I sense great desperation on the part of people who wish very much to maintain the status quo of a carbon-based, largely unregulated (by which I mean that we are all about controlling private actions while allowing corporations to literally run amok) capitalistic, patriarchal, top-down economy/social structure.

I admit to feeling a bit defeated and disheartened at the monumental challenge facing us. OTOH, this very level of desperation being exhibited in order to silence the 'common people' does indicate that they are frightened, that we are being heard.

It happened 14-15 years ago. Wiebo Ludwig was an Eco-terrorist. Some people will side with him, and some against.

He wasn't charged with that bombing. They were trying to show him he had friends who felt the same way to get a confession.

I see that article is from 1999 and I remember the story. We do need to become increasingly more vocal en masse, but I think we have to ask ourselves some serious hard questions so we don't just sound like some clanging gongs. What are we truly willing to give up in order to reduce the consumption of oil that demands more production of oil. I think the oil companies have a built in "factor" for the most vocal protesters and probably falls under "acceptable collateral damage"

I heard a most surprising stastic on TV last night that rocked me to the core with regards to the transportation of oil by rail. (related to the recent crashes). They said that in 2009 we shipped only 500 carloads of crude oil by railcars, now in 2013 we are up to 140,000 carloads of crude oil shipped by rail. And this will increase further.

More recently I've been paying attention to the first nations protests against "fracking" and wondering why more people from all of Canada aren't standing with them. Sometimes I can't believe how we are selling this great land of ours and allowing it to be devoured by wolves....and then I remember, it is the consumer with the insatiable appetite.

Was the intent ever to convict Ludwig with that particular bombing?  I'm fuzzy if he was even charged for it.

It is concerning though.  Were any changes made within the RCMP afterward?

lol As for 'common people' I don't think Ludwig ever fit into that category.

SG, why did you dig this old one up?

I took a while to respond (phone call) and didn't see the 2 posts above mine until after.

This story does bring up some more broad questions:

To what extent should undercover officers be used?

What can they do while they are undercover?

It is an allegation that "insiders" were/are used for escalation purposes in very current events. When we dismiss it as "absurd" or "ridiculous" do we know our own history?

Hi SG,

It was news to me.

If police at any level are blowing up anything with the property owner's consent then the only crime that may exist might be one of negligence and a failure to do the proper paperwork.  I mean Fire Departments are routinely starting fires for practice right?  They routinely torch their own facility and not some random property belonging to a private citizen so we don't consider that criminal.

Now if police at any level are blowing something up with the property owner's consent and then affixing blame to another for that particular act that is a concern.  Since the duplicity was acknowledged by the Crown, I expect that any and all convictions against Ludwig came from other incidents.  If the Crown proceeded with charges that it acknowledges are false and gains a conviction the Crown and the Judge must be considered part of that particular charade and the allegation of conspiracy has some sticking power.

I also wonder what disciplinary action officers related to the attempted frame recieved.  I would think at minimum every officer involved should have been dismissed.

I note that the article referenced is dated 1999 and was last updated in 2000.  Given that this article has been in the CBC files for 13 years now one wonders why it is being "uncovered" now.

Yes.  Moreso if the attempt to frame another person was successful when the Crown acknowledges subterfuge as early as a bail hearing.

Not particularly.  If the "innocent" party was considered largely to be actually innocent I suspect that there would have been more outrage at the time.

Weibo Ludwig has never, that I am aware, been described as a complete innocent.  The RCMP blew up an AEC installation but I believe it was a Suncor installation that Ludwig was actually cconvicted of blowing up.  Add to that the fact that he vandalized another well, counselled an undercover officer to acquire explosives and had the misfortune of being in close proximity to Karman Willis at the time of her death and well, where there is smoke, you often find fire.

Is it possible that Ludwig was railroaded?  Sure, it is possible, it wouldn't be the first time an innocent man was convicted of crimes he did not commit.  Apart from the AEC and RCMP being in on a plot to blow up a well and frame Ludwig is there any information that proves Mr. Ludwig did not commit the acts that he eventually was convicted with?

Do I believe that Ludwig was railroaded?  No.  I don't.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Not much different than buying drugs to catch traffickers.

Hi Saul_now_Paul,

Ummmmmm.  Yeah.  It actually is.

If the RCMP had sent undercover operatives to Mr. Ludwig and attempted to buy explosives and Mr. Ludwig sold them explosives an arrest can be made because Mr. Ludwig sold explosives.

If the RCMP talked to AEC West and together they agreed to blow up some AEC West property and blamed Mr. Ludwig for it that constitutes a fraudulent activity.

