The Nanaimo Three - Political Prisoners in Canada

[grixit]

And remember, to get your CourtCredit, swipe your card at the register when you leave. Then check your account courtcredit.frik to keep track of how much CourtCredit you've earned so far.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Our man Alex has posted a video invitation to attend his Jan. 22, 2014 court appearances:

• Would anyone be interested in witnessing a court case? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-sL572uxNs)

The description reads:

Got back home from work. I was tired, but I think the video was okay. I will be posting the paperwork here when I can.

Go. Watch it. He will sooner or later realize that this did not work out so well. My suspicion is his medicinal oils may have been a factor.

Tasty, tasty paperwork...

SMS Möwe

[LordEd]

He's obviously reading off of a card. Wonder who is doing his thinking for him.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

He's obviously reading off of a card. Wonder who is doing his thinking for him.

Well, he has recently posted a lengthy missive about his ongoing issues with sleep paralysis and visits by dark entities (http://www.facebook.com/alexander.ream/ ... 5055693716). So I guess it's a toss up - Reptiles or Greys?

Alex truly is the gift that keeps on giving. He continues to try to rebut the manner in which he and his cohorts were characterized in an interview on CBC given by Freddie Freepickle (http://www.facebook.com/alexander.ream/ ... 0578985497)

1. The RCMP did not attempt to contact us before the attack.
2. I am not a member of the FOTL. I share similar ideas however.
3. I did not try to pass as a corporate peace officer (RCMP).
4. The ones arrested were me, Dave Lange and David Smith.

I'm not a Freeman-on-the-Land - I just share their beliefs, paperwork schemes, hang around with them, post messages and comments on their guru's Facebook page, and talk and act like them. Other than that, we are entirely different!

It is an excuse they made up for unlawfully arresting us to prevent us entering the Nanaimo courthouse on June 14th 2013. My friend was exposing the mortgage scam and the validity of the legal system in the previous court case at the Nanaimo courthouse. It seems they didn't wanted us anymore.

Hmm... and as I recall your friend Dave no longer has a house as his residence was foreclosed? And he hasn't gotten that back? Mmm... perhaps not a 'scam'.

On June 14th, we were in a van on our way to the Nanaimo Courthouse. We were a minute away when we heard police sirens. My friend parked the van nearby and we knew that it was for us. Usually to have the sirens on you are supposed to have an emergency. I suppose it doesn't matter when you have a shiny badge and a deadly weapon. They got out of their police vehicles and rushed towards the van. I was recording when the Nanaimo RCMP and the local sheriffs surrounded the van to prevent us entering the Nanaimo courthouse. I had video evidence of them having their weapons drawn and threatening us to get out of the van. They did not have grounds to order us and couldn't answer simple questions. They proceeded to break the window anyway and dragged all three of us out of the van by force. My video camera was taken away. Unfortunately the video is deleted. I still have other videos that are not related to the event, at least they were kind enough to not delete those. Tyranny is still tyranny however.

Tyranny is tyranny so why can't it be
You and I should get along just lawfully

So you have all your weapons
And I have no misdeeds
And Freemen-on-the-Land they use different screeds
It's obvious you hate me
Though I've done nothing wrong
You're a corporate fiction
So what could I have done

Apologies to Martin Gore.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

It is highly likely the court won't answer his questions? I think he is rating his chances way too highly. There is no way a judge will answer questions from a defendant. That video was just pathetic. He seemed totally flummoxed by having to read all those big words. At least I know what he looks like so I'll recognize him hanging about pre-trial.

At least this time, as opposed to the prior hearing I tried to attend, he knows the time and place.

[notorial dissent]

At least this time, as opposed to the prior hearing I tried to attend, he knows the time and place.

Which is precious little guarantee that he'll bother to show up, unless he's already in custody at the time and doesn't have a choice, which actually has a higher probability of happening than him willingly showing up to court. It's amazing what that magic oil of Alex's can do towards making time really irrelevant. Poor picked on baby, the whole world is out to get him. Sometimes paranoia is just functioning observational skills, although I wouldn't go that far in his case.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

It is highly likely the court won't answer his questions? I think he is rating his chances way too highly. There is no way a judge will answer questions from a defendant.

