The Nanaimo Three - Political Prisoners in Canada

[notorial dissent]

I found this while I was out looking for something else and thought I would post it.

The little piece of tin that started this whole thing and guess who

[The Observer]

"Blessed are the peacemakers?" Kind of an ironic statement wouldn't you think for a group whose only goal is to cause as much trouble as they can? Maybe I'm weird, but I prefer the ol' Constitutional Ranger badge to this piece of tin.

[JamesVincent]

"Blessed are the peacemakers?" Kind of an ironic statement wouldn't you think for a group whose only goal is to cause as much trouble as they can? Maybe I'm weird, but I prefer the ol' Constitutional Ranger badge to this piece of tin.

You're still weird but I agree. Kinda hard to call yourself a peace officer when all you want to do is create conflict.

[grixit]

Pax Plasmator? Wasn't that a giant robot in a 90's japanese cartoon?

[rogfulton]

Pax Plasmator? Wasn't that a giant robot in a 90's japanese cartoon?

80's I think

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Since Alex and his buddies are going to be back in court this coming Wednesday I thought I’d have a look and see whether there have been any developments in the file.

First, we have two new defendants: Jody Vaillant and Andrew Winston Simpson. Vaillant and Simpson both face charges for impersonation of a peace officer, while Simpson also is charged with resisting or obstructing a peace officer. Vaillant joins Bradley David Richard Smith in pre-trial detention.

I did a little digging on the two new additions to the assemblage that will be remembered, no doubt, as "The Nanaimo Five".

First, Jody Vaillant. Unsurprisingly, Jody has UFO/conspiracy interests, enjoys martial arts, and even has an acting career! He appeared in the movie “The Gutter Diaries” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1114252/), a Vancouver tale of four persons facing hard times. Jody played “Bryan Jacobson”:

… a grade eleven high-school teacher obsessed with one of his students, Karen. Knowing full well of the risks and ramifications if he acts on his urges, he begins searching for excitement in all the wrong places. Will Bryan cross the line? ...

His Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/jody.vaillant) is riddled with the usual hipster anti-government type copypasta that I have come to associate with the leftist / hippy / occupista branch of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement. He is a part of the Free David Lange Facebook group (and now will be able to help at closer quarters!) and Robert Menard’s “Cirque De Soul Eh” project (https://www.facebook.com/groups/121245771402749/). I don’t think that has been previously mentioned on Quatloos. It’s another of Menard’s bold schemes that were announced and then never mentioned again. Freeman Menard describes the project:

Mission and Vision:
Travelling across Canada, we are collection of artists, craft makers, and social activists collaborating to build communities here and abroad. Employing joy and facilitating opportunities to network and share talents, with an eye towards building their own communities.

A series of three day events, held across the country, with the talent and acts drawn from the local populace along with the traveling component of feature acts and performers. Part bazaar, part circus, part market, and a whole lot of fun, this family friendly, alcohol free event, includes everything from acrobats to comedians and dj's. Our goal is to help bring people together, encouraging fellowship and community networking.

If you are a visual artist you are welcome to display your work, or take part in the direct painting auction, where on stage with a band, and while they play their set, you paint something, which is then auctioned off in order to raise money for the orphans, as well as yourself and the band.

Jugglers, face painters, street performers of all types are welcome to attend at no cost, with the understood stipulation that they too consider donating to help us support our orphans.

On the main stage a varied and eclectic rotation will offer everything from children's shows in the morning, speakers and social activists in the afternoon, and comedians, poets, bands, musicians, and dj's in the evening. Operated as an open mic format, performers will be welcome to put out a jar and collect donations, and promote themselves and products, be they CD's, books, ideas, or fuzzy slippers.

A food court area with basic necessities to ensure proper cleanliness will be available with booths for various vendors of delicacies and tasty treats. A seating area will be available to accommodate the hungry, and be used for networking games and exercises.

