The Nanaimo Three - Political Prisoners in Canada

[notorial dissent]

What Alex need more than anything is to lose his internet privileges and be banned from contact with the likes of Alexander, oh wait, that'll happen after he's convicted, so maybe some good will come of this yet.

As it is, it appears that Alex is going to take the stupid road, and pay the full toll. I can't help thinking that with his demonstrated brand of luck, he'll get the one lone Canadian hanging judge and get smacked for the absolute maximum they can hit him with.

I just don't see this ending well for him for some reason.

[JamesVincent]

As it is, it appears that Alex is going to take the stupid road, and pay the full toll. I can't help thinking that with his demonstrated brand of luck, he'll get the one lone Canadian hanging judge and get smacked for the absolute maximum they can hit him with.

I just don't see this ending well for him for some reason.

We did a quiz in Sunday School awhile ago about the Ottoman Empire. In 500 years time there was only one person stoned for blasphemy. I asked the teacher, what did that dude do to piss them off so bad to be the only one? I think Alex is gonna find out.

[Burnaby49]

I just realized I'll get a break on my court attendance expenses! It currently costs me an exorbitant $2.10 each way to catch a bus from my house to the Skytrain station and then train to the New Westminster courthouse. However Alex's hearing is slated for three days after my 65th birthday and I'll qualify for the $1.75 senior's rate! Every little bit helps when you're in your twilight years. However Mrs. Burnaby49, only a young babe of 62, will still have to pay the full fare.

Skytrain fares actually caused my final break with the federal Department of Justice. Last year I helped with a Tax Court appeal that required me being in attendance at Tax Court for three days. My contract included transportation so I billed them a whopping $12 for three days of Skytrain rides. They refused to pay it because I hadn't submitted the used ticket stubs to verify that I hadn't actually walked the seven miles each way. I assume the rationale was that I might be planning to defraud them of the $12 by padding expenses. My response to this moronic bean-counting was to tell them, very emphatically, to find somebody else who was willing to put up with this stupidity to handle the rest of the cases they wanted me to work on.

[Fussygus]

Allas Burnaby you to have seen the effect of placing too much emphasis on dictating policies to employees at the expense of leaving them with using their own faculties, common sense.

Create a system idiot proof and you will soon find out how stupid people can be. We have become a society of rules to the point that people no longer trust their own knowledge and conscious for fear of breaking a "rule". Instead of teaching the intent of whatever it is we are doing we create rules for every single instance. The problem with this is that no one can possible know all the rules. So the just blindly follow the ones they do know "must have receipt for all transactions" without giving a conscious thought to the reasonableness of the request(You had to get there somehow, bus, vehicle or jog/bike (if you jogged you would have burned calories you would not necessarily burn sitting on your couch. So naturally you would need food to replace those burnt calorie)).

Don't get me wrong rules are good, but have we taken it too far? Rather than empower these employees we just reduced them to data crunching computers that give little or no thought to the data they input for the formula and they spew out an answer that doesn't account for any extrinsic reasonable variables? (Should monkeys be hired to enter the data into the program and save a pile of money on wages and replace them with bananas?)

There appears to be a substantial movement towards people to do whatever it takes to avert responsibility in society. That new rules are developed at an alarming rate to off load responsibility for the finished product onto another. Where there was a single person who took responsibility, now 12 mitigate it onto each other. You will have a capable person sitting there in an office making the conscious decision NOT to look out the window for fear of seeing something and then having to make a decision based on what he saw, become liable then for that decision.

How many people in today's society would simply walk past some kids throwing their gum wrappers on the ground? In the old days they would be soundly scolded by anyone, or even given a swat. Can you do that today? Good luck with that thanks to a judiciary that allows anyone and everyone to sue you for anything, that obviously takes the reasonableness out of how we function. "Pleadings must ..x..y..z" then lawsuit is accepted and one must defend against it. There is no one looking at things and saying "this is F#*king retarded!". The individual in standing up for society is vilified and chastised for acting outside of "the Rules" in the specific, without any thought to the fact that the action is for the betterment of the individuals and society as a whole. So rather than doing what is right for society, they simply keep quite and do what is best for themselves, to look away because it is too costly to act on their conscious.

