Great news! Michael Unger has carried the day and successfully defended himself against criminal charges!
R v. Unger, 2016 ABPC 46:
http://canlii.ca/t/gnj3m
Our fearless hero found himself in a house for which the police had obtained a search warrant. He was there with a woman who, for some inexplicable reason, was told to leave without incident. The police found marijuana and a gun stashed in various locations in the house, as well as some marijuana plants growing outside. Unger was arrested but then released on a recognizance, which he refused to sign because he'd been listening to too much Kate of Gaia:
The accused refused to sign the recognizance asserting that to do so would be participating in an improper process and on the basis that the name used to describe him was fictional; what he described as “birth certificate fraud”. He remained in custody until the trial of this matter.
As it turns out, keeping him in custody was a mistake. It seems the Criminal Code specifically provides that when someone refuses to sign a recognizance, they are to be released with a copy of it anyways. It's worth noting this section, as freemen sometimes like to claim victory that they were released without signing anything:
The accused expressed some concern in signing such a form so I directed him and those who were present to s501(4) of the Criminal Code which reads as follows:
An accused shall be requested to sign in duplicate his appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance and, whether or not he complies with that request, one of the duplicates shall be given to the accused, but if the accused fails or refuses to sign, the lack of his signature does not invalidate the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be.
....
Where, as is the case here, an accused is directed to be released in accordance with the Form 32 Recognizance and then fails or refuses to sign that Recognizance, s501(4) comes into play. Since his failure or refusal to sign the Recognizance does not invalidate it, this alone cannot be a reason to detain him. This accused should have been released when this Court directed his release on November 3rd, 2015. His continued detention was contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code and contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned (s9) and the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause (s11(e)).
So how did he pull this glorious OPCA victory? Well, at first he attempted to file magical paperwork from KoG, titled "BIRTH CERTIFICATE FRAUD; CLAUSULA REBUS SIC STANTIBUS". As far as I know this is the first reported decision where the court directly addressed KoG paperwork.
KoG likes to market this document as the ultimate "get out of jail free card". As soon as you use it, you become untouchable. The document itself is here:
https://kateofgaia.wordpress.com/2015/1 ... stantibus/
A quick google reveals what the Clausula concept actually refers to (from wiki):
In public international law, clausula rebus sic stantibus (Latin for "things thus standing") is the legal doctrine allowing for treaties to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. It is essentially an "escape clause" that makes an exception to the general rule of pacta sunt servanda (promises must be kept).
So did this silver bullet document lead to a stunning victory in court?
No.
The accused submits that although his birth certificate describes him as Michael Murray Unger, this is not his name. He filed a four page document setting forth his argument in that regard. The accused’s submissions are an unintelligible diatribe that condemns and criticizes lawyers, judges, government agencies and their employees, and is simply a thinly disguised attempt to derail the administration of justice and deny responsibility through an argument with no legal foundation.
[21] The latin phrase clausula rebus sic stantibus is a legal doctrine that implies a tacit condition said to attach to contracts meaning that they cease to be obligatory as soon as the state of facts out of which they arose has changed: (see Black’s Law Dictionary). It has no application whatsoever to this accused and to the charges before the Court.
[22] When arrested, the accused was identified by one of the other occupants as Michael Murray Unger; he acknowledged to the arresting officer that his name appeared on his birth certificate (although his birth certificate was not marked as an exhibit) and he made no argument and gave no evidence that he was some person other than that which was described in the Information. He simply submitted that he did not feel bound to use the birth certificate.
[23] This is a form of argument raised by other OPCA (Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument) litigants which has been thoroughly canvassed and rejected by the Courts in previous decisions: see particularly Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). This lengthy and learned decision by Justice Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench reviewed and dismissed this and other issues raised by this type of litigant.
Nevertheless, Unger was acquitted. It seems the evidence linking him to the house (and thus, having constructive possession of the drugs/gun) was really thin. Besides his presence there, the cops only found a few personal articles (some mail, possibly some clothing, and his name on some certificate). This wasn't enough to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt:
In considering the evidence in the case at bar, it is necessary to consider the entire constellation of the circumstances but in doing so to be aware of what circumstances do not exist. For example, in the case at bar there is no evidence of who owned the property, who rented the property, who paid the utilities and taxes on the property, who maintained the property, who frequented the property, in fact there was no evidence whatsoever as to who actually lived at the property. There had been no surveillance on the property and no neighbours were called to testify with respect to whether the accused had any relationship with the property whatsoever. No evidence was tendered to explain who the woman was who greeted the police at the door and why she was immediately released and not investigated in connection with these matters.
...
In this case I am not persuaded that the Crown’s case cries out for an explanation. That is to say, I have not been persuaded that the evidence before the Court satisfies the Crown’s burden to prove that this accused was in possession of the drugs, the firearms or the ammunition and as such the accused’s decision not to testify does not assist the Crown.
So there you have it. A clear victory for the no-namers!
on Youtube saved me), then it is worth it to me.