If you would like an opportunity to display and sell your own hand crafted items, artistic endeavours, pottery, books, jewelry, soaps, candles, photographs, or what have you, let us know. There is no cost for a booth, though we do ask that when you are done, you donate what you consider to be a fair amount and support us in our goal of helping orphans in less fortunate countries. If you would like to offer food items or operate a stall in the garden market, please contact us for details.

Thank you for caring.

Now to Jody’s darker side. It turns out he is a (seriously) deadbeat dad:

• Caruso v. Vaillant, 2009 BCSC 1365: http://canlii.ca/t/2607v

He fathered twin sons, one of whom suffers from cerebral palsy. When he and his partner split he claimed an income of $23,214, and paid $400 per month in child support (para. 4). He did not keep up that payment schedule. Jody’s income then increased to $52,000, $65,000, $91,000 and $59,000 from 2005-2009 (para. 7). He did not bother to tell the mother of his children that was the case, and instead claimed he could not pay his outstanding support owed (at the $400 rate) because of financial hardship (para. 12).

Master Caldwell was clearly unimpressed by Jody’s “somewhat confusing and contradictory evidence” (para. 12), and concluded that it was “almost inconceivable” that Jody’s claims the mother of his twin children forgave his outstanding support debts (at the $400/month level) was true (para. 13). Jody lied when he claimed he told the mother of his true income (para. 13). Jody’s concealment of his income was blameworthy conduct worthy of a retroactive child support order, which totaled $34,992 (para. 18). Jody’s ongoing support was set at $700 per month.

I don't see any obvious reason why Jody was denied bail, but he must have some kind of record to attract that response. Or perhaps he just denied the court's authority.

Our other Freeman-on-the-Land is Andrew Winston Simpson, a Vancouver plumbing contractor (http://www.delta.ca/assets/CPD/PDF/busi ... nce_03.pdf). The only other thing I was able to learn about Andrew is that he on March 20, 2013 pled guilty to failing to file income tax returns for 2005-2007, was fined $3000, and ordered to file his 2003-2011 returns (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/cnvctns/ ... 0-eng.html). That decision is not reported.

Unsurprisingly Mr. Ream continues to babble away on his Facebook page. I offer a sample of his thoughts as he approaches trial.

First, when it was suggested the One People's Public Trust could help with his defence, Alex says no - he's tired of being labelled by the company he keeps (http://www.facebook.com/alexander.ream/ ... d=98635260):

I wish them the best hoping that their intent is about helping people. I do not want to associate myself with OPPT because I do not understand everything about it and I wish to be independent. What I can do is learn and adapt with the things from OPPT that resonate with me. I already have to deal with people labeling as a member of the Freeman-On-The-Land organization at the moment for merely hanging out with them.

Alex waxes metaphysical. We are programmed by special interest groups, but that indoctrination can be crushed by our inner spirit (http://www.facebook.com/alexander.ream/ ... 5092463713):

Real bliss is living from the heart instead of letting the unconscious habits take control everything. Most of the unconscious habits are programmed into us by the special interest groups, which is mind control. Only keep the unconscious habits that helps like breathing, blinking, etcetera. Other unconscious habits like beliefs that does not resonate with you are unnecessary and they will be obsolete by living from within.

… It is more about self-realization. We are already masters. If we can think or dream about it then we can achieve it.

Finally, a manifesto of truth, and a voice of clear defiance (http://www.facebook.com/alexander.ream/ ... 0495601506):

I am facing 5 years of incarceration, but I still do not wish to get a so called lawyer and will never do so. These so called lawyers of the so called law society are for PUBLIC SERVANT EMPLOYEE who broke the rule(s) of the corporation. I was simply not performing any commercial activity under any Acts, Statutes or Bylaws at the time of the complaints. It is a wrongful prosecution and I will make that clear to them. There cannot be a criminal charge without a claim of an injured party. The PROSECUTOR really don't care because he or she only see dollar signs until he or she see there is liability for his or her words and actions. I know my rights and where I stand. I do not need any advice from FOTL or OPPT to be able to exercise my rights. I don't even need paperwork, but will do paperwork anyway.

