John Maclean - the hat man?

[Fmotlgroupie]

From the Guardian: http://m.theguardian.pe.ca/News/Local/2 ... ideology/1

A Charlottetown court got a little confusing Monday as a man suspected of trying to follow the Freemen-on-the-Land doctrine came before judge Nancy Orr.

John James MacLean, 55, appeared for the first time in provincial court Monday to face charges of failing to stop at the scene of an accident, evading police during a vehicle pursuit and dangerous driving from an incident on Jan. 2 this year.

He was to enter a plea on the charges, either saying he was guilty or instead, going to trial on a not-guilty plea. Often lawyers ask for delays at this point in a case to assemble information and develop a plan, but MacLean appeared in court without a lawyer.

As the detailed wording of the charges was being read to him by Orr, MacLean tried to interject.

“This is a special appearance,” he said of his presence in court.

He said he was making a motion on a “jurisdictional matter.”

Crown prosecutor Jeff MacDonald told the court that MacLean appears to be following “a freeman-on-the-land ideology.”

“ ‘Freemen’ (or Sovereign Citizens, Living Souls or Natural Persons, as they sometimes call themselves) believe that all ­statute law is contractual,” says a briefing note on the ideology by the Law Society of British Columbia. “They further believe that law only governs them if they choose or consent to be governed. By implication, they believe that, by not consenting, they can hold themselves independent of government jurisdiction.”

The FBI considers extreme holders of this ideology to be a form of domestic terrorism, says the law society note.

“Freemen may number up to 30,000 in Canada and hundreds of thousands in the United States,” says the B.C. briefing.

MacLean denied the allegiance, saying he heard the phrase freeman-on-the-land for the first time in the court lobby and then moments later in court from the Crown lawyer.

It took Orr some time to discover that MacLean was saying he wanted his case to proceed to the Supreme Court, by way of a legal process called indictment.

The Crown makes that decision and told the court it was going to pursue the charges through provincial court only, known as a summary process.

MacLean told the court that he “wouldn’t have bothered” coming to court if he had known his case was going to proceed summarily in provincial court.

“Unfortunately sir, you get this court,” said Orr. “There isn’t an option.

“In my view this is not a guest appearance or a special appearance,” said Orr to MacLean.

She asked if he was planning on getting a lawyer.

“You seem to be labouring under some very significant misconceptions about the legal system,” she said.

MacLean didn’t tell the court of any plans to consult a lawyer.

Orr then set his case over to March 26 for a second attempt to have MacLean enter a plea.

A court staff member handed him a small piece of paper with that date and time as a reminder, which MacLean then put into his hat with other papers, and put the hat on his head as he left the court room.

I've tried googling for Maclean, without success.

[notorial dissent]

Some how, I have a feeling we'll be hearing more of this gentlemen, when he eventually is arrested and then has to explain why he didn't show up for his provincial court appearance. I don't foresee it being a happy meeting for some reason, and he will be more confused than ever.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

And you were correct, notorial dissent:

• P.E.I. man invokes bizarre free-man-on-the-land ideology during Trial: http://www.ngnews.ca/News/Local/2014-06 ... ng-trial/1

The Hat Man pulled a Fearn and bugged out once the trial had started. Up til then it was the ol' "I'm not who you think I am!" defence:

A kind of free-man-on-the-land trial took strange twists in a Charlottetown court Wednesday as a man kept pretending he wasn't on trial, then walked out of the courtroom.

John James MacLean, 55, of Pleasant Grove Road was on trial for charges of dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of an accident and evading police in connection with a motor vehicle hit-and-run Jan. 2.

He was in provincial court before Judge Nancy Orr.

MacLean said the trial was a fraud because he wasn't the man named on the informations before the court.

"That's not me," he said.

John James MacLean was just a name on some documents that belonged to the government, a name that he just had the use of, he tried to tell the court.

Several times when the name John James MacLean was referenced he would question who that was, saying it wasn't him.

When he was told "that is you", he would ask the court "who's you?"

For what seemed like a very long time, MacLean tried to argue the issue of his own identity, continually interrupting the Crown and the judge when they tried to say anything he didn't agree with.

Orr repeatedly told MacLean to stop interrupting.

In turn, MacLean repeatedly denied that he was.

"I'm not interrupting, I'm objecting," MacLean said.

Orr tried to tell MacLean that his identity was not an issue, that she had accepted the documentation he himself had provided - including a driver's licence with his picture on it and a birth certificate - as proof that he was indeed John James MacLean.

But he would have none of that.

...

Quinn read from case law which suggests that courts attach no merit or weight to ideological arguments advanced by those espousing such views.

Throughout all of this MacLean objected profusely, rising numerous times to speak his mind despite orders from the bench to sit down and let Quinn speak.

Rising from the defence table he told Orr his business was done there and walked out.

MacLean had been duly advised that the trial could proceed without him but that did not deter him.

He essentially told the court to go ahead because he wasn't staying.

Not even a warning from Orr that he could be charged with contempt of court if he left the courtroom could keep him there.

