- R. v. Westover, 2013 ONCJ 472: http://canlii.ca/t/g098h
Joseph in 2011 was convicted of driving without a licence or a valid licence plate by a Justice of the Peace. He then appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice:
Justice Brophy concluded that the Justice of the Peace incorrectly rejected Joseph’s defence via a case, Bothwell v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation), 2005 CanLII 1066 (ON SCDC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1jm4v), where an accused’s defence for not having a driver’s licence was the Biblical prohibition against “graven images”. The court in Bothwell devised a three-part test which Bothwell failed for not having a sincere belief in his religious argument. Key in that was that while Bothwell argued his personal image was prohibited by his faith when on a driver’s licence, Bothwell did not seem at all troubled by digital photographs of his family and farm posted on their website.[9] The grounds for appeal are stated in an expansive manner, but at their core the argument is that the trial Justice of the Peace failed to recognize the constitutional rights of the appellant and did not address various issues that were raised with reference to the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, covenants on civil and political rights from an international perspective, and argues that the trial Justice of the Peace failed to recognize his lack of jurisdiction and that the “man” is separate from the legal fiction or trademark name.
[10] In his submissions the appellant amplified his argument by indicating that the rights that were not recognized were religious rights and rights of free movement and association.
[11] The submissions of the appellant are an amalgam of secular and religious statements that are confusing and difficult to follow. In addition the appellant filed a 212 page Appellant’s Factum that was dense and almost impenetrable. Notwithstanding the effort that must have gone into the preparation of that document, it is sadly of very little persuasive value. I also had the benefit of reading a transcript of the submissions made by the appellant at the conclusion of the trial before the Justice of the Peace, and those submissions were equally unclear.
The Justice of the Peace erred by applying the Bothwell test in too strict a manner (para. 23) and concluded that Joseph was at least not a hypocrite on the Bothwell level: para. 30. The lower court judge had also not responded to Joseph’s many Charter of Rights and Freedoms-based complaints: para. 24.
That said, no re-trial was necessary because this very same argument had been addressed in legal proceedings against Joseph’s mother, Rosemary Westover: a 2010 trial and 2012 Ontario Court of Justice appeal and 2013 Ontario Court of Appeal rejected leave application. At the Court of Justice level the conclusion had been:
Justice Brophy also more globally cites and applies Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras. 276-285 for the general response to OPCA litigants who advance a ‘religion trumps law’ argument: paras. 37, 41. The judgment concludes:There is no religious right, private right, human rights, fundamental right or in alien noble, right to drive a motor vehicle in Ontario on a highway. It is a privilege. Associated with that privilege there are obligations on the owners of such motor vehicles and or the drivers of the same.
A few observations. This judgment does not clearly assign the Westovers to an OPCA movement or group, but the way that Joseph tried to use the split/double person defence – criminal offences relate to my strawman, not me – suggests to me that this is a Freeman-on-the-Land.[41] … it is abundantly clear that regulation of the highways in Ontario is a necessary function of government and any infringement of rights and freedoms, including freedom of religion, association or movement, that might occur with respect to same are justifiable in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, even if the appellant had a sincere religious belief that he should not abide by the rules and regulations related to motor vehicles and highways he is not exempt from same.
[42] As said by Justice Morneau at paragraph 32 of her Rosemary Westover decision: “She is free to choose to not to drive a motor vehicle.”
I found nothing online about Joseph Westover which would further explain his affiliation or background. However, his mother is a different matter. A little digging identified obituaries that indicate a “Rosemary Westover” is married to “Don Westover”.
And “:Donald-Mark: Westover:”, “Authorized Representative of DONALD MARK WESTOVER” has filed an interesting collection of documents at this website (http://issuu.com/golden.don/docs). These are classic Freeman-on-the-Land materials, along with government responses.