…

There is no need to worry. I am sure that everything will be fine. I only have to focus on the outcome that I want and make the necessary actions. I have broken no contract or harmed anyone. I was born with inherent rights. Where did I traded my rights into slavery? Is there any valid contract to prove that I did so? The truth is that there is none. They merely operate under assumptions and presumptions instead of sworn facts and evidence. We get duped into phony court procedures and we usually never find the remedy. To have JUSTICE you need TRUTH. There is no truth whatsoever in the legal system. The legal system is to settle legal dispute for PUBLIC SERVANT EMPLOYEE. They can only win if they manage to deceive you and make you believe that their illusion more real than what is real. I really don't care about their opinions. Opinions are not law. I do not consent to have a so called lawyer because there is a conflict of interest. I do not need a so called lawyer of the so called law society to exercise my rights. I will not exercise any legal rights because those are for PUBLIC SERVANT EMPLOYEE. I deny all allegations made against my trust. There is no sworn facts or evidence. These opinions will not be a valid defence when I will be coming after them for damaging me. Opinions or not... There is no valid reason to violate any human rights.

…

Also, everything the PROSECUTOR says or shows is hearsay evidence. That is mostly why he or she cannot swear the evidence to be true. Most of the evidence is fabricated anyway and are not sworn to be true, which means that they are merely opinions. That is because they don't want liability. They want to distract you with opinions. They mostly depend on us not challenging their commercial for profit court services process so that they can assume that we consented to their commercial for profit court services by tacit acquiescence. Know that their power comes from us we the people and they need our consent or at least that we participate in their racketeering so that they can assume that they have authority over us because of tacit acquiescence. Whether we plead guilty or not guilty we lose if we participate in their commercial for profit court services. To plead not guilty is to agree that we committed the allege offense(s) and that we contest even if we didn't commit the allege offense(s). Well at least that is what they are going to assume if we do not rebut all the assumptions & presumptions and make it clear what is our standing. We cannot lose unless we surrender our power and what we believe to be true deep inside to their illusion of authority. The truth is self-evident. We are the real authority and we are not slaves. Statutes, Acts or Bylaws only apply to PUBLIC SERVANT EMPLOYEE. There is no crime if there is no broken contract or if there is no harm involved and that is what law is really about. … Our rights are not given and we have to exercise them and hold the ones violating those rights accountable. I do not advocate punishment because they deserve a chance to rehabilitate. The terms & conditions of my fee schedule will give an opportunity for that. They are merely cowards and they take advantage of our ignorance and passive attitude. We have been conditioned so badly to obey authority. I believe that this is about to change. We are no longer being unconscious and subservient as it does not makes us alive. We are waking up to our true nature and we are starting to see that we are more than what we have allowed ourselves to become. We are more powerful beyond measure. Our realized potential will make this world a brighter place. I am starting to see the pieces coming together and my suffering trying to understand this world wasn't in vain. I have realized so much and I think that was the point of the whole suffering. What is more powerful than knowing law is realizing that we create our own reality. Something I always knew, but I got distracted. Wherever we focus is our reality. We have to stop resisting what we want to manifest because we were programmed to think that we are unworthy, which is why we are not really happy and always seek to fill the gap of our shallow heart with artificial things. We simply have to believe in ourselves and simply be. I am, it is, anytime I choose to be.

A hero to us all.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

A true gem of humanity is that one. I have a real feeling he is going to be mightily and seriously disappointed when he finds out that the "rule(s) of the corporation", and "Acts, Statutes or Bylaws " do apply to him and are going to get applied to him big time. He really does live in his own little fantasy universe it would seem.

[alexticule]

Where do I find out exactly what time my court appearance is?

[Burnaby49]

Where do I find out exactly what time my court appearance is?

