R. v. Penner
2018 MBQB 200
http://canlii.ca/t/hwttq
This is the first round of the litigation of the century;
The follow-through;[4] On August 26, 2016 Mr. Penner was driving his wife’s car at 67 km/h through a 50 km/h photo-radar speed enforcement. In due course, a ticket for a $272.75 fine arrived in the mail. Mr. Penner, notionally on behalf of his wife, challenged the ticket at a hearing on May 18, 2017. Ultimately, Mr. Penner did not dispute any facts. As he said, he was there to prove he was a human being, saying neither he nor his wife had ever taken on the capacity of a person, and hence the HTA did not apply to them. The court entertained his arguments but quickly disagreed, entering a conviction and confirming the fine.
The result;[5] Not satisfied, Mr. Penner appealed and filed a Notice of Constitutional Question, serving all the required parties including the Attorney General for Manitoba and for Canada. He sought to have the ticket quashed, an order to safeguard his and his wife’s human rights and $25,000 as a remedy for infringed rights. He filed a dense brief, transcripts were ordered and the Crown responded in a splendid fashion consistent with having taken his appeal seriously. All in, the file is about 3” thick.
So, Mr. Penner, if you're reading this a word of advice. Give up on the Alberta courts. They're so obsessed with clearing their dockets that they've lost the ability to stop and smell the roses. They're overwhelmingly focused on quantity over quality, with pumping out decisions with no interest whatever in exploring the nuances of innovative alternative legal theories put to them for review and discussion. They consider long philosophical discussions on the nature of humanity as the role of philosophers and theologians, not courts and judges. Worst of all you were forced to fight your epic battle at the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, the home of Meads v Meads. A sovereign has absolutely no chance of a fair hearing there. But there is a way to have your arguments get a respectful, full hearing. Move to British Columbia and have your wife get a speeding ticket here![6] The appeal came before me on November 2, 2018. Somehow it was set for the whole day, likely given the volume of written submissions and that it invoked a constitutional question. I dismissed the appeal and constitutional question, with these reason to follow. Mr. Penner intimated a further appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[7] Mr. Penner’s first concern is that either the Crown or I had to prove that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. Nothing of the sort need be proven. Regardless, concisely, the Court of Queen’s Bench has jurisdiction to hear provincial offence appeals (The Provincial Offences Act C.C.S.M. c. P160, s. 79(1)) and constitutional questions (The Constitutional Questions Act, C.C.S.M. c. C180) Further, to be clear, the provincial court that heard the trial has jurisdiction to hear such offences. (The Provincial Offences Act) Refining the point across eight “constitutional questions”, Mr. Penner submits the court does not have jurisdiction over human beings. This argument is too silly to address, and in part is related to the next point.
[8] Mr. Penner’s next point is that the HTA only applies to violations involving persons, and neither it nor The Interpretation Act, C.C.S.M. c. 180 defines a person as a human being. Hence, as he and his wife are humans, as distinct from persons, the law did not apply to him as driver or his wife as owner of the car. In fact, Mr. Penner says he has gone so far as to legally make himself a corporation. This makes no sense, Mr. Penner misses the point.
[9] Yes, he is a human being, but a human being is also a person. One only need look at the Oxford Dictionary to see that “person” is defined as a human being. To go further, Black’s Law Dictionary also defines a person as a human being. It is trite that words in a statute like the HTA are normally construed to their ordinary meaning. So yes, the HTA uses the term “person”, or sometimes “driver”, but obviously a person is a human, if one prefers that synonym. Finally, I note The Interpretation Act defines a person as including a corporation.
[10] Lastly, Mr. Penner says that the HTA only applies to people who are engaged in profit-oriented driving or travel. Not so. It applies to anyone who operates a motor vehicle, for pleasure or for business. All drivers must be properly licenced and obey traffic laws.
[11] Having disposed of these points, the constitutional questions have no merit. None of his rights were infringed and hence no remedy is available.
[12] I do not know if Mr. Penner follows the so-called freemen-of-the-land philosophy or the strawman or sovereign-man theory or some other pseudo law belief but, regardless, they are all nonsense no matter how they are dressed-up. None of these notions have ever been recognized in law as a defence or to exempt anyone from the law. Mr. Penner does not get to sidestep the law no matter how he views himself, through whatever distorted lens. A very extensive commentary on these issues can be found in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII).
[13] Judicial Justices of the Peace, judges and justices need not pay any regard to these types of argument. Crown counsel need not devote resources to any meaningful response. These type of points, and there are many variations, ought to be dismissed summarily, much as the trial Judicial Justice of the Peace did here. Moreover, appeals such as this ought not to be granted leave (s. 79(3), The Provincial Offences Act) or ought to be dispatched with cold efficiency.
[14] The appeal and constitutional question are dismissed. The fine is upheld.
Here in British Columbia you can turn any case into a personal Jarndyce v Jarndyce with the full blessing and support of the courts. Endless days, weeks of rambling on about the nature of the person, the significance of capitalization on documents, whether British Columbia courts even exist notwithstanding that the your hearing will be held in one. I speak from personal knowledge gained from weeks, months of sitting in British Columbia courts listening to all of the above and more aired in almost infinite detail. Cumulatively Michael Millar must have spent over a week in the Supreme Court of British Columbia rambling on just about his theories of capitalization. Upper v lower case? In Michael's eyes empires have fallen on less! As far as I can tell from personal observation our courts have little, if any, concerns about the expeditious handling of the cases put before them. If you need ten hours, twenty hours of court time to explain in full your belief about courts having the jurisdiction to pass judgment on persons but not on human beings the Supreme Court of British Columbia will hear you out. You'll still lose but you won't be treated like something the judge found stuck to the sole of his shoe. You'll get the respect you don't deserve.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!
