy and other charges.
That's a sufficient overview.
Yeah, correct.
And Marilyn Burns is the attorney for Tony Olenek, and Catherine Biak is the attorney for Chris Carpert.
And both of them, of course, were at the trial when the verdict was read out August 2nd, and that was not guilty, conspiracy to commit murder of police officers, but guilty on weapons for a dangerous purpose, and guilty on mischief, and Tony Olenek also had a fourth.
And that was guilty for possession of explosives.
So we do have guilty plea or guilty verdicts, but we do have not guilty on the most serious one, conspiracy murder of a police officer.
Catherine, you mentioned that you were Tony's fourth lawyer?
That was Marilyn's.
Can you tell us?
I know something of what happened in terms of why there were so many lawyers, but why four lawyers or why were you the fourth?
I can't speak to the first two.
I know that Tony Rolston left the file in December of 2023.
And as I indicated just a few minutes ago with Jason, the owner of the company that I'm the executive director for asked me the last week of January to take a look at what was going on.
And I said, I'm not a criminal lawyer.
I'm a civil lawyer.
And that's not me.
But I contacted a lady named Margaret Granny Mackay, and she put me in touch with a lady named Daniel Slecky, who put me in touch with a couple of other ladies, who then put me in touch with Tony.
There had been a pretrial application to be heard the first Tuesday of February, and I just had this very strong sense within me that I had to take the file on, even though it was not logical.
And I phoned in the courtroom that day.
Justice LeBrenz, who's an excellent justice, was not happy with the phone-in, but he gave me two weeks, and he gave me a warning that the application would go forward in two weeks, ready or not, and the trial would happen, ready or not.
So it was basically every single step, I was begging God for help.
You know, I have to say Catherine should be a law school professor in many ways.
A lot of very hard work, sleepless nights, lots of coffee.
So, Tony Olienek, I guess we're going to get into a lot of this.
The convictions I'm very, very curious about, but the acquittal or the not guilty on conspiracy to commit murder.
Now that there's no publication, Ben, and we can discuss what many of us thought was the evidence or lack thereof of the conspiracy to commit murder.
Could you?
Could you flesh out what the evidence of the Crown was?
Before we get into the two years of pretrial remand and before we get into that violation of civil rights issue, what was the evidence that they had to charge and hold these men for conspiracy to commit murder?
That's a good question for Catherine, I believe.
Sure. Effectively, there was some undercover operators who had been deployed to the COOTS site that had some interactions primarily with Tony, but also in passing with Chris.
And then as a result of those conversations, the police got warrants for their phones.
And so I would say the bulk or the meat of the Crown's case was effectively...
The dumps from these guys' phones of text messages, Facebook posts, memes, and that type of thing.
Just in terms of, you know, group text saying, you know, talking about whether or not the government would respond to the coups blockade and if they did, how they would.
And, you know, if the police started violence, that, you know, there would be a violent response and that...
Given the history that the mandates have taken, that it could lead to war if things didn't change soon.
And really, I would say primarily that was the bulk of the Crown's case, was text messages amongst not only the four men that were charged, but uncharged, excuse me, unindicted alleged co-conspirators as well.
So that's what they got from the cell phones, which they...
Procured as a result of conversations, undercover conversations that the men had with undercover cops?
Yes. Is that the one that occurred with the two of them and a young female officer at a bar, unrecorded, no notes or anything?
Was that one of the conversations that led to the warrant to seize their phones?
Yes. Can we now discuss what I understood at the time, that it was the two guys with a young female, or was it two young female RCMP officers?
Two female RCMP officers.
I'm not trying to be crass or anything.
Young, attractive, like, was this a honeypot where these guys are having beers with two ladies who they think they're trying to impress type thing?
Well, and I'll let Marilyn address that.
Safe to say that, because the interaction with Chris was in passing.
The only point that I will clarify is that...
Though there was a smuggler's saloon was sort of the area and the point, from what I understand, the saloon aspect of it wasn't actually functional.
So, yeah, it wasn't quite sitting around having beers.
But I'll let Marilyn address that because her client had much more interaction than mine did.
And that's certainly the million-dollar question for Marilyn.
Two hearts or not two hearts?
That is the question.
Because that came up, right?
It certainly did.
In reality, there was evidence to this.
My client did not take the stand.
He would have possibly spoken more about this.
But he became quite attracted to one of the undercovers.
And certainly the evidence is that she encouraged it.
And he began to talk, I'm going to say, maybe like a southern Alberta guy would around a beautiful woman.
According to his information, she was doing the, oh, I'm so scared.
Things look really scary here.
The police are all scary.
And he was going into protective mode and was saying such things as, you know, stick with me and, you know, I'll take care of you.
You know, mentioning how the farmers are well-armed, that kind of thing.
And since there were no notes and it came out in trial that the cover, For the undercovers recorded only that these conversations had been with Tony, but somehow Carbert got, the comments became attributed in some way to Carbert as well, Chris Carbert as well.
But clearly, in my view, Tony was speaking from passion.
When he made many of those comments that form the foundation of this case.
And we did see evidence that Tony was very attentive to this young lady, would go pick her up, bring her in, was there when she needed something like searching for her keys.
So there's a lot of information and evidence put forward that he absolutely was smitten, I think would be the term at this stage.
Correct, Jason.
Smitten is the word.
She went into his vehicle alone with him when that was against protocol, that kind of stuff.
Yeah. And so, Matt, is this another stupid question?
In order for them to have an undercover interaction, do they not need some basis to do that?
Some legal basis concern?
I don't believe so.
Catherine might know more.
No, in Canada, it's fair game.
They can send them in to see what happens.
Yeah, and one detail I kind of just want to get straight in my head.
They didn't actually have access to the cell phones in depth until later, but the charges came February 14, 2022 for conspiracy to commit murder.
So at that stage, Catherine, how much information did they actually have?
Was it just the undercover operatives' statements that they were sharing with the cover manager at that stage and some intercepts?
