So spake Mr. Griffiths, tow truck driver, as he observed Brian Arthur Alexander [Brian-arthur: alexander], a Freeman-on-the-Land, after Alexander was stopped by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers for speeding.
On November 4, 2010 Mr. Griffiths, was called by members of the RCMP to pick up and tow away a vehicle that belonged to Alexander. Alexander was inside, and refused to come out. Mr. Griffiths observed one, then two, then three RCMP officers attempt to convince Alexander that he should leave his vehicle, the officers were indeed police officers, that Alexander had a speeding ticket, and his vehicle had been seized.
Of course, this roadside drama involved a lot more fun, and thoughtfully British Columbia Provincial Court Judge Cleaveley has recorded the events of that day in great detail in this decision:
- R. v. Alexander, 2012 BCPC 108: http://canlii.ca/t/fsbkx
Even as additional officers arrived, Alexander continued to refuse to leave his vehicle. Alexander’s claims “… he was a “freeman”, a “common law man”, he was in “Common Law”, he did not want “joinder”, and that he did not “consent”.” Alexander warned he would apply his mighty fee schedule - $100 per half hour.… was aware of several instances of people impersonating peace officers. Mr. Alexander said that he is diligent in learning who they are and their name, in case of “acts of tort”. He is also aware of cases where peace officers have assaulted people, and he was concerned about “acts of tort”.
Freemanish antics continue at the RCMP station. Paras. 40-52 document the police interview. He said all the magic words, too!
Alexander testified. He described a terrifying early-morning encounter with mysterious men who claimed to be police officers – but had not provided identification. They were bullies, rude, and when he exited the vehicle he was savagely thrown over the back of his car, and handcuffed. His rights to silence and counsel were not respected. The RCMP had no authority anyway to take his car! He knew the law and his rights – and these so-called police had gone too far:
Judge Cleaveley did not find Alexander a credible witness:[99] It was then suggested to Mr. Alexander that he felt that the Motor Vehicle Act did not apply to him. He responded, “um under this particular law, because it breached my Charter rights, I would say that law did not apply to me and overall as per section 32 of the Charter of Rights, it’s plain and simple that those laws don’t apply to flesh and blood men and that is how I was identifying myself and not a legal fiction”.
[100] Mr. Alexander explained that the R.C.M.P. cannot impound a vehicle without consent because “statute law is based on contract and contract is based on consent and when there is a breach of contract then that makes it pretty much void, and when that also, that statute law goes against supreme law, which is the constitution, then again it has no force and effect and people have rights”.
[101] It was suggested to Mr. Alexander that he had no intention of surrendering his vehicle, no matter what the legislation said. Mr. Alexander replied, “I was trying to do as much as I could not to”. Mr. Alexander also said, “... it doesn’t apply to me, it applies to my person”.
[102] In terms of the Motor Vehicle Act, Mr. Alexander said, “the legislation that they were enforcing went against my rights and went against my inherent rights of liberty”. As a common law man, the legislation did not apply to him because, the legislation applies to the legal fiction and not the man and it says that in s. 32 of the Charter of Rights. The legislation went against his common law rights, his inherent rights, Charter of Rights, and under the Criminal Code he has the ability to ignore legislation that is inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and the true law. In Mr. Alexander’s words, “he (Constable Rose) presumed me to be guilty on the spot”.
I particularly enjoy how at para. 117 the judge endorses Mr. Griffith’s evaluation of Alexander as “an independent objective witness.”[117] The second, and more problematic aspect for Mr. Alexander when assessing his credibility and reliability, are the extremes in his evidence. For example, Mr. Alexander’s evidence that he could not or was not able to identify Constable Rose as a peace officer is nonsense. It would have been patently obvious to any reasonable person, when considering all the circumstances, that Mr. Alexander was stopped by a member of the R.C.M.P. Mr. Alexander’s evidence that Constable Rose may have been an impersonator and that he was concerned about “acts of tort” is sheer gibberish. There is also no objective basis for Mr. Alexander’s claims that he feared arrest (other than for obstruction), he felt threatened, and that he was under duress. This was an routine traffic stop made difficult by Mr. Alexander. I also do not believe that Constable Rose told Mr. Alexander that his vehicle was being seized “arbitrarily”. Constable Rose was acting in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act. Referring to the “standoff”, Mr. Alexander said that there was a “conditional acceptance”. If by the use of this expression, Mr. Alexander is implying that the constables acknowledged his point of view, he is seriously mistaken. Mr. Alexander told Mr. Griffiths that he did not know or understand the reason why he was stopped. In the earlier 911 recording, Mr. Alexander told the operator he was stopped for a speeding offence, and he would accept a ticket, but he did not want his property seized. It was very apparent to Mr. Griffiths, an independent objective witness, what was happening, and he used very blunt language when he told Mr. Alexander that he did not accept his protestations. On this point, Mr. Alexander’s evidence is internally inconsistent and untrue.
