Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Alberta

Moderator: Burnaby49

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:09 pm

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by Fmotlgroupie »

grixit wrote:I'm curious about the outdoorspersons' community. I wonder if they're on their own forums complaining about the fact that they pay all kinds of fees, and have to fill out a lot of paperwork before they can get to the fun part. But now there's some lunatics out there who don't pay, possibly mess up the public lands, and might even be a physical threat. Are they organizing a mutual warning system? Petitioning for faster law enforcement response? Taking pistols as well as rifles with them just in case?

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=194030

Mostly musing about how they (or the trapper) could be killed and their bodies made to disappear, or complaining that the police aren't fast enough to arrest them (the majority of the 8-page thread was posted in one day, so patience isn't a strong suit of that forum). I don't think anybody really was happy that the arrest etc. was accomplished with no blood shed. I have no doubt that a lot of the posters believe strongly in self defence but pistols I. The bush are very rare in Canada (you need a special permit, usually reserved for forestry workers etc. concerned about bears but unable to have a rifle with them) and in any case if you've got a rifle that's a damn effective weapon.

It's interesting to see a few freeman types joined the forum to defend Paul and Shaunda, but got no sympathy.
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

Thanks for that review fmotlgroupie.

Well, Paul & Shaunda, since you’re watching, perhaps its time for a heart-to-heart. It looks like you’re coming to a culmination point with your lawyers. Perhaps a little explanation will assist.

First, the principle of stare decisis. That’s a short form for “stare decisis et non quieta movere”: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." In a court context that means that once a decision is made it cannot be changed, except by going to a higher court than the one that made the decision. It’s a kind of pecking order.

It also means that when a higher ranked court makes a rule then the lower courts much follow that rule, no matter what a judge may think. In your case you are appearing at the Provincial Court of Alberta. That means that no matter what the judge who hears your matter thinks, that judge must follow the rules set by courts further up the chain. For you, that means the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada.

This also affects what your lawyers can or cannot do. A lawyer injures you when the lawyer argues an issue or takes a position that is inconsistent with instructions of a higher court. The lawyer knows that argument is futile. It would be a breach of the lawyer’s duties to you to argue a point that is legally wrong. The same duty applies to the court, but it’s also exists for you.

My suggestion is you at a minimum read the following judgments. They are binding on the judge who will hear your trial. Again – the judge must follow these judgments.
For Paul, it seems you want to argue that you say that you are sovereign, and that provides you with some special status. It doesn’t. As far as the courts are concerned that label is irrelevant.

Glenn Winningham Fearn said he was sovereign. If you read the Fearn v. Canada Customs judgment you will see the court concluded that was meaningless. Fearn was later tried in Provincial Court, as you will be. Here’s what the trial judge (R. v. Fearn, 2014 ABPC 56: http://canlii.ca/t/g68zl) then said at para. 11:
The applications were dismissed for the following reasons:

… Mr. Fearn’s applications were the same or substantially similar as those argued before Mr. Justice Tilleman and were carefully analyzed by Justice Tilleman and rejected.
This is nothing new. Calling yourself a sovereign man or sovereign citizen is considered irrelevant by the courts. This is summarized in Meads v. Meads at para. 319. Your trial judge must follow that rule. He or she has no choice.

None.

So what do you do about that. Well, it doesn’t stop you from arguing you are somehow sovereign and that is some sense significant. I think it’s pretty predictable that you will fail, but you can make that argument.

Your lawyer can’t. If you lawyer argued you were sovereign and immune you could sue your lawyer for malpractice. You could complain to the Law Society of Alberta that you had been injured by your lawyer – and that complaint would be valid.

Normally when a lawyer is told to do something illegal – like argue a futile argument – the lawyer must quit representing the client. That is why your lawyers are responding in the way you report. They would like to help you, but there are places they cannot go.

There is, however, an alternative.

You can point out to your lawyers this British Columbia decision: R. v. Seagull, 2013 BCSC 1811: http://canlii.ca/t/g0s21. Seagull is not a very pleasant person, and he claimed he was immune to government law. I think he was a One People’s Public Trust follower – but that’s not relevant to this discussion. When Seagull told his lawyer to argue Seagull was immune from court authority then the lawyer had to quit. Ultimately, however, the court allowed Seagull’s new lawyer to make arguments the lawyer could make without injuring Seagull, then Seagull made his own parallel (and incorrect) arguments.

