- R. v. Seagull, 2013 BCSC 1811: http://canlii.ca/t/g0s21
- R. v. Seagull, 2013 BCSC 1106: http://canlii.ca/t/fzcs4
I will be brief on the offence scenario. The trial decision provides a much more detailed and bluntly very unpleasant account of Mr. Seagull’s activities. Mr. Seagull is convicted of sexual interference (two convictions) and assault (one conviction) of two identical twin teenage boys. Mr. Seagull operates a sign shop in Prince Rupert, British Columbia. He hired the boys’ mother, then began a relationship with her. Mr. Seagull operated both in a parent-like role and as an employer for each boy. Mr. Seagull, who was larger than the children, forced them into a variety of sexual activities, sometimes with the assistance of intoxicants.
These sexual activities remained undisclosed until 2004. Neither twin knew the other was sexually involved with Mr. Seagull until that point. Mr. Seagull at trial acknowledged the sexual activities but claimed everything was consensual. Justice Blok did not accept Mr. Seagull’s evidence on his relationship with the twins. Instead he believed the victims and concluded that Mr. Seagull operated in their lives in a position of trust and authority.
The sentencing decision provides the meat for this commentary. Mr. Seagull did not appear at the first June 24, 2013 sentencing hearing, and instead was arrested and brought to the courthouse. Mr. Seagull claimed he did not attend “… because he felt people were free to do what they wanted, or words to that effect.”: para. 5.
At this point and the subsequent August 23, 2013 rescheduled date Mr. Seagull was unable to obtain assistance of defence counsel because lawyers refused to follow his instructions as: “…Mr. Seagull's “freeman on the land” type of instructions were inconsistent with his professional duties and his duties to the Court.”: paras. 5, 7.
Ultimately on the August date a kind of hybrid procedure occurred. While the duty counsel would not advance the arguments specifically proposed by Mr. Seagull, that lawyer was permitted to make ‘conventional’ legal arguments in parallel to Mr. Seagull’s ‘unconventional’ ones: para. 8. This is an unusual way to run a proceeding, but I would agree that offers a better prospect for a fair and full defence.
Mr. Seagull refused to cooperate with experts ordered to prepare material to assist in the sentencing process:
The Crown proposed a 30 month sentence; the Defence lawyer 12 to 30 months. Mr. Seagull said he should be set free as the court had no jurisdiction over him:[18] Mr. Seagull did not cooperate with the probation officer preparing the pre-sentence report and he did not attend the appointments arranged for him with the psychiatrist. He had, today, an explanation for one of the non-attendances with the psychiatrist. However, this leaves the Court with a very limited picture of Mr. Seagull.
[19] While he did attend an appointment with the probation officer, the officer noted the following:
…
- Interviewing Mr. Seagull proved to be a difficult task. The writer was only able to ascertain a limited amount of personal information from Mr. Seagull. He was not forthcoming with information and for the most part would answer, ‘That is private’ or simply, ‘Private’. Mr. Seagull informed the writer that he attended the interview under duress …
[23] The probation officer noted that Mr. Seagull was released on bail in November 2009 and reported as directed every two weeks. However, in November 2011, Mr. Seagull refused to sign his name on the bail sign-in sheet and on appointment slips. He then began to sign these “under duress” or marked "in protest."
[24] The officer also noted that Mr. Seagull would not discuss the offences, stating that they were the "police's version of events".
[25] As already noted, Mr. Seagull did not attend the scheduled appointments with the psychiatrist. In a report dated June 20, 2013, the psychiatrist said the following:
[26] The psychiatrist also said that Mr. Seagull had sent to his office a document purporting to be an “invoice” and purporting to charge the Forensic Psychiatric Commission the sum of $28,000, payable in silver, as well as some other materials described by the psychiatrist as “bizarre”. The psychiatrist attached those materials to his report. I would observe that the materials are similar to those associated with persons described as “freemen on the land” or “organized pseudolegal commercial argument” ("OPCA") litigants, the latter phrase having been coined by Associate Chief Justice Rooke in a case called Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 571.