The crown did not dispute these facts.

If these were the only facts brought forward Mr. Ludwig could not rightly be convicted with blowing up this particular well.

If Mr Ludwig sought to buy explosives from the RCMP he can be arrested for doing so.

If Mr. Ludwig does not blow up a specific well but the RCMP does and they do so with AEC West's consent Mr. Ludwig has committed no crime.

It would appear that there is another well that Mr. Ludwig did blow up and another well that Mr. Ludwig did vandalize and several threatening letters that Mr. Ludwig did write.

Given that the RCMP and AEC West did collaborate to have Mr. Ludwig accused of an activity he did not participate in I don't think it is unfair of anyone to ask how far were the RCMP and AEC West willing to go to gain a conviction?

That said, there have been no substantiated claims that the RCMP committed a fraud with respect to the charges with which Mr. Ludwig was ultimately convicted on.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Where does it say that?  It was a while ago, I don't remember the details.  In the article SG posted, his lawyer stated he was blamed for it.

Hi chemgal,

From the article:

That is committing a fraud.  I supplied the description though the CBC does not.

The Crown did not contest this fact.  So the Crown could not in good faith proceed with charges against Ludwig for the destruction of this particular property.  I have quoted from the fifth paragraph in the piece.  In the third paragraph you will find the Crown admitting that these allegations (that RCMP and AEC West destroyed the shed) are true.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Try a little imagination.

They know (suspect) Ludwig is involved in many instances of vandalism and he's tough to catch. So they blow something up and pick up Ludwig and say ok we have the goods on you. Mr. Jones says he saw your truck leaving the scene.

Ludwig is mad at Jones for ratting him out. Why did he lie? Plus, Ludwig is surprised he's not the only one blowing stuff up now.

Ludwig talks to jones, Jones says well, I couldn't very we'll tell them the truth that I blew it up, but if you can help me get hold of some more explosives - we can be a team.

Jones works for the RCMP. They were setting up a sting, and never had any intention of charging Ludwig with that event.

I'm sure I could find jones real name.

Hi Saul_now_Paul,

No thanks.  The problem with imagination is that it conjures facts it doesn't wrestle with them.  It also is reliably two faced in that it doesn't see an injustice when it is done to people disagreed with but it the same injustice was perpetuated against it there's be outrage.

Did Ludwig blow up this particular shed?  No.  Ludwig didn't.  Did the RCMP and AEC West conspire to blame him for blowing up the shed?  Yes.  They did.  That is what the evidence (facts) point to.

Was there other evidence of action actually taken by Ludwig?  Apparently so.  Otherwise they would not have been able to convict him 

They don't need to blow anything up to set up a sting.  They don't need to engage in prostitution to take down pimps or johns, they don't need to actually break and enter into private citizens homes to try and catch a stolen good ring.

And since the burden of proof in Canada is beyond reasonable doubt how great a tool is it in a defence Lawyer's hands to have such an ill-concieved scheme as the fabrication of fact to introduce reasonable doubt?

Now let me try some imaginaition on you.

This is a story that, even updated on the CBC website is 13 years old.  Any recent RCMP activity that you want to throw a pall on?

Say for example you have just been charged with having explosives in your possession.  Wouldn't you think it to your advantage to have the arresting officers thought of as the kind who would fake and or plant evidence?  And if your imagination works that well wouldn't you try to find an example of somebody else who was protesting the same parties you were protesting against because hey if they would trump up evidence before why wouldn't they try it again?

There is a reason why this "old news' has suddenly gone viral.

I can't imagine it actually has anything to do with dead and gone Wiebo Ludwig.

Grace and peace to you.

John

The informant's name is Robert Wraight. My issue is not simply that Mr. Ludwig was knowingly being arrested and charged with what police knew was a "fake crime". My issue is more that the "crime" was not revealed to be "fake" until trial. In other words,this is not about simply garnering a confession. It is not as neat as a sting and not even as nice as entrapment. The media and the public were misled and manipulated. That was not just until a confession was obtained, but far later. That it was a "sting" was not claimed when trial began. It invites the question, had the defense not been able to prove that the "crime' was an act of the RCMP, would it ever have been admitted?

To me, the wording in the article is not all that clear.

The Crown admitted to working with the company and blowing up the shed.  It doesn't say whether or not they admitted to blaming Ludwig.

Blaming can also mean different things.  Was it just one thing used in the questioning, was it blame used to further harm his reputation, or was Ludwig actually specifically charged with it?

