The publication ban in the trial of Chris Carbert and Anthony Olienick that prohibited reporting on proceedings that took place in the absence of the jury has expired, given the trial’s conclusion. It expired when the jurors retired and were sequestered to begin deliberating their verdicts for the charges against the two men.

Carbert and Olienick were found not guilty of the most severe charge against them: conspiracy to murder. The Crown alleged that the two men conspired to murder police officers during their time at the 2022 Coutts protest and blockade.

(UPDATE:    2024-08-16 COUTTS: Crown is appealing the ACQUITTAL by Jury decision, of conspiracy to murder a police officer; men remain in remand. Western Standard.)

Both were found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose given that both brought guns to Coutts from their homes, with Carbert living in Lethbridge and Olienick’s home being in Claresholm.

The two men were also convicted of mischief over $5,000 for their involvement in the blockade which intermittently obstructed cross-border vehicle traffic at the Coutts-Sweet Grass crossing linking Alberta and Montana.

Olienick was additionally found guilty of unlawful possession of an explosive device.

During pretrial proceedings, prior to the jury’s empanelment, the Crown sought to qualify Barbara Perry — a social science professor from Ontario Tech University in Oshawa, Ont. — as an expert witness to testify in the trial.

Perry’s professional profile describes her as a “global hate crime expert.” She is the director of Ontario Tech University’s Centre for Hate, Bias, and Extremism. The prosecution intended to have her provide expert testimony as evidence of Carbert’s and Olienick’s ideological, philosophical and political points of view.

Titles of Perry’s speeches over recent years include terms such as “trans identified women”, “Islamophobic”, “right-wing extremism”, “white pride”, and “hate crime”.

Justice David Labrenz, the judge overseeing the trial, rejected the prosecution’s attempt to qualify Perry as an expert witness, stating his discomfort with an ostensible expert engaging in mind-reading of the accused and relaying such assessments to jurors under a veil of authority.

During its operations at the Coutts protest, the RCMP authorized its own digital surveillance of mobile phones — phone calls and text messages — without obtaining authorization from a judge. It did so by utilizing a legal procedure allowing such surveillance warrants to be self-authorized via circumvention of the standard requirement to secure a judge’s approval.

This legal procedure requires the claim that the circumstances at play posed a threat of “imminent harm” to life and limb, and that the urgency of the circumstances made standard procurement of a judge’s authorization too time-consuming to undertake given the claimed emergency circumstances.

The RCMP utilized this “imminent harm” justification to digitally intercept communications of mobile phones at Coutts for 72 hours.

The defence teams objected to the introduction of digital communications captured via this surveillance warrant during pretrial proceedings, with Labrenz partially agreeing with them and disallowing the use of interceptions captured during the latter 48 hours of the RCMP’s surveillance.

Labrenz’s approval of the first 24 hours of the RCMP’s surveillance operation allowed for introduction of all digital communications intercepted during that time to be introduced as evidence in the trial.

This set a precedent for Canadian criminal trials, given that no evidence obtained by law enforcement in previous self-authorized “imminent harm” search and surveillance warrants had ever been contested by defence lawyers in Canada.

In 2022, it became clear that information on Canada’s messaging and talking points regarding its role in global interest groups was severely lacking, including how high-level bureaucrats balance their democratic responsibilities versus their alignment with globalist organizations like the World Health Organization.

The WHO boils down to a globalist health dictatorship that has been working to strengthen its global health surveillance and control mandate since the COVID-19 pandemic.

They’re doing this through two apparatuses – the first, by amending international law through proposed changes to existing International Health Regulations and the second, by developing a new pandemic agreement (accord, treaty).

Amendments to the IHR are particularly concerning since they are existing, legally binding international law and changes to them have been rushed through without a quorum or due process.

The WHO describes the IHR as an “overarching legal framework that defines countries’ rights and obligations in handling public health events and emergencies that have the potential to cross borders.”

The “cornerstone of the IHR” are called “Public Health Emergencies of International Concern” and they’re declared at the whim of the WHO’s director general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, whose organization receives a majority of its funding from pharmaceutical backers like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their global vaccine enterprise known as GAVI.

Recently, Tedros went so far as to call for aggressive pushback on anti-vaxxers who didn’t take a rushed-to-market experimental genetic injection, who now question the marketing slogan “safe and effective.”

The IHR require countries to set up a “National IHR Focal Point for communications with the WHO” to “establish and maintain core surveillance and response capacities” including at points of entry (borders) and maintain international travel “health documents” (vaccine passports).

