Quirky Questions About the Coutts Protest and Trials

Why raids only at Coutts? What of the nine others charged in the 'plot'? What's with all the weepy cops?

As the trial of what now has become known as the Coutts Two drags on through the doldrums of summer, as prepossessed Crown Attorney Stephen Johnston doggedly prosecutes and persecutes Tony Olienick and Christ Carbert for their right to protest the government, questions about the Coutts protest still linger. Unfortunately answers to such questions are not readily forthcoming.

Why were protesters at Coutts border crossing that occurred during the Freedom Convoy in 2022, targeted with RCMP raids, major arrests, jail and court cases, while other border protests occurring at the same time were not? This includes the cross border protests that occurred in Emerson, Manitoba, at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario, and at the Pacific Highway in British Columbia, 

The Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, was a far more important border crossing, in terms of the economic impact it had on Canada, compared to the tiny town of Coutts stuck in the middle of the windswept prairies. Criminal charges were laid against quite a number of protesters at the Ambassador Bridge, yet most have since either been withdrawn or quietly settled through alternative means. A number of protesters charged with mischief resolved their cases by agreeing to make cash donations to a local charity. Charges were also withdrawn against the ‘alleged’ leader of the Ambassador Bridge protest William Laframbois. The Emerson protest was resolved without injury, incident or arrests according to the Manitoba RCMP.  There has been little, if any media coverage of what occurred at the BC border protest. And we have just recently learned, according to a recently obtained via FOIPOP request, the RCMP at Coutts were profiling protesters as early as February 2, 2022, based on the fact that they had Possession and Acquisition Licences (PAL) indicating that they owned a firearm – a legally obtained and licenced firearm. What was that all about?

As well, in Coutts, George Janzen, Marco Van Huigenbos, and Alex Van Herk were specifically identified as ‘leaders’ of that protest and charged with mischief over $5,000. All three have since been found guilty of that charge and are awaiting their sentencing which could mean jail time. Then, of course, there is the ongoing saga of the Coutts Four – Jerry Morin, Chris Lysak, Chris Carbert, and Tony Olienick – arrested on the very serious charges of conspiracy to murder police on evidence that appears to be questionable at best. Other charges against the men included mischief over $5000, and possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes. Lysak and Morin were finally released after spending two years in remand custody. All the charges initially laid against them were dropped by the Johnston, the Crown prosecutor. Instead both men plead guilty to minor gun charges that never would have amounted to two years in jail; which has left a serious black mark on Canada’s justice system. At the very least the Crown’s dropping of the serious ‘conspiracy to kill cops’ charge, certainly weakened its case against the other two men.

Meanwhile, Carbert and Olienick remain in custody and are currently on trial in Lethbridge, Alberta on that charge of conspiring to kill police. The trial is likely to go on for a couple of months as the Crown attempts to prove a case that is based on very weak evidence. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but does this treatment of the Coutts protests have anything to do with Trudeau’s pathological hatred of Alberta? Does it also stem from the fact that one of the people considered to be a ‘leader’ of the Freedom Convoy, Tamara Lich, also hails from the province? But as I said at the outset of this piece, these are just questions, to which I do not have answers. I am just asking questions that seasoned reporters should be asking instead of me.

There were a total of thirteen people charged as a result of that dragnet of raids carried out by the RCMP in Coutts on February 13-14, 2022. What happened to the nine other people who were charged, along with Carbert, Olienick, Lysak and Morin? According to what the RCMP told the media they were also part of this ‘organized, dangerous and armed group’, at least according to the headlines in this Globe and Mail report and dozens of other media reports.

The raids and charges were the result of what was reported as an ‘imminent threat’ based on information three undercover female officers who had infiltrated the protest provided to their superior officers. These are the nine other individuals who were charged with mischief over $5000 and possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes: Jaclyne Martin 39, (Jerry Morin’s wife), Ursula Allred 22, Luke Berk 62, Evan Colenutt 23, Johnson Law 39, Justin Martin (no relation to Jaclyne Martin), Easton Oler 22, Janx Zaremba 18 and Joanne Person 62.  

All of these are indictable offences, carrying sentences of up to ten years in prison. The RCMP spokespeople who gave media briefings after the arrests, made it clear that they believed these nine people were ‘associated’ with this larger group to which the Coutts Four were apparently attached, and were also part a ‘plot’ to overthrow the government. Yet, we have heard very little about this so-called ‘association’ and the ‘plot’ since then. There has been no mention of any of these individuals at the ongoing trial of the remaining two men Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick, yet it was implied at the time of their arrests, that they were associated with these men. It was further implied that they owned some of the guns* that were seized as a result of that raid, displayed in that now ‘infamous’ photo released by the RCMP the day after the arrests.

*Guns that were seized and displayed in this photo were legally registered and owned.

