An excellent examination, Roxanne, and you make a great point about how Labrenz tore a strip off Marilyn Burns for suggesting the case was political, but then used the perceived political motivations of the men as a factor in sentencing.
The man has no consistency, and was clearly caving to pressure.
I watched an interview Margaret McKay did on the podcast called Beyond the Pale. She mentioned that Labrenz had real problems with the defence accusing those undercover cops of being untruthful and untrustworthy in their testimonies. She said he just wouldn’t have it. So I guess, perhaps the sentence isn’t all that surprising afterall.
I am so disgusted by and furious at our justice system- there is nothing just about that sentence or the many others given to people who hurt children. It appears the judge desperately wants to destroy these men's lives. This is all so wrong!
Heart breaking...makes me cry. Seriously Heart wrenching. What has become of our judicial system and what is happening to these two boys, their families. All Cdns for the future. And the examples of those who got away with MURDER. Klaus is correct we need a reset but not the kind or for the people they want.
The "Crime Fraud" Secrets in the CONsealed envelop that are plastered all over Prosector Johnston are now deeply inscribed into Judge Labrenz's record as a politicized jurist.
Thanks for breaking it down, I was there and my main takeaway was that the judge “inferred” one hell of a lot using thought crimes by saying arms “could have” been used which is completely different to saying that arms WERE actually used!!! Could have if might have is hardly equivalent to DID.
Judge was also crystal clear that he was making an example of the men “to deter others” with his overtly overly harsh sentencing.
I did not find this a fair sentence… now they’re going to prison for what “ they COULD HAVE done, total BS.
You are correct on all fronts. I didn’t bring that into my piece, focusing more on the political aspects again of propping up Trudeau’s reason for invoking the Emergencies Act, because the not guilty on the conspiracy kind of blew that out of the water. But you are absolutely right, this also about being convicted for something someone thought you were thinking. And that goes right back to Trudeau’s on-line harms bill which is intended to do a lot more of this bullshit.
I recently watched a video from David Krayden’s new Stand on Guard YouTube podcast where a quite elderly gentleman a former liberal leader and insider commented honestly on what poor shape the liberal Party itself is in. Referring to the censorship bill as solely Trudeau’s bill saying liberal party was basically informed of the bill when everyone else was! Then he mentioned how a 10 yr old kid can decide to switch genders/ pronouns at school without the parents having to be told and that he couldn’t believe his eyes or his ears when he saw the Health Minister get up and say this HAS to become law or kids will DIE.
He lamented these two bills are both far left leaning Trudeau’s and not the liberal party’s save for Trudeau’s cabinet or caucus- sorry don’t know if there is a difference.
He said in the old days the liberal party had ways of pushing back hard if necessary against the prime minister but nowadays it’s a one man Trudeau show/ party which Trudeau has deliberately created and he said the liberals should have replaced him as leader before the Oct 2021 election! He also said too many liberals were happy to just go along to be a part of the Justin Trudeau liberal brand so stayed quiet and they were now paying for it as the liberal brand is all but destroyed now under Justin’s rule.
Those two bills may be Trudeau's, but the Liberal cabinet and caucus -- cabinet is the 'executive' the Ministers supposedly in charge of shit -- you National Defence, Health etc. Caucus is all the Liberal MPs. The cabinet has been one hundred percent behind Trudeau from the get go. And they know if they don't back him they will be gone -- ie Jodie Wilson Raybold, Jane Philpott, Bill Morneau, Mark Garneau... the list goes on. While are a few mavericks in the caucus, most fall into line.Why? Because most of them know that the only reason they are in Parliament is because of Trudeau. Those were the good old day when too many stupid Canadians kept voting this guy in. But the jig is up and complain as they will they did it to themselves. As for the former leader -- why is only speaking out now. For that matter what about Jean Chreitian, he can't like what Trudeau has done, Paul Martin, why aren't they saying something. Too late now as the guy said Trudeau and company have truly destroyed the Liberal brand.
Thank you Rosemary. It took me awhile to get that piece out because, of course, you cannot get a copy of the transcript of the judge's reason's for sentencing unless you are willing to pony up some $800. So, I had to rely mostly on people I have connected with through this story to provide most of the details as they were in the courtroom trying to take notes. Big surprise, they had more details on it than any of the media who were there. Media, who have ignored this story until now, where all there waiting for the sentencing with baited breath. And one CBC reporter had the nerve, and indecency to try and corner Tony Olienick's elderly mother for comment after hearing her only son will still be spending more time in prison. I have another piece coming up, again, asking more questions about the countless loose ends in this case.
$800 for the sentencing results? Another disgusting reality. These decisions should be in the public domain. After all, doesn't the public (i.e, taxpayers) pay for the justice system?
That is what almost everyone I have spoken to about it has said. Having actually worked as a court reporter, albeit some forty years ago, once the original transcript was typed, for the court, in the case of a judge’s reasons for judgement — which the Court, i.e. the taxpayer paid for, copies could be purchased for a fraction on the cost. And certainly copies — xeroxed were provided to the lawyers involved in the case at no cost. Given the technology available today to pump out transcripts the costs quoted are absolutely ridiculous.
An excellent examination, Roxanne, and you make a great point about how Labrenz tore a strip off Marilyn Burns for suggesting the case was political, but then used the perceived political motivations of the men as a factor in sentencing.