If you are Alexander Ream you are currently scheduled for 9:30-10:00 August 14th, New Westminster Courthouse. Check here:

https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/esear ... eSearch.do

Then enter "76920" in the "File Number" field, and select "New Westminster Law Courts" as the location. That provides not only the file information, but the courtroom, which is listed as 206.

See you there!

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy!

Alex has posted his aptly titled “PAPERWORK” for tomorrow’s hearing (http://www.scribd.com/doc/160089370/PAPERWORK). I am eager to see his keen legal mind at work.

Even better, it appears he has discovered that others are watching his antics (http://www.facebook.com/alexander.ream/ ... 9225193633), but, alas, Mr. Ream does not seem to appreciate the tone on those forums:

Okay I understand that what I do may be hard to understand, but that is not a valid reason to assume things out of proportion and use hatred. I am only doing my best to be true. I do make mistakes, but I can learn from my mistakes. So correct me if you think that I am doing something wrong and please explain why. Help me learn and understand why I don't have the right to the things I am doing. There is no need to hate. I am simply being me and please forgive me for not being accustomed to your beliefs. To the ones who are watching closely what I am posting. You don't have to spread misinformation and hatred on other websites. Please do post comments here. I really don't mind being criticize here. I have stumbled on forums riddle with things that are not true and condemnation. Surely you must have some kind of special understanding. Surely your opinions must be based on truth. So why not enlighten me? I would like to learn from your perspective. I won't bite.

…

I would like to make it clear that my intent as being a Peace Officer was not to arrest anyone, but to prove that I can. The court may railroad me, but winning for me is standing on my truth. I will do my best so that I am not railroaded.

…

I will post my paperwork tomorrow. It is done to the best of my understanding. I hope that it would clear some misunderstandings.

The second quoted passage is kind of bizarre as a defence. "I possess a large stockpile of explosives not with the intent of blowing things up, but so that I can blow things up, hypothetically."

In any case, I decline to respond to Mr. Ream on his Facebook page where he can edit or remove material, but instead prefer to create an archive that may be accessed by the public for future reference.

In case that was directed to us (JREF is also having some fun) I can observe that not only are our “opinions” “based on truth”, they’re based on something even more important, binding case law authority. Which just may prove ever so slightly relevant for your immediate times ahead, Mr. Ream.

Off to the doc’s. I will only quote certain excerpts because Mr. Ream is somewhat repetitive.

I claim that Statutes, Acts or Bylaws do not apply to me. I cannot find any proof that Statutes, Acts or Bylaws apply to me.

Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras. 307-348 (http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq). Binding authority - R. v. Petrie, 2012 BCSC 2110 (http://canlii.ca/t/fxn34):

[55] In the current application, Mr. Petrie submits, through his documents, that the statutory law of the country does not apply to him because he has opted out or contracted out through his claim of right. However, he cannot opt out of, contract out of, or ignore the law, statutory or otherwise, that all members of Canadian society, be they citizens, visitors or aliens, must adhere to and follow. To suggest otherwise is to invite dissent into a nihilist state or state or anarchy.

[56] Canada is a country founded on the rule of law and a constitutional democracy in which all are equal before the law, under the law, and all are bound by the law, including constitutional law, common law, statutory law and regulatory law. The argument of the applicant that suggests the laws of Canada, particularly the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, do not apply to him is, to adopt the ruling of Hollinrake J.A. at para. 13 in Warman:

• ... a complete denial of the constitutional history of this country as it applies to the rights and obligations of its people before the law.

[57] The argument of the applicant before the Court in the current case must be and is rejected as being without any legal, historical or constitutional foundation whatsoever.

Next!

There are no facts or evidence that the court has authority over me. The Canadian CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is the highest law of CANADA. Section 52 of the Charter is proof of that claim.

Additionally, the Government only has jurisdiction over its own business. Section 32 of the Charter is proof of that claim. I am not performing any function of Government at the time of the complaints

Therefore, the Government’s highest law says that the Government only has power over its own business, agents and trustees. The court does not have Jurisdiction to hold me as I am not one.