But other than that, they didn't really have all the back history of text messages or anything like that at that stage.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
So what they did is as a result of the comments, there's a provision in the criminal code that allows the police in emergency situations to put up effectively a wiretap or to put up an intercept, which then intercepts conversations as well as text messages, Facebook posts, basically anything that goes through the phone without judicial authorization.
And so they had...
As a result of comments that were made and what the police believed to be a gun delivery transaction, put up the emergency intercept and began listening to conversations over the course of several days.
Yeah, and what we saw, Viva, in the trial was the gun, the saying was a gun exchange happened on February 10th until the closing, when all of a sudden it was February 11th in Milk River.
So, Catherine, were you surprised that the Crown changed their theory last minute in the closing of the Crown after all your evidence is in, after all your statements are done, and you don't have an opportunity to respond, that they changed it from February 10th to February 11th to Milk River.
Were you surprised about that?
I was very surprised by that, and that was also part of the reason why I had asked the judge to instruct the jury regarding that change and the fact that that particular allegation had not been put to Chris, even though he had taken the stand, and that they were making allegations in their closing that hadn't previously been made, and so we weren't in a position to answer them.
Ultimately, of course, the judge disagreed with my view on that.
Yeah, surprise is certainly a correct phrase.
Did we ever see in the trial the notes that the first undercover police lady took about her alleged meeting with Chris?
Well, I think it was Tony with Chris.
Well, I'm going to get mixed up between the names, but whoever it was that was interacting with the young female police officer, did we ever see her actual notes that she took after those meetings?
That's not how I love it.
Yes, in part, but it's not that the notes are actually entered in totality in the evidence.
We had to put questions to the undercover.
But both undercovers attested to the fact that Tony and Chris were there, but the undercover's notes indicated that the conversation was only with Tony.
So there was discrepancy there.
But what we're relying on in terms of getting the warrant to seize their phones, and then we'll get to what they found on their phones, was the type of discussion, ah, if the shit ever hits the fan, you know, we've got guns type thing?
Or was it, we're going to go and kill some officers because we've had enough?
Like, what was the tenor of what they even allegedly said to the officer?
I think the question is they.
Did they really say anything to the officer?
Or was it only Tony that did?
Yeah, so what did Tony even, as he alleged to have said, in terms of the, not the severity, but rather the plausibility of conspiracy to commit murder?
Well, I think the correct term to use here is sheepdog, which is something that Tony used a lot in his interview.
It was his position that he was there to protect men, women, and children if anybody, anybody, not specifically the police, but if anybody tried to harm.
So this could be Antifa, this could be counter-protesters, this could be a foreign force.
There was a lot of conversation about...
Being a sheepdog and protecting the people there if it came to that.
And this was only on Tony.
Chris had a very different path and there's very different things going on there.
But if you don't mind, I'll pass it to Marilyn about the sheepdog side of things.
Yes, and to be clear, there never has been evidence of a conspiracy to murder police officers.
And I came to that belief in about March.
Always believed these two men were on very different paths and never should have been in that prisoner box together.
But as far as Tony goes, he only had a shotgun and a.22 there.
But his view was to protect the people, particularly women and children.
And the question in his mind, what if these people got fired on?
But he never saw that as a present thing.
It was always in his future.
Charges came conspiracy to murder police officers?
Absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.
Somebody's active imagination, I'd suggest.
Well, that's part of what I'm trying to get at, not in terms of even the charges, but then justifying the two years of pretrial remand, is that I presume, I've never practiced criminal law, but I studied it like we all did in law school.
What was the basis based on the evidence to continue to lock them up and not give them some form of bail?
One would presume it has to be pretty concrete, tangible, and immediate evidence.
Well, I'm sure Catherine can expand on this, but the challenge here, Viva, is this particular charge is a reverse onus charge when it comes to bail, which means it's up to the accused to convince the justice that there's no danger to society, there's no danger to the police, and they'll be able to comply with their bail, which is a really high bar, as we saw during the bail hearings here, because Carbert is the one that had the major bail hearings recently in December 2023.
Catherine, I'm sure, can expand on that some more.
So, and I'll maybe back up.
A step in terms of what they were facing.
So the difficulty with the conspiracy is that once that conspiracy is alleged, it's not only the acts and statements of one person, whereas typically I say this, it's admissible against me.
If they're alleging a conspiracy...
With Marilyn and I being the primary actors, then all of a sudden I become liable for what Marilyn says, if they can prove that there was in fact a conspiracy.
So when we look at the actual evidence that they had, or what came out in court, is that there were statements allegedly made by Tony early on in terms of saying that he had access to firearms,
that he had access to, I think it was hundreds of guns, thousands of rounds of ammunition, At one point there was a gesture apparently made of him slitting his throat in reference to the police.
And so then ultimately, of course, they execute the search warrants.
They find weapons in the trailer where the men are staying.
They find a number of weapons in the modular home.
Which they attempted to attribute to Chris and Tony and the others.
And so I guess when we talk about bail, particularly as it relates to Chris, as Jason said, like it's a reverse onus when there are certain categories of offenses where the presumption is that they will stay in.
And so you have to prove that you will come to court.
That you will not re-offend if released.
But the third ground, and that's really what was at issue here, is the tertiary ground, which is whether or not the public confidence in the administration of justice would be offended by the release or detention.
And given the comments that had allegedly been made, the firearms that were physically found, the justice, I guess, had a real issue with Whether or not the public confidence would be shaken by the release of these individuals.
It's interesting.
And when the firearms, all the firearms were lawful firearms under Canadian firearms law, correct?
No. Legal to own, but not in the right spot.
Okay, so legal firearms, but they have to be kept in certain areas.
Is that because some of them were small arms or because there are certain laws that just apply to where you can bring a rifle?
Both. Okay, so the restricted firearms were the handguns, and then there was a prohibited firearm on the Ordering Council from Trudeau, which meant it has to stay in the property, can't be out in the public, kind of like the way it was.
Catherine, am I correct about that?
You have your pal as well?
Yes, well, and particularly with respect to the one firearm that was found under Chris's bed.
It had changed, of course, in status, so it was still covered by amnesty, such that had the firearm been at home, it wouldn't have been illegal.
