Man’s trial will go ahead even if he does not ID himself, JP says
MAY 16, 2011
BY ROBERT KOOPMANS
DAILY NEWS STAFF REPORTER
"Another freeman? Or is he just shy? Time will tell, as Gary Oscar Lecomte’s case winds its way through bylaw court.
Lecomte was sent a summons by mail after he refused to pay a fine stemming from a parking ticket he received on his car, which was parked at an expired meter in the downtown core Aug. 10.
Lecomte returned the ticket to the City with the word “discharged” printed across the face. He also indicated he viewed the ticket as a bill he did not intend to pay.
Lecomte’s case was called in bylaws court Monday, although the man who rose from the public gallery refused to acknowledge he was Lecomte.
Instead, he said he is known as “Pep’e,” and asked justice of the peace Joan Hughes if she was inviting him into the court.
“Will I reserve all my rights and immunities?” he asked.
“You have the same rights as any other person in Canada,” Hughes replied.
“I am reserving my rights and immunities,” Pep’e said, as he walked through to the lawyers’ table.
Hughes told the man he needed to acknowledge he was Lecomte, or he would not be allowed to speak to the matter. He refused to do so and sat back down in the public gallery next to Brian Alexander, with whom he entered the courtroom earlier.
Alexander, a former mayoral candidate, has also refused to acknowledge the court’s jurisdiction as he faces an unrelated obstruction of justice charge resulting from how he acted when he was given a speeding ticket.
At all of his court hearings, Alexander has espoused philosophies consistent with the Freeman Association of Canada, an eastern-based group that claims Canadians have been enslaved by government. They also purport to be governed by the “common law,” not the Criminal Code or other Canadian legislation, which they describe as “admiralty law.”
Freemen also believe they do not have to pay taxes or engage in many other forms for government bureaucracy, including registering vehicles or obtaining driver licences.
Alexander, who writes his name now as brian-arthur: alexander, ran for Kamloops mayor in the last municipal election. It’s not known if Lecomte, or Pep’e, claims to be a freeman or spells his name in similar fashion.
In the end, justice of the peace Hughes instructed the courtroom sheriff to serve Lecomte’s summons on Pep’e. She also old the City lawyer present for the hearing to obtain a picture of Lecomte through ICBC records.
Pep’e refused to touch the summons, and left it sitting on the courtroom bench.
Hughes told Pep’e if the ICBC records show he is Lecomte, he will be considered served and the case will proceed without him if he does not come forward as called.
It’s not known when the case will continue." (snip) ...
This article is originally published at this website:
David-Kevin Lindsay responds:
“This is another case of the freeman, many of whom are discovering what we have long known - if you do not identify yourself, they will deem you to be the 'person' and serve you accordingly, followed with a conviction for non appearance - or warrant. Or if under arrest, they will hold you in custody for as long as it takes to determine who you are, even it this takes a year until your trial. Then the judge will 'deem' you at trial to be the 'person' charged and you will be found guilty.
Their entire system is predicated upon the assumption (non rebuttable) that you are a 'person', or the 'person' charged. The judges will simply not let anyone prove otherwise, even if we are correct. A system that must be changed, it cannot be corrected.
I believe the only objective is to evidence identify to the court YOUR STATUS, to show that you do not have the status as is being alleged. All laws are in relation to a status, ie: rights and duties, and it is incumbent upon the Crown to prove that you have the rights and duties of a given statute - usually by proving you received benefits in the act, or failed to comply with the act after doing so for many years, thus the presumption that you still are that 'person'.
This also requires evidence, ie: you will have to take the stand to do so, or otherwise show the Crown has failed to prove this in their case.
This is not to criticize what defences these courageous people are putting forth. Most people would have difficulty simply appearing in court, let alone telling the courts to go to hell, so I have the greatest respect for what they are doing.
But at some point, we are all going to have to face reality - there is only one solution - and that is to stop supporting the criminals in governments and banking. Yes there will be sacrifices, and yes this is a long term commitment. But anyone who believes that there is a judicial solution is, respectfully, in error. Anyone who believes there is a loophole is also in error. Moreover, playing the loophole game fails to address the underlying banking problems we are facing. Stop filing and paying income tax, period.
I say this having been before every court in 5 different provinces, as accused, agent, and to take the position that I am not a 'person'; on constitutional issues, and many other types of relief. And yes, including now on my 6th Leave application to the SCC (Supreme Court of Canada.)
All of which has started as a result of charges laid by government officials in some form or another.
Even with the new charges coming up this year, for refusing to comply with a court order to file tax returns, (which even fewer people have the courage to withstand), I have no illusions about any grand victory. But at least my line is drawn in the sand, that I refuse to support and am not supporting this criminal banking cartel and their government agents, as best I can.
I am saddened to read that this man in Kamloops apparently only had one supporter in court. What the hell has happened to all of us? Our court hearings used to be packed with supporters showing the court's our solidarity. Unfortunately, people in our freedom
movement want 'instant judicial gratification', and this is simply not going to happen, not within the case itself nor in several cases, it is going to take time. Time requires sacrifice and commitment. It requires us to support those who have to appear in court.
I strongly urge more and more people to attend these court hearings, even if they are only on adjournments or other short matters. Otherwise, the courts see us breaking apart and will hammer the man appearing before the court on his own, with no supporters.
Freedom does indeed require vigilance - and sacrifice.
I hope our friends in Kamloops are eventually successful - and that more people can show up to assist them. This of course, requires that those of us who are required to appear in court, dispense with any embarrassment of being there, and any attempt to 'surprise' everyone with some unexpected success (which is unlikely to occur especially in an empty courtroom) and advertise their own upcoming court hearings to all of us as well.
Freedom requires light and exposure - it does not occur in silence. Even if someone 'wins' on a technicality, the ability to continue to refuse to support the system and cost them as much time, resources and money as possible, will go along way to achieving our goals.” (snip) ...
in freedom I remain