Rory Daniel Hawes - who the heck is Regina?
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9980
is too generalized. The problem from my perspective is that this discussion covers a range of diverse Rory-related topics, an introduction to his Freeman/court history, his current trial, a ramble through the problems of Rory's good friend Gregor Fpic Jahn. Well Gregor has his own discussion here;
Gregor Jahn - Intoxicated Freeman Driver?
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10239&hilit=jahn
And from now on I propose putting all my Gregor Jahn comments in that one. And there will be more, a lot more, on Gregor. I've been to three of his court hearings that I've not yet reported in Quatloos and he has at least one trial coming up next year.
Since both Gregor and Rory have their own ongoing Freeman type legal issues I'm trying to be more focused and separate these by miscreant. This discussion will cover Rory's current issues with the law. I've already posted about one of Rory's hearings that I attended in "Who the Heck is Regina" relating to his driving without a license charge. Since then there have been two more hearings on that charge (latest yesterday) with at least one more to come so I'm consolidating it all here.
The "Who the Heck is Regina" discussion gives a good overview of Rory's past legal issues including resisting a peace officer, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from a peace officer, driving a motor vehicle while impaired, failure or refusal to provide a sample (probably a breathalyser alcohol sample), driving without insurance, driving without a motor vehicle drivers license, breach of an post-arrest undertaking, breach of an undertaking or recognizance, an impressive list! The first of these occurred in 1997 so Rory's been at this for at least 17 years with, as yet, no recorded wins. He's at least persistent.
He currently faces three charges in New Westminster which were noted in the "Regina" discussion;
So I'll start the ball rolling by cutting and pasting (with a bit of editing, for some reason I can't remember I kept calling Rory "Randy") from my report in "Regina" about Hawes' court appearance in New Westminster on June 18, 2014.Then we have three more charges, all dating from Feb. 19, 2014, each alleging Rory was driving while prohibited or had his licence suspended. A warrant issued for Rory’s arrest on March 5, 2014 on those charges. My bet is this was the trigger for the two other Feb. 19, 2014 charges above.
So we move on to Rory's second appearance on the matter, on September 24, 2014, again at New Westminster. Rory didn't start well by showing up 20 minutes late. He had a somewhat disdainful attitude to the court when he had a chance to speak. He is a victim of the incompetence of the crown and the court. They are wasting his valuable time on this nonsense. When the crown asked for an adjournment because not enough time allocated (crown said it needed only 30 minutes but had no ideal how much time Rory wanted. Apparently he plans to argue BC doesn't exist) Rory disagreed and said he didn't want to waste any more time coming back, he wanted it over today. So judge asked "so you want to proceed to trial now?" Forget that, he wanted charges dropped because of the way his rights had been violated. His first complaint was that his demands for full disclosure from the crown hadn't been met although he told them what he wanted months ago and they had just handed it to him today in court. The Crown's feeble response was that they had the disclosure available for Rory "months ago", soon after he requested it but, even after numerous phone calls to him he hadn't come and picked it up. Today was the Crown's first opportunity to give it to him personally. Rory retorted was that he was way too busy to run around doing errands for the Crown. That gives you an idea of his legal acumen. Demand disclosure, refuse to accept it, then demand case be dropped because you didn't get it. This is very much like Denise Eddy's failed tactic which I reported here;Today was Rory Hawe's turn to face three charges of driving while prohibited/ license under suspension. The hearing was held at 9:30 in courtroom 206 of the new Westminster courthouse, a familiar spot since Alexander Ream's trial had also been held here.
When 9:30 came around nothing happening, a bit of a late start. What was of concern was that there was a list of defendants being heard in the courtroom that day and Rory wasn't on it nor was Rory in evidence. Then the judge came on scene and an impressive sight indeed! Looked like an undernourished Santa Claus with a big flowing white beard that went down almost to his waist when he sat, a big bushy moustache that covered most of the rest of his face and full sideburns. However he turned out to be a no nonsense guy who kept proceedings moving briskly.
It turned out to be just a session for assigning court dates, hence the big list of names. First three up to bat were video feeds from remand. The first miscreant was a very matter of fact guy who seemed to take incarceration with equanimity. However he was subject to some confusion, we were in the New Westminster courthouse over charges in New Westminster and he thought that he was dealing with a Vancouver Provincial Court hearing. So judge asked him what the Vancouver charges were. Breaking and entering, car theft, no big deal, his lawyer was negotiating for a guilty plea and a two year sentence. So judge asked him if he wanted to continue with New Westminster trial or wait on Vancouver events. All the same to him, he said he was doing penitentiary time regardless of how it went so logistics irrelevant. So he was held over until Vancouver plea concluded.