Well, it was still illegal to possess it, but amnesty had been extended.
I think there was still another six months left to turn that into the police without charge.
It's amazing.
I presume the defense is that, you know, we own these firearms, but...
There are Antifa types.
I don't know if the Winnipeg guy driving over the protesters...
No, I don't know if that was before or after, but bottom line, dangerous types.
So their rationale might be, we have these firearms, we're going to keep them close to us just in case, and then it becomes criminalized to possess firearms outside of certain areas, which is the firearm laws of Canada.
Well, let me just address one thing.
It's not a they.
That would have been Tony's defense.
Chris Carbert's defense was very different, which was if the situation got worse, because he thought Coots was going to be one of the dominoes that led to eventually, all the way down to forced vaccination.
So in his mind, the future, way down the horizon, it could get there.
So his desire was to be...
Participating in the protest to stop the mandates before it goes to everybody, including himself.
So he never had an intention or even a plan in his mind that he would need to use anything in coots.
it was to pack up his trailer, go to the mountains.
And if he's chased there by the government with a couple of needles for his son and himself, then and only then would he be willing to protect himself.
So Chris didn't have any idea that coots would turn into a gunfight in any way, shape or form.
Whereas Tony certainly felt like he was a sheepdog.
So he was there to protect people if needed.
Catherine, did I get those details correct?
Yeah, and the only thing I would add is that Chris testified that...
And I don't know how familiar you are with some of the things we do in Southern Alberta, but coyote pelts are a thing.
And so that time of year, coyote pelts are quite lush.
There are bodies who will pay for them.
They had a lot of spare time.
So Chris testified that they went home to get the firearms and brought them back.
One was for the purpose of if he had the chance to sight it in, but the other was possessed for the purpose of, with the hope of coyote hunting.
So he had brought them to the protest with that stated purpose and that just didn't take them home.
So they ended up there sort of, accidentally is the wrong word, but they just happened to be there.
He didn't arm himself thinking of the protest.
Right. And the piece of evidence that came out of Chris's testimony around that is Chris owns several firearms, higher caliber, much more lethal weapons, not even weapons or firearms, that was safely stored in his safe, gun safe in Lethbridge, did not make its way to Cootes.
So he was not preparing in any way, shape or form to have a gunfight.
And he had his.223s, I believe they were, which were lower caliber for smaller animals.
So he certainly didn't bring his higher caliber firearms.
It's amazing.
There's a question in our community, which we undoubtedly would have gotten to regardless.
There was that big discussion about the envelope that the judge was talking about unsealing, had to be done very, very judiciously, where we were thinking there might have been some admissions of violations of civil rights.
Are you allowed now to discuss what was in that infamous envelope that was at the heart of much debate?
Well, no.
So that one's still under a publication.
Can you just give me an idea what was in it for goodness sake?
I don't want to get anybody in trouble.
What a load of crap.
Well, only one person on the screen knows what's in there.
The other three do not.
And it will be a long time, I think, before this comes out.
It'll have to come out through an application through the justice before we'll know any more details.
Because Catherine certainly will not release that information.
And I would say that Catherine has been very honourable and she has complied with that requirement.
I would say, however, that...
I've studied that area of the file, and there's a policy within the Crown Prosecutor's Office that needs to be changed.
And I believe it creates a conflict.
Literally, the two lead prosecutors in this file helped to create this file.
And they were involved in the building of the prosecution, and then they prosecuted.
To me, that's an absolute conflict.
I will echo that.
I've been saying that on my show for a year now.
The charging investigating prosecution team, which were there for the ITOs and other advice to the RCMP, should not be the trial prosecutors.
That should be a separation of functions, in my mind, because I think that's a huge conflict of interest.
Whether or not they did anything improper...
That's for another day, another form, but at least you would have the impression that there would be no chance for improper activities to make their way all the way to the trial if there was a separation between the two.
So I would second Marilyn's concern and comment there.
That should be a change in Alberta, actually across the board, that the investigating and charging prosecution team should not be the trial prosecution team, which is what we had in this case.
Okay, so two years in pretrial.
Refresh everybody's memory as to the two who struck a deal right before.
I put it in the private chat.
I'm very, very bad with names.
I remember concepts.
Who were the two that struck the deal, and what role did they play during this trial?
Well, I got both those answers.
So February 6th is when Chris Lysak took a deal.
His plea was possession of a restricted firearm in a proper location.
So a real small charge there that he admitted to, and he admitted to that from day one.
For Chris Lysak, some of his text messages and some of his photographs were attempted to be used, and very little, I think, would be entered as evidence for Chris Lysak in this trial.
The second gentleman was Jerry Morin.
Who took a plea for trafficking firearms for a dangerous purpose?
Conspiracy to, sorry, conspiracy to.
So it was the conspiracy aspect of it again.
It wasn't the actual act, it was the conspiracy of.
And his plea agreement, we can talk about now, was attempted to be brought in through Jacqueline Markton when she took the stand, which is his common-law spouse, in order to try to...
Rebuttal her or actually contradict her or impeach her on the stand.
It was unsuccessful, so the justice did not allow her to bring in that evidence via the Crown for Jerry.
But his charge, other than that, I don't think...
Oh, and a phone call.
There's an intercept with Jerry that did make his way into...
No, that's probably a fair summary.
In my local community here, someone says, RCMP sent in undercover push-up bra unit.
Why didn't the undercover wear a wire?
Was there any explanation as to why they weren't wearing a wire in the first place?
There was.
So you need judicial authorization to record.
Basically, the law has evolved in Canada that, you know, you take your chances by talking to someone that they're going to remember and be able to report those activities.
But in terms of recording conversations and particularly the police, you actually need authorization to do that.
And that was never sought in this case.
That's, I mean, I know you know that it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard because what they're basically saying is you need authorization to accurately record it, but you don't need authorization to have it and then memorialize it in a self-serving way later when you get back to your hotel.
Yep. Yep.
Yep. But lead prosecutor Stephen Johnson did expand a little bit.
He said at the time the decision was made not to get authorization, they wouldn't have had enough to get authorization, and they wouldn't have had targets at that time either.
