JackieG was a long-time contributor to the World Freeman Society boards. I don't really remember anything about him there, but that probably says more about me than about him.
JackieG however had the distinction of launching a lawsuit against a variety of Saskatoon politicians (and maybe police officers?? I googled three defendants before I got bored, all were politicians). Even better, it got to CANLII! http://canlii.ca/t/2fz6r . In the judgement the lawsuit is tossed because the lawsuit was premised on the Magna Carta being of some effect in Canada. For good measure the judge adds
Anyway, Jackie has had a new adventure that he narrates in a new posting:I have not attempted to incorporate the multiple arguments and objections taken by the applicants in both their written and oral arguments. Suffice it to say that most if not all of their submissions have considerable merit and would have led to a like conclusion.[striking out the statement of claim]
http://worldfreemansociety.ca/forum/74- ... -cst-tonge
The TL;DR version is this:
Here is a rough draft of where it is going to go...
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
CANADA
PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF MELFORT, SASKATCHEWAN
BETWEEN:
JACKIE GRANT HARPER PLAINTIFF
-and-
L. BENNET DEFENDANT
RICHARD TONGE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
SGI
The Prosecutor who takes up this case in Provincial court.
As a result of charges coming before the Melfort Provincial Court the Plaintiff asserts and alleges the following;
Background information,
1) The Plaintiff claims the fundamental right to be free of any actions taken by anyone who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he has a lawful right to abstain from doing,
a) Namely, intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person by threatsthat, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him, or that the property of any of his will be damaged;
b) Or, hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him of them or hinders him in the use of them;
c) besets or watches the place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
d) blocks or obstructs a highway.
Allegations,
Plaintiff alleges being arbitrarily arrested on a traffic stop at Melfort on March 15, 2015 by RCMP Cst. L. Bennet #S7847.
Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer approached the window, asked the Plaintiff for drivers license and registration.
(i) Plaintiff alleges he responded with; "I don't have any".
(ii) Plaintiff alleges the officer wished to clarify; "you don't have them with you or you do not have any?"
(iii) Plaintiff alleges he stated; "I do not have any".
c) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer then asked the Plaintiff; "give me your name".
d) Plaintiff alleges he responded by asked the arresting officer; "what do you want with my name?"
(i) Plaintiff alleges he then informed the defendant in stating; " look, all I'm doing here is simply exercising my public right of access to the road"
e) Plaintiff alleges he was immediately arrested after the Plaintiff informed the the officer he; "was exercising his public right of access to the road"
f) Plaintiff alleges he was arrested within 9 seconds into the stop, searched, cuffed and placed in the arresting officers car .
g) Plaintiff alleges a second officer arrived who began searching the Plaintiffs car.
h) Plaintiff requested that he wanted his computer from the car to which the arresting officer complied, then gave the second officer the Plaintiff's request.
i) Plaintiff alleges he never gave permission to either officer to search his car.
j) Plaintiff alleges he was read his rights to which he conditionally understood his right to remain silent.
k) Plaintiff alleges he informed the arresting officer that the Plaintiff understood his rights as long as the arresting officer knew the same applied to him, to which he affirmed.
l) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer booked the Plaintiff into the unit.
m) Plaintiff alleges the second officer arrived shortly, informing the arresting officer he found marijuana in the Plaintiff's car.
n) Plaintiff alleges he asked the second officer while in the presence of the arresting officer if he found the marijuana in plain sight.
o) Plaintiff alleges the second officer responded, "no, it was not in plain sight".
p) Plaintiff alleges he was informed of warrants for failing to appear on 2 driving offenses arising from Saskatoon.
q) Plaintiff alleges he questioned the officer in ascertaining whether the officer was competent by requesting the officer state the legal definition of "highway, "license", "registration".
r) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer had no idea what the legal definition of "highway, "license", "registration" is.
s) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer at the material time had no idea, legally speaking, "where he was", "what he was asking for", "who he was requesting it from".
t) Plaintiff alleges he requested the arresting officer give him the name and contact number of his lawyer.
u) Plaintiff alleges the arresting officer refused to supply the requested name and referred the Plaintiff to his supervisor.RCMP Cst. R. Tonge.
v) Plaintiff alleges he attended a meeting with RCMP Supervisor Cst. R. Tonge on March 20, 2015 in order to resolve the matters at hand.
w) Plaintiff alleges the sole purpose of the meeting was to severely restrict the Plaintiff's right to seek relief in a real court.
x) Plaintiff alleges the attending officer incessantly requested the Plaintiff give him the authorization to begin the paper work on a complaint to the RCMP Citizens Public Complaints Commission.
y) Plaintiff alleges the attending officer knows full well the meaning of "res judicata" and its import in any complaint to the aforementioned commission.
z) Plaintiff alleges the RCMP recorded the meeting on March 20, 2015 between the Plaintiff and defendant #2 now known as "AGENT SCARLET FOX".
At all material times,
2) Plaintiff alleges neither defendant's #1 nor #2 have any knowledge of , what the legal/common law definition of a "highway" is.
3) Plaintiff alleges neither defendant's #1 nor #2 have any knowledge of, what the legal definition of a "license" is.
4) Plaintiff alleges neither defendant's #1 nor #2 have any knowledge of , what the legal definition of a "privilege" is.
5) Plaintiff alleges neither defendant #1 nor #2 has any knowledge of, what the legal definition of "registration" constitutes or means.