Until suing/prosecuting/promoting/deciding are brought back in line with what is good for society, then we will continue to have a society of people that avoid responsibility rather than one that promotes responsibility.

We try and make rules that tell people who is responsible but at the same time tell everyone else they are NOT responsible. The bartender is responsible for the patrons means the patrons are not responsible for themselves. The school is responsible for teaching the children so the parents have no duty. The employer is responsible for the workers, so the workers have no responsibility. The taxpayer is responsible for filing correctly, so the auditor has no responsibility to what they do, they need only enter the data and let rule computer determine result. The police officer is given a form of check-boxes "rules" that indicate when it is ok to shoot someone, there is no thought that shooting someone to death because he is holding a knife and his pants down and dick in other hand from 30 feet away, is not acceptable to the conscious, but I'm pretty sure he thought it was within the rules (always shoot to kill).

We need to stop giving people a "cop out" (makes me wonder where this phase originated) that they followed the rules blindly, so they are given a free ride even though what they did was consciously unacceptable.

What they did to you Burnaby was most assuredly within the rules but clearly violated your conscious as being unreasonable. It is not worth your effort to fight, and frankly it is a paltry sum, but you speak that you will not tolerate such behaviour. We need more of that if we are going to bring back accountability and personal responsibility. Where is the largest source of "rules"? Maybe we should start there.

Fuzzy

[Burnaby49]

Some bad news on the Alex Ream front, at least bad news for anyone anticipating another of my front-line court reports on Alex's hearing next week. I won't be going

I know, I know, you're thinking "What pathetic excuse is that dumb prick going to try and foist on us this time? He skipped the last Ream hearing by claiming that he showed up at court without any pants on. So what whiny excuse is he going to pull out of his ass now?"

Well if you want whining I'm the pro, I've been doing a lot of it in the last week. I'm just home from eight days in Burnaby General Hospital acute care. I stumbled on some stairs Tuesday last week and ended up at the bottom with seven fractured ribs (some compound), all on the left side, and a collapsed left lung. For a while there was concern that the lung was punctured by one of the ribs but it turned out I'd just had all the air knocked out of it when I landed on it and I wasn't breathing deeply enough to re-inflate it. So they made me an offer I couldn't refuse; they could cut a hole in my chest, run a tube into the lung and pump it up like a flat tire, or I could show some backbone and submit myself to the torture of the Spiro-Ball;



Don't let that happy-face fool you. It was only there to mock me.

Anyhow while I'm back home I'm pretty much immobilized. The way I'm feeling at present Alex's trial might as well be in the Solomon Islands instead of New Westminster courthouse in respect to my ability to get to it.

Not everything is negative however! My wife is an artist, water colours and sketchings. She did an excellent quick study of me sitting up in my hospital bed and looking down dolefully at the first hospital meal I was served.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Burnaby49 - terribly sorry to hear of your accident, and all the best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Perhaps we'll be lucky and some other scout can be deployed. In the meantime, try to not giggle too much over the antics of our Freeman/Sovereign friends - that ribcage needs an opportunity to knit.

SMS Möwe

[The Observer]

Ditto, Burnaby, on getting better and being up and around.

[Fmotlgroupie]

One broken rib entitles you to as much whining as you want, much less seven. All the best to you as you get through the healing process.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Get well soon - don't do anything funny.

[notorial dissent]

Ouch. I'm so sorry to hear that. I've only ever cracked a rib once, and the thought of a ribcage full of them is not something I want to contemplate. And then hospital food on top of it.... You take care of yourself and get well, and move very slowly, and seriously, do practice your breathing. All my best.

[arayder]

Burnaby49, at a certain age we no longer bounce so good.

I know you will get well soon and we will continue to her about your pantless adventures!

[JamesVincent]

Get better soon Burnaby. I had 4 broken ones when I was much younger, can't imagine having more and being older on top.