Note that Seagull injured himself with those arguments. His refusal to acknowledge state and court authority meant he could not receive a condition (house arrest) sentence: para. 50.

Maybe your lawyers will agree to do that. Maybe not. It doesn’t hurt to ask. Then you can make your own arguments, and the lawyer can cover their end. At least then you will have the benefit of defence counsel.

Ok, next to your land claim. As fmotlgroupie mentioned you think the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision of Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 (http://canlii.ca/t/g7mt9) is relevant. It is, but not in the way you think. The Supreme Court is explicit - Crown title trumps aboriginal title:
[69] … At the time of assertion of European sovereignty, the Crown acquired radical or underlying title to all the land in the province. This Crown title, however, was burdened by the pre-existing legal rights of Aboriginal people who occupied and used the land prior to European arrival. … The Aboriginal interest in land that burdens the Crown’s underlying title is an independent legal interest, which gives rise to a fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown.

[70] The content of the Crown’s underlying title is what is left when Aboriginal title is subtracted from it ... As we have seen, Delgamuukw establishes that Aboriginal title gives “the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land . . . for a variety of purposes”, not confined to traditional or “distinctive” uses … In other words, Aboriginal title is a beneficial interest in the land …In simple terms, the title holders have the right to the benefits associated with the land — to use it, enjoy it and profit from its economic development. As such, the Crown does not retain a beneficial interest in Aboriginal title land.
This is what the highest court in Canada says is the relationship between Crown land and Aboriginal land. The Crown owns all land. Aboriginal land is still Crown land, but it’s Crown land where an aboriginal population has the right to get the benefit or and use that land.

Crown land interests are superior to the Aboriginal interest.

As fmotlgroupie pointed out, all the First Nations in Alberta entered into treaties with Canada. Aboriginal title remains until it is extinguished by treaty: para. 10. British Columbia is different – many of the local populations there did not enter into treaty and so their Aboriginal title persists until now. That’s what Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia is about.

The land you claim to own appears to be in the Treaty 8 area (http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-IN ... 95_eng.gif). If so, and an aboriginal leader said he or she gave you title to Crown land? They can’t:
  • 1. Aboriginal title outside the reserve is extinguished.

    2. The Crown title trumps Aboriginal title.
If you admit the land you occupied was Crown land then you cannot be successful – unless you can prove the Crown transferred the land to whomever supposedly gave you title.

You posted an image of what I suspect is the ‘land title’ document you received (https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 1441_n.png). It’s titled “Allodial Land Patent”. Unfortunately the scan is a little small so it’s hard to make out most of the text. However, that’s not necessary. The title alone means your have been scammed.

Allodial title in Canada means Crown title. You are not the Crown. The Crown can give you a slice of its ownership of land, that’s usually in a form called “fee simple”, but the Crown remains the ultimate owner of land.

The Supreme Court of Canada in A.G. for Alberta v. Huggard Assets Ltd., [1951] SCR 427 (http://canlii.ca/t/22wpl) makes it absolutely plain who has allodial title for the land that was formerly the North West Territories:
The Crown in right of the Dominion was the allodial owner of all the land in the Territories and by the law of England as it existed on July 15, 1870 …
That includes Alberta.

How does Allodial title interact with Aboriginal title? Read this, from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1993 CanLII 4516 (B.C.C.A.):
[792] “Fee simple" is a description of an estate. It means that the land is held, unconditionally and without restraint on alienation, either directly or indirectly from the holder of the radical, allodial or root title. The concept that the Crown in right of British Columbia could hold an estate in fee simple from the Crown Imperial is both incorrect constitutionally and incorrect in terms of estates in land. The Crown's title is paramount and not held of any superior lord who could impose restraints on it. The title remains an allodial title and its nature was not changed by the imposition of a statutory scheme, though for the purposes of administration of the statutory scheme the Crown may be said to hold land in fee simple. The concept in English common law that Sovereignty may carry with it the root title may not have been well understood, and the concept of fee simple title may have been much better understood in British Columbia at the relevant times. …

[944] ... Both Amodu Tijani and Roberts confirm that the aboriginal title of the Indian peoples is a burden on the allodial or root title of the Crown. If that is so, then the aboriginal title would not be repudiated by the vesting of a subordinate title to the root title, namely a fee simple title, in the Crown.