- For the purpose of preparing this report, 2 separate appointments were arranged such that Mr. Seagull could be interviewed by video conference and the ordered pre-sentence report prepared. I waited for Mr. Seagull to attend for over 40 minutes on each occasion, but he failed to attend and offered no explanation for this; his non attendance was despite Mr. Seagull being notified of both of these appointments, and expressly ordered to attend the second appointment by his supervising bail officer.
This report is therefore prepared based only on the collateral information available to me, and is commensurately limited in opinion.
[27] While the psychiatrist strove mightily to offer a heavily qualified opinion on Mr. Seagull's mental health based on the limited information he had available to him, ultimately finding several areas of concern, I find that the lack of information available to the psychiatrist, particularly the inability to interview Mr. Seagull, removes any weight that might be attached to his report. In saying this I do not wish to be seen as being critical of or disrespectful to the psychiatrist, who was obviously trying to fulfil his mandate as best he could.
[28] One factual matter emerged from the psychiatrist's report, however. Medical records showed that Mr. Seagull was admitted under certificates to a psychiatric unit from November 5, 1993 to November 20, 1993, following violent behaviour and threats to kill his ex-girlfriend. The attending psychiatrist at that time noted that Mr. Seagull appeared to be psychologically disturbed and possibly psychotic. There is reference as well to an earlier psychiatric assessment when Mr. Seagull was 15, possibly in relation to an attempted suicide by overdose.
Mr. Seagull did comply with the terms of his pre-trial release, but made the following interesting comment at para. 46 which involves a familiar date and subject:[35] … Mr. Seagull filed a written submission generally to the effect of not acknowledging the jurisdiction of the courts over him. He explained verbally that it is his belief that as a result of certain steps or events detailed in the written submission, the world is a collection of individuals over whom collective entities have no authority.
Justice Blok concluded that Mr. Seagull’s pattern of behaviour and belief strongly suggested he would not cooperate with rehabilitation efforts, and indicates he fails to understand the extent of his wrongdoing: paras. 41-47. A conditional in-community sentence is not appropriate: para. 50.While Mr. Seagull emphasized that he met all bail conditions imposed on him since 2009, implying that he was a person likely to comply with conditions, he also added that he did what he was supposed to do up to the time of the "UCC filing of December 2012”, which he evidently believes relieves him of obligations to the Court or others.
A two year sentence was ordered for each sexual interference offence. Justice Blok ordered the two offences served at the same time, and reduced that by two months to account for Mr. Seagull’s pre-sentencing detention: para. 58.
I suspect some readers will perhaps be surprised at Mr. Seagull's comparatively short prison sentence given the nature and extent of his misconduct, and his apparent total lack of remorse and unwillingness to comply with state and court authority. I have a few comments on that specific point.
First, in Canada sexual assault sentences have a tendency to vary quite widely from province to province. British Columbia's courts are known for being lenient on this point. Second, the sentence range for sexual assault was different at the time Mr. Seagull offended (up to five years) than at present (up to 10 years, with a 1 year minimum for assaults on persons under age 16). Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 11(i) requires the judge use whatever is the lowest sentence range since the time of offence.
Justice Bolt ordered both sentences served at the same time, concurrently. He could have ordered consecutive sentences, for a total of four years less the two months spent in pre-trial detention. In Canada there is again substantial difference, province to province, on what principles determine whether two or more sentences are served end to end (consecutive) or at the same time (concurrent). Certain jurisdictions have a rule that offences that involve different victims must be served consecutively. It appears that is not the case in British Columbia – that is my presumption, I did not dig into the sentencing law for that jurisdiction.
To my surprise I could not identify any mainstream media reporting of this trial. Apparently Mr. Seagull has 'flown under' the media radar.
That does not limit our ability to better understand the man as he has a substantial online presence. Mr. Seagull has both art-focused (https://www.facebook.com/JonathanSeagul ... dioGallery) and personal Facebook pages (https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.seagull1). On his personal page he explains his religious and political views in this manner:
Religious Views
I praise / am one with my body and nature. I Embrace Peace & Science ~ I am in awe of what continues to reveal itself: The Infinity of Time and Space. Buddhism is closest to my personal taste of "acceptable organized religions".
