The Nanaimo Three - Political Prisoners in Canada

[Burnaby49]

Looks like I have a date with Alexander and, since it is in winter, I'll be sure to wear pants.

Whatever you wear, just remember to be yourself, you'll be more attractive that way.

Yes, but which of my selves would you prefer me to be?

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Ok guys, that exchange sent me into a fit of giggles. Nicely done!

It appears Mr. Ream has been holding out on us - he was back in court today (August 23, 2013) at 3:00 P.M. Or at least he should have been back in court.

If I am interpreting the online court database information correctly today the Crown made an application, but Mr. Ream did not show. That application, whatever it is, was granted in Mr. Ream's absence. Perhaps he will say he did not consent or contract.

A bench warrant has also been issued for Mr. Ream.

I wonder if it's time to deploy those cruel Policy Enforcement Officers and their savage canine accomplices.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

It would appear that Mr Ream's trust is going to get even further involved in his peculations, despite his lack of permission to involve it. Hope he followed my advice to keep his toothbrush close to hand.

[LordEd]

That's the second bench warrant for him.

Reading carefully, they are related to offenses on June 27 (for 76920-2) and July 17 (for 76920-4). The first is 1-day after an appearance, and the second is day-of an appearance.

I am wondering if these were contempt orders related to those appearances that have just been updated onto the site, or required some time to file as additional "charges".

Even though Mr. Ream is relatively minor compared to the others (Personating x2 vs Lange/Simpson with personate x5), he appears to be making the most noise. On the other hand, he is the only one not listed as "in-custody".

[notorial dissent]

So, what, somewhere in those last two appearances there were conditions to his release OR that he didn't abide by? My personal bet, or else he flat out lied to them, imagine that, about something and they've just now found out.

In any event, the stupid, it runs very strongly in this one.

[alexticule]

I wasn't informed about the meeting for the 23 of August. Can you let me know where do you see that I had a meeting for that day? They only told me about the ones for next year. I guess I will be spending some time locked up again. I really do enjoy their cookies however. I want to thank you for taking the time to reply back then and posting case law. I will take the time to read them now that I have some time... That is if the Police doesn't arrest me while I'm reading. I was saying that ladies are more attractive when they are themselves because I see many are insecure and doesn't see their beauty. Thus, why they are following artificial trends hoping to get along with others and having a false sense of security.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I wasn't informed about the meeting for the 23 of August. Can you let me know where do you see that I had a meeting for that day?

Of course. That information can be accessed in two ways.

First is the "completed" court list for yesterday. It may be viewed here (http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/court-li ... t_List.pdf).

This information can also be accessed by following this link (https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/esear ... ySearch.do) and typing your name into the appropriate fields.

If I may make a few small suggestions? I know you do not believe this would be to your benefit, but I would strongly recommend you speak to a criminal defence lawyer. My understanding is that British Columbia offers assistance to persons with limited incomes via its Legal Aid program (http://www.lss.bc.ca/). You may qualify.

If there is an arrest warrant out for you - and I do not guarantee that is the case, I am not expert in interpreting the British Columbia Courts Online website and its information - then you may wish to consider voluntarily turning yourself in to the police. In the event you are found guilty of a criminal offence, that act of voluntarily conforming to the law may be seen as a mitigating factor. I've never done this myself, so I am not certain how that process would occur. It may be possible to simply call your local police station and find out if there is an outstanding arrest warrant for you.

Beyond that, you have been told many lies, and unfortunately for you, you have believed and acted on those lies. I do not know your fellow defendants, but I was very struck by the court decision that reported Mr. Vaillant's treatment of his children. You may feel otherwise, but I think very little of someone who does not support his or her children. Particularly when a child has special needs. I won't dwell on Mr. Vaillant's movie career playing the part of a sexy high school teacher and his high and concealed income during this period. I will simply say this is not a person in whom I would place much confidence. I would be troubled by his conduct.

You need to think carefully about your choices. I offer this small observation. You may or may not follow the advice offered here, and you may or may not believe that the case law that has been identified for you is relevant. However, in my experience, a good way to test who is telling the truth or not is to see whether their predictions match what actually occurs when theory is put to the test.