[945] …The aboriginal title is a burden on the fee simple title just as it is a burden on the allodial title. …
This is a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision that was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada in a very famous decision on Aboriginal rights: Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fqz8). At para. 145 the Court confirmed the reasoning from the British Columbia Court of Appeal:
… Aboriginal title is a burden on the Crown’s underlying title. …
The Crown always retains the underlying allodial title to land. Always. That is what the high courts have said, and it’s what the trial judge must follow. The judge has no choice but to say you were illegal squatters, unless you can find cases that say the opposite.

I am not aware of anything like that.

I hope you will read these judgments. I hope you will talk to your lawyers about these judgments and what they mean.

I believe, as someone who reads judgments, that you were scammed. It’s plain to see from the title of the ‘land patent’.

The people who said they gave you allodial title could not do so. You can't give what you don't own. They never had that property. That belonged to someone else. They lied to you. You are victims of fraud.

And I’m genuinely sorry about that – it shouldn’t happen to anyone.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

Something's up.

Fiola's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/LeetPrime8/) has been deleted or locked down. Both Fiola and Petrova's fundraising pages are gone (https://www.facebook.com/privatelandrights) (http://www.gofundme.com/bhyxgc).

Petrova's Facebook page is still up. Her last couple posts hint about what's going on. She posts that she and Fiola have been instructed by the people who (purportedly) sold the Crown land that they should stop communicating in public about their situation (https://www.facebook.com/iam.nothere.31 ... 7237819929):
Iam NotHere
[Aug. 1, 2014]
Go Fund Me is not an option according the the Private powers that be. Speaking about my personal situation is prohibited.

Hmmm... why would I jump ship from a government who at the very least, in the meantime, pays my bills - to the 'private' people who disallow me to raise money as I see fit - to pay them for their help in my husbands private matters?

I have said no names, violated no contracts but today I took down my Go Fund Me page and our facebook fundraiser page because others involved think I talk too much.

I thought I was getting away from being hindered of my freedom of speech.
and (https://www.facebook.com/iam.nothere.31 ... 6011152385):
Iam NotHere
[Aug. 1, 2014]
I won't fucking kid you when I say I get angry at being told to hold my tongue about creating my own help by the people who ask me for my currency.
Petrova's blog and its commentary on their legal issues is still up (http://forestprincess.wordpress.com/cat ... rt-n-such/). I'm going to highlight some salient passages from that because it wouldn't surprise me if the blog too soon disappears. It appears Petrova has removed at least some of the Facebook posts that link to her blog:
I believe Mojo <name changed> owns the land we occupied. I have personally viewed the Purchase Agreement and Bill of Sale as well as the land patent documents. All of these documents appear to be in order and lawful contracts with all appropriate signatures and surveys done. There is no reason for me to believe otherwise.



Others purchased land in the same way from the same people. Mojo and I were the first to take possession of the land. Risky? Yes! But we had people at our back to help when situations like this arose.

We informed the group of landowners what was happening and they immediately drafted a Notice for all parties involved and then some. RCMP. The Premiere. The Reeve for the area. The Prime Minister. And the UN. The Notice outlined the situation and demanded the agents cease and desist from trespassing against the stewards living on that land mass.

Neither the landowners group or ourselves received any further response. Phewf! We felt awesome. We dealt with the situation in accordance to the law. With proper notifications and respectful interactions. No one ever came to verify compliance. No one ever communicated with us that we were in the wrong. We believed in our hearts it was a resolved situation. Why would we believe anything else?



I feel my husband and I have a different approach and come from different situations.

He has court experience, mine is limited to this experience.

He is the land owner in this situation, I am not.

He is Sovran (currently complying with government under duress), I am a citizen.

What it boils down to? Mojo and I are very different people with many of the same beliefs who choose to stand up for what we believe in significantly different fashions.