Political Views
Participatory/Direct Democracy augmented by cybernation (AI, computing power). hivemind internet. Knights of the Jedi <3 Buddhism ish Start anew! Destroy all power; destroy all governments; destroy money; and create one unified planet. http://www.freeworldcharter.org Zeitgeist and the Venus Project: "All resources are of one planet, all people are of one planet, share all with all in an intelligent fair way.
There are a mess of documents, again with conspiratorial, anti-government, and new-age focii. His Facebook groups show a closer affiliation to the One People's Public Trust [OPPT] than anything else, though Dean Clifford is included among his Facebook friends.
There is the usual mixture of new-agish and anti-state copypasta, but also some interesting items such as:
- his attractive "fat farm" mug shots: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 6932285538
an also unpleasant 'crotch thrust' pose photograph of Mr. Seagull - particularly nasty if you read the para. 31 trial account of one victim: https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 4831_n.jpg
the OPPT banner that he created and has attached to the outside of his business: https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 4397_n.jpg
his "Declaration of Absolute Freedom THE ONE PEOPLE": https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 3397_n.jpg
how he approves of the ITCCS's (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9578) stirring efforts to uproot state and church authority: https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.seagu ... 8950605538
a "Free World Charter" banner he attached to his business: https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos ... 9016_n.jpg
His Youtube channel is http://www.youtube.com/user/JonathanSeagullUtube
Mr. Seagull links to or shows interest in a wide variety of new-age and conspiracy subjects. The site also discloses his interest in OPCA concepts, including a link to an OPPT video that explains its UCC-based scheme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh1bGw9oKgA). Mr. Seagull subscribes to Robert-Arthur: Menard's Youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/mrmitee), and has a lengthy list of classic Freeman-on-the-Land type videos in a list entitled "Legal land: the fantasy of the overlords" (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF24B6143E4B22F57).
Mr. Seagull maintains a page of his artwork (https://sites.google.com/site/jonathanseagullart/home). He explains he works with first nations artists, uses a wide variety of techniques, and offers prints and original works, some of which are displayed. He seems to particularly like killer whales.
His sign business, "627-SIGN", has a website that, though ugly, is otherwise apparently mundane: https://sites.google.com/site/627sign/
Review of the British Columbia Courts Online website shows no civil actions but that Mr. Seagull is also facing upcoming multiple criminal trials for breach of release terms in January 2014, presumably these breaches occurred during the period prior to the sexual assault trial discussed above.
After reviewing Mr. Seagull's public internet activities I would suggest he is more closely associated with the One People's Public Trust than the Freeman-on-the-Land movement. That said, he clearly has affiliations with the latter, and interestingly has on at least one occasion contributed to Freeman discussions to draw comparisons between the Freeman movement and the OPPT (https://www.facebook.com/WorldFreemanSo ... 6416186137).
Just as an explanatory note, I have placed this commentary in the Sovereign Citizen rather than OPPT forums because of the judgment’s potentially broad application in Canada to anyone who advances a Sovereign Citizen / Freeman-on-the-Land type defence to a criminal proceeding. While I suspect none of us are surprised by the failure of Mr. Seagull’s attempt to play an OPPT get-out-of-jail-free card, the unusual parallel defence procedure adopted here could well apply in any criminal prosecution of an OPCA litigant. Similarly, Mr. Seagull's rejection of court authority and its sentencing implications will apply to any Canadian Freeman or Sovereign litigant.
Also, while I am quite confident that Mr. Seagull is principally an OPPT affiliate I would not be surprised if he employed at least some Freeman-on-the-Land tactics, particularly as the $28,000.00 (in silver) bill to the psychiatrist suggest a Freeman-style Fee Schedule was at some point deployed.
Once more, contrary to the assertions of Canadian Freemen, we have stark evidence of the criminal and deviant character of the persons with whom they share a community, as well as the logical endpoint of a “I can do what I want” world perspective.
SMS Möwe
