viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9388
and here;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9980
Gregor is a self-described independent journalist although I've tried and failed to find anything he's written. He is a German who got to Canada by marrying a Canadian citizen. Marriage went sour and they ended up squabbling in court about their daughter.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/20 ... pc242.html
Gregor is a good friend of Rory Hawes (who's recent activities I will be relating in a new discussion when I get around to it, needless to say more criminal charges, I've been attending his hearings). Gregor also sat in at Alexander Ream's trial and he pumps out videos lamenting the oppressive Canadian government. Gregor has the time to invest in these Freeman activities because, as far as I can tell, the one thing he does not invest his time in is gainful employment.
So what has Gegor been up to? This;
That would be an alcohol sample, a breathalizer test, that he refused to take.1 - 06-Aug-2014 - CCC - 129(a) wilfully resisting or obstructing a peace officer
2 - 06-Aug-2014 - CCC - 253(1)(a) care or control vehicle or vessel while impaired
3 - 06-Aug-2014 - CCC - 254(5) Failure or refusal to provide sample
4 - 06-Aug-2014 - CCC - 129(a) wilfully resisting or obstructing a peace officer
So, today, I went to Gregor's first court hearing on these charges. First I have to comment on the enthusiastic support I get from my wife in my various Freeman activities. When she saw me writing Gregor's court date in my official appointment book (the kitchen calendar) she asked "What's going on?" l said another court case. "More of those idiots?" I'm sure I said something along the lines of "Not at all! These are brave men fighting for our rights in an oppressive society!" Unfortunately, since her attendance at Alexander Ream's trial, she has formed a very narrow-minded biased viewpoint about Freemen. She gave a disgusted "harumph" and went back to Downton Abbey.
I learned something new today as part of my court experience! I learned that there are two British Columbia provincial courthouses in downtown Vancouver. I found that out by going to the wrong one for Gregor's hearing. I was at the Robson Street Provincial courthouse complex with time to spare but I couldn't find room 307. So I asked at the sheriff's office. No courtroom 307 here, you must mean the Main Street courthouse. Huh? Yes, there is another provincial courthouse, the criminal court, at 222 Main Street. For those of you not familiar with Vancouver 222 Main Street is right in the heart of Vancouver's infamous Skid Row, a thoughtfully easy commute for its main client base. I knew the court was there, it's been there forever, but I though it had been superceded by the Robson Street provincial courts. So I had twenty-five minutes to make it to Main Street, a brisk half hour walk. Doing a very brisk walk I got there with five minutes to spare only to be bogged down by security. Very high level security check just to get into the courthouse itself. Sheriffs everywhere, airport metal detector, wanding, checking in bags, anything not bag checked (wallet, notepad etc) manually inspected. Opened and went through my wallet, riffed through the notebook. To reclaim my backpack I had to leave the Courthouse then go back in. With all that I just made it on time.
Just a Justice of the Peace, not a provincial court judge (that became significant later). I don't know what the session was called, you lawyers would. Just a processing session for adjournments, trial schedules, updates, whatever. Gregor showed up a bit late looking very dapper in his dark suit, red shirt, and narrow tie.
He seemed unable to sit down, he'd come in, sit for a few minutes, leave, come back, leave, come back. Last summer I attended a hearing of his at the Richmond courthouse; Richmond is a large island community just south of Vancouver. It was the same thing, sit down, get up and leave, come back, sit down, repeat. So we worked through a bunch of local skid-row type miscreants but soon came to a halt because, while there were plenty of defendants still lounging about, some lawyer hadn't shown up yet. So the judge asked us all if there were any self-represented individuals who wanted their shot. Gregor, although self-represented, was in the out-of-the-courtroom phase of his cycle at the time. Judge scanned the court, fixed on me, and told me I could come up and speak about my case! I'm just a spectator judge! Apparently spectators are apparently very unusual at these hearings. So she called a ten minute recess. A facetious friend said I should have replied to the JP's offer with a jaunty "I accept that offer for value and return it for value!" One reason I've never spent a night in jail is I don't make comments like that to judges.