When the court demanded I get a lawyer? I tried to explain I was willing to do that as long as they separated our charges so my seeking legal counsel would not affect my co-accused husband, and they refused. Probably their way of making sure we BOTH got a lawyer. And WE did get lawyer’s.

Although we are co-accused, my lawyer will not talk to me about my husbands situation. His lawyer will not talk to me about his situation. And the reverse is true as well. We are a couple, co-accused, whose legal defense representatives refuse to collaborate ‘because they are not allowed’ even though my husband I want to consider a decision together. Seems fair and just, right?

Recently, Mojo’s lawyer offered him a plea.

I have not heard from my lawyer except to say he would represent me on charges that were not what I am charged with. I figure Mojo’s lawyer is waiting to hear from him whether or not he is interested in pleading out before my lawyer approaches me.

What they don’t realize is – our defense is not the same. I am not guilty and I will not stand down (plead out).

I’m not a sovereign or a freemen or belonging to any other political kind of group. I’m just a citizen who was delivered an order (like a parking ticket you fight in front of a magistrate.) I fought my ‘ticket’ in writing. It was acknowledged until the point my representatives sent evidence of my situation and then the authorities made no further communication. I believed I was living on private land and I openly communicated with authorities who gave me the order. I did my duty as a citizen.

Mojo’s situation is different because he is the landowner and he is Sovran.

I would love if I could sit down with Mojo and both our lawyers and ask real questions about our situation. Wouldn’t it be awesome to find out from a legal (BAR) perspective what we can expect from the prosecuation, what would be the most we can expect from them (as lawyers with an oath to the BAR) and if I, as a citizen, can move forward differently because I am not the landowner or Sovran?



When I moved to Alberta it was because Mojo purchased land here. We came here to homestead and live off grid, pioneer style! We took possession of the land through a private purchase agreement made with the hereditary chiefs of the First Nations (and the blessing of the Clan Mothers) who have claim to it. It includes in the agreement that we will steward the land and not use it for commercial use or profit for a minimum of ten years. It is meant to help save the forest from being raped and pillaged further by corporations who seek to destroy it.

Although the province has used this land as if it were public for many years it was never ceded to the Crown. The First Nations people are the only ones who have the right to make this kind of agreement with people they feel will take care of and steward the land. We feel very grateful for the opportunity. And while we have paperwork that says it is ours to possess we feel strongly that there is no ‘ownership’ of the earth. It is for the people.

We set up our base camp and began our plans for building a permanent shelter for winter. At one point we did get a visit from local authorities saying that it was Crown Land and we needed a permit to stay longer than 14 days. We let them know it was not Crown Land. We have the Land Patent, Purchase Agreement, Bill of Sale along with all land surveys, etc required. We told them to look into it as the province had been properly notified of the sale.

They came back a few weeks later and issued us an Order to Vacate. This order is based on the assumption the land is Crown Land. They had done no research or investigation. We explained to them again how we came to possess the land. They blatantly ignored us.

I did not want to be in dishonour so I responded to the order in writing. I explained our position, offered to provide them with copies of any paperwork that would assist them in looking into it. They responded to me in writing as well. They refused to investigate anything and reiterated they would be returning to enforce the order.

Our next step was to take our paperwork to the local RCMP detachment and have them review it. The Staff Sargeant told us that our paperwork looked as though it was in order. He also confirmed, as long as our paperwork was legitimate (it is), our land was outside of his jurisdiction because it is technically not “Canada”. Having a law enforcement official look at our evidence and confirm in our minds what we knew in our hearts was reassuring. It’s also on record that we made the effort to proactively go to authorities and resolve this in person.

We aren’t the only ones who purchased land in this area through this opportunity, over 500 sections were sold. We made the other land owners in the group aware of what was going on. The group representative (for lack of a better description), together with the Chiefs, then also responded to the order in writing. Not only to the Fish and Wildlife branch who had issued the order but to the RCMP and all levels of government. They explained the land agreement/sale and asked the authorities to cease and desist from trespassing on us.

And no one came back to enforce the order. Job well done handling conflict with honour, right?