Second guy some apparently trivial mischief issue but he was being held for breach of probation. While they were working through his problems Rory walked in, saw his name wasn't on the board, asked the sheriff something then wandered out. I gathered my stuff to follow and see where he was going but by the time I got out he was out of sight. I went down to the lobby to confirm courtroom; 206 correct, so back up and wait. Sat through a couple of assignments then Rory walked back in just in time to be called up.
Mowe had mused that Rory might be considering a guilty plea, not a bit of it! He was feisty, he's going down swinging! First off he was very unhappy that that he was being forced to face trial on what was a clear case of mistaken identity. He had changed his name to place himself outside the jurisdiction of Canada. He was no longer the Rory Hawes the Crown was prosecuting, different guy entirely, and did not want to identify himself under that name. However he reluctantly agreed that if he didn't he would probably, based on prior experience, be "thrown in a cage". So under duress he agreed that he would answer to the name Rory Hawes.
Then he started demanding some evidence from Crown that Crown had apparently refused to give him. Seems he had been brutally assaulted by a six man police undercover "Attack Squad". They had burst into his house, assaulted and injured him, damaged and stolen his property, and tossed him in jail. Serious stuff! He said there was a video and he wanted it as part of his defence because it was a violation of the Unite Nations Declaration of human Rights (actually called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ). Rory said he planned to rely on the UN Declaration and the Constitution of Canada at trial. So the judge asked Rory if he agreed that he was also bound by the Constitution of Canada. Rory waffled. Judge said he wanted a yes or no answer. So Rory said everybody on earth was bound by the Canadian Constitution. Judge said that he thought that Americans would be surprised to hear that. Rory went on and on about how he'd show everybody what parts of his Constitutional rights and UN Charter rights had been violated but, sadly, nobody really cared.
As an aside every Freemanish/sovereign type trial I've reported has had the United Nations Declarations of Human rights brought up as a magic talisman that purportedly allows the defendant to interpret everything he does as a fundamental allowable human right under the Declaration. Yankson, Holmes, Ream, Smith, Lange, Simpson, all of them have used it as a defence. In every case the judge has noted that the Declaration has absolutely no force of law in Canada. Yet they persist.
Then the judge asked Crown counsel "Does the New Westminster RCMP have a unit called the "Attack Squad."" No your honour. Hawes said this happened in Coquitlam. So judge asked the Crown counsel if the Coquitlam RCMP has a unit called the "Attack Squad"". No your honour. Are you aware of the video defendant is referring to? No your honour. So judge told Rory he was out of luck, the judge couldn't order the production of an alleged video by a non-existent police unit.
In any case judge questioned relevance. He asked when the video was taken; before, around, or after the alleged traffic offences. After. How much after? Rory was cagey, just after. Judge persisted, days, weeks, months? Turns out months so judge said he failed to see any relevance to charges Rory was currently facing.
Then Rory went on how the government was trying to bind him to a contract and since he was too sharp to fall for that one the Crown had no authority over him. Judge asked Crown counsel if the case involved a contract. No your honour. Rory said that since the Crown had admitted there was no contract the case was over and he could walk. Judge brought up the awkward point that Rory was charged under statutory law of British Columbia not contract law and he would have to deal with the charge as legislated. Rory had the answer to that! He said he was going to argue at trial that the province of British Columbia did not exist and the laws of British Columbia were therefore invalid. He based this position on the argument that the government had not successfully managed to finalize valid treaties with the original natives and this meant they still owned and controlled it, not some fictitious provincial entity. Judge said that argument had zero merit and a complete waste of time. There was going to be a trial regardless of Rory's opinions on whether the laws existed or attached to him and he should focus his energies on defending his case on its merits.
Judge then noted that they were only there to determine a trial date (remember?) and asked Crown how long it anticipated was required. Counsel said she had two or three witnesses and an hour and a half should do. Not Rory! He said he needed much more time, he wanted at least ten police witnesses and a batch of "civilian" witnesses. Apparently friends who shared his views. Judge told Rory to remember that it wasn't up to the courts to get the witnesses for Rory, he would have to subpoena them and some might challenge the relevance of their claimed evidence.
Judge told Rory to go to room 213 (I believe trial management) and they would arrange a trial date. Then Rory started going on how he was demanding that he wanted the name of someone in government who "accepted liability" for all of the problems Rory was facing. Judge said "go to room 213" and we were done.
Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9899#p169146
Rory's second ground for dismissal of the charges was that his constitutional rights had been violated because he had not been given a speedy trial. He was charged in February. So the judge said "Do you think you can make a charter challenge about delay just by standing here, off the cuff? There are procedures to follow." Again, forget that. Since Rory didn't know what the procedures were he shouldn't be expected to follow them. Judge said he's better learn them. So Rory, getting worked up at this judicial stupidity, said "look, I just want the whole thing thrown out". He nattered at the judge that he just wants it all to go away without the inconvenience of having to come back. Sadly the judge wasn't buying it and sent him off to the JCM (Judicial Case Manager) to re-schedule.It appears that one of her brilliant legal tactics was to demand that all the documents she requested be delivered to her by registered mail and then declining to give a mailing address.
[160] Ms. Eddy has asked for an order that all the documents she has received, and those she still wishes to receive, be provided to her in hardcopy form by registered mail within 30 days of the order. If the Crown fails to provide this, she requests a permanent stay of the charges against her.
[167] The Crown further submits that Ms. Eddy has refused to provide sufficient particulars regarding how she can be reached. The Crown stated that it was difficult to obtain even the particulars of a mailbox Ms. Eddy uses at a FedEx branch in Red Deer. As a result, sending documents by registered mail is impractical and unnecessary.
However she is a reasonable person who is open to compromise and she said she was willing to drop the disclosure request if the Crown dropped the charges against her. Can't be fairer than that! Unfortunately the Crown was neither willing to drop charges or cough up the information and instead dumped the whole mess on the court to resolve. Unfortunately for Ms. Eddy the court resolved the issue by denying her everything she'd asked for.
However the hearing did have other entertainment. Before Rory's turn at bat we sat through a sentencing hearing for a worthless asshole. Fifty-six years old, divorced, estranged from his adult children, living in a room in a basement, apparently no friends. All his problems seem to stem from the fact that he was a constantly seething cauldron of overwhelming rage. The sentencing was in respect to conviction for of assault causing bodily harm.
Judge went through the whole story before sentencing. Guy drove a truck for a local delivery company. He was crossing the Pattullo bridge from Surrey to New Westminster on the job in his work truck. This is an old, very important but generally overwhelmed narrow-laned bridge linking Surrey to New Westminster. When rage-boy crossed he blocked both westbound lanes by driving right down the middle. Why? Apparently because he felt like it. The car behind him passed him just off the bridge, nothing more than that, and drove off. There was nothing to indicate the driver did anything offensive to set our trucker off. Rage-boy caught up to him by chance at a stop light, got out of his truck, and started smashing away at his car with a hammer (note; he denied at trial that he was angry at any point in the episode, apparently just a normal day on the job for him). When the guy opened his car door to get out, but while still partly seated and apparently tangled in his seat-belt, our thug punched him in the face and badly injured him. His pro-se defense was that it was a open and shut case of self defense because of his fear of being assaulted. He said that when he stopped at the light he was afraid the other guy would get out of his car and attack him so he had to go proactive to stop the impending attack. The trial judge had credibility issues with that. It didn't help his case that he already had a conviction for spousal assault. As I said, divorced with estranged children. Crown wanted six months jail time he wanted the thanks of the populace, a parade, and a pension. Judge cut it down the middle with three months.
They were prepared for problems with the biggest meanest looking sheriff I've ever seen. Guy looked like the Incredible Hulk. When "I'm not angry" stood up and angrily ranted about his sentence Hulk stood right behind him. When rage-boy got too agitated the sheriff grabbed the guy's hands, pulled them behind him, cuffed him, and hauled him off to remand.
His protest about the sentence? The guy was quite reasonably demanding that he get a new trial because the original trial judge had ignored critical evidence that exonerated him. The purported victim had testified at trial that he had been so disabled by the punch he couldn't get off the ground but apparently an onlooker had testified that he had managed to struggle to his knees. That testimony proved to that the so-called victim had intended to attack our real victim all along and was still trying even after the entirely justifiable punch he threw in self defense. However the trial judge had totally disregarded this testimony. Sentencing judge told him if he didn't like the decision tough, appeal it. So, after that 550 word digression, on to Rory's third hearing, held yesterday.
I'd half expected Gregor Jahn to show up in his capacity as friend and independent journalist to record a true narrative of events but he was MIA. Total spectator attendance was three 20/30ish or so spectators for Rory, and me. Rory recognized me which isn't surprising. I tend to stand out in the often otherwise empty seating. As an example I was the only spectator, either for or against Gregor, at Jahn's three so far unreported court hearings. Additionally spectators rooting for the defendant are generally a rotating cast of character, rarely seen with any individual frequency while I'm always there. So after a few times seeing the old guy scribbling away they catch on.