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby49, at a certain age we no longer bounce so good.

I know you will get well soon and we will continue to her about your pantless adventures!

Certain age? What are you implying? I will note that we had to cancel my 65th birthday lunch that my wife and I were hosting next Sunday. I felt like a youngster in the hospital. The first person I shared a room with was eighty-eight. She may have died (seriously), she seemed on the edge and they snuck her out about 2AM. Her replacement was ninety-five.

I seem to have a curse looming over me in respect to Ream reporting. But it just seems that there is a void in the story if he gets missed after I've covered everybody else's trials.

[arayder]

Burnaby49, at a certain age we no longer bounce so good.

I know you will get well soon and we will continue to her about your pantless adventures!

Certain age? What are you implying? I will note that we had to cancel my 65th birthday lunch that my wife and I were hosting next Sunday. I felt like a youngster in the hospital. The first person I shared a room with was eighty-eight. She may have died (seriously), she seemed on the edge and they snuck her out about 2AM. Her replacement was ninety-five.

I seem to have a curse looming over me in respect to Ream reporting. But it just seems that there is a void in the story if he gets missed after I've covered everybody else's trials.

I stopped bouncing good at 'bout 30.

I hear ya' 'bout the people in the hospital with ya'. I had pneumonia a few years back and everybody in ICU with me was knocking at death's door. When they moved me to the "general population" a few days later I knew I'd made it.

You made it too. Life is a gift, pard.

[Burnaby49]

I hear ya' 'bout the people in the hospital with ya'. I had pneumonia a few years back and everybody in ICU with me was knocking at death's door. When they moved me to the "general population" a few days later I knew I'd made it.

I'm drifting a little off topic here going on about acute care protocol but since it's not one of the forbidden topics I'll continue. We old guys have a right to drone on.

Once I was admitted into acute care the entire medical staff seemed obsessed about three medical issues, pneumonia, blood clots, and bowel movements.

Pneumonia was the reason they frog-marched me through the Spiro-Ball gauntlet. Apparently a collapsed lung is heaven to pneumonia bacteria so I was set daily goals of pressure and expansion. They also pointed out that a typical pneumonia symptom was heavy coughing, not an ideal situation for a guy with broken ribs. As a cautionary lesson the ninety-five year old babe beside me had been admitted as a general patient for something or other but ended up in acute care when she contracted pneumonia.

Everybody in acute care got two injections a day of blood thinner to stop potential blood clotting because of muscular inactivity. My 28 year old daughter-in-law almost died a few years ago when an unsuspected blood clot in her calf broke free and lodged in a lung so I wasn't complaining about that concern. They inject it into your stomach, which seems like a painful business, but they did such a good job I didn't even notice.

Bowel movements seemed to be a real fixation. I was interrogated every morning. Since I was initially incapable of getting out of bed I couldn't bullshit about how I'd pranced off to the can a half dozen times that day already. It actually turned out to be a real motivator to get me moving which was exactly what the hospital wanted. On Saturday I was told that if I couldn't show results by Sunday evening we were going nuclear, a very unpleasant option that they spelled out in detail and, I'm sure, a topic not previously discussed on Quatloos! So on Sunday morning I told my wife it was time for me to get out of bed and start moving. And I did. That was the defining moment that got me home, not some inspirational crap about struggling for my family and friends. Real life is very mundane.

[Dr. Caligari]

So sorry to hear about your accident. So glad to see that you still have a sense of humor (or is it "humour" in Canada?) about it. Get well soon.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Alex is ramping up for his big date next week!

But first, he entered a den of lions - the New Westminister Provincial Court (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=752188824813005):

Alexander Ream
I am heading to New Westminster Provincial Court to pick up some stuff. If you don't hear from me again today means that something happened. Anyways... Have a nice day everyone!
[May 16, 2014]

Alex also attached photograph of an undated letter, presumably sent in advance of his descent into the Den of Beasts (http://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho ... 5232_n.jpg). It reads:

Dear Christina Godlewska,

Please kindly respond to the following questions. Also, I am requesting all Crown’s brief pertaining to this matter and this should have every signed original charging instruments for all charges and all signed arrest warrants. I would also like evidence of the codes of the book Criminal Code of Canada applied to me at the time of the complaints.