So he did present this, this is without the jury, so a jury of vaudeer, that they wouldn't have had enough to get the authorization for wires of the undercover operatives.
We also learned during the trial that there was a male undercover operative, 1366 is what we refer to him as.
He was also there.
Not too far from the females.
So there was, which we found it later, there was at least three undercover operatives working.
One male, two females at the time of the saloon and other conversations.
That's so wild.
I mean, just I think everybody does appreciate that's not a bug.
That's a feature where you can design your own case because of how it's set up.
Whereas if you had the recording from the beginning and you listen to the recording, it's like nothing in here could warrant possibly a further investigation.
Now it's, I wrote down what I think I remember from the meeting and I think it serves as a basis now to go seize their phones.
If I may ask, I mean, presumably this was all adjuiced as evidence during the trial.
I think any text that said war, civil war, or this is war?
I think wasn't helpful.
But they were all future statements going to lead to.
And if it was from Chris Carbert's phone, that's what they all had the same feeling and narrative up.
In the future, if this keeps going down this road, this slippery slope, we may end there.
When it comes for Tony, I would say it was his choice of words, some of the rhetoric he used.
And very similar to...
When Trump was running in 2020 and you had that bus with Bush where he was making those comments about the locker room type of talk.
Very similar to that.
More braggadocious.
More trying to impress.
But nothing specific.
Nothing directed to the police themselves.
And it was always, in my opinion, in the response to if they did type of talk.
But nothing that they even raised, in my mind, to the level of...
A threat of murder, let alone conspiracy to commit murder.
Marilyn, you want to maybe address that one too?
I agree with you completely.
The absolute lack of evidence about conspiracy or murder was just very, very blatant.
Now, Tony, and to a lesser extent, Chris, within what is commonly known as AWAKE, And very aware of world events as they were happening in the pandemic period and very, very concerned.
Tony was what became what would be described as a prepper.
He wanted to live off the land.
He built a community of people.
They were learning to can, for example, how to use CB radios.
Tony was a gardener.
He'd sold off many of his assets to pay off his debts because he believed there was an economic crash coming.
And as Catherine indicated, Herbert had peripheral knowledge and relationship with Tony because of that.
But I've told the Crown this, and I think they found it annoying, but I do mean it.
About 30% of people in Alberta, I believe, think in this vein, that there is a global effort.
To at least exert some form of control over all nations in the world, and Tony accepted and believed that narrative.
I mean, I don't want to sound crazy, but who doesn't understand that that's actually the case at this point in time?
I don't use the...
So, basically, if one were to take the most damning text message, there's going to be civil war, there'll be blood in the streets, type thing like that.
It didn't even go that far.
The most damning thing was the undercover operative statements that they said they heard.
So there's no recording of that or anything of that.
Those, I think, are the most damning ones.
None of the intercepts and none of the text messages came close to what the undercover operative said.
What did she say she thought she heard?
Like, I'm going to put a bullet in somebody's head?
No, not even that.
No. I think the worst, I would be honest when I say it would be slitting their throats, would be the most damning conversation that they relayed.
But again, there's no evidence that he even said that.
That and the gun exchange.
So is it bombs?
No. Is it firearms?
Tilt, nod, wink, smirk, whatever it ended up being.
I think those are the two damning ones.
Especially that exchange is what gave David LeBrent to justice, at least in the pretrial.
The idea that there was something going on, some sort of conspiracy.
I think those are the two pieces that were the most damning.
And there was no evidence other than testimony of the undercover operatives for that one.
Wow. Well, and I'll maybe just jump in to explain one of...
The legal challenges of this case.
So the Crown's theory of murder in Canada, if you kill police in the execution of their duty, it's murder.
So the Crown's theory was that if the police tried to break up the protest, they would, and even if it required them to use force, that if somebody then shot back at the police or somebody killed the police in that vein, then it's murder by statutory construction.
So that's also where it was, you know, sort of one step removed in terms of saying, okay, well, if you're preparing to fight or resist the police, and that results in death, that's how you get to constructive murder.
Like, there was never an allegation by the Crown that these men were going to particularly attack the police.
It was more so that by virtue of the anticipated, unlawful resistance to police action.
Police could die and that's where the murder would come from.
It gets a little convoluted.
Correct. And this is one thing that this trial brought out that actually surprised me too.
In Canada, as opposed to the US, we have no self-defense against police officers who create violence.
We live under a monarchy.
King Charles III is our leader.
He and his agents can do whatsoever they wish against the people, and there is no law, no right of self-defense.
We have laws regarding self-defense against each other as citizens, but not against the Crown.
And that is why, for example, you can have RCMP pulling children out of the arms of First Nations mothers and sending them to residential schools.
Where they will be abused and may never be seen again by their parents or for a long time.
This concept of Canadians having no right of self-defense against the Crown really came to the forefront for me.
That's very different than the American laws, where you guys have a right of self-defense against a government that you think is...
It's turning on the people.
We don't have that here.
I've come to appreciate that is the basis of the Second Amendment.
It's not about hunting.
It's not only about self-defense against neighbors.
It's about defense against the tyrannical government.
It's how the militias defeated the most sophisticated army on earth at the time, the British.
Yeah, the well-armed militia.
And here's a question I still have, and maybe Catherine's digested this a bit more.
What is the dangerous purpose now that conspiracy to commit murder of police officers off the table?
What is the dangerous purpose do you think the jury found in order for a guilty on that particular charge?
Well, and just clarify that because I'm not sure that everybody on my end who's watching might understand that they were acquitted on, found not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, but found guilty of possession of a firearm for dangerous purposes.
Correct. Okay.
And I had the same question.
So how does that happen?
Catherine, you want to try and tackle that one again?
We tried a little bit on Friday, but...
Yeah, we've tried.
And I'm still having a bit of a challenge with that as it relates to Chris.
I mean, I can appreciate that the evidence as it relates to Tony and his statements, you know, to the effect of self-defense and the idea of, I guess, generally speaking, it's got to be that...
The idea of having guns at a peaceful protest is just not okay.
You know, creating that potential, I'm still not sure.