Another useful principle is a logic tool called "Occam's Razor". The name is a bit fanciful, it originates from an English monk/philosopher. I consider this a very helpful tool in my 'bullshitometer' kit. Occam's Razor says that the explanation that has the fewest assumptions is probably correct. Another way to express that is "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones". Not always, but probably.

You have adopted a perspective where practically the entire public world is a facade, a vast conspiracy of persons-in-the-know. And somehow, there is never a leak. Truth is hidden in arcane ways - old legal books, snippets from so many different sources. On the other side we have a group of marginal individuals with no significant wealth or personal success, who continue to claim they can unravel the very essence of the state - but somehow they have not got around to it or captured the almost unlimited funds they say are at their fingertips. These very same people ask for your money.

So I ask you. What's simpler? A group of shabby conmen, or vast conspiracy?

Again, best of luck with your studies. A word of warning on that first link I posted above - it will only provide the information mentioned for a week or so.

SMS Möwe

[alexticule]

I've also had the time to read your comment LordEd. Thank you for the warning. I believe that Brady Kirk has honest intentions. I am aware that it is my life at risk. I am willing to do whatever it takes to make the world a better place. I will never use violence or hatred however. Only primitive people do that. I do make mistakes, but I am learning.

[LordEd]

Thank you for addressing the skeptic crowd. I have a few questions if you will answer.

Just for clarity, I know that you do not count yourself as part of the 'freeman movement'. If I make mention of freemen, understand that I style several of your actions including fee schedules, notice of right/claim, and courts have no authority/jurisdiction under freeman-ism. If I make reference to 'freeman beliefs', it is these actions I refer to.

For the questions:

Did the police or government done something specific to you that drew you to the beliefs? For this, I mean prior to writing up and/or signing the posted "peace oath".

How is entering a court and signing-in as a "peace officer" making the world "a better place"?

And out of curiosity, have you paid money to anybody in order to learn or advance your "understanding"?

[alexticule]

Yes I have paid for the Peace Officer thing and I think the document I have been given is not perfect, but that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to claim myself to be a Peace Officer. I wasn't trying to pass myself as a Government Peace Officer. I was offering peace not coercion, deception and fraud. I claimed myself a Peace Officer at court because I believe that I was. Peace Officers back in days were there to keep the peace and not enforce corporate policies. I had no intention in enforcing corporate policies. How is this making the world a better place? Well I am standing up for my rights. I don't think that I have to be a Peace Officer to make the world a better place. I simply want to prove that I can be one and inspire people. I did not know Jody did bad things to his kids. I am sure there is some kind of misunderstanding. I have met Jody and he seem like a nice guy. I may be wrong of that as I do not know what he does at home. That still doesn't change the fact that I have not broken any law. I am not referring to Statues. I mean actual harm. That is not an assumption that I am making. I will like to thank you all again for taking the time to reply. I have learned a lot from your comments. I believe that even if I am wrong I will be happy because I will be practicing what I preach instead of only preaching that I can be one.

[wserra]

That still doesn't change the fact that I have not broken any law. I am not referring to Statues.

Good thing. Depending on the Statue, then you could be in real trouble.

[LordEd]

Clearly you are subscribed to the "no harm" philosophy + statutes are not laws.

Do you believe that laws can never change?

[Famspear]

That still doesn't change the fact that I have not broken any law. I am not referring to Statues.

Good thing. Depending on the Statue, then you could be in real trouble.

Which reminds me of the old joke about the guy who is charged with statutory rape, who says to the judge: "Your Honor, if I'd a-known it wuz a Statue, I wouldn't-a done it!"

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I’m going to respond only to elements of your last post, Mr. Ream, in isolation.