After recess things went briskly because a missing lawyer finally showed up who seemed to represent almost everybody there. Then it was Gregor's turn. As we know from Gregor's videos, and from my experience at the Richmond hearing, Gregor speaks reasonably fluent English. His English was certainly adequate enough, in my opinion, for him to competently handle himself in Richmond. He also claims to be an independent journalist which I assume is done in English. But he wasn't speaking English today, his fluency just seemed to have evaporated! He came to court with a German translator and refused to speak to the court except through her. No idea why he was pulling that stunt. Crown wanted to arrange a trial date, probably in February. The Crown said two days were required, one day for them and probably one day for Gregor who wanted to argue that Canada had no jurisdiction over him so no Canadian laws applied to him. However Gregor had not yet pleaded to his four charges so the JP tried to take him through them. She only got to charge one;
"to the charge that on August 6, 2014, in Vancouver, you wilfully assaulted a police officer in execution of his duty. How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?"
And Gregor refused to plead. His translator said he wasn't going to declare himself either guilty or not guilty. I'm guessing because that would be acknowledging that the laws actually did apply to him but, with Gregor, who knows? The judge wasn't happy about this because the proceedings weren't being recorded so there would be no official record of Gregor's stupidity if it later became an issue. So she said she was going to send us down to a regular provincial court judge to do the charging. A clerk told her she could do it herself by entering "not guilty" to the four charges but she said she preferred a regular judge handle it.
So Gregor, the translator, Crown counsel and I all trudged down to courtroom 102. Bit of a wait for a prior sentencing hearing to conclude with Gregor, as usual, popping in and out. When it was Gregor's turn the judge was blunt and to the point. Refuses to plea? No problem, I'll enter not guilty pleas to the four charges. Then off to the case manager to arrange a trial date. I just checked and he's slated for May 28 and 29, 2015. I'll be there.
Gregor's claim that laws don't apply to him is not new. He tried it in his July 2013 Family Court hearing where the court said, in its decision'
I noted earlier that I had attended a prior hearing in Richmond. That was on June 24, 2014 and it was similar to today's session in that it was just an interim session to set a trial date and clear up some issues Gregor had. That hearing involved to an entirely different set of charges to the ones at issue today. I still don't know what these charges are but, even if I did, I couldn't tell you because the court has imposed a publication ban on the proceedings. So while I can attend the trial I can't discuss it until the ban is lifted. Trial is scheduled for the end of next month. I'll be there.[99] In an affidavit filed in this case on August 1, 2012, sworn by the father, he deposed as follows in paragraphs 1 to 4:
I, G.J., Journalist, swear or affirm that:
1. I file this affidavit under thread [sic] and duress. I understand that the Provincial Court of B.C. doesn't have to follow the law as according to Canadian law, B.C. is to the most parts not even part of Canada but in fact occupied Coast Salish territory.
2. Adjudicators W. and S. willingly broke already their oath to uphold the law. Previously filed evidence was willingly ignored. Both made it very clear that being biased is of no concern in their courts.
3. Jurisdiction over this file was already given away by Adjudicator A. for the Provincial Court and giving to my court by (the mother) which was confirmed on 20th of February '12 with a notice of default (Exhibit A).
4. I understand that the jurisdiction over said issues lies with me. However, I'm forced to continue attending this court under threat and duress as (the mother) and her layer [sic] W.L.S. try again to use this court to enslave my child and myself. As promised in 2004, both tried on numerous occasions to take my child away from me since 2005. Today was the third time within 14 days (July 16, July 30, July 31, Exhibit B and I).
[100] I might note that all the persons referred to in these four paragraphs save for lawyer S. are Provincial Court judges.
[101] I do not believe in my over 40 years as counsel or as a judge I have ever seen such statements set out in an important court document, for example, suggesting that two sitting judges broke their oath to follow the law. This type of conduct is discussed by Rooke A.C.J. in Meads at page 55 to 56 of his reasons. I also note similarities in the refrains in the above paragraphs to Mr. H.'s explanation in court before me of his beliefs.
perhaps when you didn't show up for the trial, they just gave up 