It was several months before they came to arrest us. In that time we had built the floor to our winter shelter, were about to put up the sides/roof and were fully prepared to hunker down for a long winter’s nap :)

So after all that why did they come arrest us, you ask? Good question!

In September, another land owner who has a section about 40 miles away from us contacted a member of the trapping community to inform them he had purchased the land that trappers cabin was on. That trapper told a trapper friend of his about the call. His friend’s trapline crosses our land. We already knew this because we had encountered the trapper on a number of occasions before. We had reassured him we had no desire to stop him from his trade and even made sure we planned our building as far from his trapline as we could so as not to interfere. We were trying to build peaceful relations with him even though he’s a bit belligerent.

However, after the phone call from the other land owner, the trapper we knew confronted us as we were gathering water one day. He waited for us at the top of a hill and when we stopped to talk to him he threatened to hunt and trap us. We told him if he was concerned about the phone call he should contact the RCMP. He made it clear that he would deal with it with his trapper friends because the police would do nothing.

It wasn’t long after that we started to hear radio news broadcasts on CBC about a group of people living in the woods, taking trapper cabins at gunpoint. The public was warned to stay clear of the area and that we were considered armed and dangerous. There was one thing that was peculiar though… the reports said local RCMP were refusing involvement, refusing to comment and told people if they had a problem with that to contact Ottawa. Strange, eh?

**I speculate this is because the RCMP had already reviewed our paperwork and told us they have no jurisdiction on the land we possess.**

I was in Manitoba for a medical appointment when they came to arrest my husband shortly after that. Military. Helicopters. Dogs. SWAT. Machine guns.

Seems the trapper said we threatened his life at gunpoint and that we threatened to shoot RCMP. Oddly enough, in his statement he says he was out hunting and we were getting water. HIS statement says he was armed and we were not but we were the ones arrested? Shouldn’t he be arrested under Section 140 of the Criminal Code?

So that is what is took for them to come after us. False allegations that we threatened someone’s life.

Those charges were dropped because they were false. BUT – it’s how they succeeded in removing us from our home and have us tied up in court. The charges of failing to comply with the order are what I actually go to trial for.



Mojo spent two months in jail and now 8 months on house arrest. He’s under such scrutiny his bail supervisor felt the need to check and see if what they were putting him through is even legal. He’s already served enough time on house arrest to atone for what we are accused of. Not guilty, just accused, but the time has been served before the decision has been made. And it could still be another 6 months before we see a court room.
It appears the conmen behind the Grande Prairie squats are spooked.

Shaunda, Paul, if you're reading, I ask again the same question that I think has occurred to you two as well. Why would the people who say they sold you land tell you to keep the arrangements for the land secret when that is the information on which you must rely if you are to respond to government and court action?

These are the same people who claim that they are offering the same deal to hundreds of others - by public communication with those customers. Why can't you talk about it if the sellers can?

If this is all fair dealing then why would there be a demand for confidentiality, especially when every land purchaser will inevitably have to interact with government actors, law enforcement, the courts, and other land users?

However, there is a very good reason for conmen to attempt to distance themselves from their illegal actions and their victims.

So which one makes sense?

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by notorial dissent »

I guess it comes down to what part of you've been took don't you understand???

Shaunda and Paul don't seem to get that someone saw them coming and used their gullibility and legal naivete to take them for a serious ride, and they are now paying the price for it, and until they get it through their apparently very thick heads, it is just going to get worse.

I think they were honestly doing exactly what they said they were doing, and have been lied to and defrauded, but because one of them is of the have to be confrontational and won't listen to what anyone tells him school, and the other one is just plain clueless, they are not going to get out of this in one piece. Whoever is behind this land swindle, and that is exactly what it is, is the real criminal here, the rest of them are just gullible and stupid.

I don't know, but I'm guessing, from the sounds of things and the paperwork mess, that this is a case of another FOTL screwing his fellow compatriots for profit.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by grixit »

It's one thing to contract Stockholm Syndrome. It's another thing to preemptively act as a human shield.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:01 am
Location: Wherever my truck goes.