[118] At the detachment, or as Mr. Alexander called it, the “enemy’s lair”, he continued to be difficult and deliberately obtuse. Mr. Alexander claimed he did not understand why he was arrested. This is contrary to Mr. Alexander’s earlier statement to the 911 operator. Similarly, when Constable Leckie read to Mr. Alexander the police caution, he responded by saying he did not understand. This is inconsistent with Mr. Alexander’s earlier evidence. Not only did he understand the right to silence, he asserted it, and the constables respected his right. Mr. Alexander said that he was confused about Constable Leckie’s use of the words “lawyer” and “counsel”. I do not believe this. Mr. Alexander had been given a limited version of his right to counsel at the roadside, which he said he understood. This was simple game playing by Mr. Alexander and is inconsistent with his evidence that he was trying to be “most cooperative as possible.” Mr. Alexander took a similar approach when Constable Leckie read to him the Supplemental Charter Warning. He said he did not really understand, the words were “kinda weird”. Not only did Constable Leckie use “counsel”, a word which Mr. Alexander said he understood, she also said “lawyer” in a comparative sense. Mr. Alexander was being disingenuous when he said he did not understand.
…
[120] Also when assessing Mr. Alexander’s evidence, I must take into account his many claims that he was somehow protected or exempt from scrutiny by the police because he was a “freeman” or a “common law man”, who did not “consent” or want “joinder”, and that the laws did not apply to him because he is a “flesh and blood man”, the laws only apply to legal fictions or his person. Similarly, Mr. Alexander testified as to the genesis of statute law and how it is based on contract, which has its basis in consent. These two examples illustrate the extreme, and completely illogical evidence given by Mr. Alexander.
Alexander is found guilty of obstruction of a peace officer, without lawful excuse. The court rejects arguments that Alexander is not “a person” and subject to the Criminal Code on the basis of parallel case law that evaluates income tax obligation.
Sometimes Freemen-on-the-Land are complete cyphers, they appear in court, do their thing, and we learn nothing else about them. Then there are those who very much want to share. Alexander falls into the latter category. You see, Alexander is a interesting and enthusiastic fellow, and his antics have led to considerable media interest. Here’s a few stories I found:
An account of the trial and Alexander’s history: http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2010 ... ply-to-him
[And it turns out Alexander has municipal aspirations, having run for mayor in 2008. He’s outspoken and “…was banned from City Hall in 2008 after scaring employees with his loud, intense style.”]
Here’s another report – the associated photo is less than flattering: http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/114156549.html
His philosophy? “It’s kind of a real deep subject and it takes a long time to understand”.
That was in 2008. What do you do when facing state oppression of the kind Alexander experienced in 2010? Why, simply run for mayor again!
This leads to further reporting:
(from http://armchairmayor.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/)Last January, he issued a manifesto titled CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED BY OLIGARCHY TYRANNY? NO THANKS, in which he railed against Stephen Harper.
“What’s next?” he asked, “a law against picking my nose or scratching my ass, check points at every corner, mandatory DNA testing, micro chipping of every man/woman/child to control every aspect of life?”
He vowed that authorities “will have to yield their authority as freemen blossom in numbers like flowers on a spring day.”
His mayoral election profile (http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2011 ... -alexander) indicates his favorite book is the Criminal Code of Canada. And a lot of other silly things.
And this lovely, tasty gem – an interview with Alexander in 2011, mayor-to-be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQObJ1jnTg4 While he decries media reporting that distorts his message, Alexander can't actually explain what he thinks and believes, because he is under "duress".
Alexander also has a bunch of webpages. He clearly is a graduate of the Eldon Warman school of webpage design:
His business - it turns out he’s a chimney sweep! (http://www.championchimneyservices.com/) A somewhat eccentric one, but nothing compared to his other websites:
Kamloopsbullshit.com – What’s Become of our Great City?? Rants galore with a municipal focus. http://www.kamloopsbullshit.com/ He had a public access radio show for awhile in 2010, thoughtfully the transcripts are available for all to review: http://www.kamloopsbullshit.com/radio-Programs-1-5.html
There’s yet more fun at Citizen Solidarity – Improve Quality of Life through Citizen Solidarity (http://www.citizensolidarity.com/) This is a sort of general activism website. A few representative excerpts.
Darn those corrupt police:
He’s generally pro-pot, and notes the history of Henry Ford’s lost hempmobiles:IF RCMP repeatedly kill innocent citizens with tazer's or assault citizens over and over with out stiff reprimand or change in policy then the truth is revealed that superintendents or "TopCops" with their policies are not doing their jobs....THE TRUTH IS REVEALED!!
Microwaves are deadly:Henry Ford designed and built a car made from hemp that was 3 times stronger and didn't rust out of hemp fiberglass, his intension's was he could grow his own cars right hear in his back yard, as indeed at that time he owned thousands of hemp fields.
So are carbonated beverages:If you have ever wondered whether or not microwaved food is safe, here's an experiment you can do at home. Plant seeds in two pots. Water one pot with water that has been microwaved, the other with regular tap water. The seeds that receive microwaved water won't sprout. If microwave water can stop plants from growing , think of what microwaved food can do to your health!’’
