Edward O'Brien: Human Rights Defenders first failure

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

The cases in Canada are coming on fast and furious, and like Burnaby49 I too am having a hard time keeping pace. I don’t think this means that we are actually seeing more Freeman and Sovereign activity, but rather that Canadian judges are writing more often after an encounter with a litigant of this type.

Our next subject is “Edward O’Brien, the human being”:

• O’Brien v. Murchland, 2013 ONSC 4576: http://canlii.ca/t/fznz5

He was stopped while travelling in his conveyance and received a ticket. He now sues the London, Ontario policy enforcement officer responsible, demands the officer be brought under control, for cash, and freedom! (para. 2):

… The plaintiff seeks his immediate removal from office and that “he shall no longer any type of public office in Ontario [sic].” He seeks damages of $30,000 (being $1000 for every minute of his “15 minute detention (arrest)” and $15,000 “for mental distress and physical violation.” Finally, he asks for “a declaratory judgment to the effect that the plaintiff is not bound by statute of Canada and/or Ontario.”

Justice Rady thoughtfully reproduced much Mr. O’Brien’s pleadings (para. 3), but here are a few parts I liked:

6. The Defendant demanded statutory documentation, in the form of licensing, insurance and registration of the car. The Plaintiff agreed only to provide his given, and family names to the Defendant.

….

8. The Plaintiff explained to the Defendant that the statutes that the Defendant was enforcing did not bind him. The Plaintiff advised the defendant that he was travelling in the capacity of a human being.

9. The Defendant became agitated. The Defendant made a derogatory slur about the Plaintiff being a “freeman on the land” type trying to claim sovereignty.

10. The Defendant threatened to take the Plaintiff to jail, if he did not provide any identification. He claimed his authority to demand identification stemmed from the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.

11. The Defendant then attempted to enter the car the Plaintiff was travelling in, first by pulling the outer door handle, then reaching inside the car the Plaintiff was travelling in for the inside handle.

12. The Plaintiff attempted to sweep the Defendant’s hand away from the handle. At which time, the Defendant grabbed the Plaintiff’s arm with stern force.

13. The Defendant said to the Plaintiff, “You don’t want to mess with me buddy.”

14. (a) Under threat, and duress, the Plaintiff handed over the documents that were demanded by the Defendant.

(b) The Plaintiff conveying these documents was not to be construed or implied as his consent to be recognized as a legal person.

O’Brien’s argument for why he was immune has some twists. For one, he says he has never given an oath of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II, and therefore has no duty to follow the law. Second, all police officers have (or should have) a list of who has or has not given that oath. O'Brien should have been released once his oathlessness was detected. That’s a little different from what I have seen elsewhere from Freemanish types. But instead of simply arguing the old-fashioned Freeman-on-the-Land everything is a contract bit, O’Brien stresses international law:

23. The Defendant has abrogated the Plaintiffs rights, including, but not limited to: Liberty, security of the person, freedom of association, and right not to be held in servitude. International treaty, laws, and the common law recognize these human rights. These rights are also pointed out in the internal laws of Canada.

…

26. (a) The Defendant is bound to recognize and protect these rights pursuant to the international covenant on civil and political rights, parts 1, and 3, articles 8, 21, 22 and 47, the Universal declaration of human rights, and other laws to which Her Majesty, and Canada have signed.

(b) The Defendant breached his duty of care owed to the Plaintiff. The particulars of such breaches include the following:

(i) The Defendant failed to recognize and protect the Plaintiff’s right to liberty.
(ii) The Defendant abrogated the Plaintiff’s right to security of the person.
(iii) The Defendant abrogated the Plaintiff’s right to freedom of association.
(iv) The Defendant forced the Plaintiff to be held in servitude against his will.

This theme is further elaborated in a supporting affidavit.

8. I, Edward O’Brien, the human being, was not an officer, agent, employee, trustee, surety or holding any title of office for the Corporation of Canada, Corporation of Province of Ontario, or the Corporation of the City of London et al at the time of the claim. As the name, “EDWARD JOSEPH O”BRIEN”, is presumably owned by the Corporation of Canada.

…

24. I, Edward O’Brien, the human being, am not a person (legal). I do not give consent for their government or any other corporation to create joinder between me and any legal person.

...