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by JamesVincent »

Soo....... if they pulled their heads out of their collective sphincters and rolled over the buyers they could probably drop a lot of problems, yes?
Disciple of the cross and champion in suffering
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire

Avenged Sevenfold "Shepherd of Fire"
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by notorial dissent »

Would be pretty much my take on it. Looks like who ever set this up found the perfect batch of patsies, too stupid and just plain ignorant to know they were being/had been took, and too stubborn to look at anything but what they wanted to see to figure it out.

Under the heading of "but...but...but...we've got all these pretty fancy documents that are all signed and sealed, probably by Chief Bunkum, sanctified by all the clan mothers, and...and they told us it was all legal and above board, and...and...and that we were bound by a vow of secrecy not to tell anyone about and we so want to go be hearty pioneer folk, that it's just got to be real and you're all mean and nasty and picky on us." Something like that, unless I missed some of the whining and sniveling somewhere.

I still don't think this pair did anything intentionally majorly illegal to start with, just very very naive and boneheadedly stupid, but they are not helping themselves now by doubling down on the stupid, and it doesn't much sound like their lawyers are really being of much help to them either, unless they just plain aren't listening to what they are saying, which I'm not discounting either. The one thing I'm curious/confused about is why, if they are married and charged out of the same action do they have two lawyers?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3755
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

notorial dissent wrote:The one thing I'm curious/confused about is why, if they are married and charged out of the same action do they have two lawyers?
Are they actually legally married and not "married" according to some New Age ceremony they have gone through?
It's all in his name. She has a defence of not knowing what he was up to and she isn't a party to the purchase. She might well defend her "husband's" actions in public but legally it's him who is pretending/believing he owns the land.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by notorial dissent »

That was the only thing I could think of, unless they are really just so boneheadedly stupid that it was done for their own protection, since they do seem to have insisted on them both having attorneys and in not letting them go pro se.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by Arthur Rubin »

ArthurWankspittle wrote:
notorial dissent wrote:The one thing I'm curious/confused about is why, if they are married and charged out of the same action do they have two lawyers?
Are they actually legally married and not "married" according to some New Age ceremony they have gone through?
Perhpas they have a (excuse the expression) "common-law" marriage. Those are recognized, at least in Manitoba.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:01 am
Location: Wherever my truck goes.

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by JamesVincent »

I went on Mrs. Iam Nothere's Facebook and noticed that she is getting a lot of advice from Dean Kory, whom is covered here viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9391. Now, one would wonder why, in the middle of a struggle like what they are going through, they would still seek out the type of people that got them into trouble in the first place. In one post Kory advised her that:
Dean Kory wrote: "There was no need for "do you understand?"... Yes there was!...they read you "YOUR" rights and you consented to contract by saying yes"...You don't even understand the meaning of what the police are reading and the capacity of the name being used on the information ..."contractual obligations?"...the contract was made in fraud! It's null and void on it's face! Any reason to go along with this process is purely ignorance and fear hidden by cheap shallow cowardice excuses.
Now, personally, I would have had words with this individual, especially considering he, once again, is telling someone else to be the big man. And then Iam NotHere posts:
Iam NotHere wrote:If anyone in law enforcement asks you "Do you understand?" this is important info for you to realize...

"LEGALESE – UNDERSTAND is synonymous with STAND UNDER. If I say “do you UNDERSTAND” and you reply “yes” that means you have given me authority over you. It’s as simple as that." - thank you Dean Kory for sharing this!
Seriously, that's a WTF statement if I ever heard one. And the comments back to it are even worse. IDK, maybe it's a good thing they are gonna ride this out, all the way to the pokey. Cuz', honestly, if you believe something like this to be true you really need some structured time to think about it.
Disciple of the cross and champion in suffering
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire

Avenged Sevenfold "Shepherd of Fire"
ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3755
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

JamesVincent wrote: Now, personally, I would have had words with this individual, especially considering he, once again, is telling someone else to be the big man. And then Iam NotHere posts:
Iam NotHere wrote:If anyone in law enforcement asks you "Do you understand?" this is important info for you to realize...