… That still doesn't change the fact that I have not broken any law. I am not referring to Statues. I mean actual harm. …

Sadly for you, this “no harm” concept that you have been fed by your Freeman-on-the-Land gurus and companions is not a part of Canadian law. And it never has been. You would probably benefit from reading R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, 2003 SCC 74, [2003] 3 SCR 571 (http://canlii.ca/t/1gbdn). This is a case where a number of marijuana advocates claimed that any law that prohibits an activity which causes no harm to others, what the court called the “harm principle”, was contrary to a principle of fundamental justice in Canadian law, and therefore potentially unconstitutional. The court reviews the history of this idea in philosophical and legal thinking at paras. 106-109, then rejects it as a rule of law (paras. 110-129):

111 … in our view the harm principle is not the constitutional standard for what conduct may or may not be the subject of the criminal law for the purposes of s. 7.

…

115 Contrary to the appellants’ assertion, we do not think there is a consensus that the harm principle is the sole justification for criminal prohibition. … we do not think that the absence of proven harm creates the unqualified barrier to legislative action that the appellants suggest. On the contrary, the state may sometimes be justified in criminalizing conduct that is either not harmful (in the sense contemplated by the harm principle), or that causes harm only to the accused.

…

117 Several instances of crimes that do not cause harm to others are found in the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Cannibalism is an offence (s. 182) that does not harm another sentient being, but that is nevertheless prohibited on the basis of fundamental social and ethical considerations. Bestiality (s. 160) and cruelty to animals (s. 446) are examples of crimes that rest on their offensiveness to deeply held social values rather than on Mill’s “harm principle”.

118 A duel fought by consenting adults is an example of a crime where the victim is no less culpable than the perpetrator, and there is no harm that is not consented to, but the prohibition (s. 71 of the Code) is nevertheless integral to our ideas of civilized society. … Similarly, in R. v. F. (R.P.) 1996 CanLII 8710 (NS CA), (1996), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 435, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the prohibition of incest under s. 155 of the Criminal Code despite a Charter challenge by five consenting adults. In none of these instances of consenting adults does the criminal law conform to Mill’s expression of the harm principle that “[o]ver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”, as referenced earlier at para. 106.

…

124 … we do not accept the proposition that there is a general prohibition against the criminalization of harm to self. Canada continues to have paternalistic laws. Requirements that people wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets are designed to “save people from themselves”. There is no consensus that this sort of legislation offends our societal notions of justice. Whether a jail sentence is an appropriate penalty for such an offence is another question. However, the objection in that aspect goes to the validity of an assigned punishment — it does not go to the validity of prohibiting the underlying conduct.

125 A recent discussion policy paper from the Law Commission of Canada entitled What is a Crime? Challenges and Alternatives (2003) highlights the difficulties in distinguishing between harm to others and harm to self. It notes that “in a society that recognizes the interdependency of its citizens, such as universally contributing to healthcare or educational needs, harm to oneself is often borne collectively” (p. 17).

126 In short, there is no consensus that tangible harm to others is a necessary precondition to the creation of a criminal law offence.

…

128 Harm, as interpreted in the jurisprudence, can take a multitude of forms, including economic, physical and social (e.g., injury and/or offence to fundamental societal values). In the present appeal, for example, the respondents put forward a list of “harms” which they attribute to marihuana use. The appellants put forward a list of “harms” which they attribute to marihuana prohibition. Neither side gives much credence to the “harms” listed by the other. Each claims the “net” result to be in its favour.

129 In the result, we do not believe that the content of the “harm” principle as described by Mill and advocated by the appellants provides a manageable standard under which to review criminal or other laws under s. 7 of the Charter. Parliament, we think, is entitled to act under the criminal law power in the protection of legitimate state interests other than the avoidance of harm to others, subject to Charter limits such as the rules against arbitrariness, irrationality and gross disproportionality, discussed below.

I bet if you look throughout the collected works of Robert Menard, whom I know advocates this “no harm” concept, you will not find a rebuttal to this judgment of the highest court in Canada.