So one of the things that will happen as part of the sentencing process is that we will argue about what facts the jury must have found to be the case.
And that's going to be a very interesting argument because I'm still having a bit of an issue.
Wrapping my head around what those facts would have been as they relate to Chris.
Well, I mean, I've said this jokingly a number of times that in Canada you can't even have an innocuous item that you intend to use for self-defense purposes in public.
So if you bring a baseball bat in the trunk of your car, make sure to have a glove and a ball with it.
I mean, if it's true of a baseball bat, a hockey club, a hockey stick or a golf club, it's going to be even truer of carrying around a firearm in public where you're not supposed to be in possession of one.
I mean, it's almost going to be presumptively.
You have no reason to have it in the trunk of your car because you're not allowed using it for self-defense.
Now, one thing I just want to highlight here is this was in the town of Coots that they found the firearms.
It was near the protest, but not actually in the protest.
So the argument could be made that even being in the proximity of an act of protest could be what the jury's calling a dangerous purpose here.
That's a presumption.
We'll never truly know because the jury's secrecy is criminal offense here in Canada.
They can't talk about that.
They never give their reasons either.
So we just have a verdict and a decision.
We have to try and speculate on how they got there.
But Marilyn, this is a question actually that I think you were kind of anticipating.
Because when the justice asked everybody, could it be possible that the jury comes back with the not guilty on conspiracy, but guilty on dangerous purpose?
Catherine rightly said they were part and parcel, one and the same.
Crown felt the same way as well.
They would be surprised if it came back that way.
But you're the only one there that said, no, I can see how this comes back with not guilty, guilty.
Do you want to kind of maybe expand on that?
And what do you think the dangerous purpose was?
Well, I think you have to couple that with for the public peace.
So dangerous for the public peace.
And I think that's where I was going.
Having been raised in the country and living in the city, there are two very different mentalities.
We, in the city, simply don't have a.22 at our front door or under the back seat of our truck, and that's the case.
I mean, all those guys have.22s and shotguns in the back of their trucks, and it's not illegal, actually, to have them in the camper trailer either.
But I have spoken at many of these freedom protests, and I've...
I've spoken at many events in life and attended many, many events.
I would say that it's uncomfortable to think that there would be weapons at a protest, particularly in an urban setting.
So that's where I was coming from.
I think that the mentality divide between urban and rural when it comes to firearms.
That's where I'm going.
As you said, Jason, we'll never know.
We can never know what the jury was thinking.
But I can see that.
Now, from the police side, from the government side, I can see why they were worried about resistance if they're coming in with violence, because only five days later, February 19th, 2022, that's exactly what they did in Ottawa.
We can also presume that the government had their plans to come in heavy-handed, as we saw executed on the 19th, and maybe they were planning the same thing in coots.
And when they had the idea that anybody could resist with, you know, firearms, that's what got them all worked up, and they came in quickly on that one.
And I'm not trying to give them too much credit here, but we do know that it takes time to plan those events.
And on the 19th, they were ready to go in Ottawa.
And Viva, as you know, the 14th, when...
Two of the men were arrested.
The other were arrested on the 13th.
But on the 14th, the invocation of the EEA happened.
So this all seemed to be part and parcel because they used that picture that we saw everywhere that was not entered as evidence in front of this jury, that photograph.
But the media jury used it.
The infamous photo of the RCMP laying out the guns and the military vest was not admitted as evidence.
Correct. Was all of the...
I say was.
All of the...
Entities or the objects in that photograph, were those admitted as evidence?
Was anything in that photograph individually not admitted as evidence?
It's a split of both.
So some was a missile, some was not.
So the vests were physical evidence that were brought in.
We got to see those.
Were they ballistic vests or were they fly fishing vests?
Two of them were plated and one of them was not plated.
But only one of them is attributed to the gentleman here.
The other ones are attributed to other people or people not in this trial.
So there's only one vest that's attributed to these two men and two firearms each attributed to them from that table.
The rest are other people.
And before I Google it, maybe either of the lawyers know, plated vests in Canada, are those regulated?
In Alberta, they are.
You need to have a permit.
Can you understand what type of country Canada has become?
You can't even own something to protect you against the firearms that are illegally possessed by criminals because...
Yeah, Alberta, they want you squishy.
Squishy, unarmed, defenseless, and unable to resist government abuse.
It's an amazing thing when you think about it.
Make sure that nobody has the means to defend themselves against government abuse.
Yeah, they expect you to...
They expect you to do exactly what the people in Ottawa did.
Take it.
Just take it.
Okay, so possession of firearms, it was dangerous purposes or unlawful purposes?
Dangerous. To the public, which is what Marilyn added there, which is very correct.
Dangerous to the public.
To the public peace.
Public peace, yeah.
That's even broader and more opaque.
And what about the explosive stuff for dangerous purposes to public peace?
I don't know if it's dangerous purpose or just possession, but go ahead, Marilyn.
Possession without a permit, what it comes down to.
So in about 2010, Tony was a miner and an excavator, and he ran heavy equipment.
And he got into a business arrangement to excavate sandstone in the Pincher Creek area.
For example, our Legislative Assembly uses that sandstone from that quarry, as well as many other buildings down south.
And he was...
You know, a miner of that rock quarry, and every once in a while, drill bits would get stuck.
And so he came up with this idea.
Actually, his father did.
His father was a mortar man in the military.
He'd been a peacekeeper in Cyprus, for example.
And they took ordinary plumbing pipe, six inches long, one inch in diameter, filled it with gunpowder, capped it with a plumbing pipe cap.
Sealed it with silicone, put a little fuse in it, and then at the site would drill a one and a half inch hole, drop the little fire crack in, light the fuse and run.
And that would loosen the rock enough to get the drill bit out.
Now, that operation stopped in about 2012, I believe, because the owner had heart attacks, I believe it was.
There were two little firecrackers left that Tony had actually not realized had been left at his father's plumbing shop, which was in the back of his father's house.
When his father passed, I believe it was about 2017, it was Tony's job to take all of the stuff from that plumbing shop and store them in its own place.