Should I be concerned that I will get an unbiased trial based on the fact that Judge Alexander state that “I was not willing to take responsibility” because I did not incriminate myself in the essay I presented and based on the fact that she did not “understand the essay”? What part of the essay did she not understand?

I noticed that on Court Services Online there was an application made on July the 9th 2013 at 10:00am and April the 30th 2014 at 4:00 pm. Is there any application made on my behalf without my consent or knowledge? What were those applications about?

Today is May the 14th 2014. I would like to come pick up the materials this Friday.

I sincerely wish everyone a life fulfilled with happiness and I have no ill will towards anyone. My intention is to seek clarification and to have a fair and unbiased trial.

Sincerely,

Alexander of the Ream family

Christina Godlewska appears to be a provincial Crown Prosecutor, so she's perhaps the one representing the Crown at Alex's trial. To be fair, some of these inquiries are reasonable. Though probably not the request for a telepathic scan of the judge's brain ...

The audience waits in anticipation:

Deborah Tennesen
Alexander Ream did you get answers? Are you home? My guess is that the applications filed on those dates were against your non compliance. You MUST be notified!! They violated their own statutes by refusing you notification, redress. Let us know your home safe!! Much love, concern to and for you!!
[May 16, 2014]

Whyte Crow
Alexander, that was 5 hours ago. Are you home now?
[May 16, 2014]

Alexander Ream
Yes I am back home and she has replied, but some of my questions are still unanswered.
[May 16, 2014]

I sense that many of Alex's questions will long remain unanswered. Still, he screwed his courage to the sticking place, and emerged unscathed!

And so the countdown to trial continues. Sadly, I suspect Alex will no doubt once more take a little muddle, and transform it into a mighty swamp.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

And so the countdown to trial continues. Sadly, I suspect Alex will no doubt once more take a little muddle, and transform it into a mighty swamp.

SMS Möwe

Alas, when has he done but otherwise?

[Burnaby49]

Finally! I successfully managed to be in the same courtroom at the same time as Alexander Ream! I attended his trial today. It was a real trial, witnesses, evidence, cross-examination, the works. Not quite finished, about an hour more of court time needed, but all done but arguments and the decision.

I know, what you are thinking. The big baby was bawling just last week how his ribs hurt and how he was going to stay home and sulk. However while I meant it it didn't sit right with me. I'd written up Simpson, Lange and Smith and it wasn't right to neglect Ream, the final holdout. So, since I'm recovering nicely I decided to make a trip to the New Westminster courthouse my first outing. I had company too. My wife came along so I was chauffeured down rather than fighting the rabble on public transit.

A head's up; this is going to be a long posting. I should proof read it but I'm just worn out. A very long day. So here you go.

This was a much lower keyed affair than the Nanaimo Three trial. It was held in a regular courtroom, just one sheriff, no security or frisking. Ream self represented. Mowe had said, in a prior posting that;

Christina Godlewska appears to be a provincial Crown Prosecutor, so she's perhaps the one representing the Crown at Alex's trial.

Quite right. She was also Crown Counsel at the Nanaimo Three trial. Same judge too. Clovenhoof had asked who the judge was in the prior trial but I didn't know. This time I got the answer, Judge Rory Walters.

Mowe also gave us a Ream Facebook posting;

Alexander Ream
[April 26, 2014]
I need witness for the next court date. Anyone?
I promise that it will be really interesting.

Well he didn't get them. While they gave enthusiastic encouragement on Facebook almost nobody bothered to show up at trial. There were five spectators in total before lunch, four after and my wife and I were two of them. Before lunch a guy and two women. Guy bailed at lunch. I had hopes for him. A dapper looking fellow in a dark suit with a goatee and moustache. He was scrawling notes all morning and I had hopes of a competing narrative; maybe I'd even be facing the literary wrath of Gregor Fpic Jahn himself! And a little post-trial research confirmed it actually was Gregor! Sadly, if he does decide to lambaste my criminally inept reporting of today's trial his narrative will be only for the pre-lunch portion of events.