But beyond that, now let’s stop and think for a moment about the (ir)rationality of a person saying to the state – and your fellow Canadians - “you can’t touch me – I didn’t harm anyone.” A man by some means obtains a bunch of dynamite, which he thinks is fashionable to wear on his clothing. Explosives possession is, incidentally, a criminal offence (Criminal Code, s. 82). When this man is approached by police he says “Yeah, it’s dynamite alright, but I never intended to blow myself up. I’m not harming myself or anyone. Go away.” You know this man’s argument is stupid, and at the very least, wildly inconsiderate of those around him. His dynamite puts everyone near him at risk.

Are you offended by drunk driving? If so, why? Many people drive drunk and do not kill or injure others. Surely they engage in “no harm”, and should not be subject to state sanction – or for that matter, you calling them jerks for putting others at risk. Mind your own business.

This is why the “no harm”, “harm principle” is so silly. It just obviously does not work.

… that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to claim myself to be a Peace Officer. I wasn't trying to pass myself as a Government Peace Officer. I was offering peace not coercion, deception and fraud. I claimed myself a Peace Officer at court because I believe that I was. Peace Officers back in days were there to keep the peace …

So, your claim to have Peace Officer status has only been innocent or had a beneficial effect? I think you are wrong there. I am going to presume that what is in the Crown disclosure materials is in fact accurate for this discussion – that obviously may not be true, and ultimately will be up to the judge to decide in your trial.

But, onward. A Peace Officer is a term defined in the Criminal Code, s. 2. The Criminal Code and other legislation gives persons with Peace Officer status unusual rights to enter into other person’s property, to conduct searches and detain people, and conduct arrests. People in this country are required by law to cooperate with Peace Officers in certain circumstances. You know about this.

You have posted a document on your Facebook page that I assume is the one you and your compatriots used as a basis to claim Peace Officer status (https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 7073_n.jpg). It says, among other things that “… I will fulfill my duties as a sworn peace officer …” “I further swear and affirm as … a Peace Officer ...” and you “… will defend the exercise of those rights against any and all who may transgress the law.” And I see Chief Rock Sino General has somehow ‘sealed’ or ‘notarized’ it. And at the top there is a crest of British Columbia.

The term “Peace Officer” is defined in law. This document says you claim to be a “Peace Officer” – a status that has special privileges and obligations. On November 15, 2012, you and others entered into the Victoria courthouse and presented this document to court security as a basis to claim Peace Officer status. Security did not believe you, but that is immaterial, as an attempt to commit a criminal offence – no matter how inept – is a basis to convict. On December 12, 2012, your group entered the Vancouver Law Courts, claimed Peace Officer status, “peace officers for the citizens of British Columbia”, and again presented this document. Mr. Simpson said your group may be “compelled” to arrest someone, a lawyer, for “fraud”. Your group also said they are outside Canadian law, which does not apply to them. The same day you and Mr. Vaillant went to the New Westminster Law Courts and again claimed Peace Officer status.

Why is this significant? Certain terms have special meanings, and the law restricts which persons can claim that status. Again, if you think why, it’s common sense. As an example, medical doctors are persons who we expect will apply their special training and skills to help others with health issues. Medical doctors are authorized to permit persons to have restricted access materials, such as potentially dangerous drugs. It is against the law for a person to claim to be a doctor without actual certification and training. I am certain you see why that is a sound principle and benefits society.

The same goes for the term Peace Officer. If you and your companions had claimed to be Knights of Free Canada, a benevolent order of knights who, as citizens, attempt to help others, then there would be no basis for a criminal charge. But – your materials specifically use the words “Peace Officer”, and furthermore on December 12, your group said not only were they “Peace Officers”, but that they had the authority and duty to carry out actions that are not available to ordinary citizens under the Criminal Code – but instead to government authorized Peace Officers.

You have on many occasions said you are not subject to Canadian law but instead ‘something else’. You claim to be able to create and conduct your own court proceedings at will, and say you did so in court [cited from earlier in this thread]:

While you are all upholding your own court. I am convening my own court in Inherent Jurisdiction, which is a court of public record.

Presumably with you as judge and jury.