At the time of the arrests of these nine ‘associates’, the mainstream media, including the Trudeau government’s state broadcaster, CBC made every effort to portray all of them as hardened criminals with headlines such as “previous criminal convictions, a willingness to die for the cause… CBC has learned new details about some of the men and women arrested in connection with the Coutts, Alta., border blockades. Yet of those nine charged, only two had some type of record involving a conviction for assault and another had infractions for hunting during off season, so they were hardly a bunch of criminals with serious arrest records, as the media tried to imply at the time.

Four of the nine charged have since had the charges dropped or withdrawn

Since their arrests we have heard very little about their court cases from the media. Only the local news outlets — the Medicine Hat and Lethbridge News — have reported on their cases. In July of 2022 these papers reported that the Crown prosecutor, Stephen Johnston, had stayed the charges of mischief and possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes against two of the nine that were arrested – Luke Burke and Johnson Law.  A few months later, in December of 2022, they further reported that the Crown, again, Johnston, had also stayed these same changes against another ‘member’ of this group, Janx Zaremba. A ‘stay’ means the Crown chose to suspend legal proceedings against these individuals, but could recommence the case within a year should evidence warrant it. Suffice it to say that it has been well more than a year since the charges against these individuals were stayed, so it would appear ‘no evidence’ arose that warranted the Crown ‘recommencing’ any further prosecution of them.

Joanne Person

In January of 2023, the CBC reported that the Crown, again, Johnston, withdrew the charges of mischief and possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes against Joanne Person, a 62 year old school teacher and grandmother that had been arrested with the other eight individuals. Johnston did not provide any reason for dropping the case against Person. So four of the nine individuals charged in this so-called plot to overthrow the government, have essentially had charges against them dropped due to lack of evidence. Sounds like the Crown’s evidence against them isn’t as solid as it, or the RCMP, for that matter, thought, which leads one to wonder what type of evidence they have against the other five, if any. 

As for those other five, Justin Martin, Evan Colenut, Ursula Allred, Jaclyne Martin and Easton Doler Lethbridge and Medicine Hat News reported in November of 2022, that these individuals were scheduled to stand trial in July of 2023. Since then I can find no reports anywhere as to whether the trials took place or whether they were postponed or rescheduled. 

However, in a podcast ‘The Voice of GO(r)D that aired in November of 2023, one of the accused, Jaclyne Martin (the common-law wife of Jerry Morin), told the host, Gord Magill, who has been reporting on the Coutts Four for the past two years, that her court date had been rescheduled for June of 2024.

Enemies of The State with Jaclyne Martin

This change in date came about when Martin discovered that she was going to be tried with the four other individuals as a co-accused. As she did not know any of them she asked her lawyer make an application to the court to have her case severed from her other ‘co-accused’. Martin was not required to appear in court when these ‘arrangements’ for her trial were made, which is why she was initially unaware of the circumstances of her trial. As well, her lawyer had somehow, in Martin’s absence, managed to overlook her initial instructions on the matter — that being to to ensure that she was to be tried by herself and that she would be tried by a jury. 

She told Magill that the Crown, again the one and, it would seem, the only, Stephen Johnston, had not only wanted to have her tried with the other co-accused, but also implied she was not entitled to a jury trial, which was not the case. Martin’s lawyer was successful in the application he finally made to severe her case and elect a jury trial. Now Martin is due to be tried alone, before a jury of her peers, but not until March of 2025! That is over three years from the date that she was charged in February of 2022.

Again, the question one has to ask is what has happened to the concept of a speedy trial in our justice system? Even the original trial dates, first scheduled for June of 2023 and then June of 2024, should not be viewed as ‘speedy’. In situations such as Martin’s and perhaps for the other four accused, the Jordan principle may be applied. Based on a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 2016, the Jordan principle established times within which trials must be heard either 18 months* or 30 months* after the charges were laid against an individual, unless there is something unusual to justify it. If the trial does not take place within these time frames the proceedings must be stayed. Martin was charged on February 14, 2022, and March 2025 is now her trial date, some 36 months since she was charged, so she would be fully within her rights to make a Jordan application. 

*18 months for a provincial trial, and *30 months for superior court trial

So, to summarize this matter, four of the nine people charged in this ‘investigation’ by the RCMP have had their charges dropped, for all intents and purposes. A fifth has had her trial delayed to the point that she now may make an application to have her charges dismissed under the Jordan rule, because Canada’s justice system has failed to meet its obligation in giving her a speedy trial. And the other four may also be able to make the same application if they have not yet gone to trial or have their charges dealt with to date. And one would think that, if the Crown prosecutor had a solid case against these people, they all would have had their cases dealt with at this point, two and a half years since the charges were laid.

What’s with all the crying and weeping theatrics by RCMP officers at the Coutts trials? We have seen three examples of this odd behaviour, which most people would find somewhat unbecoming from seasoned veterans of the RCMP given the circumstances they were recounting.