27. I, Edward O’Brien was born free and have waived any/all “benefits and privileges” of any/all corporations et al., known or unknown, compelled or not. I DO NOT give consent or give my permission to be recognized as a person and strongly object to any party identifying me as operating under or though the designation of a “person” or anything other than a “man”. I, Edward O’Brien acknowledge that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights make it clear how Canada, the Province of Ontario, and Her Majesty must view and interact with him.

…

29. I, Edward O’Brien have not entered into any contracts and/or agreements which would allow the enforcement of statutory laws upon me. I am not a CITIZEN of the Corporation Canada et al. I do not perform any services or contract services for the Corporation, and do not receive a “pay check or payroll records” from the Corporation. The Corporation has never made “full disclosure” to these alleged contracts and agreements, nor a meeting of the minds been made, no consideration was given, therefore no contract and/or agreement could exist.

…

31. I, Edward O’Brien, the human being, have never “consented or agreed” to the jurisdiction of any inferior Ontario court. As I understand that such courts cannot enforce my rights as a man. Indeed the latest biennial report for “Ontario Court of Justice” supports this claim with this statement: “As a “statutory” court (a court created by statute), the Ontario Court of Justice’s jurisdiction is specifically given to it by the laws of Ontario and of Canada”.

…

33. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a policy manual solely for employees of the government, see: CCRF sections 32 & 52. So unless I am a corporate employee, i.e.: a “person”, i.e.: a dead entity, then NONE of their “laws” apply to me, the man.

34. Under the International Bill of Human Rights (IBHR), article 16 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights states that, “everyone has the right to be recognized as a person before the law”. I also have the right to waive that right as Canada is a signatory to the IBHR, therefore all court officers and government employees are bound by this “International Law” which trumps other laws which are only corporate statutes.

Unsurprisingly, Justice Rady characterizes this argument as a stereotypic and invalid OPCA scheme as identified in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, strikes the action as fatally flawed, and invites the defence to provide a bill of costs (para. 18). I suspect full indemnity costs are impending.

Now, there are a couple interesting things about this decision. One is that it looks like O’Brien is enforcing a fee schedule, but there is no mention of one. The second is that here the ‘magic hat’ is:

• 1. international law trumps Canadian law,
  
  2. a human being has a right under international law to have or not have a legal “person”,
  
  3. the state can only get at you if you have a legal person, and
  
  4. if you reject having a legal person, something authorized under international law, then you are free.

I have not seen this exact scheme before in a reported court case but I know where it comes from. This is the approach being flogged by the Human Rights Defenders League in Canada (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9418). The concept, with rants aplenty, are found in a ‘book’ published by the HRDLIC, modestly entitled “The Solution To ALL Our Problems”. For those wanting a few giggles, it’s worth a look. Another curious thing – the book exists in two versions:

• March, 2013: http://humanrightsdefendersleague.ca/book.pdf
  
  Nov. 4, 2012: http://www.matrixfiles.com/The-Solution ... oblems.pdf

The older version is, I think, quite interesting, because the second half is a set of prefab court documents and along with a number of filing and argument scenarios. If anyone has not seen a how-to-guide of this kind, I think the earlier version is a good example. The March 2013 edition has removed those components and expanded the preceding text. I suspect that change was so the HRDLIC to actually sell their materials and use The Solution to ALL Your Problems text as a teaser.

Or you could buy a hardcopy (http://www.blurb.ca/b/4293286-the-solut ... r-problems) for $8.91 (Can.). I think I’ll stick to the electronic copy, thanks. Interestingly, here the author is identified as “Kent Barrett”. Kent has been having some rough times of late, but I’ll comment on that another time. Life o' the Freeman, y'know!

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Good luck collecting on costs. I assume the reason a lot of these idiots have so much time to pursue this nonsense is that they are underemployed or unemployed. Do the Nanaimo three, or four, or whatever number it has currently reached, seem like they have substantial financial backing? Or Menard rambling away in his increasingly decrepit basement?

I have to disagree with Mowe re one comment:

I don’t think this means that we are actually seeing more Freeman and Sovereign activity, but rather that Canadian judges are writing more often after an encounter with a litigant of this type.