So, here is who you say you are. You appear to say you have the authority to arrest others and apply force to enforce a law that is whatever you say it is. You claim to be able to create and hold your own courts, as judge. You logically claim to be able to decide whether another person is or is not guilty of breaking what you, only, identify as the relevant law. Presumably, you would then exercise your right to punish others.

If I am correct on those points, then that makes you a vigilante. As a resident of this country, I am profoundly disturbed at the idea that people like you exist and that you may, at any point, decide to ‘be the law’ and exercise your claimed rights. There are no checks on your actions, no ‘appeal court’ to correct your errors. You have no standard procedures, no monitoring agencies. You can do whatever you feel like is right – in your own opinion. That puts you in a very special group of fellow travelers, such as those who believe they have the right – if not duty – to use force and even kill those whose actions they disapprove of. Such as the snipers in Canada who have shot doctors who perform abortions. Such as the members of the Shafia family who last year murdered their teenage daughters for not being sufficiently strict Muslims but instead wanted to live like other Canadians. Or terrorists of any political or religious stripe who claim the sole authority to enforce their truth and justice, by any means including force.

Not very pleasant to me.

And the courts are very well aware of this aspect of Freeman-on-the-Land society; from A.N.B. v. Hancock, 2013 ABQB 97 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwx39):

[14] One unfortunate and highly troubling aspect of persons associated with OPCA litigation and movements is that members of these groups are known to direct both harassing and violent activities to the persons they identify as their enemies: Meads, at paras. 181, 257‑263. These enemies are typically peace officers, government and court employees, lawyers, and members of the judiciary. This potential aggression flows from the false historical and theoretical constructs within which OPCA concepts are advanced. An OPCA litigant is typically advised (incorrectly) by a guru with whom he is associated, that the state has no hold over the litigant. That is meant to indicate (again incorrectly) that any state action must be unlawful, and, in the result, the OPCA litigant is therefore (improperly) counselled to be free (and often encouraged) to strike back at his ‘oppressors’.

…

[19] OPCA litigation and OPCA litigants represent an unusual and in certain senses unprecedented challenge to Canadian court procedures and processes. In Meads, at paras. 256 and 261, I observed that novel court procedures may be necessary to respond to this new and potentially dangerous social phenomenon. My Order that opposing Counsel are not required to provide their personal identification, including to Counsel acting for A.N.B., is, I believe, an appropriate and necessary response to the risk A.N.B. potentially represents to those who are part of the court, state, and legal apparatus.

I know you say these were just thought experiments – you never actually intended to unilaterally take “justice” into your own hands. But the problem is, the alleged actions of yourself and your companions (if indeed true) say otherwise. You have repeatedly said that the state’s actions towards you are not simply wrong, but unauthorized and unlawful. You stand outside the community – and are ready to intimidate and punish with your Fee Schedule. And I have watched the video recordings of you and your compatriots saying you are travelling to enforce your law, woe be the RCMP or court officer who gets in your way.

I am not terribly sympathetic when you now say ‘oh, I was just pretending – it was a kind of game or roleplaying’. Some things are serious – and it seems you chose, sadly, to play at a very, very serious game. You and your companions intruded into a very special location in Canadian society – courthouses where people who are victims go to have their rights protected under the law and Constitution. And that is where you chose to go to unilaterally assert your own, personal version of the law. I find that very troubling indeed – because logically your intention was to intimidate and control – but only on your own terms.

I think that is real harm, and I do not need to point at a statute for that. I, as a Canadian, do not want people like you in my community. I consider myself extremely fortunate to live in a country and within a society that is safe, governed by laws created by an elected, responsible government, and where my personal rights are protected by the Constitution as enforced by the courts. I may not agree with all state actions or law, but I have legal ways that allow me to assert my opinion and perhaps guide change. That is an opportunity that is envied by many.

And you say you intend to wreck that - because you stand apart from and above Canada's law and government. Any Canadian could be your next victim.