I agree with that. It's one of the old Freeman-on-the-Land script components that judges now just squish on sight. I encountered a very amusing transcript where the hearing judge responded with "No - I ask the questions, and you answer." The weasely response of "But I just want to know if this is a common law court..." led to a request by the judge that the Freeman define stare decisis: "If you don't understand that concept then you have no knowledge of common law courts - let's move to your submissions."

I suspect Alex will receive an equally cruel and perfunctory response.

That video was just pathetic. He seemed totally flummoxed by having to read all those big words. At least I know what he looks like so I'll recognize him hanging about pre-trial.

And just imagine how coherent Alex will be if he self-medicates prior to the hearing. As I suspect is all but certain...

At least this time, as opposed to the prior hearing I tried to attend, he knows the time and place.

Inching towards victory!

I popped by The Nanaimo Five Four hearing / Facebook Event website and sadly no sign of new and improved paperwork. That said, Burnaby49, you may be excited to know that leading Freeman-on-the-Land personality Brian Alexander promises to 'travel' from Kamloops for this history-defining event! No doubt an attempt to rack up some appearances in the Ream CourtCredit program.

And I just thought I'd check and see if our other friends in The Nanaimo Five Four have been well behaved - and nope, it looks like Andrew Winston Simpson is now set for another courtroom appearance, this time on January 9, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 101 of the Robson Square Provincial Court. This is a consequence of a new criminal offence information sworn on Dec. 3, 2013 but is derived from Simpson's 2012 guilty pleas to tax offences that led to a Mar. 11, 2013 fine. The January 9th appearance is marked as a "First Appearance".

My guess - very tentative - is that Simpson still has not complied with his obligations to file tax returns and pay income tax in relation to his previous misconduct. Or he's still refusing to pay tax. In any case - there you go Burnaby49 - some more potential in-court entertainment.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Does this mean that I too will rack up Ream CourtCredits even though my motives for attending are somewhat less than supportive? Although, thinking it over, they are only good as a method of exchange to get Ream and others to attend at any court hearing I might have. If I'm ever in that unfortunate situation I think I'd prefer they stayed away.

I'll check out Simpson although I suspect it will just be a brief hearing. Sadly I doubt any of these guys are as entertaining as Yankson or "Just call me Charlie" :charles-norman: holmes. Those guys had flair!

[LordEd]

Maybe if you attend enough court cases you can get a popcorn voucher?

[Burnaby49]

Maybe if you attend enough court cases you can get a popcorn voucher?

I don't like popcorn but a beer voucher works. For years a friend and I bought $200 to $300 in gift certificates for Steamworks pub in Vancouver every christmas. As a promotion they would put $125 on each $100 gift certificate with the requirement that you had to use the extra $25 in January. If your card exceeded $100 on February 1st the excess was wiped off. We didn't buy them to give as gifts, we got them for ourselves for the extra $25. One year his family gave him $400 of Steamworks gift certificates as a retirement present. Since I had $200 of my own we were quite busy that January getting our free $150 used up before it expired.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Does this mean that I too will rack up Ream CourtCredits even though my motives for attending are somewhat less than supportive?

I may be misrepresenting Alex's scheme, but my understanding is that judges and lawyers will be struck with fear if they are observed by a mass of others. It is that act of observation that will then enforce 'real law' and lead to 'justice'. If so, it then seems to me that it matters less whether you are unsupportive (or in Yanksonspeak, a "troll"), than you are an honest observer. If so, then Mr. Ream should welcome you, provided your intent is to observe and relay the truth.

Although, thinking it over, they are only good as a method of exchange to get Ream and others to attend at any court hearing I might have. If I'm ever in that unfortunate situation I think I'd prefer they stayed away.

Perhaps you could nominate a third-party as the recipient of your earned CourtCredits?

I'll check out Simpson although I suspect it will just be a brief hearing. Sadly I doubt any of these guys are as entertaining as Yankson or "Just call me Charlie" :charles-norman: holmes. Those guys had flair!

Tis the sad truth. The Nanaimo Five Four just do not seem to possess that depth of style and panache.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

And I just thought I'd check and see if our other friends in The Nanaimo Five Four have been well behaved - and nope, it looks like Andrew Winston Simpson is now set for another courtroom appearance, this time on January 9, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 101 of the Robson Square Provincial Court. This is a consequence of a new criminal offence information sworn on Dec. 3, 2013 but is derived from Simpson's 2012 guilty pleas to tax offences that led to a Mar. 11, 2013 fine. The January 9th appearance is marked as a "First Appearance".