"LEGALESE – UNDERSTAND is synonymous with STAND UNDER. If I say “do you UNDERSTAND” and you reply “yes” that means you have given me authority over you. It’s as simple as that." - thank you Dean Kory for sharing this!
Seriously, that's a WTF statement if I ever heard one. And the comments back to it are even worse. IDK, maybe it's a good thing they are gonna ride this out, all the way to the pokey. Cuz', honestly, if you believe something like this to be true you really need some structured time to think about it.
This is FMOTL / Sov Cit rubbish that's been around for years, the Understand = Stand Under BS. I'm sure it has never got anywhere in a court as all it always looks like it that the believer is being deliberately obtuse.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by Burnaby49 »

Petrova has been found guilty and fined $1000. Her beloved Fiola is on the loose after failing to attend court.

http://www.mygrandeprairienow.com/7718/ ... lands-act/

Petrova appears to have shut down all her social networking sites. No idea what she's up to now.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
wanglepin
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by wanglepin »

JamesVincent wrote:
Dean Kory wrote: "There was no need for "do you understand?"... Yes there was!...they read you "YOUR" rights and you consented to contract by saying yes"...You don't even understand the meaning of what the police are reading and the capacity of the name being used on the information ..."contractual obligations?"...the contract was made in fraud! It's null and void on it's face! Any reason to go along with this process is purely ignorance and fear hidden by cheap shallow cowardice excuses.
This freeman in the U.K. got himself totally confused with freeman baloney when asked by the magistrate “do you understand”.
He must have taken it to mean - ` do you handstand?`
But as he took to the stand he stood on his head for several minutes – and all that could be seen were his legs and his feet.....Goraya, of Penzance, Cornwall, had told the police he was a freeman of the land and did not follow English laws or the Sovereign.
:haha:
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Acc ... story.html
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Albert

Post by Burnaby49 »

More details. Petrova pled guilty;

http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2015/ ... ying-cabin

The charges against Fiola seem more serious than I'd thought.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
kunta:kinte
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:30 pm

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Alberta

Post by kunta:kinte »

Kindly forgive the thread necromancy.

I've known Paul since 2011, after he quit his job at the Canadian Mint due to the crazy things he saw while there. While he's extraordinarily tightly-wound (to use a description from Meads), he's one of the most peaceful and friendly people you will ever meet. His mother is also an extremely nice woman, and wouldn't hurt a fly. When they were both arrested in 2010 for his and his mother's medical grow (he had a couple of vintage long-rifles - in non-working condition - as well), I got the opportunity to view his case, and assist him in its eventual discharge (he was given 1 year conditional discharge - good behavior, which he met).

He genuinely believes that he has been targetted by the RCMP. The documents in his case prove that he was identified from postings on a World Freeman Society website where he professed anti-totalitarian sentiments. He, like many non-sovereign-citizen Americans south of the border, wants to own guns because he believes that there will soon come a time that the authorities will be identifying and rounding-up all the citizens that don't comply with a pending totalitarianism. In the United States, the right to hold those beliefs are guaranteed by the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution. In Canada, not so much.

After being identified as a "Molon Labe" kind of fellow, Paul was later confronted by two RCMP officers at his home. these officers told him, off the record, "We know what's coming. Buy your food, buy your bullets. Be prepared." He interpreted that as "Your paranoia is justified, the end is near".

Let's just pretend for a moment that "tightly-wound" is too light a phrase to describe Paul. From his WFS postings, it's clear that making semi-vague generalizations confirming his world view would be inciting him. You know, in the same way that The RCMP did to others years later. It's also clear that the RCMP officers should have known this, as well. Now, arrest this person for following what he thought was the RCMP's advice, and throw this person in jail a few times for attempting FMOTL tactics in court (The "name game" especially), and see if this doesn't strengthen his world view a tad. This is how you groom a domestic terrorist.

From the media reports, it was clear they were wanting him to be the poster-child for anti-gun/anti-terror legislation to come. When he got his discharge, the media went completely silent on him; it wasn't even reported.

But the damage was done. Paul's worst fears were confirmed, and he wanted out of society. When a friend of his mom's introduced him to a land-claim scam in Alberta, he came to our law discussion group with all the documentation. The Sovran (sic) Nation had a shady website, and questionable history, but it didn't matter; Indians were the original land owners of Canada, and one of their "Chiefs" was selling him land; all he had to do was occupy it. I tried to tell him it was a scam, he couldn't/wouldn't believe me. I directly compared it to buying a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge. I pointed out how there was no real claim to the land, and how anyone could issue similar fraudulent documents. I pointed out that the contract was him paying money for what was essentially "squatter's rights".