Wrong again. Binding authority – R. v. Petrie, 2012 BCSC 2109 (http://canlii.ca/t/fxn33), see paras. 68-88:

[79] With respect, the applicant appears to be endeavouring to turn the jurisprudence pertaining to s. 32 of the Charter on its head. If he is arguing that because he is a private citizen the Constitution, and by extension the laws of this country, only apply to government actions and agents, he is mistaken. He, too, is subject to the laws of Canada, including the CDSA. He cannot pick and choose what laws apply to him, nor can he engage in what Myers J. characterized in Porisky at para. 67 as "legal numerology" by picking and choosing extracts from statutes and cases and weaving them together in an attempt to create logical links where none exist.

[80] Section 32 of the Charter mandates that the Charter applies to government actions such as the RCMP's investigation and arrest of the applicant in this case, which means that the applicant's Charter rights are to be observed and protected in the carrying out of such actions. The Charter does not, however, govern interactions between private citizens. Moreover, s. 32 of the Charter does not stand for the notion that as a private citizen the Constitution and the laws of Canada do not apply to the applicant and his actions.

[81] If the applicant is trying to assert the Court has no jurisdiction over him to try the offences because, by virtue of s. 32 of the Charter, the Constitution and the laws under which he is charged only applies to government agents, and he is not a government agent, he has fundamentally misconceived what s. 32 of the Charter means and what the jurisprudence has interpreted its purpose to be.

[82] If the applicant is trying to advance the argument that the laws under which he is charged do not apply to him because he is not a government agent, again he is mistaken.

[83] If the applicant is suggesting the Court has no jurisdiction over him to try the offences because he is a private citizen and thus outside of the Court’s jurisdiction, then, as Mr. Justice Hollinrake noted in R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at para. 13 [Warman], his argument would be "a complete denial of the constitutional history of this country as it applies to the rights and obligations of its people before the law." Arguments of this kind must be and are "rejected as being without any legal, historical or constitutional foundation whatsoever": Warman, at para. 14.

[I've been meaning to post a commentary on these two Petrie cases, they are very nice work. Petrie's story is also quite interesting.]

Next!

…I am not subject to statutory jurisdiction. I was a Peace Officer within my inherent rights. There are no facts or evidence that I broke a contract or harmed anyone. I have no contract with the Government.

… I did not an do not consent to these corporate court services as I do not belong there. I insist that you produce the payroll records and/or contract if you claim I am not a slave. I will only be there in court under protest and duress to take the necessary steps to dismiss the unlawful case made against me.

Meads v. Meads, at paras. 388-416, specifically:

[411] A claim that the relationship between an individual and the state is always one of contract is clearly incorrect. Aspects of that relationship may flow from mutual contract (for example a person or corporation may be hired by the government to perform a task such as road maintenance), but the state has the right to engage in unilateral action, subject to the Charter, and the allocation and delegation of government authority.

And A.C.J. Rooke again, this time in A.N.B. v. Hancock, 2013 ABQB 97 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwx39):

[89] A.N.B. said he does not consent to be subject to the authority of Alberta’s child welfare services, the RCMP, and Provincial Court of Alberta. Unfortunately for him, any such consent is immaterial. As Justice Moir observed in R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288 (CanLII), 2012 NSSC 288, at para. 32: “[t]his teaching is not only wrong in the sense that it is false. It is wrongful. That is, it is full of wrong.”

[90] Near the end of my oral decision, A.N.B. said he did not understand how his consent is irrelevant in a free country governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If he reads the first section of that document he will obtain a better understanding of the Constitutional structure of this Country:

• 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. [Emphasis added.]

The scope of those reasonable limits is explored in many Canadian cases, with the basic principles set in R. v. Oakes, 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 26 D.L.R. (4th) 200.

[91] Thus, rights in this Country are not absolute. A.N.B. may not prefer to be subject to state or court limitation on his activities, but nevertheless he is potentially subject to legal limitation and sanction unless he can demonstrate those limitations are unconstitutional. He has neither done, nor attempted to do so.

