Jason Penney: Another Unhappy Freeman-on-the-Land Dad

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Got another unsuccessful Freeman-on-the-Land court proceeding, this time in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal:

• Penney v. Tufts, 2014 NSCA 38: http://canlii.ca/t/g6hjc

It’s a family law dispute in which the father, Jason Penney, appeals a change in the access regime for his five year old child. He didn’t move the appeal forward on time, and it got axed as a consequence.

The trial court below seems to have not had a lot of good things to say about Mr. Penney (para. 19):

I will not repeat the grounds of appeal in detail, however, Mr. Penney asks us to find that the trial judge erred in his findings of fact regarding Mr. Penney’s negative impact on the child; failure to take into consideration that Ms. Tufts was being vindictive; failure to take into consideration the child’s aboriginal status and heritage; failure to take into consideration that time spent with either parent is more important than spending time with a babysitter; failure to consider the previous agreement between the parties; failure to consider Mr. Penney’s flexible schedule; and failure to consider an assessment of the child and his wants and needs by a professional.

And the appeal judge agreed (paras. 21-22) and concluded this appeal was not in good faith (para. 23), which didn’t help when Mr. Penney started a Freeman routine:

[24] He also showed his lack of good faith in his appearance before me on March 13, 2014. He asked me where the Court got its jurisdiction to even consider issues arising on the appeal. He then said he was not “Mr. Penney”. He said he was “Jason” and that Mr. Penney did not exist.

[25] This type of conduct suggests to me that Mr. Penney identifies himself with a group of individuals known as “Freeman-on-the-Land” or similar movements. This type of conduct was commented on more extensively by Saunders, J.A. in Macdonald v. First National Financial G.P. Corp., 2013 NSCA 60 (CanLII), 2013 NSCA 60. The goal of these individuals is to prolong litigation and to ignore this Court’s rules of procedure.

[26] I conclude from his comments that his failure to meet the deadlines arises from a flagrant disregard for the Rules and that the appeal is not being pursued in good faith.

The appeal was terminated, with costs awarded to the mother.

There is an earlier Court of Appeal decision (no OPCA fingerprints) where Mr. Penney was denied a stay:

• Penney v. Tufts, 2013 NSCA 126: http://canlii.ca/t/g1qtm

Again, Mr. Penney did not make a good impression (para. 18):

Mr. Penney doesn’t grasp Justice Williams’ point. The judge’s message was that (1) this is about the child, and isn’t a battle between parents, (2) Mr. Penney’s reflexive aggression to Ms. Tufts has damaged his son, (3) a tranquil pause would be therapeutic for the child and, (4) if Mr. Penney just took those directions to heart, then potentially a court might restore his earlier parental contact at some future date after the respite. Mr. Penney’s approach to the stay motion – an implacable attack on Ms. Tufts – does not persuade me that the judge erred in the premise for his assessment of the child’s best interests.

That seems to be it for jurisprudence involving Jason Penney.

As usual, I dug around seeing if I could learn more about Mr. Penney and his OPCA affiliations. I think I identified his Facebook page but it did not have any OPCA-related data, and I have not linked it to keep the identity of his son confidential.

SMS Möwe

[JamesVincent]

I will not repeat the grounds of appeal in detail, however, Mr. Penney asks us to find that the trial judge erred in his findings of fact regarding Mr. Penney’s negative impact on the child; failure to take into consideration that Ms. Tufts was being vindictive; failure to take into consideration the child’s aboriginal status and heritage; failure to take into consideration that time spent with either parent is more important than spending time with a babysitter; failure to consider the previous agreement between the parties; failure to consider Mr. Penney’s flexible schedule; and failure to consider an assessment of the child and his wants and needs by a professional.

None of which were grounds for an appeal anyway, unless Canadian law is completely different from US. None of his "points" are based in law for a lower court to mess up. Of course, in family law, it seems very little is actually set in law, more of a judge's opinion. So his appeal would have been stricken anyway, he just hurried it along.

[notorial dissent]

That and being hostile and aggressive at the original hearing from the sounds of it, certainly didn't do him any good at all, carrying it over in to the appeal just reinforced the original judgment.

[arayder]

Yes, how indicative of the freeman psychology.

You'd think one way to convince the judge that you are a calm, responsible adult whose time and interactions with the child will enhance the child's development is to act calm and responsible in court.

Instead Penny's argument was mostly about trashing the child's mother and questioning the authority of the court.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, how indicative of the freeman psychology.

You'd think one way to convince the judge that you are a calm, responsible adult whose time and interactions with the child will enhance the child's development is to act calm and responsible in court.

Instead Penny's argument was mostly about trashing the child's mother and questioning the authority of the court.

Well, yes, but then there's the rub as they say in the play.