He didn't believe me. Sadly, it all looked too official, and the (non-treaty) "Chief" he talked to was one hell of a salesman. Even more importantly, this was his way to "opt-out" of the system like he had wanted for so long. His mom had a (multi-million dollar) counter-suit against the individual prosecutors and police who caused this, with a decent chance of winning, but she dropped the case without much warning when they moved in March 2013. He spent the rest of his money on a logging machine, and off they (and his new girlfriend) went to Alberta to live far away from anyone. He had assurances that the Sovran Nation would assist him with any legal issues he might have. Once arrested, they refused to help, because he was a recluse and didn't regularly attend meetings. They sure liked his money, though. His mother's boyfriend, who did regularly attend, had to threaten lawsuits against them to even get them to appear in the gallery in court on his behalf. He died shortly afterwards of a heart attack, and, to the best of my knowledge, the Sovran Nation's help died with him.

I hope he gets out soon. He's one of the nicest people I've ever met. It sucks what happened to him.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Alberta

Post by notorial dissent »

kunta:kinte, welcome to Quatloos. while I am sorry to hear about what happened to your friend, there are several things that you seem to overlook. While he may have been a very peaceful and gentle individual as was his mother, saying he was too tightly wrapped is a way of avoiding the fact that he was clearly not dealing with reality, at all. His paranoia, and quite frankly dissociative behavior, was a sign that he had some severe problems, and it sounds like his mother did as well, at the very least they both have serious judgment issues. Your friend, and his mother from all appearances, need some serious mental health help, and if they don't get it, the next time around it will probably end much worse and probably more tragically.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
kunta:kinte
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:30 pm

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Alberta

Post by kunta:kinte »

notorial dissent wrote:kunta:kinte, welcome to Quatloos. while I am sorry to hear about what happened to your friend, there are several things that you seem to overlook. While he may have been a very peaceful and gentle individual as was his mother, saying he was too tightly wrapped is a way of avoiding the fact that he was clearly not dealing with reality, at all. His paranoia, and quite frankly dissociative behavior, was a sign that he had some severe problems, and it sounds like his mother did as well, at the very least they both have serious judgment issues. Your friend, and his mother from all appearances, need some serious mental health help, and if they don't get it, the next time around it will probably end much worse and probably more tragically.
I'm not disagreeing with you. His reality was definitely perpendicular to society, to say the least.
As for mental health, you probably know that most people in the FMOTL persuasion fear DSM V (and being Roger-Elvick'ed) as much as they do armed invasions of their property. He would definitely do with some cognitive behavioral therapy, but not only is that in short supply, but convincing him to receive it is near-impossible.

As an interesting aside, I have a story about a prominent sex-shop operator in Portage La Prairie that was SWAT'ed due to the fact that his anxiety diagnosis (which he received in order to get medical marijuana) led the police to believe that he would be aggressive and dangerous when apprehended. He also was "accidentally" treated like a cop killer while in custody (someone told the other cops he shot two of the arresting officers), in which he lost a testicle from one cop stomping it. This story is fairly well-known in the city, and did a decent job of shying people from getting a diagnosis on their record.

TL;DR - Those that need help will likely not receive proper help, partially due to their lack of faith in the system, and partially due to fear of a chemical straitjacket.
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Freeman-on-the-Land armed land seizure - northern Alberta

Post by arayder »

kunta:knit wrote: Those that need help will likely not receive proper help, partially due to their lack of faith in the system, and partially due to fear of a chemical straitjacket.
I have often wondered how one would get a freeman mental health services. Mind you, I am not implying they all need help.

But like the rest of the population you have to figure the subculture has its share of mentally ill folks.

One question would be whether members of the subculture recognize garden variety mental health problems like depression, substance abuse and post postpartum depression and have enough trust in some body to give themselves over for treatment.

Maybe the family's priest could get them started? Or the kindly old doctor who birthed them?

I mean. . .we don't go through live alone. . .sometimes one has to put himself in somebody else's hands.