My guess - very tentative - is that Simpson still has not complied with his obligations to file tax returns and pay income tax in relation to his previous misconduct. Or he's still refusing to pay tax. In any case - there you go Burnaby49 - some more potential in-court entertainment.

So, on Mowe's instructions, I attended Simpson's hearing. Mowe was quite right about the issue involved. This was just a court assignment hearing where the accused is slotted in for court time. Simpson was one of a bunch being processed, mainly youth court cases. I can't guarantee I've got Simpson's story exactly right, he was facing away from me and speaking quietly and the judge didn't project much either. Lot of ambient noise too. Anyhow the charge Simpson is facing is failure to comply with an order of the court. It stems from his prior guilty plea about not filing tax returns. He was fined by the Court and ordered to file the returns. The Crown says he did not comply with the order, he apparently argues that he has. What both sides agree on is that he pulled the cute stunt of filing the requested returns but as blank documents, no information at all. In Simpson's fantasy world this means he complied with the order. This is what passes for brilliant strategy in the sovereign/freeman world.

The judge had problems with Sipson's comprehension of what was going on. She explained that this was a new charge stemming from a claimed lack of compliance to the decision from the old charge. However Simpson (pro se, no surprise there) seemed to think the court and Crown were revisiting the old, already decided issue. The court tried, and failed, to beat into his head that he wasn't being re-tried on that. Finally the judge told him to go talk to a lawyer about it and see if the lawyer could explain it to him. so they re-scheduled Simpson to return to the court after, hopefully, he figures out what is going on. Bit of a problem with that because it turned out that Simpson has a hearing about something coming up at New Westminister court on January 22nd or 23rd (he was confused which). So they scheduled him in after that on January 30th. I plan to be at the New Westminister court on the 22nd to sit in on the Alexander Ream hearing so I'll check out Simpson when I'm there.

[The Observer]

The court tried, and failed, to beat into his head that he wasn't being re-tried on that.

See? Victory, sovrun style!

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Yikes. He complied with the Court's direction by filing blank income tax paperwork? Why not simply send in stacks of monopoly money? His birth ["berth"] certificate? A stuffed mongoose?

Let's see ... aggravating or mitigating circumstance, aggravating or mitigating circumstance ... I think I'll go with "aggravating", sirs.

I can confirm that Simpson's next appearance on the tax matter is scheduled for Jan. 30. Robson Square Provincial Court.

Simpson will be appearing with the whole Nanaimo Five Four gang on Jan. 22, in the New Westminster Courts, Courtroom 206. I'm sure Our Friend Alex will have much to say! This is indicated in the B.C. Courts Online database as a "Trial Confirmation Hearing", which I anticipate will be the judge checking to see that everyones' ducks are in a row for the trial proper, currently scheduled to run Feb. 28 to March 7. Quite a long proceeding for a provincial court trial.

Normally a trial confirmation hearing would be to square aware that everyone has disclosure, identify Charter issues, things like that. However, with Alex and Co? Who knows...

And speaking of Alex, he's posted ... a thing (http://www.facebook.com/alexander.ream/ ... 0656831698) ... which I really don't know if I understand ... Almost Yanksonesque in its peculiarity.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Actually, having seen Simpson in court, I think that blank tax returns might well reflect his income with reasonable accuracy. He doesn't seem like a guy with a lot going for him. Somebody who is puzzled over a simple failure to comply charge to the extent that the judge was unsure if he actually knew why he was there doesn't come across, let's say, as being particularly bright. None of the Freemen I've yet seen appear to be particularly employable even if they dropped the Freemen nonsense and focused on earning a living.

Just by chance the only other adult being reviewed in the session (rest juvenile offenders) was a guy called Peter Dailly who had also refused to file tax returns. A 2007 conviction and a $9,000 fine, I can't locate the decision on it. Anyhow the crown was there to request a change in the court order in respect to Dailly paying the fine off. He has been trying to pay the fine but has been largely unemployed with apparently some fitful part time employment. The Crown wanted the payment schedule reduced to reflect his inability to pay, probably so they don't have to bother hitting with a failure to comply charge when he can't comply. So he may have a story similar to Simpson, refused to file tax returns even though apparently not making enough money to make it worth his while to fight with the CRA and face a court charge.

[Jeffrey]

I'm sure someone's made this point before but a lot of this seems to be the legal version of Munchausen syndrome.