I confirmed Gregor's identity through a little You tube research. Specifically this video beating up on judge Walters;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPrSAR1RMq8

The guy on the right, who starts the video with the welcome "Hi, I'm Gregor, an independent journalist" is our morning's scribe.

One more Mowe quote before I get to proceedings;

And so the countdown to trial continues. Sadly, I suspect Alex will no doubt once more take a little muddle, and transform it into a mighty swamp.

All too true. If Ream had any kind of defense he certainly couldn't find it. He just floundered around lost in a fog without a clue what he was doing. His performance was such a confused, dispiriting spectacle that I just can't muster up the will to mock him. The first time that has ever happened in one of my court reports.

Anyhow, on with the show! Crown dropped two of the charges relating to resisting arrest. This left only count 1; Falsely representing himself as a peace officer 130(1)(a) Criminal Code of Canada.

We did not yet have a plea so judge asked Ream for one. He refused to plead anything because he was innocent. So judge entered a not guilty on his behalf;

Court - Mr. Ream, do you understand the charges?
AR - No. I do not consent to anyone entering a plea on my behalf. I sincerely believed myself to be a peace officer.

Crown's first witness was the same (and only) witness to testify at the Nanaimo Three trial. A woman from the Sheriff's services at the Victoria British Columbia courthouse. Same deal, just proving documents.

Ream immediately took the first self-inflicted torpedo squarely amidships by confessing to the charge during his cross-examination questions.

AR - Do you have any evidence that I was insincere in my claim to be a peace officer? I actually did claim to be a peace officer.
Response - No

AR - Do you have any evidence that that I had any malicious intent or fraudulent intent in claiming to be a peace officer? Why did I claim to be a peace officer?
Response - I don't know.

Silence. Then judge asked "Are you finished Mr. Ream". He jogged himself out of his semi-trance and said "Right, yes I'm done".

Next up was a deputy from the Victoria sheriff's office. He was on desk duty when our hapless heroes made their entrance as peace officers. He gave a statement of events. They passed over a paper identifying them as officers. Appeared to be notarized, a long name he hadn't seen before. Didn't seem to be a local notary. Name seemed to be First Nations (Hi Chief!). When the witness identified Alex as one of the purported peace officers Alex nodded in agreement. Crown asked witness if he believed the defendant, and the others, to be peace officers. No, but they seemed to sincerely believe they were. On to cross-examination;

AR - Do you think that title "Peace Officer" is limited to government employees?
Response - No.

AR - Did you believe I was sincere in claiming I was a peace officer?
Response - Yes, you seemed to be.

AR - Did I harm anyone?
Response - No.

On re-examination Crown asked witness what he meant by "no" in the first question. Do you think that non-government employees can be peace officers? No, I was just confused in my answer.

Next up was a deputy sheriff who was acting sergeant at the New Westminster courthouse when Jody Vaillant and Ream tried their police officer routine there. He said they came to his desk and Vaillant said "We're here to let you know that we are peace officers and we are going to be in the building today". Vaillant passed over an 8 1/2 by 11 photocopied sheet identifying them as peace officers. The witness noted that the upper left corner of the document had the Coat of Arms of British Columbia. This became significant later in the day. He said it was a fill-in-the-blanks document for whatever names were entered. An illegible seal and it appeared to be notarized. He later asked them if they had badges. No, but getting some made.

Cross was confusing to everybody but Alex;

AR - Did my oath document look like your oath document?
Response - Huh?

AR - Don't you have an official oath document? Didn't you make an oath?
Response - Yes I made an oath to the Queen but it was verbal. No documents.

AR - If you have no legal documents do you think I was pretending to be a government employee?
Response - I have no idea what you had in mind.

AR - Did I harm anyone?
Response - no.