The modern world is twisting us, even before we are born:-carbonated drinks cause major health problems, not just the chemical sweeteners, but the the carbonation, tiny bubble that tickle our noses are causing calcium not to be absorbed into the body in turn, bones brittle and osteoporosis sets in, imagine all those brittle bones, hips and knees elderly people suffer from, A result of people who drink to much pop or carbonated drinks, and not much of any thing else. It is fact most Canadians don't drink the required 7 glasses of water suggested, in fact most people rely on either coffee, tea, or soft drinks as their staple drink.
Theology – turns out heaven and hell is a kind of diamond-shaped structure:humans being born with asthma, mental and physical deformities, such as Down syndrome, and multiple sex organs equate to one in ten children having some health issue before even taken a breath outside of the womb.
Cinnamon and honey can cure pretty much anything, many examples are provided (http://www.citizensolidarity.com/Natural-Cures.html). Alexander’s authoritative source? The Weekly World News!God only knows how many layer’s of Heaven and Hell, though perhaps the secrets are hidden in plain sight. Much like the Illuminati who seek the 33rd level; the all seeing eye, top of "their" pyramid is: Hell and all its secrets. Hell is selfgradifacation of one's self, and the actions that benefits ones self, where as heaven includes gratification of others, or thoughts/actions that benefit others/mankind.
Commonsense referance from the Illuninati hand book would indicate that there are 33 levels of heaven as well as hell. The lower layer’s near entry level of both Heaven and Hell contain the most souls, billions probably, though less and less enter into higher levels, thus is why it is said that there is a mere 144 000 souls in heaven, or upper heaven.
Of course Alexander has plenty of resources where one can learn about Freemanism:
- http://www.citizensolidarity.com/freeman.html
http://www.kamloopsbullshit.com/TournamentBullshit.html
[his Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right]
http://www.kamloopsbullshit.com/MayorsReport.html
Against what does [SS] lead the fight? Mindless police terminators!
And then there’s a thoughtful and only somewhat revisionist account of Alexander’s interactions with police on that fateful November 2010 day: http://www.sovereignsolidarity.com/Election-2013.htmlBe it from witnessing police manifesting into mindless "terminators" that have no accountability via treasonous government that has been subrogated by corporations, or wether it be the obvious deterioration of our environment and Mother Earth as a result of corporatism acting above "true" law for mere profit with governments blessing; people have generally had enough!
Oh, the election results? Didn't win. 1.6% (377 votes) of the ballots cast. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bcvotes2013/ridings/026/)The second time was a few months later after Fiberals brought in new over 60 K they take it away ICBC unconstitutional legislation in a speed zone on the highway that has a posted speed limit of 50k, regardless the majority of citizens indeed do travel at 90-100K because it is a deserted stretch of two lain highway with no residential, though its been a cash cow for ICBC years. However, one day on the way to work, not a soul around, the cop lurks from the bushes like a highway robber, I stand my ground, and refuse to give up my work van, I phone 911 to ask for a supervisor to show up, Cst EDINGER arrives, and within 15 seconds, proceeds to threaten me with physical force, and indeed presents a large steel shaft and proceeds to bash on my window 2 times in an attempt to smash it. Though being the pussy that he is, the window didn't break, again shocked at their behavior and fearing for my life, I calmly peacefully exit the van only to be pounced on by three cops. My own inexperience and corrupt system lead to my person being found guilty of obstruction of a peace officer even though I refused to consent to their jurisdiction, informing them I was acting under a claim of right as a private man under common law [recognized by H.M. legislation; section 52 constitution act 1982 & sect 15. & 39.cc]. It was at that time that I confirmed that the courts have been subrogated as well. I filed for appeal, but was hit with a $8000 price tag for transcripts which I couldn't afford, proving justice is sold like good beef in Canada, as usual, only the rich can afford the blind justice. Again, I reserve my right to sue the ass off of several of Her Majesty's public servants in the private for their breach of oath. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ezekiel 33. 6-10
Two things stick out, the first is I had a video recording of the whole incident, as I had my own personal cam. Though when I was released from detainment on the day of arrest, the video was missing from the camera, I know it was recording bc of the red light. During the trial, CROWN withheld three important disclosure items, one was the jailhouse video, [of which there was no audio] indeed the jailhouse video showed the officer bring in my cameral and wallet in after I was in lock up, it then shows three of them turning it on, and going in the back off camera for 15 minutes before returning and putting my camera in personal belongings...yet the judge found there was no issue with that, the judge also ignored my claim of rights, ignored the incompetence of RCMP agents failing to arrest me, or read me my rights properly, and failed to recognize my inherent rights under common law. Of course the Judge is obligated to ignore justice because if he would have allowed me to win, the case would set president province wide, and once again the province would be liable [billions] for harming citizens with unconstitutional legislation as it has with the drinking driving legislation found to be unconstitutional.
How's that feel?
(http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2013 ... ect-to-win)He vacillated between believing he had a 50/50 chance of winning and recognizing that “it’s really a long leap for people to understand me.”
“The days are numbered for this system. There’s got to be some alternative,” he said before adding dejectedly, “I’m probably ahead of my time here.”
What's next for Alexander? We can only wait and see...
SMS Möwe