Most/all of the FOTL types I've heard this plaint from are light years from being calm responsible concerned adults, the main reason they end up in these situations in the first place. They always come across to me as very petulant children, and let's be honest here, two or three year olds at most, who have had a toy taken away from them, and not even one they were much concerned with until someone else had it. They're going to stamp their feet really really hard and hold their breath until they get what they want, but that is pretty much the extent of their rational action in the matter. Then they wonder why they don't get their toy back, and wonder why no one takes them seriously or otherwise. Which leads us to the final point. In this same scenario I keep seeing the theme that the child/wife/family are more possession than anything else of the temper tantrum thrower, and that while he/or occasionally she may not care a whole lot about aforesaid property, they are theirs and by doG no one is going to interfere with their property, and someone always, inevitably does, and thus the never ending litany of rants against social services and de ebil gubmint. I don't for a minute think family services is blameless, I've seen too many examples of the disasters they can generate, but in most of these circumstances, they aren't. The FOTL parent has brought it all down on themselves.

I think one of the more ironic things about the FOTL culture for being so libertarian and supposedly egalitarian is what seems to be the ingrained attitude towards wives and children as effectively chattal. Maybe that is just my take on it, but it certainly comes across that way in most all of the writing I have read over the last few years, and the more so the more conservative and religious they base their fantasy on.

[arayder]

. . I think one of the more ironic things about the FOTL culture for being so libertarian and supposedly egalitarian is what seems to be the ingrained attitude towards wives and children as effectively chattel. . .

I think quite a few freemen are very egalitarian. The problem is the self centered part of freeman philosophy is easily co-opted. Without law or code of conduct the freeman subculture has become a haven for a few child abusers and wife beaters.

[Fussygus]

I would definitely agree with Notarials take on some fotl types when it comes to there children as being property. I have personally seen the claim "...have higher title both legal and equitable over my property (children) ,over that of xxx". The wife bring xxx, and they further plead the maxim "..the children shall follow the will of the father". So definitely your thoughts do apply to other examples of a fotl type parent. As you say they consider the children as chattel, and will do anything to prevent someone else (the wife) from possessing their property. To the point that they outright cause harm to their property. There is no more thought to the harm they are doing to their children then someone who trashes their house just before the bank forecloses on it. They don't see the long term effect on their children (credit) that their actions will have, or they do and could care less, it's all about defending THEIR ego, about somehow proving THEIR right.
They are the captains of the ship called EGO and would rather go down with the ship, but in doing so they are also locking the hatches so no one else can get off the ship and save themselves.

[notorial dissent]

I think quite a few freemen are very egalitarian. The problem is the self centered part of freeman philosophy is easily co-opted. Without law or code of conduct the freeman subculture has become a haven for a few child abusers and wife beaters.

You are obviously familiar with a much better class of FOTL than I am then. The ones I have been exposed to all pretty much exhibit the same tendencies and complaints, spend all their time trying to justify why family court isn't a real court and they shouldn't have to abide by anything they say, etc., universally seem to be allergic to paying child support and or alimony, although how some of them make enough to live on themselves let alone have anything to pay outside that is a mystery to me. Their discussions about how and what they did in court make it pretty plain where their priorities lay, and the children weren't included in it. I will say in fairness that there have been a couple of them that I think got quite royally screwed through no real fault of their own, well maybe not really, but most of it was on the other side in these cases, while the rest got exactly what they brought down on themselves by their own actions and behaviors.

[LordEd]

Other than line [24], this doesn't read freeman to me. 24 could be construed to mean that he doesn't identify with a "family name" anymore out of frustration/anger of the court system.

[arayder]

I think quite a few freemen are very egalitarian. The problem is the self centered part of freeman philosophy is easily co-opted. Without law or code of conduct the freeman subculture has become a haven for a few child abusers and wife beaters.

You are obviously familiar with a much better class of FOTL than I am then.

That sort doesn't hang out on forums arguing that they aren't responsible to anyone for anything. They are often off the gird, living a simple free life, harming no one. Many were free men "before freemen were cool". Many small towns and rural communities here in the states, the south and the west in particular, cut these folks a lot of slack and it seems to work.

The ones I have been exposed to. . .make it pretty plain where their priorities lay, and the children weren't included in it.

It's sort of like the freemen who drive drunk or recklessly with no thought as to who they are endangering then bitch about their right to travel and opine that they didn't hurt anyone.

It seems to have escaped their thought process that they quite probably didn't hurt anyone because the cops pulled them over before they did harm.

[AndyK]

FMOTL and other related sovereignorami generally base their version of law on the KJV of the Bible; thereby giving the males absolute monarchy over their wives and children.

After all, it IS the infallable word of God, isn't it?