AR - What did I say about badges?
Response - That you were getting one.

AR - Did I indicate that I was making a badge personally?
Response - No.

The next witness was an RCMP officer who had audio-visual requirements so we took a half-hour break, back at 11:30.

The officer was a member of INSET (Integrated National Security Enforcement Team) focusing on Freemen and their ideology. For more info on INSET try here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated ... ment_Teams

Crown asked him to give a short talk about Freemen so he did. Nothing we don't already know. He became involved with the Nanaimo crew because of a complaint to INSET from Pressed Metal Products, a Vancouver company, in December 2012. This is a private business which, amongst other things, has the contract for making official police badges in British Columbia. Their complaint was that two individuals came to their premises, claimed to be peace officers, and asked about getting peace officer badges made to their own design. Shortly after that INSET heard from the Victoria and New Westminster sheriff's offices about our two impersonation incidents.

Now a bit of nostalgia. The witness played the "Lawfully Traveling" video that Dave Smith took. This is the one where they all took a road trip to Kelowna in the Freeman Van to be spectators at Dean Clifford's trial. This video has been removed from the internet but not before INSET made a copy.

The officer described the Nanaimo arrests and Ream's release on his own recognizance on the undertaking he no longer no longer play peace officer. No badges. In no time at all the RCMP got a fax of a purportedly notarized document from Ream demanding that all charges be dropped and that he be recognized as a peace officer. The last page of the document similar to the peace officer oath Ream had tried to use at the Victoria courthouse. Deciding that Ream had breached his recognizance conditions the RCMP arrested him and took a two hour video of the arrest and interview that followed.

The witness was the officer who conducted the interview. He readily agreed that Ream was "extremely co-operative and polite" and "a good guy to talk to". He noted that Ream waived right to counsel during the interview. He was asked by Crown if he had offered Ream any inducements in exchange for his co-operation. No. Then Ream piped up "I got cookies!". Turns out they had given him a snack. So Crown asked "Did you give him cookies as an inducement to co-operate?". No, Ream had volunteered to be interviewed. The Crown wanted to play the video (apparently all two hours of it) but Ream tried to stop them. Apparently he had no problems with the part of the video where he confessed to being a peace officer but he didn't want the spectators (me) hearing comments he made about his fellow defendants. Ream said he had been told the interview was confidential. Witness denied he said this. He said everything they discussed right from the arrest on was on the disc, nothing unrecorded. So we went to a voir dire, a mini-hearing within the trial to determine the admissibility of contested evidence.

Ream suddenly changed topics and said he wasn't a Freeman and didn't want to be identified as one. He didn't see why the witness had given evidence about Freemen and their ideology since it did not apply to him. Judge agreed completely saying he saw no point to this testimony either. Said he didn't care why Ream did whatever he did. He was going to base his decision strictly on whether Ream held himself out to be a peace officer in violation of the law.

So Ream got back on the sincerity hobbyhorse. Judge didn't care about that either. Said if Ream sincerely thought himself to be Winston Churchill that would be as relevant to the law in this case as Ream's professed sincerity that he was a real peace officer. But Ream kept thinking that sincerity trumped statutes. He seemed, at this point to still be totally confused about the issues he was facing. Judge told Ream that if he sincerely believed himself to be Santa Claus this did not make him Santa Claus. Getting back on track we still had to plod through the voir dire issue. Judge called a lunch break with voir dire to be argued after lunch.

Now a personal comment from me. Either the judge or I was confused as to what Ream really wanted. Ream seemed quite agreeable to have the interview disc and transcript entered into evidence. He just didn't want us spectators watching it in court. The judge took that to mean that Ream was contesting its admissibility as evidence. Ream seemed to think it could be entered as confidential evidence not available to the public but available to the court. My take on it anyhow. Maybe a voir dire was the only way through the muddle of Ream's wishes since, once it was admitted as evidence, anybody, including me, could see it.

Anyhow I at least had company at lunch since wife was there. We went to the Old Spaghetti Factory for pasta and beer (me) and a salad (wife). I know, not fine dining but any port in a storm in New Westminster.