As for Mr. Vaillant, read the court case I identified above. In 2007 he made $91,000. He paid $2,400 in support for each of his children, including a child with cerebral palsy who requires leg braces to walk. Mr. Vaillant told the court and the childrens’ mother that he suffered from such financial hardship during that time that he could not afford to catch up on missed child support payments, even at that minimal level. Does that sound like a responsible parent to you? I observe Mr. Vaillant did not appeal the judge’s conclusion that he had been a delinquent father.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

By the way Burnaby49, I've spotted some more courtroom opportunities for you.

It appears Mr. Lange will be appearing in a separate matter (Vancouver Provincial Courthouse, case #229154) on October 21, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. A second date, December 2, 2013, is also booked for the same matter.

This will be a trial proper. Mr. Lange is facing three charges: that on January 17, 2013 he was driving an uninsured motor vehicle (Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(3)(b)), without a licence (Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(1), and that his vehicle did not have proper licence plates (Motor Vehicle Act, s. 13(1)(b)).

I think we know what that is all about.

SMS Möwe

[LordEd]

I am not directly familiar with courts. Is there some reason or advantage to signing-in as a peace officer when entering the court?

Is it possible that a person declaring themselves as a peace officer could be called to perform some duties in the court? I note that in the courthouse arrest, a significant number of officers were involved.

[Burnaby49]

By the way Burnaby49, I've spotted some more courtroom opportunities for you.

It appears Mr. Lange will be appearing in a separate matter (Vancouver Provincial Courthouse, case #229154) on October 21, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. A second date, December 2, 2013, is also booked for the same matter.

This will be a trial proper. Mr. Lange is facing three charges: that on January 17, 2013 he was driving an uninsured motor vehicle (Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(3)(b)), without a licence (Motor Vehicle Act, s. 24(1), and that his vehicle did not have proper licence plates (Motor Vehicle Act, s. 13(1)(b)).

I think we know what that is all about.

SMS Möwe

Thanks for the heads up. I'll give it a shot. An extremely minor quibble about your very thorough posting re Alex's claims. The Shafia Family murders took place on June 30, 2009, the convictions were last year. For those readers not familiar with the case an Afghan immigrant, along with his wife and son, murdered their three daughters and his first wife and then tried to pass it off as an accident. They felt their family honour was being violated by the girls actually wanting to have the benefits of living in a free society. I think they killed his first wife just because she was there and they wanted no witnesses.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Yes I have paid for the Peace Officer thing and I think the document I have been given is not perfect, but that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to claim myself to be a Peace Officer.

Can I ask who did you pay and how much?

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I am not directly familiar with courts. Is there some reason or advantage to signing-in as a peace officer when entering the court?

Is it possible that a person declaring themselves as a peace officer could be called to perform some duties in the court? I note that in the courthouse arrest, a significant number of officers were involved.

I cannot comment on every court Canada-wide as I know security procedures vary from place to place and court to court. First, there is a firearms issue. I have often seen police officers arrive in court as witnesses and be in uniform and fully 'equipped' with sidearms and so on. Civilians are not permitted to do that. For a plainclothes officer it would be at a minimum a courtesy to contact court security to establish who they are, and to ensure there are no potential misunderstandings.

Some court jurisdictions have quite tight security, much like airports, and in those instances 'checking in' would be appropriate to simply move an officer through security in an efficient way.

Remember that Peace Officers have ongoing responsibilities to the public, even inside a courthouse, and it would be helpful for personnel responsible for security to know who is acting in an authorized manner, particularly where an officer is not in an obvious uniform. That may include arrests, or transporting prisoners to and from prison or other detention facilities.

I hope that is of help.

SMS Möwe

[LordEd]

I was trying to reason out whether by declaring themselves peace officers in a courthouse if they were creating a risk by being untrained or "not that kind of peace officer".

For example, lets say there was some form of sporting event with a first-aid tent, and I have a doctorate (lets say fine arts). I want to get out of the sun, so I go hang out in the first aid tent. I say I'm a doctor so I don't get kicked out. Assuming I was believed, the actual medical doctor takes a break. A runner comes in to the test in-distress with chest pains.

Now the runner has been harmed by my misrepresentation.

Can you think of any parallel that would apply to claiming to be a peace officer in a courthouse? (No is a perfectly acceptable answer).