His father's belongings were Put in little wooden boxes that I believe he had made.
And so way up on a shelf that you had to use a ladder for to get to, there were a number of items that Tony had put up there.
The RCMP literally had to climb up there on a ladder and found that little box.
That's the pipe bombs.
And there was no evidence presented that Tony was aware that they were there, that he made them, or had any possession of it, other than being found in his residence.
Correct. And the jury asked a very good question.
What happens if you had something and then you forgot you had it?
And Justice LeBrens basically said, you had to have knowledge at some point.
You had to have control.
Certainly, he had it.
It was on his property.
Certainly had never crossed his mind they were even there.
They were part of his father's property.
But what do you do with that?
It's so innocuous.
It's even less than using a bomb to blast a beaver dam.
Correct. And just to add to this, Marilyn, there was no evidence that in any coded or otherwise type of messages where explosives or go boom or big bang or anything like that was even uttered, not from the undercover operatives or otherwise.
So the entire time, bombs was off the table.
In fact, that was one of the questions the undercover operatives had.
Is it a bomb?
And both men said no.
So there was no intent at any point, for any reason, sheepdog or otherwise, to have these firecrackers in coos.
They were 200 kilometers away when found on the 19th by the search team of the RCMP.
Yes. So he has to be sentenced for that.
And nobody got a permit for those.
The owner of the excavation venture didn't.
He and his father didn't.
So, not having a permit, what, 14 years ago?
Yeah, and to expect, even the quarry owners didn't say Tony lit a fuse, or Tony provided, or Tony created.
It was always through the contract with Tony, which included his father and other workers.
So, I am at a loss at how, other than because it was scary looking, I'm at a loss at how the jury got there for possession, because that was established.
It was at his property.
They must have assumed he must have known about it at some point.
Well, from their question, I guess you can extrapolate that, because their question was, if he forgot, is it still guilty?
It wasn't even proven that he knew what was in those boxes when he stored them.
As far as I understand, the consensus is that whatever sentence they get for these charges will be within time served.
I presume not necessarily?
No, I don't think so.
I think that's still a live question on whether or not it's going to be time served for both men.
But Tony does have that extra explosive charge, so he's certainly going to be sentenced to a longer stay than Chris will be.
I wouldn't agree with that.
I wouldn't agree with that based on the research, I think.
They're certainly very diverse, and given these facts, I don't think that's a significant one at all.
Okay. The mischief also, there's a fellow named Jason Vander Lee, who recently was convicted of mischief, and if I'm not mistaken, I haven't spoken to his lawyer yet, he received a sentence of 45 days, but it served in the community, so he didn't work anywhere he wants.
He just has to be home at night for curfew plus one year probation.
So... What would he...
What would they get...
What would they be credited for the time in remand, the two years in remand?
Is that one and a half?
Two times?
Do we know?
Yeah, Catherine's ready for that one, yeah.
Sorry, one and a half.
So that would amount to three years served.
How much did they actually serve in remand?
It was over two years, right?
Currently, it's 908 days or so right now.
And there's also two times for any solitary time as well.
So they're going to have some of that calculation to do.
I believe Tony spent about over 90 days in solitary.
So that'll be 180 right there, plus the rest.
There's going to be some math to do.
Now, Catherine, how are you feeling after your research?
Are you prepared for the sentencing?
And what do you think might be the recommendation?
I'm still of the view that Chris is either at or beyond time served.
I mean, when you work out the math, which I haven't done yet, but they'll be just shy of four years, which is a significant chunk of time.
So, given his very limited role, and the fact that we have to keep in mind, too, as it relates to Chris, that the only reason...
Really, he ended up here is because the police executed a search warrant on his trailer.
He was never the target.
Ultimately, the search warrant was found to have been improperly issued, but the judge let the evidence in anyway.
So he's got a lot working in his favour, setting aside him as a person, but in terms of the system itself and what happened to him as a result of this, I still have the view that time served is more than enough.
I would agree for Tony.
The other thing about Tony, I'm not sure he's even had a speeding ticket in his life.
So, certainly a first-time offender of anything and a very stalwart person in the community.
I think Chris is also.
Marilyn, did you say early on that this was your first criminal trial ever in your career?
Yes. Well, that is what we call baptism by fire, people, as far as I understand the term.
It's actually wild.
I mean, it's wild.
Not memorable, but what is going to be one of the moments that sticks with you for the rest of your life from this trial or experience?
Really honestly, meeting Catherine.
Scarred you for life?
I just have the greatest of respect for her.
She has a way of...
Using humor in very stressful situations.
One of the things we were faced with is it seemed that once the Crown was past its main case, it must not have felt confident because it kept piling on.
And we'd walk into court and there's a new witness.
And at one point Catherine said to the Crown, when do we get to stop playing whack-a-mole?
And I think it's a great question for Catherine, because she's been through quite a few criminal trials.
What was different about this one?
Because I heard the term a few times, nothing's normal here.
Things are very different with this trial.
Things were very different in terms of the strategy that went into it from the Crown perspective, the resources, as well as the collateral distractions that were going on.
That in itself was...
It was interesting with the number of supporters and how much time we spent dealing with, you know, publication bans, who's allowed in the courtroom, who got, you know, over the course of the trial, a number of people were banned from the proceedings for violating publication bans or, you know, every day there was an order read out about being disruptive and being removed from the courtroom.
Like it was just, and I think, like I mentioned the other day, the very fact that they used effectively a motorcade to bring them to court the first day was just...
Mind-blowing.
I'm not entirely sure.
Yeah, it was just a whole different experience.
I had a question.
Hold on.
Oh, about appeals.
Who gets to appeal?
Can the Crown appeal if they're unhappy with the conviction?
And are you guys planning on appealing because you might be still unhappy with the conviction?
Well, that would only depend on the sentence right now for me.
I suspect Or put it this way, I wouldn't be surprised that the Crown is employing the best legal minds in Canada to try to figure out how to appeal this.
The bottom line, though, is the evidence simply doesn't support a finding of conspiracy to murder police officers.
So it's going to be appealed 10 times.