After lunch we were very relieved to learn that the Crown did not intend to inflict the video on us. Council read a few relevant portions of the video transcript into the record where Ream admitted to claiming he was a peace officer and said that much of the rest was just "idle chatter". It meant I did not get to hear what Alex said about his co-defendants but that is a price I'm quite willing to pay to avoid a two hour video of his ramblings. However we were still bogged down in the voir dire swamp about whether or not the statement was voluntary. Crown witness said it was. When Judge asked Alex if he wanted to contest this he passed, said he just wanted to get on with it. You and me both brother.

Arguments were;

Crown - Not a scintilla of evidence that the statement was not fully voluntary. There was no reason for the RCMP to induce Ream to make an involuntary statement.

AR - I want this to be done today.

So after all that time consuming kerfuffle the disc and transcript were entered into evidence.

Alex still had the right to cross-examine the witness. Judge tried to prompt Ream to do so. He told Ream that he should try and get some statement about the relevance of the You Tube video. This went to the issue of identity. While the video was not of the courthouse scene it showed that Ream had associated with other accused who were found guilty on the same charge. Judge walking a fine line here because he said he was trying to help but could not advise. Ream didn't take the hint and had no questions so witness excused. That was it for the Crown's case.

Ream had no evidence but wanted to testify. Fine except we were still in trial not closing arguments and all Ream wanted to do was give his side of the arguments. He really didn't seem to understand why he was on the stand. He started quizzing the judge as to who was actually a peace officer. Judge said he wasn't there to answer Ream's questions.

Ream said it was his position that who was, or was not, a peace officer did not come from statute but from the Bible of God. Specifically Matthew 5:09 "Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the children of god". Judge asked what that signified in respect to his claim to be a peace officer. Is a peace maker the same thing in your mind as a peace officer? You are not charged with impersonating a peace maker. Do you want me to conclude that since you believe that this passage in the bible that you actually were a peace officer? Yes.

Then back to sincerity. He claimed that there was no evidence that he attempted to pass himself off as a crown police officer. Judge disagreed. He said that copying the official seal of the province of British Columbia on the Peace Officer document made it appear that he was inappropriately and improperly purporting to be a government officer. Judge said that Ream's testimony difficult to believe when he had that seal on the document.

At this point I felt like we were going around in an endless loop. Wife was the same. She is an artist and spent the morning sketching the judge and witnesses. By this time in the afternoon, when I looked at her pad, she was sketching her foot. A cry for help! Bottom line was that Ream was not able to put up a coherent defense that I could figure out. He presented nothing that had any meaning in law, at least that I heard.

Judge was getting frustrated. He said the only defense that Ream had to prove he was actually a peace officer was if he fit into the definition of peace officer in section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada and the judge said he had read section 2 and he didn't see Alexander Ream mentioned anywhere in it. Ream seemed to think that the Crown was trying to prove that he was impersonating a government peace officer when he was not. He was claiming to be a peace officer of god. Judge said "Are you claiming to be a peace officer appointed by God?". Ream told the judge "Don't get mad!". Judge said he was trying not to get angry so Ream should stop asking him all these questions and get on with it. Then we had this curious exchange;

Judge - Mr. Ream, how old are you?
AR - Twenty-two.
Judge - Who takes care of you? Where are your parents? I don't see them in court.
AR - Why are you asking?
Judge - You seem so naive and unworldly. I think you have been led astray by others.
AR - Where and who my parents are is irrelevant.

End of direct, time for Cross examination;

Crown - Did you know BC logo was on peace officer document when you signed it?
AR - Yes but I didn't know it was wrong.
Crown - Who notarized the document?
Alex refused to answer this because he said that the individual who notarized it wanted to keep it private. Crown asked court to rule on whether Ream could refuse to answer. Judge said he would just roll Ream's refusal into his determination of Ream's credibility as a witness.

And that ended Ream's shot on the stand.