Next!

… The court of Inherent Jurisdiction I convened on June 26th 2013 is still convened and will continue to be convened. …

If you convened a court of “Inherent Jurisdiction” then perhaps you could indicate when you were appointed to the British Columbia Supreme Court? If you wish to actually learn what that phrase means please read Meads v. Meads, paras. 351-378.

Next!

… Judge Walters railroaded me and I was dragged back down to a solitary confinement cell. What will be your defence for violating my rights? I am being harmed and if all the charges are not dropped on August 14th 2013, the Crown Prosecutor and any other complicit will be liable to $1000 billion (Cad.) as I am facing up to 5 years of my previous life in unlawful incarceration. I value each year at $200 billion (Cad.) and I am giving the opportunity to the Crown Prosecutor to do the right thing by ending this.

…

I am not a slave and I do not work for free unless it is for a charity. Pay attention to my FEE SCHEDULE.

And yes, he attached his Fee Schedule. He charges $1 Million for “Complying with any statute or order” “In general”, and it ramps up from there.

Fee schedules have no force in law as they are foisted unilateral agreements, see Meads v. Meads, paras. 447-528. Binding authority: Szoo v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), 2011 BCSC 696, Canada v. Rudolf, 2010 BCSC 565.

Advancing a fee schedule that is targeted against a Crown Prosecutor appears to me to meet the criteria for Criminal Code, s. 423.1, intimidation of a justice system participant, see Meads v. Meads, paras. 526-527:

[526] It occurs to me that ‘fee schedules’ may also have a potential criminal effect. Documents of this kind are intended to impede the legitimate action of government, law enforcement, and court actors by purporting to assign very sizable penalties for actions that are not only a part of their jobs, but very often a duty. These penalties are a threat of “damage to property”. Since ‘fee schedules’ have no legal force, the threats they contain are by definition unlawful.

[527] If so, it seems that perhaps when a person advances a ‘fee schedule’, that may be prima facie evidence of the act and intention of the Criminal Code, ss. 423.1, intimidation of a justice system participant offence. Advancing a ‘fee schedule’ and claims based on the same, may perhaps also prove other criminal offences. Mr. Meads’ ‘fee schedule’ claims damages that clearly escalate in a manner that offends the Criminal Code, s. 347 criminal interest rate prohibition. Documents of this kind may have relevance for whether bail should be granted or denied: R. v. A.N.B., 2012 ABQB 556 at para. 51.

Congratulations Mr. Reams, it appears your PAPERWORK is prima facie evidence of another criminal offence:

423.1 (3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years.

And, as you see, this time the maximum penalty is 14 years. This is an indictable offence, which means it must be heard in the British Columbia Supreme Court. As an offence of over 14 years, if you are found guilty of that offence you cannot be given a conditional (house arrest) sentence but must serve its entirety in jail: Criminal Code, s. 742.1(c).

Mr. Ream also thoughtfully attaches a STATEMENT OF DEFENCE and STATEMENT OF COUNTERCLAIM. Pity this isn’t a civil proceeding.

I like para. 3 of the latter:

3. I claim that all the wrongful assumptions and presumptions that anyone may have regarding this matter are not valid. So do not force any legal opinions on me and only provide facts and evidence.

Not sure what that means, but it sounds impressive. Do you think “legal opinions” means things like … case law? Statutes? I suppose we’ll see.

I will offer a tip – if Mr. Ream does believe the Crown has acted unlawfully he may seek a remedy by suing in tort for wrongful prosecution, or alleging a breach of his Charter of Rights and Freedoms that warrants a remedy under s. 24(1). He can look up the law for that himself.

Or I suppose he could just make things up to remain consistent with these particular submissions. Or conduct these actions in his personal "court of Inherent Jurisdiction".

