The courtroom echoed with a stark assessment: the case against Allistair Chapman, accused of being a key figure in a sprawling drug operation, was described as “flimsy” by his lawyer. Noel O’Brien argued forcefully for his client’s release on bail, challenging the very foundation of the extradition request from the United States.
O’Brien directly confronted the evidence presented by the Canadian Department of Justice, acting on behalf of U.S. authorities. He asserted the unverified statement of facts simply didn’t warrant Chapman’s continued detention, painting a picture of a case built on speculation rather than concrete proof.
The lawyer didn’t mince words, repeatedly characterizing the case as “weak” and even “non-existent.” He proposed Chapman be released into the custody of his parents, who were prepared to offer a substantial $500,000 surety, demonstrating a commitment to ensuring his appearance in court.
Central to O’Brien’s argument was the complete lack of evidence linking Chapman to the alleged crimes. He emphasized there was no proof of Chapman’s involvement in Ryan Wedding’s drug trafficking organization, nor any connection to the chilling plot to murder informant Jonathan Acebedo-Garcia.
The prosecution’s claim hinged on allegations that Chapman paid for damaging information to be published online – specifically, revealing Acebedo-Garcia’s status as an informant and suppressing details about Wedding’s organization. However, O’Brien argued this alone didn’t establish any criminal conspiracy.
Chapman’s arrest was part of a large-scale operation led by the U.S. Department of Justice, which had dubbed Wedding a modern-day El-Chapo. Yet, O’Brien pointed out a critical distinction: of all those arrested, Chapman was the only one not explicitly identified as playing a role within Wedding’s cartel.
“Everyone else named all seem to have some role except Mr. Chapman,” O’Brien stated, highlighting the anomaly in the prosecution’s case. The statement of facts, he insisted, contained no allegations whatsoever implicating Chapman in the drug trafficking network.
O’Brien further bolstered his argument by emphasizing Chapman’s deep roots in Calgary, where he had lived most of his life. He asserted that Chapman posed no flight risk, lacking any financial ties or connections to foreign assets that might incentivize him to flee.
The courtroom remained tense as arguments continued, the fate of Allistair Chapman hanging in the balance. The judge listened intently, weighing the lawyer’s forceful claims against the evidence presented by the prosecution, a decision that would determine whether Chapman would remain detained pending extradition.