I wouldn't change my view on that.
And do they run the risk of an appeal where the weapons for a dangerous purpose could be overturned as well, if this is looked at in an appeal?
Marilyn or Catherine on that one?
I mean, they do because the...
I guess there's a couple different ways to get there.
One would be whether or not the judge gave the appropriate instruction to the jury regarding the considerations to be made.
And I mean, there was a lot of back and forth on the charge in terms of what the jury was going to be told by the judge.
But also whether or not the facts are there to support the conviction.
Just in terms of being able to say, okay, this is what...
The jury must have found and whether or not that's actually supported by the evidence.
Sorry, go ahead.
I was just going to say, so once we get through that fact-finding argument process in advance of sentencing, that picture might be a little bit clearer.
No, I have two more questions for Catherine, if you don't mind.
Directing the jury to find Chris guilty on mischief.
This was a surprise to some people that that is a thing.
And that did make its way to the judge's charges.
So he also directed the jury to find Chris guilty on mischief.
What were your thoughts around that?
And did it work?
Do you think the reason why he did would work?
Because ultimately they found Tony guilty as well.
And I know that it was Chris's testimony in...
When he took the stand, which ultimately led to the evidence being before the jury for that one.
But did that achieve what you were hoping it would achieve?
I mean, I like to think it did.
I mean, Chris basically took responsibility for what he did, and it was consistent with what his purposes were there, which is that he wanted that protest aspect to continue and was supportive of that, which in law is mischief, right?
To have the highway closed and to take...
And the border closed and take an active role in ensuring it could stay closed is mischief.
And so it was twofold, I guess.
One, for him to step up and take responsibility for what he did, but also two, why waste time on things that don't matter?
Yeah, it looked like an attempt to show Chris's credibility.
He took ownership of it, and he was very open, especially on the cross.
By Stephen Johnston when Chris was on the stand.
Marilyn, I'll come to you in just one sec.
And I know that we're over time for everybody, so thank you for sticking around here.
Catherine, August 12th was a date that came out during the evening of the 2nd as a potential date for the next hearing.
I understand that that's going to be a different date now due to LeBren's schedule.
Do you have any inkling on when we might be back in there to hear bail or sentencing?
Sorry, work-life balance is interfering.
So the August 12th, in criminal court, you have to have a date certain so that you don't lose jurisdiction over the charges.
And so August 12th was set with the hope that we could do something that day.
It has since come out that Justice LeBrens isn't available, so we can't proceed with anything that day.
We're looking, although the dates haven't been confirmed, Justice LeBrens did say it has to be finished by the end of this month.
And it's looking like we're going to have a significant chunk of time in that last week of August.
But we're still trying to confirm that.
But it has to be done before the end of the month.
Okay, great.
And Marilyn, on your side, same question.
Are you ready?
I know you've done some research, but there's also the Arthur Polosky trial, which was, I think, 50 days was his sentence as well, related to mischief at Coot, so that might assist.
I think the one that you highlighted there was the shed, live from the shed, gentlemen, so Jason in Ottawa.
So your research right now, when it comes to mischief and weapons for your dangerous purpose, what are you thinking for the sentencing or some of the arguments there?
First of all, this is a first offense for Tony.
We have to consider that.
He did not take a leadership role in the mischief.
His view when it came to the mischief was he'd waited two and a half years for a trial, let the jury do their job.
And they did.
So that is what it is.
But I don't see a long sentence for Tony.
If there was regarding Bringing weapons to a protest in your own home.
Certainly non-restricted firearms.
I don't see that as a serious, serious offense at all.
That's where I'm going at this point.
And that makes a lot of sense.
And just to be clear, Viva, the only evidence for Tony for mischief was an agreed statement of fact that his truck, a dump truck, was in half of one lane and half on the shoulder.
That's it.
There's no other evidence.
The mischief is just a bullshit, vague charge that's being exploited to weaponize any form of disagreement.
The question on my end on locals is, and I think the answer is yes, but it's limited.
The crowd's ability to appeal an acquittal, they have to justify their pursuit of doing that?
It's not something that can happen as of right?
So their ability to appeal is somewhat restricted, and it's narrower, I guess, for lack of a better way to put it.
So they do have...
As of right is probably the wrong term.
So they can file an appeal whenever they want to.
But their circumstances under which an appeal will be granted when it's a Crown appeal are much narrower than it is when it's an accused that's appealing.
Okay. Well, it's amazing.
It's very depressing.
It's like in the chat on Rumble, people are saying, yeah, the RCMP works for the federal government, not for the people.
I mean, it really looks like the RCMP are agents of the government trying to go and find crimes, find criminals, fabricate them so they can justify the federal government implementing what it wanted to implement from day one.
I don't think there's another way of seeing this for anybody who understands the facts even remotely.
And I'll make a commitment, Viva, this is not over.
So the accountability stage is about to start.
We're going to take a closer look at this stuff.
There may be transcripts ordered as we go through these trials.
And I say trials plural because the Marco Alex George trial as well plays a role.
There was a lot of witnesses that were in both of those, but their testimonies were not the same.
And it definitely looks like if you expand a bit outside of Alberta and you look at Ottawa and Windsor as well, that on February 10th.
Seems to be the magic day out of somewhere where the RCMP were asked, ordered, or encouraged to go find firearms in these locations.
Finding firearms in southern Alberta?
Wouldn't be a hard thing to do.
In fact, the Crown made a statement that these are the only people who brought firearms to a peaceful protest.
That had to be corrected by the justice to remind the jury that that's not proven.
Whether or not anybody else had firearms is unknown.
And finding firearms in southern Alberta isn't difficult if you're trying to find them.
Before we lose the better part of the crowd, because Dan Bongino is starting now, how can people help if they want to donate, if they want to support, what can they do?
There's a couple of gifts and goes that will help cover the legal fees.
So we'll provide those in the description.
There's one right there for Chris Carbert on the screen right now.
And those are the ones where you can help directly to these gentlemen.
Marilyn, is there another one?
Yes. You can contact Margaret Granny Mackay and she will take care of donations for Tony.
For Tony.