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

If I don't make it to court tomorrow, thank American Airlines. My wife is coming in from Dallas tonight and she expects me to pick her up at the airport. However, as is all too common with AA, her arrival time has been slipping over the course of the afternoon. She was originally scheduled to arrive at 8:30 but it is currently at 11:30 and its moving later every time I check. If it ends up in the early AM I may get to bed too late to bother getting up in time to drag myself to the New Westminster court by 9:30.

As an indication of how things are going, arrival is now scheduled for 11:45. The delay seems to be moving in real time since it has increased by fifteen minutes since I started this posting.

[alexticule]

The forums of ignorance and condemnation I was referring to was this.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=253445&page=42

It's kinda creepy to find out that they were looking at everything I have posted.
All they can think of is to lock me up. It really shows how sane and creative they are.
I am not mad at them. It is simply disappointing. I believe they are better than this.

Got back home and I was going to reply there. I stumble on this website again while I was Googling. I thought about leaving a comment here too. I found this website a while back and made an account to comment. I guess I forgot about it. Here I am once again though.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. You obviously have a lot of knowledge on legal things. I am impressed. Yes by legal opinions I mean case law and all that. The FEE SCHEDULE is expensive because I do value my rights.. unlike some. I never intended to collect on them however. I was thinking more about making a deal to the ones who harmed me. I will prove it by my actions. My intentions are no evil. I only want to save the world.

[webhick]

Where do I find out exactly what time my court appearance is?

This is about the saddest thing I've read all day.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A few thoughts for you, Mr. Ream.

First, if you have not already done so, I would suggest you read the judgment of Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, which may be viewed here: http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq

The Meads v. Meads decision is what lawyers and judges call a "leading case". That means it is a case that other judges and courts point to for guidance. Since it was released Meads v. Meads has been cited (referenced) in Canada in 28 written judgments. I cannot guess at the number of oral judgments that have cited the decision.

Meads v. Meads has also been identified as an authority in written judgments from Ireland, Scotland, Australia, and the Isle of Jersey. That also indicates this is legal analysis that is broadly accepted by common law courts.

You appear to think that a fee schedule will be accepted by the courts. That subject is addressed in detail in Meads v. Meads. You owe it to yourself to look at that carefully.

You also say, as I understand it, that you do not intend to attempt to enforce your fee schedule and collect on the amounts claimed. That is not what the documents you have filed with the court indicate.

You may also be interested to know that a person is equally guilty of a criminal offence if they commit that offence, or if they attempt to commit the offence: Criminal Code, s. 24(1).

You have filed documents with the court which demand very large amounts of money. There is a legal rule that a person can be presumed to have intended the natural consequences of their acts: Starr v. Houlden, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1366, 68 D.L.R. (4th) 641.

Last, in my post above I identified what I called "binding authorities". Those are judgments of a court 'higher up' than the British Columbia Provincial Court. A judge at the Provincial Court has no choice but to always follow the principles and conclusion made by those "binding authorities".

Good luck with your studies.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

I am very much afraid that Ream is going to be sorely disappointed by his experience to come, and having filed the nonsense papers that they are going to all come due and I will not bet he likes the outcome.

He is so totally confused about what reality is disappointment is going to be the hallmark of his life.

[alexticule]

Thank you. I will read them an learn. I still do not see any facts or evidence however.

[alexticule]

I hope you can make it and get some good sleep. I will too instead of watching movies.

[Cathulhu]

Thank you. I will read them an learn. I still do not see any facts or evidence however.

You and reality are strangers to one another, aren't you?

[Burnaby49]

Thank you. I will read them an learn. I still do not see any facts or evidence however.

You and reality are strangers to one another, aren't you?

And at 9:30 tomorrow morning he's going to be at his arraignment hearing (assuming he recognizes the court authority enough to show up) where he has to plead guilty or innocent and a grasp of reality would be a real benefit to him then.

I can't get too optimistic about the prospects for a guy who has to contact a website of complete strangers to ask when his own court hearing is.

[alexticule]

To the contrary my friend.