I can't speak to the civil and criminal courts but the Tax Court seems to be getting a lot more than they did say, five years ago. A lot of the older ones were motivated by a single source such as Porisky or his acolytes but the current ones seem to be coming from all directions like this fruitcake that Mowe and I both found reported today:

Sinclair-McDonald v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2013 ONSC 4900

http://canlii.ca/t/fzs5k

When a plaintiff identifies herself as "Heather Sinclair-McDonald, Human Being" you know it is going to end badly.

The heart of her case was:

1] The Plaintiff asserts that she has waived her rights as a person under the law and therefore the Income Tax Act does not apply to her. She seeks an order requiring the Defendant, Canada Revenue Agency, to pay back all taxes collected from her over the last ten years. The Plaintiff also claims damages with respect to allegations of conspiracy, conversion, economic loss of profit and for breach of fiduciary duty by Canada Revenue Agency employees Ms. J. Fraser and Mr. S. Shahabuddeen.

However she actually had a valid point of law in her favour, CRA got lazy about responding:

[2] The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants should be noted in default because the Defendants have failed to file a Statement of Defence within the time prescribed by the rules.

Not a bad try, if you can't win on the merits there is nothing wrong with winning on technicalities. The court agreed that she was right about the Crown being in breach of the rules but fell back on technicalities too:

[11] As of June 8, 2013, Her Majesty the Queen and the Canada Revenue Agency, were technically in breach of time period set by the rules for filing a Statement of Defence. They were in breach of the rules.

[12] As of June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff had not noted the Defendant in default. Three conditions must be in place to note the Defendant in default: the Defendant must have failed to comply with the rule; the Plaintiff must seek to have the Defendant noted in default, and if it is a liquidated claim, the Plaintiff may seek to obtain a default judgment from the Register: Rule 19.

[13] There is an additional wrinkle because the Defendants, Her Majesty the Queen and the Canada Revenue Agency, represent the Crown. Section 25 of the Crown Liabilities and Proceedings Act R.S.C. 1985,c. C-50, as amended, states that a default judgement cannot be obtained without leave of the Court and with at least 14 days’ notice given to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada. The Plaintiff has not complied with any of the requirements set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 above.

With that cliff-hanger out of the way the court dropped the hammer:

[23] For all these reasons, the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action; cannot succeed; it is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. The Statement of Claim is dismissed in entirety without leave to amend. The Plaintiff’s action is dismissed.

This last paragraph falls right into my previous comment about these sov types not being worth the trouble of pursuing re costs:

[24] The court has taken note of the financial hardship currently facing the Plaintiff, who is self-represented in this matter. I leave it to the discretion of Her Majesty the Queen and the Canada Revenue Agency to decide if they wish to submit a cost outline for an assessment of costs.

Who says the courts are heartless unfeeling institutions?

[notorial dissent]

Just goes to show you shouldn't bluff at poker, or going to court, unless you're really good at it, or have the cards to begin with. obviously, our "Not a Person" didn't.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I have to disagree with Mowe re one comment:

I don’t think this means that we are actually seeing more Freeman and Sovereign activity, but rather that Canadian judges are writing more often after an encounter with a litigant of this type.

I can't speak to the civil and criminal courts but the Tax Court seems to be getting a lot more than they did say, five years ago.

This may be very true - the indications for my suggestion are strictly qualitative. It would be fascinating to see a more data-driven analysis of this question. I don't know if the Tax Court of Canada itself would ever consider publishing that kind of information, but I think that could be both valuable and just simply interesting.

Burnaby49, do you have any idea what proportion of Tax Court of Canada decisions end up as written and reported judgments? I have more of an instinct on that point for provincial trial level courts, and there the proportion is low, superior courts I would guess 20-30%, provincial courts even less. My guesstimates do not include Chambers hearings.

A lot of the older ones were motivated by a single source such as Porisky or his acolytes but the current ones seem to be coming from all directions like this fruitcake that Mowe and I both found reported today:

Sinclair-McDonald v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2013 ONSC 4900

http://canlii.ca/t/fzs5k

When a plaintiff identifies herself as "Heather Sinclair-McDonald, Human Being" you know it is going to end badly.

I did a little digging on Heather Sinclair-McDonald and found nothing. While her scheme is very suggestive of Freeman-on-the-Land affiliation, I did not locate any independent evidence to back that up.

SMS Möwe