I'm not arguing he wasn't charged with a crime he didn't commit, the article isn't being precise enough IMO to determine that though, and with it being an old story, specific details are a bit harder to weed out with other various stories.

Hi SG,

The article puts the reveal at a bail hearing.  Usually bail hearings take place closer to the arrest than any trial.

At the very least it begs that question.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi chemgal,

The Crown admits to no such thing.  The Crown does admit that the allegations made by the Defence that the RCMP and AEC West bombed the well site are true.

While technically true.  There is no way in which alleging that Ludwig was involved in what was an agreed action between the RCMP and AEC West means anything resembling truth.

The fact that the Crown agrees to the allegation in a bail hearing shows, at best that the Crown is willing to allow that damning fact stand even though it could potentially bias a jury against the prosecution.

Not sure what the ultimate goal was.  It does succeed in poisoning the well.  Since this bombshell goes off at a bail hearing (pre-trial) I cannot concieve of any Prosecution going forward on this particular matter.  Ludwig was tried on nine charges and convicted on five of those 9.

If the same RCMP officers responsible for blowing up AEC West's property were responsible for other evidence collected and used to convict Ludwig it would have to be compelling otherwise the fact that the RCMP aren't above deliberately lying makes reasonable doubt look to be a pretty easy thing to establish.

Grace and peace to you.

John

My apologies for forgetting which courtroom it was revealed in. My hope would be that in the report in which the Crown levels charges (for and on behalf of society) one would say, "we blew up this shed and then..." not have the defense make the defense that the RCMP did and the Crown say "we won't dispute that" or concede it is true.

http://www.dotandcalm.com/calm-archive/index/t-27589.html

Pretty sure nobody ever tried to charge Ludwig with blowing up the shack.

I think CBC probably purposely made the article misleading.

Wiebo Ludwig was a bearded Calvinist preacher. Aka single-mindedly infallible.

Hi SG,

I'm actually surprised that this would be part of a bail hearing. 

If I was the Defender I'd be sitting on this hoping that it eventually was a charge laid.  Still, I believe that records from preliminary hearings are admissable in the later trial.  It may simply have been getting licks in where one can.

The whole point though is that the RCMP and AEC West collaboration is not a "sting" nor is it even "entrapment" it is deliberate "falsification."  If I wander into the local constabulary and say, "My neighbour did this . . ." and that charge causes the local police to take action I can, when my allegation is proven to be false or misleading, be charged with mischief.  Do the laws not apply to the RCMP or are they exempt?

Because it was that old nutjob Wiebo there will be little sympathy that he is the target of such a deliberate deception.

Imagine if it was an actual innocent how we would howl?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Saul_now_Paul,

I fail to see how the article misleads at all.

The article states that it is a bail hearing.  In order for bail to be set the judge needs to know what charges the Crown plans to lay or what charges the Crown is investigating and may eventually lay.

Typically the Defence at a bail hearing objects to the rationale the Crown presents for setting the bail to high or asking for bail to be denied.  If the Defence makes a credible case then bail will be lower than the Crown asks.

As mentioned in my last post to SG.  I'd have sat on this "dirty trick" because it becomes great defence material.  The only problem is that if the Crown ultimately does not press this specific charge it becomes difficult to admit it into the proceedings during the trial.  So, it may be that the Crown had it listed among the possible charges and the Defence to their opprotunity when it presented itself.

I'm not prepared to sit with the transcripts to see how it came into play.

Tha article does not say that Ludwig was charged with this action.  It simply points out that there was collaboration between the RCMP and AEC West that is deceptive.

The article does not say that Ludwig was railroaded, of course if this deception had not seen the light of day until after the trial it may be enough for a mistrial appeal

As a bearded Calvinist preacher myself I find your characterization lacking insight.  But then I find it odd that you consider the article misleading when it points to a fact that nobody contests. 

Infallibility aside I'll take single-minded over simple-minded.

Has anyone here claimed that Ludwig did not get a fair trial?  Not that I have read.

Has anyone here suggested that the convictions obtained by the Crown represent a miscarriage of justice?  Not that I have read.

Has anyone here said that it was wrong for the RCMP to take this action?  Yes.  That has been said.

That isn't how you run a sting.  It is even too ham-fisted to work as entrapment.  At best it falls into the paradigm of throw enough dirt and hope some of it sticks.

On top of that I don't think that this has gone viral because it has anything to do with Ludwig.  I strongly suspect it is meant to draw attention to RCMP behaviour in NB.  Specifically the weapons found in a peaceful camp.

Grace and peace to you.

John