The WHO may state that all of this is being done while safeguarding travellers’ rights and personal data, but if the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic were any indication, all of that can be easily and readily swept aside under the guise of health and “the greater good.”

The strict requirements and centralized control laid out by the globalist health dictatorship at the sole direction of Tedros is concerning for nations said to operate democracies.

By June 2022, health agents were seeking to refine media lines around the IHR amendments in an email addressed to Laurie Hunter, director general at the Centre of emergency preparedness at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).

“We’re in the process of updating our media lines on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and OIA [Office of International Affairs] suggested that you and Cindy Evans [Vice President, PHAC] should also review and approve the content since EMB is the technical lead and authority for the IHR in Canada.”

EMB stands for the Emergency Management Branch, which has little publicly posted, except for a link, which directs to a Health Canada initiative offering International Health Regulation training to the “International Health Regulations Policy Team.”

That must be the brand new bureaucracy (that no one voted for), dedicated to ensuring Canada’s participation in this Global Health Architecture initiative being top-down instituted by the WHO.

The email continues, “As you probably know, there has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation in the media and on social media regarding the outcomes of the 75th World Health Assembly in regard to the amendments to the IHR. We have received a few media requests on this and have seen quite a bit of discussion on social media as well. We’re hoping these lines can help clarify the situation and correct some of that mis and disinformation.”

As further explained in the emails, these “Media Lines” were first requested for a PHAC spokesperson to attend the CPHA conference – the Canadian Public Health Association’s yearly conference, sponsored almost entirely by pharmaceutical companies.

A broader email request went out again asking for media lines on Canada’s Global health strategy.

Within the hour, senior communications advisor at Health Canada and PHAC, Lisa Edwards, writes, “Unfortunately, I don’t have anything on Canada’s Global Health Strategy, but I am the lead on the IHR piece” and that “The lines were approved today and are being translated.”

This was after other communications gurus had nothing tangible to add to the conversation, stating that they “don’t have any content on this” and “This is a tricky one. Still looking for lines on Canada’s Global Health Strategy and the IHR resolution at the World Health Assembly.”

Despite missing information and internal disarray, the bureaucrats go on to accuse those fact-checking and sourced directly from the WHO of spreading misinformation.

When targeting the approval date for these media lines, the agency said “There is flexibility, but given the mis and disinformation and inquiries coming in, we may want to move through the approvals as quickly as possible.”

Indeed, the inquiries were coming from Rebel News. All of this communication began three weeks after media requests were sent to Health Canada inquiring if they would be putting forth proposed amendments to the IHR. If so, requesting where Canadians could go to find out more about proposals and changes.

The lack of cohesion in knowing how to respond to this straightforward inquiry is confirmed in another email when the health bureaucrats were trying to finalize the response. “Also, would recommend we do not at this time use the words ‘limited in scope’; we don’t yet what the overall ambition will be and therefore should not prejudge.”

Yet the bureaucracy prejudges anyone critical or skeptical of this initiative as spreading “mis and disinformation.”

Part of the media lines confirms Canada’s commitment to the WHO and the “view that possible amendments should address specific issues, challenges or gaps that cannot effectively be addressed otherwise, but that are critical to supporting IHR implementation and compliance.”

Internal communications confirm that at the 75th World Health Assembly in 2022 (which is the governing body of the WHO that meets each year in May) certain amendments were adopted.

“After a series of informal discussions, Member States came to consensus on the following decisions regarding IHR amendments” by reducing the “time of entry into force of any future amendments from 24 to 12 months” and agreed on a “forward negotiation process to consider future amendments to the IHR,” which began in the fall of 2022.

At the World Health Assembly in May 2024, appointed chief public health officer of Canada, Theresa Tam, committed all 38 million Canadians to strengthen WHO authority by endorsing amendments to the IHR amendments and formalizing the language of the new pandemic treaty, agreement, or accord.

On June 1, it was confirmed that through a resolution, the WHA (and thus the WHO), “adopted the package of amendments to the IHR.”

The 62-page document outlining all of the changes includes an example of an international certificate of vaccination, specifying a vaccine or prophylaxis that “has been approved by the World Health Organization.”

It also mandates states develop various initiatives to prevent, prepare and respond to public health emergencies, including developing, strengthening and maintaining core capacities such as “surveillance” and “risk communication,” including “addressing mis and disinformation.”