Naturally, this begins with an “International And Domestic Notice Of Understanding And Intent And Claim Of Right” (http://issuu.com/golden.don/docs/notari ... m_of_right), a 17 page version with much text taken straight from the World Freeman Society forums. Interestingly, this mentions a son, “Taylor-McKenzie: Westover”, but no Joseph. The endorsements on page 12 have signatures and fingerprints, including “:Rosemary-Edith: Westover” as a witness – so it looks like we have that link. These persons all are located in the same area of Ontario. Somewhat troubling is that the signature by “McKenzie:Westover” appears to be one made by a very young child.
What follows is a surprisingly brief Fee Schedule with only modest claims, $1000/hour for “being questioned, interrogated, or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated”, which goes to $10,000 if someone is foolish enough to handcuff or incarcerate, or if Donald is “subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent”. Violence against his family, though, is worth $25 million.
The NOUICR attaches a few more quirky things, such as an “International and Domestic Notice of Denial of Consent” that announces:
The “high water mark” … “on dry land” business is new to me – no idea what that’s about. Schedule “B” is a transcript of Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation ceremony, while Schedule “C” is the lyrics of the song “Go Down Moses”.I deny accord with high water mark claims that appear on dry land as an excuse for jurisdiction of admiralty law. I deny consent for governance by International Law.
The NOUICR is subsequently amended (Sept. 10, 2009) to clarify that also means Donald’s name should be removed from all known electoral registries (http://issuu.com/golden.don/docs/notari ... _of_notary)
There is a separate document which appears to be a renuciation of all manner of contractural relationships (http://issuu.com/golden.don/docs/notari ... of_attorne), and a collection of motor vehicle documents, all with “Returned and Accepted for Value Without Prejudice By : Donald-Mark: Westover:” written diagonally across them (http://issuu.com/golden.don/docs/return ... le_permits). Amusingly, one of these documents was already endorsed by Westover signing “Without Prejudice By: Donald-Mark: Westover”. Apparently these certificates were then delivered to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario (http://issuu.com/golden.don/docs/notice ... lieutenant_) to “deregister” Westover’s vehicle.
Now the real fun begins – the state writes back!
Licensing Services of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation says they “appreciate your views” but if you continue to drive you should be aware you need to conform to motor vehicle legislation requirements (http://issuu.com/golden.don/docs/paul_b ... 14-01-2010). This is in response to a ‘colourful’ letter from Westover in which he explains he has opted out of contract.
The Attorney General responds with a couple things. First, a letter (http://issuu.com/golden.don/docs/attorn ... ce_re._cor) in response to the NOUICR with a curt ‘get lost’:
Westover sends a whiny letter in reply complaining the ministry misspelled his name, and that he’s not subject to courts, but if you have a better way to file things, please tell me.These documents do not appear to have been issued by or filed in a court of law. As these documents are not a properly issued claim or application, it is my intention to take no further action in response to them.
Please be advised that there is nothing more we can do for you in this regard and our file is closed. Please also be advised that no further correspondence will be forthcoming from this ministry on these matters.
A subsequent letter from a government lawyer is more direct:
This triggers a response letter from Westover - but it’s a contract! A contract! I’m just contracting out!The correspondence that has been sent by you and regarding you to the Lieutenant Governor is incomprehensible and appears to have no basis in Canadian law. I am unaware of what personal financial or other legal obligations you may have, but the correspondence that has been sent by and about you, and the actions described in that correspondence, do not relieve you of any such obligations that you may have.
Westover also tried to ‘cash out’ his birth certificate, which led to this response from Government Services (http://issuu.com/golden.don/docs/corres ... ar_general):
And get lost.A birth certificate cannot be endorsed or deposited. It has no inherent financial value. Unfortunately, some people seem to have mistaken beliefs about the birth registration process. One such mistaken belief that seems to have circulated is that the purpose of the birth registration process is to create some type of financial security. This is simply not the case, and I have been informed by my legal staff that there is no basis in Canadian law for this belief.
This collection of documents is a nice illustration of how Freemen try to structure their interactions with the state. Westover certainly likes to write… Though the link between Don Westover and Joseph and Rosemary Westover is, at worse, indirect, I am quite certain this is one family who have at least in part coordinated their efforts.
No reported case law in relation to : Donald-Mark: Westover:. Yet.
SMS Möwe