Rory wandered over to me just before the hearing started and said he was glad I showed up. While he complained that he didn't appreciate my "condescending" attitude he conceded that I kept an accurate record of events. All fair commentary! He told me there were alternate narratives of his hearings but not published. I told him to put them on Quatloos, I'd be happy to have an alternative viewpoints of events at these hearings. He said he didn't know that he was allowed on Quatloos. I told him no problem but, if he did, don't bother waiting for a confirmation e-mail, just wait a day or so and sign on. I never got a confirmation email when I joined up and I'm assuming that this is that idiot Pigpot's problem, he's still waiting for his engraved invitation.
Judge was a brisk no-nonsense woman. Crown counsel was Christina Godlewska who was also Crown counsel at the Nanaimo three trial and the Alexander Ream trial. Her boss must hate her. Rory represented himself.
Judge asked how long parties expected trial to last. Crown said a few hours at most. They only had one witness, a police officer, he would take five minutes on direct. Not Rory! He hoped to dispose of the matter through his jurisdictional argument that British Columbia was unceded tribal land still belonging to the Coast Salish aboriginal band so the government of British Columbia had no jurisdiction over him. Additionally he planned to argue that his prosecution was illegal because it violated his human rights as stipulated in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Since he planned to enter evidence about aboriginal treaties, or the lack of them, and whatever he had in respect to the Declaration he planned for the full day and possibly the next.
Judge asked if a plea had been entered. Rory said he had not pleaded anything because there was no proof that he was under the court's jurisdiction and that issue, and his complaint about his human rights violations, had to be addressed before the trial. The judge immediately cut him off at the knees. To quote "I'm one of those judges who will not allow you to argue jurisdictional issues. Jurisdiction is well established in this court, and others, and is discussed in Meads v. Meads."
Rory was devastated, saying that to deny him the right to argue jurisdiction was a grave injustice and put him into slavery! Judge was unmoved and had the first charge read out. I couldn't write fast enough to get a precise recording of charge, things were moving very briskly, but it was essentially that on February 19, 2004 he knowingly drove while prohibited in violation of some B.C. law, didn't get the reference. Rory immediately started arguing that he was not driving in British Columbia, he was driving in unceded Salish lands. Judge entered not guilty on his behalf.
Second charge seemed same as first to me but couldn't copy it, clerk read it out briskly. How do you plead? Another ramble about unceded Salish lands so judge again pled not guilty on his behalf. Rory objected "I'm not pleading to that". So judge asked "Are you pleading guilty?". "I'm not pleading anything!" Judge said she had the authority to plead on his behalf and she was entering a not guilty plea.
Third count the same, seemed identical to first but I believe different code citation. Same Salish argument same not guilty plea entered by court.
Although we had been in session less than half an hour we had to take a fifteen minute break, back at 10:15. Reason was some short video, I didn't catch what, that Rory wanted and was in the Crown's possession. About five minutes long. Crown had just located it this morning so Rory was given the fifteen minutes to review it. As we walked out Rory said to Crown counsel "So I'm not allowed to defend myself?".
After break Rory asked the judge "Earlier you mentioned a piece of case law that purportedly stops me from arguing jurisdiction, Meads v. Meads. How does that nullify the Declaration of Human rights?" "I've made it clear to you previously that I'm not hearing your arguments. These are not proper arguments to be brought up and are a waste of court time". Rory tried to pass some documents to the judge and she told the clerk to return them to him. "Why can't I defend myself against slavery? You're saying you are unwilling to look at international documents about my human rights? So Meads says the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a waste of time? Meads says these arguments are a waste of time?" Court told him to cut it out, time for the witness.
This was the officer that stopped him. He gave the background. He was lurking about on Austin road in Coquitlam looking for drivers on their cell phones when he heard an engine revving and saw blue smoke. This indicated to him that someone was spinning their tires, maybe drag racing, a significant problem in Vancouver. If so he'd impound the car. It was Rory and he pulled him over. Rory would not provide a driver's license, just his July 2, 1978 date of birth. This was a violation of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act which requires that drivers provide their license to police on request. Crown asked him how long he interacted with Rory. About forty minutes between stopping him and putting him in the cellblock in New Westminster. So Crown asked if officer could identify Rory and he pointed out our boy. That was it for direct. While the officer was speaking Rory went over to one of the spectators and gave him his keys, maybe his phone and wallet, couldn't tell. Perhaps he had a premonition that he would be spending more time in the new Westminster cellblock.