Note that while Ream refused to identify the Chief as the notary the Chief's name was on the document already in evidence and before the judge. Also as readers of my report on the Nanaimo Three trial might remember, at that time the same issue came up in front of the same judge and the Chief was identified as the purported notary.

On to closing statements. Ream wanted to go last. Fine by Crown, they just wanted to end this. Very short statement. Crown said the evidence was sufficient to identify Ream as the individual claiming to be a peace officer. Said that Ream had not made a mistake in fact he had made a mistake in law. A mistake in fact would be where Ream had an honest belief that he was a peace officer as defined by statute. However he consistently denied this and said he was a peace officer appointed by god. This was a mistake in law which could not serve as a defense. And that was it for the Crown.

Ream entered a document into evidence which he claimed cleared him. I didn't get the correct name, perhaps Mowe knows. Anyhow it was an edition of the Criminal Statutes of Canada by, I believe, Tremiers (obviously wrong, can't find it on google). Anyhow the commentary to the section on peace officers said that an individual must knowingly falsely claim to be a peace officer before it becomes an offense and he, Alex, did not try and knowingly make a false claim.

Judge said effectively "so what". There are numerous publishers of the Criminal Code and they can make any commentary they want. Commentary isn't law. Since the statement about knowingly making false claims was not taken from the statute itself or an actual court decision it had no weight in law and could not be considered binding authority.

Ream was in sad shape by this time. He had totally run out of steam and was just staring at the table saying nothing. It was obvious he was unable to continue in any coherent manner even by his standards. So judge called it a day. He said Ream and Crown could go have a talk with the Judicial Case Manager about scheduling another hearing date (very soon) to conclude the trial. An hour should be enough but Ream needed a break to pull himself together. Judge said he would probably be able to give his decision immediately after the conclusion of the final session. We all know what that means.

I pushed myself to go to this trial and I paid the price. A day of pointless gibberish from a pathetic defendant. I think my wife's comment as we exited the court was as appropriate as anything I could say. "That was just so sad".

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Burnaby49, you are an unstoppable reporting machine!

Your tale is a not unexpected narrative, and one that illustrates quite well how belief systems of this kind are a source of nothing but misery.

Just to be thorough, Gregor Fpic Jahn is the "journalist" who reported on the trials and tribulations of Rory Daniel Hawes (viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9980). You'ld hope he stops encouraging people to self-injure in this manner.

I believe somewhere, long ago in this thread I mentioned Alex's issue would be that he engaged in an error of law, not fact. That that was central to the judge's inquiries is no surprise.

The text to which Alex was referencing is the Annotated Tremeear's Criminal Code (http://www.carswell.com/product-detail/ ... y-edition/). Personally I prefer Martin's Annual, but I know experts who go either way. I don't have Tremeear's handy, but I strongly suspect that the passage Alex referenced addresses where a person believes they have been appointed by the state as a peace officer, but for some reason that appointment is defective. That would be a mistake of fact and a possible defence to a charge of criminal misconduct. Quite different from Alex's situation.

B.C. Courts Online reports the continuation of the trial is set for May 29, 2014, Courtroom 206, at 2:00 p.m.

I have to say I'm inclined to disagree with Judge Walter's conclusion that it was irrelevant whether Alex self-identified as a Freeman-on-the-Land, or perhaps more generally as an OPCA affiliated person. However, this devolves into a question of propensity evidence, which is always a little tricky. Is it relevant in a drug trafficking case that an accused is a member of the Hell's Angels, that organization is a criminal organization notorious for its involvement in drug trafficking, and that the accused was observed engaged in behavior that is stereotypic of Hell's Angels doing a drug deal? Probably. That is much different from a witness saying "he's a Hell's Angels, and everybody knows they deal drugs." Anyway, I'm probably being a little picky. Putting no weight on that evidence is, if nothing else, a cautious route so I can understand that. Particularly since Alex admitted he was associated with the documentary evidence, and that he said he was a peace officer.

Nothing from Alex on his Facebook page so for. Nothing from Gregor Fpic either.

SMS Möwe