The first incident occurred during the trial of protest attendee, James Sowery. He was charged with assault with a weapon and dangerous driving after it was alleged he attempted to run down an RCMP officer at a check point during the Coutts protest. In January 2024, he was found guilty of those charges and sentenced to ten months in jail – a conviction and sentence that he is appealing. According to Sowery, the incident occurred when he pulled out onto the highway in his truck, after filling out his log book. At that point he saw RCMP Const. Cory Kornicki, who was manning a checkpoint, get out of his police cruiser and wave at him. Sowery thought he was waving him through the checkpoint and drove on. However, at Sowery’s trial Const. Kornicki emotionally testified that Sowery “swerved the vehicle towards me.” Another RCMP officer told the court that Kornicki was tearing up and visibly shaking after the incident. According to Kornicki he “was shocked and reduced to tears.” 

In his victim impact statement, read to the court, Kornicki said he was unable to control his emotions in front of other officers and members of the public at the site. “It is truly difficult to communicate the depth that this trauma has reached after the events of that day. I am extremely thankful that I escaped physical harm, but the mental and emotional scars from that incident remain.” Now one would think that many RCMP officers, in their line of duty, will have encounters where they feel physically threatened or find themselves in dangerous situations, but are still able to maintain their composure and not break down into tears. One would think that is an important aspect of police work.

Is that not what police are trained to do – remain calm and composed in dangerous situations? But according to this cop, the trauma from this incident is so great that he still carries the emotional and physical scars some two years later. If such a questionable incident wherein a truck apparently hits a traffic pylon near him elicits such a traumatic and dramatic reaction, one hopes he never encounters a situation where he is shot at or someone comes at him with a knife or another type of weapon. It causes one to wonder if this was just theatre for the jury who did ultimately convict Sowery.

The second incident occurred during the trial of the Coutts Three. It was during the testimony of RCMP Superintendent Gordon Corbett, a senior officer and 27 year veteran of the Force. Corbett served as the Critical Incident Commander for the RCMP operations during the Coutts protest, meaning it was his job to provide leadership and direction to the operation. Corbett became emotional and actually started weeping when he was recalling what he described as a fearful moment involving a female RCMP member who was posted at a traffic checkpoint. She apparently reported to Corbett over the radio she was feeling threatened and intimidated by a large tractor with an attached blade (a snow plow?) that was driving towards her, and she feared it was coming too close. Corbett was brought to tears as he recounted her fearful communications about the situation over the police radio. Was her life in danger? Was this snow plow vehicle coming right at her? It gives one pause to wonder what about this situation was so frightening — a snow plow passing by a police checkpoint in the middle of winter

Many who were in the courtroom to witness this display by Corbett found it insincere and disingenuous. As a senior commissioned RCMP officer, with nearly thirty years of policing experience under his belt, surely he’d encountered more serious incidents over the course of his career that might bring a tough cop to tears. Things like a horrific car accident with no survivors, a murdered child, an abused child, or a badly beaten woman. As well, Incident Commanders undergo rigorous training to enable them maintain their composure during critical incident and emergency response operations. They must keep their wits about them in order to make appropriate and measured decisions to ensure the response operation is efficiently and safely handled, particularly if the situation heats up, so to speak

So one would think a police officer of a senior rank with that type of training would have better control of his emotions while giving testimony in a courtroom. This is what led many who witnessed his testimony to find it contrived and theatrical. Not to mention, what did this have to do with the guilt or innocence of the three men on trial? None of them were driving or directing the snow plow driver.

The third occasion of cops weeping on the witness stand occurred during the ongoing trial of the Coutts Two. It was during the testimony of the first of three female undercover officers (UCO) who had infiltrated the protest and reported the ‘imminent threat’ that led to the arrests of the 13 individuals during the RCMP raids in Coutts. All three of the UCOs gave their testimony in a separate courtroom where the media and public were not allowed in order to protect their identities as UCOs. During the testimony of the first UCO she began to tear up, which was audible to the media and public hearing only the audio of her testimony in a separate courtroom. It was when she was describing a conversation she claimed she had with the defendant Tony Olienick when he was discussing how he was prepared to ‘slit the throats of RCMP’ if a confrontation between the police and the protesters should occur. It was at that time that she lost her composure and began to weep.

One would think that a cop that is a 20 year veteran of the force and has spent 17 years as a UCO, with 37 different undercover deployments to her credit, would have encountered far more serious situations that would cause such emotions to rise. Yet it is apparently someone, as she claimed, which is only a claim, because she wasn’t wearing a wire to record this conversation, that was talking about a hypothetical scenario in which police might be killed.

One should also be reminded that this same UCO, who broke down in tears, also testified that emotional control was a skill set she possessed as an undercover investigator. And as one observer listening to the testimony noted, another skill set of UCOs is acting. They must play roles and display appropriate emotions every time they work an undercover operation, leaving one to wonder if this testimony with the tears, was yet another role played for the jury.

So those are three ‘quirky’ questions that, as I say, don’t really have any clear answers. They just seem form a very strange element and aura around the whole Coutt protest and the police operation around it. And there is one final question, that everyone should be asking the Crown Stephen Johnston. That is — why has it taken coming up on three years to bring these cases to trial? One would think that any Crown Attorney, if they had solid evidence in such high profile cases, would have been quicker to bring the cases to trial and get convictions. But only Johnston can answer that question.