Now I'll risk a guess here. That forty minute gap probably had all kinds of interesting stuff about Rory exerting his rights and confronting the officer. Why else did he end up in jail? However the Crown and the officer steered clear of any questions or comments relating to what happened between Rory and the officer. Obviously this was a deliberate tactic discussed beforehand. A defendant can, on cross-examination, ask a witness about any point brought up in direct examination. I'm guessing that the Crown did it's best to avoid giving Rory any opening to pursue his jurisdictional arguments by keeping direct examination tightly focused on only the facts needed to prove the driving without a license charge and identify Rory. If so, as I'll relate in a moment, they failed.
Judge asked Rory "Do you have any questions for the witness?" Rory said "I'm so incredibly flustered because of my lack of ability to defend myself I'm dumbfounded!" "Do you have any questions for the witness?" "I need to compose myself, I'm just gob smacked (a curious word for Rory to use, very British). You refused to read those international documents, I hadn't expected justice to be denied. Can I have a ten minute recess?" Fine, so at 10:25 second recess called for ten minutes.
At recess Crown counsel asked Rory if he wanted to continue the break until 2PM. Self-serving to some extent since Crown had already told court she had an 11AM dental appointment. Totally accidental, she'd made it not knowing she would be in court today. She said she was just assigned the case the night before. Fine by Roy. So back in court. Up until this point we'd had one sheriff sitting up front the entire time. A sheriff once told me that's standard practice in New Westminster for Freeman type defendants. However after break a second sheriff came in and sat in the back. No idea why. When we reconvened Crown asked for a break until 2PM but before adjournment cited some Ontario case about something, I didn't catch what. Judge said, regarding Ontario case, "We don't have to go that far. Mr. Hawes. I'm trying to see you get a fair trial. Since Crown hasn't entered any evidence about jurisdiction or British Columbia you cannot ask the witness about it."
Then suddenly, right out of nowhere, the trial got derailed! Crown counsel said she thought she had actually mentioned something to the officer about Britsh Columbia on direct examination. When she asked him where the offense took place she phrased it as a question along the lines of "Were you on duty on Austin Road in Coquitlam British Columbia on the morning of February 19, 2014?'" Officer answered yes. Nobody remembered the specific wording so we sat for a minute or two while the clerk rewound the tape and listened. She confirmed that yes, the Crown counsel said "British Columbia". I'm guessing that the judge was concerned that this might trigger the idea in Rory's head that he now had the opportunity to open up the jurisdictional issue so the Court asked him if he had a summary of his arguments. No. So Judge told him to make a list of any motions and arguments he'd like to make. Very short, a few sentences. We'd adjourn to give him the chance. So she said she'd set a full day for continuance and sent them off to the Case Manager to arrange a new court date. We'd had a total of about forty minutes of actual court time and I'd filled five pages of an 8X11 notepad.
Rory seemed elated when I talked to him in the lobby. "Did you see how she (judge) tried to shut things off when British Columbia came up? She didn't want to talk about it." He said he thought that jurisdiction was now an issue that he could argue. I gave him my opinion that the judge was only going to allow him a very short leash on that topic and only during his cross-examination of the officer so he should focus on the cross. Note that this victory, small as it will eventually turn out to be, was not based on something Rory noticed or brought up. It resulted from a disclosure that Crown counsel made that othrwise would not have been even noticed.
I told Rory he was unlikely to find any of my "condescending attitude" in my posting on today's events. Not because I was changing my approach but because nothing really happened today that gave me an opportunity to mock him. He said that in general, apart from my opinions, I was accurate in my reporting but he'd found a few errors in my prior reporting. I told him I didn't doubt it but this would be due to my incompetence, not bias. I try to be objective but I can easily screw up when, like today, I just can't write fast enough to keep up or I don't hear correctly.
I also told Rory that his Declaration of Human rights argument was a loser which had been tried may times by other Freemen and they had all failed to have the court take note of it.
This is because it has absolutely no legal weight in Canada. It is a declaration, not a treaty, and so is really just a big fuzzy serving of good intentions which is not in any way law that the courts are required to follow. Wikipedia says;
So if anyone or any nation wants to apply "diplomatic and moral pressure" on the government of British Columbia on Rory's behalf they are free to do so but the government is free to ignore it. If Rory is sincere in his belief that his human rights (apparently as he alone defines them) are protected by the Declaration perhaps he should consider a move to one of the other signatory countries that, no doubt, give it more weight and respect than the sham justice meted out here in Canada. I'm thinking of some of the original signatory countries like Ethiopia, Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq, all shining beacons of governmental respect for human rights!While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. In addition, many international lawyers[23] believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law[24] and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles.
Rory might not approve of the title of this new discussion because at some point in yesterday's hearing he denied being a Freeman. He was just trying to get justice. Well he should get it, but perhaps not in a form he likes, on March 5, 2015, the date the case has been rescheduled. See you there Rory!