The man has no consistency, and was clearly caving to pressure.
I watched an interview Margaret McKay did on the podcast called Beyond the Pale. She mentioned that Labrenz had real problems with the defence accusing those undercover cops of being untruthful and untrustworthy in their testimonies. She said he just wouldn’t have it. So I guess, perhaps the sentence isn’t all that surprising afterall.
I am so disgusted by and furious at our justice system- there is nothing just about that sentence or the many others given to people who hurt children. It appears the judge desperately wants to destroy these men's lives. This is all so wrong!
Heart breaking...makes me cry. Seriously Heart wrenching. What has become of our judicial system and what is happening to these two boys, their families. All Cdns for the future. And the examples of those who got away with MURDER. Klaus is correct we need a reset but not the kind or for the people they want.
My big question is - what do they have on Labrenz?
His future law career.
The "Crime Fraud" Secrets in the CONsealed envelop that are plastered all over Prosector Johnston are now deeply inscribed into Judge Labrenz's record as a politicized jurist.
Thanks for breaking it down, I was there and my main takeaway was that the judge “inferred” one hell of a lot using thought crimes by saying arms “could have” been used which is completely different to saying that arms WERE actually used!!! Could have if might have is hardly equivalent to DID.
Judge was also crystal clear that he was making an example of the men “to deter others” with his overtly overly harsh sentencing.
I did not find this a fair sentence… now they’re going to prison for what “ they COULD HAVE done, total BS.
You are correct on all fronts. I didn’t bring that into my piece, focusing more on the political aspects again of propping up Trudeau’s reason for invoking the Emergencies Act, because the not guilty on the conspiracy kind of blew that out of the water. But you are absolutely right, this also about being convicted for something someone thought you were thinking. And that goes right back to Trudeau’s on-line harms bill which is intended to do a lot more of this bullshit.
I recently watched a video from David Krayden’s new Stand on Guard YouTube podcast where a quite elderly gentleman a former liberal leader and insider commented honestly on what poor shape the liberal Party itself is in. Referring to the censorship bill as solely Trudeau’s bill saying liberal party was basically informed of the bill when everyone else was! Then he mentioned how a 10 yr old kid can decide to switch genders/ pronouns at school without the parents having to be told and that he couldn’t believe his eyes or his ears when he saw the Health Minister get up and say this HAS to become law or kids will DIE.
He lamented these two bills are both far left leaning Trudeau’s and not the liberal party’s save for Trudeau’s cabinet or caucus- sorry don’t know if there is a difference.
He said in the old days the liberal party had ways of pushing back hard if necessary against the prime minister but nowadays it’s a one man Trudeau show/ party which Trudeau has deliberately created and he said the liberals should have replaced him as leader before the Oct 2021 election! He also said too many liberals were happy to just go along to be a part of the Justin Trudeau liberal brand so stayed quiet and they were now paying for it as the liberal brand is all but destroyed now under Justin’s rule.
Those two bills may be Trudeau's, but the Liberal cabinet and caucus -- cabinet is the 'executive' the Ministers supposedly in charge of shit -- you National Defence, Health etc. Caucus is all the Liberal MPs. The cabinet has been one hundred percent behind Trudeau from the get go. And they know if they don't back him they will be gone -- ie Jodie Wilson Raybold, Jane Philpott, Bill Morneau, Mark Garneau... the list goes on. While are a few mavericks in the caucus, most fall into line.Why? Because most of them know that the only reason they are in Parliament is because of Trudeau. Those were the good old day when too many stupid Canadians kept voting this guy in. But the jig is up and complain as they will they did it to themselves. As for the former leader -- why is only speaking out now. For that matter what about Jean Chreitian, he can't like what Trudeau has done, Paul Martin, why aren't they saying something. Too late now as the guy said Trudeau and company have truly destroyed the Liberal brand.
This decision with its misaligned sentencing and wonky wording is truly frightening to me. Congrats Roxanne on your compelling analysis!
Thank you Rosemary. It took me awhile to get that piece out because, of course, you cannot get a copy of the transcript of the judge's reason's for sentencing unless you are willing to pony up some $800. So, I had to rely mostly on people I have connected with through this story to provide most of the details as they were in the courtroom trying to take notes. Big surprise, they had more details on it than any of the media who were there. Media, who have ignored this story until now, where all there waiting for the sentencing with baited breath. And one CBC reporter had the nerve, and indecency to try and corner Tony Olienick's elderly mother for comment after hearing her only son will still be spending more time in prison. I have another piece coming up, again, asking more questions about the countless loose ends in this case.
$800 for the sentencing results? Another disgusting reality. These decisions should be in the public domain. After all, doesn't the public (i.e, taxpayers) pay for the justice system?
That is what almost everyone I have spoken to about it has said. Having actually worked as a court reporter, albeit some forty years ago, once the original transcript was typed, for the court, in the case of a judge’s reasons for judgement — which the Court, i.e. the taxpayer paid for, copies could be purchased for a fraction on the cost. And certainly copies — xeroxed were provided to the lawyers involved in the case at no cost. Given the technology available today to pump out transcripts the costs quoted are absolutely ridiculous.
Sorry, not only was that sentence misaligned, it was vicious. Just disgusting!