[Burnaby49]

Another comment on Simpson's employability. He was at Vancouver court today. He will be in New Westminster court January 22nd then back at Vancouver for a hearing January 30th. On February 28th he's tied up on a week long trial. He still has to have a hearing assigned for today's issue; his failure to comply with a prior court order. Even if he dodges jail time on all of this mess he still seems to be spending way more of his time running between court sessions than any employer would be willing to tolerate.

[grixit]

Is it possible that being hauled into court is the high point of his life at this time? If he can't actually win, then the perhaps the trouble the authorities seem to be going through to take him down counts in his mind as some sort of validation. In such a case his attitude might be that he's not going to make it easy for them.

[Burnaby49]

Is it possible that being hauled into court is the high point of his life at this time? If he can't actually win, then the perhaps the trouble the authorities seem to be going through to take him down counts in his mind as some sort of validation. In such a case his attitude might be that he's not going to make it easy for them.

I think that is actually a big part of Alexander Ream's current death spiral. He seems to have a martyr complex and appears resigned to ending up in jail. Simpson might be the same. Filing blank tax returns in response to a court order isn't the act of someone trying to find a way out of his legal issues.

[Burnaby49]

I just made a connection between this discussion thread and that of Chief Rock, tenuous as it may be. On page 1 of this discussion we have this commentary;

Capri Adirim
Apparently or 'allegedly' they were arrested for impersonating Peace Officers. But remember they have those Peace Officer 'memberships' notarized, and a notary has a higher legal authority then a Judge!

And, on page 2:

Capri Adirim
"Liberties" is an admiralty/maritime term. It means privilege and not 'freedom' in the sense you think it does. Be careful of the words you use.
July 20 at 7:04am
…
Alexander Ream
Thanks Capri, but I was using common English not legalese.
Tuesday at 3:08am

Capri Adirim
Liberty means temporary and or conditional freedom. When a ship pulls to shore the Captain allows the sailors the liberty to leave the ship (but they must comeback on board). This is why the Statute of Liberty is on water. It cannot be on land because laws of the land gives (should give) true freedom, not conditional freedom.
Tuesday at 9:14am

As followers of the Chief Rock thread are aware I spent an afternoon at one of his so-called seminars last October. Part of my post of that session said;

The purported theme was contracts and how a knowledge of contract law could give you an advantage in court but the discussion kept going down other rabbit-holes. One guy's focus was the Dragon Family and the SWISSINDO trust. One woman was a David Wynne Millerite so words loomed big in her world-view (it's all in the syntax). She had an almost obsessive parsing of the meaning of words, actually a common theme for the group. The chief tried to steer her away from Miller digressions but with limited success, she was constantly cutting in with definitions. She was also obsessed by our Motor Vehicles Branch and their death grip on the right to drive through drivers license. She said that she did not sign a contract to adhere to the Motor Vehicles Act when she got her license so the act doesn't apply to her. Since I was there as an observer I didn't get involved in these discussions, including the salient point that statutory acts do not require contractual acquiescence. She also followed the common belief (I don't know if it is part of Millerism, Hendrickson's CrackHeads live by it) that the word "includes" actually means "excludes everything but". She said that since the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that an accident "includes" intentional collision then "of course" only intentional collisions are considered to be accidents under the act. Nobody else seemed to have the slightest interest in Miller so that kind of fizzled out.

I just realized that Capri Adirim was the definition obsessed woman at the Chief's seminar. Comments like;

Liberty means temporary and or conditional freedom. When a ship pulls to shore the Captain allows the sailors the liberty to leave the ship (but they must comeback on board). This is why the Statute of Liberty is on water. It cannot be on land because laws of the land gives (should give) true freedom, not conditional freedom.

Are exactly to point with the gibberish she was babbling at the seminar. I remember thinking at the time that she would be an extremely difficult date. Every casual comment the guy made would be subject to an hour or so of relentless deconstruction based on her understanding of the meaning of each individual word he used.

I assume from her attendance at the Chief's seminar that her comment, quoted above, that the peace officer memberships were notarized, probably indicates another notorial foray by the Chief. Under her understanding of legal hierarchies the Chief, as a notary, ranks higher than a judge! If so, I have to wonder why he didn't show up at Ron Usher's Application Hearing to put the purportedly inferior Supreme Court of British Columbia judge in his place.