6) Plaintiff alleges all defendants violated numerous Charter rights the Plaintiff has in contravening the Criminal Code of Canada in exercising their claimed authority in enforcing the Traffic Safety Act.
7) Plaintiff alleges defendant #2 admitted to the Plaintiff on March 20, 2015, that the Plaintiff possessed the right of access to the roads by foot only, not with his car.
Plaintiff alleges defendant #2 did not disclose the origin of his aforementioned caveat restricting the Plaintiff's right of access.
9) Plaintiff alleges this aforementioned position taken by defendant #2 in claiming restrictive authority over the highway is a Charter violation (12), amounts to being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in claiming the Plaintiff must now walk 44 km. in order to get grocery's.
10) Plaintiff alleges he was arrested, detained, was not taken before a court of competent jurisdiction in order that the arrested person may be dealt with according to law. (see sec. 276 (1) (2) T-18)
a) Plaintiff alleges he is still under arrest having not been released by a justice.
b) Plaintiff alleges both defendants (#1,#2) knew at the material time that the arrest was unlawful, that the subsequent search and seizure was unlawful, that it negated the process by not complying with the Traffic Safety Act section 276 subsection (2) as required by law.
11) Plaintiff alleges the defendants are currently obstructing the "highway" using C-46 section 423 subsection (d) in compelling the Plaintiff to abstain from doing something he has a lawful right to do.
Plaintiff alleges he afforded numerous opportunity's for all the defendants to right themselves in this matter to which they refused all offers.
13) Plaintiff alleges that, "Canada is a free and democratic country founded on the principals that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law".
Plaintiff alleges that, "Canada is inhabited by free people who exercise their right to be free from any form of tyranny under arbitrary, despotic governments".
15) Plaintiff alleges the RCMP do not have the Plaintiff's permission to interpret his rights.
Plaintiff claims he is not a subject of the RCMP.
Plaintiff alleges a contract exists with SGI wherein SGI has agreed to not maintain any information on the Plaintiff .
Plaintiff alleges SGI is in breach of contract thereby subjecting themselves to a tort claim.
Plaintiff alleges the province is confused in its claim that the Government of Canada issues driver licenses where a peace officer can then request a driver to produce it upon demand.(see sec. 32 (2), (a), (iii) T-18)
Plaintiff further alleges the province places the onus upon the accused to somehow produce something that only exists within the confines of their own minds, nowhere else.
(see sec. 32 (4), T-18)
Plaintiff alleges a federal informant stated that; "the Government of Canada is not in the business of licensing the publics right of access to the roads"
(a) Plaintiff alleges the Government of Canada does not even issue IDP's (International Driving Permits) where Service Canada refers applicants to a private corporation (CAA).
21) Plaintiff alleges the province is in the business of converting pubic rights to private laws also known as; "privileges".
22) Plaintiff alleges pursuant to C-46, PART XXVII SUMMARY CONVICTIONS, being the rules for Traffic Safety court where, the civil interpretation of "highway" is used by prosecutions in provincial court where the common law meaning is to be adopted in Saskatchewan as per interpretation in C-46
(see I-21 sec. 8.2)
Duality of legal
traditions and
application of
provincial law
(a) Plaintiff alleges the RCMP are erroneously using the civil interpretation of "Highway" as depicted in sec. 2 (1), (k) T-18 contrary to adopting the common law meaning as depicted in the federal Rules of Construction in regards to property and civil rights. (see I-21 sec. 8.1, 8.2)
(b) Plaintiff alleges the informant can not raise a court of competent jurisdiction due to the now established fact: the crown can not produce a competent witness, the informant committed criminal code violations in discharging his duties, the informant/perpetuator failed to sign the 'CEASE AND DESIST ORDER', the prosecution is covering it up.
23) Plaintiff alleges; "No provision in a private Act affects the
rights of any person, except as therein mentioned
or referred to". (see I-21 sec.9)
Provisions in
private Acts
24) Plaintiff alleges the RCMP treat the public much like Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and operate as if Saskatchewan is; "occupied territory".
Now, you five (5) reprobates, you now have the opportunity to admit or deny the allegations, return it signed, along with your BADGE//BAR CARD/EMPLOYEE number within ten (10) days of service where it will be entered into the record as evidence by the courts that each admitted fact is admitted for all purposes.
Failing to respond, the defendants will thereby admit they have no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeit all credibility and right to claim authority.
Plaintiff will simply move the court to enter judgement in favour of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff in waiting,
Jackie G. Harper
-Jackie got pulled over by a police officer
-instead of providing his license and registration (registration and insurance are the same thing in Saskatchewan) he spouted some Freeman nonsense, and was quickly arrested.
-that wasn't really a big deal because he had outstanding warrants anyway (failing to appear)
-after his arrest the police searched his vehicle (probably a search incident to arrest, looking for proof of identity, vehicle ownership, etc) and located some marihuana ( note to self: when driving around with Freeman plates and outstanding warrants, leave your stash at home!)
-the police OUTRAGEOUSLY released him on a promise to appear rather than keeping him in cells until a bail hearing could be arranged
-when Jackie went down to the police station to complain the supervisor OUTRAGEOUSLY tried to start a formal complaint!
The injustices are many and grievous. I can't imagine how the Justice System will survive once the lawsuit starts!
(I really can't be bothered to listen to the audio of Jackie's meeting with the police supervisor, so if anyone does let us know if it's any good)
In response to para. (9) Plaintiff restates paragraph 2.