And then for Chris, Catherine, it's still through his family and the link we just shared there.
Yes. Yeah.
Yeah. And even though he's on legal aid, he still has expenses and he's going to have to pay back legal aid.
Is that correct?
Yes. So legal aid effectively operates as a loan.
Motherfucker. That's wonderful.
Do they lose their firearm licenses as a result of the conviction?
Currently, if the weapons for dangerous purpose stand, that would be a lifelong loss of their PAL, I believe.
Is that correct, Marilyn?
Well, Catherine knows better.
She's got a PAL, and she's a gun lady, and I'm only learning all about this stuff.
My research so far indicates a 10-year ban, potentially, but that's not what the judges typically order.
And certainly, every case I've found so far is associated with another crime such as theft, violence, murder, whatever.
I cannot find anything so far that relates to that offense without something being attached.
And, you know, people are getting as minimal as three years for a ban.
So I'm not convinced that there's going to be a long firearms ban for Tony at all.
Well, currently, Chris Lysak has a maximum of 10 years on his restriction, and Jerry Morin has a minimum of 10 years on his.
So it will matter which charge you pled to or are found guilty of.
And Catherine, can you expand on this a bit for Chris?
It's within the jurisdiction of the judge to decide what, if any, weapons ban should be imposed.
Weapons or firearms because they're separate types of bands under the code.
So it'll all fall to the discretion of the judge.
I'm hoping for none, but we'll see.
Fair enough.
Amazing. And there's going to be a lot more coming out in the future here at Viva.
With the publication ban lifted, there's a lot of stuff that happened, like the warrant at Joanne Persons Place was deemed improper, illegal.
The wiretap was running too long.
It's an intimate harm for 72 hours.
So there's a decision there by LeBrens to lower it to 24 hours.
There's a lot more information to come out.
Over the next little bit.
Well, at least we got the overview of the acquittals and convictions because you get your talking head saying, ah, the news isn't doing its job.
They didn't talk about the convictions for these bogus possession of firearms for dangerous public purposes and the explosives.
Everybody knew why he even had that in the first place.
It's rubbish.
It was used as the basis to invoke and ratify the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and it's as transparent as Grandma's Underpants, to quote Bart Simpson.
I hope everybody knows that episode of The Simpsons.
Nope, fair enough.
Damn it!
Okay, well, it's from The Simpsons.
It was Bart Simpson saying, she'll see through me like Grandma's Underpants, and I...
Okay, I've said too much.
Now, I do want to respect your time, Viva.
You did say you had a hard stop soon.
And Marilyn and Catherine, they've got some work to do, I'm sure.
But if there's any last questions or comments that anybody wants to mention, that'd be a great time.
Marilyn? Or actually, Viva, do you have any more questions for Marilyn or Catherine?
I think I've got it.
I mean, at least I've got my understanding now, and I presume everybody else who had the same questions now understands the bogusness, but also the good news.
There was never any conspiracy to commit murder, but they were held in two-plus years of remand on that basis.
Bullcrap. Absolutely.
Marilyn, any comments you want to leave the public with?
I'd like to thank you for the time and the ability to really flesh this out, because most media is really quick and soundbites, and this has been really beneficial, I think, for the public.
Absolutely. And thank you for your time on this, Marilyn.
It's a pleasure and an honour to have you come on and answer some of these questions with us.
Catherine, any comments from you for the public?
No, just want to continue to thank everyone on behalf of Chris for their support and everyone for continuing to discuss this.
And yeah, that's about it.
Well, there's a lot of support, as you saw.
And this was one of the things you mentioned when we had our interview before was the public support was abnormal.
It was very high.
It's very strong and very consistent.
And you're going to see why.
It's because the public love these men.
They know what's up.
Viva sees it.
And there's going to be additional support to get these legal bills covered and this legal aid to go away.
Because these men should come out and get back to their lives as quick as they can.
All right.
So I'm going to move over to the members area.
Any and all of you are welcome, because there's a few more questions from the members I'd love to get to.
Viva, I know you have a very busy morning, so I appreciate your time.
I might be able to disclose what I'm doing later on in the afternoon.
I just need to make sure that it's not totally off-limits, so stay tuned, everybody.
I will check out.
It's great to see you.
How do I do this?
Okay, so I'm going to leave studio.
Everybody out there, enjoy the day, and peace out, peeps.
Nice to meet both of you, by the way.
Nice to meet you, Marco.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
And Marilyn Catherine, I passed him your contact information.
He may be reaching out to do some one-on-one and some additional interviews with you.
I hope you don't mind.
Thank you.
Of course not.
Thank you.
So both of you can just hang on for a second.
We're going to jump over to the members area and we'll steal maybe five or ten more minutes as we have a couple more questions, if you don't mind.
There you are, Public.
We got it straight from both lawyers, and Viva has some amazing questions.
The American public didn't know about this much, but thanks to Viva and others, it's getting out there.
And for Marilyn and Catherine to provide their time today to get the record straight so we get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth, this is exactly why we do this show.
So God bless both of you.
And Marilyn, I do believe there is a hand of God on you to direct you down this path.
It was very divine that you came in at the right time with the right words and the right demeanor.
I appreciate that a lot.
All right, Public, if you want to join us in a members area, you can go to theleveneshow.com to get yourself started.
Click on Become a Member.
Remember, it's pay what you can afford.
It's all about getting the truth, not about getting the money.
You can send an email to members at theleveneshow.com and Paula will send you the PDF to get you going.
And once you're ready to go, you can call 587-673-9955 and get yourself in there.
And if you have any questions, concerns, or problems with the process, you can email or call Paula.
All right, public, have yourself a great day.
Take care of each other.
Take care of your family.
Shake the hand of a neighbor or a stranger.
Why do I remind you to do this?
because I love you all very much, and God bless.
Warning! Member videos may contain confidential information about ongoing legal proceedings.
or publication, Unauthorized broadcasting of the contents of these videos outside of the members'area is strictly prohibited.
Violations could result in charges under the Criminal Code of Canada, including but not limited to sections related to publication bans.
This content is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.
▲
Export Selection