In his absence the trial proceeded and MacLean was ultimately found guilty of all charges.

The offence scenario is pretty nasty, though:

Testimony presented by police and civilian witnesses indicated that on the night in question, MacLean came off an off-ramp the wrong way and struck another vehicle, causing $5,000 to $6,000 in damages.

He did not stop to see if the driver of the other vehicle was hurt or offer his name and insurance documentation.

Instead he continued on, refusing to stop for police who responded to the accident.

Several vehicles pursued MacLean but they stopped the pursuit after MacLean accelerated to speeds that officers believed could pose a danger to the public.

At Belvedere Avenue and University he was moving at such speed that the front of the car struck the pavement causing sparks to fly.

He narrowly missed a police car by inches.

At one point after being boxed in by police he was able to escape, accelerating while a police officer who stopped him still had his arm inside the window of the car.

Add to that the Hat Man has a history. I'd not checked before but I spotted a 1987 decision of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court Appellate Division which addresses an offender by the same name:

• Jay v. MacLean, 1987 CanLII 185 (PE SCAD): http://canlii.ca/t/1p88p

It considers a sentence for a Criminal Code, s. 238(5) conviction, which I think is a refusing to provide a breath sample (drunk driving) charge - that's under the pre-1985 Criminal Code. I don't see any mention of what the sentence actually was - MacLean was fighting an associated automatic driver's licence suspension.

Somehow I don't think he'll have a driver's licence after all this.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Somehow I don't think he'll have a driver's licence after all this.

SMS Möwe

If he's a true Freeman he shouldn't possess a driver's license in any case. We all know that Freemen have an unlimited right to travel without government interference. We've seen how well that is working for Dean Clifford.

[notorial dissent]

Orr tried to tell MacLean that his identity was not an issue, that she had accepted the documentation he himself had provided - including a driver's licence with his picture on it and a birth certificate - as proof that he was indeed John James MacLean.

I'm not sure if he is just a regularly dangerous nut job or a seriously dangerous FOTL wannabe whacko. Either way, in my opinion, no license, no car, no walkee streets.

Sounds like he likes to drink and drive, and really isn't too concerned about anyone else on the roads when he's sober, so my choice, he doesn't get to any more.

As a side note, I think the judge should have issued a bench warrant and sent a constable or whatever the minute he left the court room.

[grixit]

Since not driving and not drinking in public is a common condition of bail in such cases, it seems to me reasonable for the judge to order him held as a danger to the public.

[fortinbras]

.... a seriously dangerous FOTL wannabe whacko....

FOTL???
Front Of The Line?
Friend of the lost?
Fruit of the Loom?

[Dezcad]

.... a seriously dangerous FOTL wannabe whacko....

FOTL???
Front Of The Line?
Friend of the lost?
Fruit of the Loom?

F'ing Old Time Loonie

[arayder]

This guy is a perfect example of a freeman using his cult's theories in an attempt to avoid the consequences of doing harm!

The guru/leaders of freemanary may opine that Maclean isn't a true freeman. But the fact is he's using the same peusdo-legal gibberish the rest of the dysfunction cult uses to A4V/skip out on bills, ignore loan payments and do the freeman dine and dash.

[Kestrel]

As a side note, I think the judge should have issued a bench warrant and sent a constable or whatever the minute he left the court room.

The judge did even better. He finished the trial and found MacLean guilty, then issued the warrant. Möwe accidentally omitted the last line of the report.

Orr has now adjourned the case for sentence and issued an order for MacLean's arrest.

[notorial dissent]

.... a seriously dangerous FOTL wannabe whacko....

FOTL???
Front Of The Line?
Friend of the lost?
Fruit of the Loom?

F'ing Old Time Loonie

I like that, bu tin context mine was Freeman On The Land.


I still think the judge should have issued the warrant the minute he went out the door. Should be an interesting story when he finally does get caught.

[Lambkin]

.... a seriously dangerous FOTL wannabe whacko....

FOTL???
Front Of The Line?
Friend of the lost?
Fruit of the Loom?

F'ing Old Time Loonie

Fool On The Loose

[arayder]

From the Guardian: http://m.theguardian.pe.ca/News/Local/2 ... ideology/1

Individuals like Maclean are exactly why societies make and enforce laws.

Freemen jabber about peacefulness, duty and honor, but the fact is when it gets down to walking the walk they fail to hold drunken no goods like Maclean accountable. Despite the claimed presence of a corps of peace officers the cult of freemanary sits on its hands while its members commit all manner of crimes.

Cleaning up the mess is left to the world's doers.

But what can one expect from a dysfunctional mob whose leading gurus are a drunken shyster and rage disordered loser?

[notorial dissent]

Fool On The Loose

You know, I think I like yours the best so far.


arayder, I quite agree. That is pretty much the experience, albeit thankfully limited, that I've personally had with them. It pretty much always boils down to it's all about "their" rights, and no one else's. For a group that seems to as you say, "jabber about peacefulness, duty and honor" hypocrisy seems to be the more prevailing characteristic.