Gebruikersnaam:   Wachtwoord:   Gratis Registreren | Wachtwoord vergeten? Blog
Controle paneel
Registreren Registreren
Agenda Agenda
Help Help
Zoeken Zoeken
Inloggen Inloggen

Energie vergelijken
Internet vergelijken
Q Scheidingsadviseurs

Koninklijke Besluiten
Ministeriële Regelingen
Regelingen PBO/OLBB
Regelingen ZBO
Reglementen van Orde
Rijkskoninklijke Besl.
Wetten Overzicht

Awb - Algm. w. best...
AWR - Algm. w. inz...
BW Boek 1 - Burg...
BW Boek 2 - Burg...
BW Boek 3 - Burg...
BW Boek 4 - Burg...
BW Boek 5 - Burg...
BW Boek 6 - Burg...
BW Boek 7 - Burg...
BW Boek 7a - Burg...
BW Boek 8 - Burg...
FW - Faillissement...
Gemw - Gemeente...
GW - Grondwet
KW - Kieswet
PW - Provinciewet
WW - Werkloosheid...
Wbp - Wet bescherm...
IB - Wet inkomstbel...
WAO - Wet op de arb..
WWB - W. werk & bij...
RV - W. v. Burgerlijk...
Sr - W. v. Strafrecht
Sv - W. v. Strafvor...

Werkgevers toch ...
Het verschonings...
Indirect discrim...
Een recht op ide...
» Visie insturen
Loods mag worden...
KPN bereikt akko...
Van der Steur wi...
AKD adviseert de...
Kneppelhout beno...
» Nieuws melden

Meer links

Over Rechtenforum
Maak favoriet
Maak startpagina
Mail deze site
Link naar ons

Recente topics
ww, vakantie e...
Merkrecht en r...
Klacht tegen a...
Contact en str...
proces verbaal...

Boekel De Nerée

Content Syndication

Het is nu do 13 jun 2024 14:43
Bekijk onbeantwoorde berichten

Tijden zijn in GMT + 2 uur

.doc 43 page: Canadian Court on the term PERSON
Moderators: Nemine contradicente, Moderator Team

Plaats nieuw bericht   Plaats reactie Pagina 1 van 1
Printvriendelijk | E-mail vriend(in) Vorige onderwerp | Volgende onderwerp  
Auteur Bericht

Leeftijd: 60
Geslacht: Man
Sterrenbeeld: Tweelingen

Berichten: 77

BerichtGeplaatst: za 31 jan 2009 17:51    Onderwerp: .doc 43 page: Canadian Court on the term PERSON Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

Would like to have upload this, because can't link to it.
Every centence is numbered.

1 *August 19, 2008 9:30 a.m. session

2 Commissioner Evans A Sitting Justice of the Peace

3 in the Provincial Court of

4 Alberta

5 D. Melney, Esq. For the Crown

6 (NO COUNSEL) For the Accused

7 W. Thomas and A. Hurtarte Court Clerks

8 ------------------------------------------------------------------

9 *Discussion

10 MR. MELNEY: Sir, we still have one other

11 matter. It's the --actually, the matters of Renzo

12 Koornhof.

13 THE COMMISSIONER: And it is quarter to 4 already.

14 MR. MELNEY: It's quarter to 4 already. I've

15 called the name, and I'll do it again. Renzo Koornhof.

16 I have two people before the Court, sir. I've

17 spoken to one individual, but it perhaps would be --I

18 should leave to the Court to determine who's who.


20 THE ACCUSED: Your Worship,


22 THE ACCUSED: --first, I would like to state

23 that I have respect for your position as well as these

24 proceedings, and that -that I am here with no ill

25 will or malice aforethought as this is a de facto

26 court, and I am here for administrative purposes only,

27 and I do not recognize that the courtroom nor yourself

1 do have power over me. I'm here to fulfill my duty to

2 correct a misunderstanding and to help fulfill my duty

3 to ensure the preservation of the unalienable right to

4 travel and move freely in public without threat of

5 molestation or intimidation by fictitious corporate

6 entities. I am making restricted appearance under my

7 unlimited commercial liability. I claim common law

8 jurisdiction and seek justice with equity law remedy if

9 necessary.

10 You may call me Renzo, capital 'R' E-N-Z-O, and

11 I'm of the family Koornhof, capital 'R' lower case

12 O-O-R-N-H-O-F. And this is my assistant. You may call

13 him G-R-E-G, capital 'G' lower case R-E-G.

14 THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. How many witnesses do we

15 have on this trial?

16 MR. MELNEY: I believe I'm going to proceed with

17 one police witness on this.

18 There are first of all, a little bit of

19 housekeeping. There are four charges shown on the

20 docket list. One of those charges, ticket ending

21 6956E, is shown as a violation of driving without a

22 valid licence, 51(a).


24 MR. MELNEY: The Crown is withdrawing that

25 charge.

26 THE COMMISSIONER: I assume you have no objection to

27 the Crown withdrawing the charge.

1 THE ACCUSED: No. Sir, sorry. I missed that.

2 Which charge exactly? What was the –

3 MR. MELNEY: The ticket number is -


5 MR. MELNEY: That is driving without a

6 subsisting licence. It is actually a duplicate charge

7 of the other one that appears on the docket, so that's

8 the purpose for withdrawing that charge.

9 THE COMMISSIONER: Very well. It is withdrawn.

10 MR. MELNEY: On the other three matters, sir,

11 there is one police witness. The Crown would like

12 to -since the matters are all related to one

13 incident, they are basically administrative charges,

14 the Crown would like to proceed on all three charges

15 with the one police witness.

16 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Koornhof, how many witnesses do

17 you have?

18 THE ACCUSED: Well, do I have I would like to

19 say that I do not - I do not agree with proceeding

20 with the charges at this point in time simply because

21 there's -the charges, as I understand them, according

22 to the Traffic Safety Act, Section 51 -well, all the

23 sections that there are - are relating to persons, and

24 according to -and I would like to claim that I'm not

25 a legal person as defined by the Interpretation Act of

26 Alberta, which excludes very specifically free -free

27 human beings and does not -and only includes

1 corporations or legal representatives of such

2 corporations. And I have not seen nor presented with,

3 even at the time of the incident, nor at any time

4 since, including the various times that I've attempted

5 to communicate with the corporation of Alberta --I've

6 never been presented with nor seen any evidence that I,

7 during that incident, acted as a legal person.

8 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Mr. Koornhof, you are

9 standing up. You are moving your arms, your legs. You

10 walked forward. You are breathing. You are talking.

11 You are communicating in an intelligent fashion. You

12 are not making animal sounds.

13 THE ACCUSED: Are --Your Worship, -


15 THE ACCUSED: --is that the definition of person

16 according to the Interpretation Act of Alberta? And is

17 that the --is that the definition of the word "person"

18 that is to be used under the Traffic Safety Act of

19 Alberta irregardless --or regardless of what the

20 Interpretation Act says?

21 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, okay. First of all, I do not

22 have a copy of the Interpretation Act here.

23 THE ACCUSED: May I present the Act to you -


25 THE ACCUSED: --because I do have a copy of it.

26 THE COMMISSIONER: But I believe the definition you

27 are referring to is to include corporations within the

1 definition of persons. It is not for the purpose of

2 excluding.

3 THE ACCUSED: But in that case, Your Honour -

4 Your Worship, if it does not only include corporation,

5 heirs, executives, administrators or other legal

6 represent -representatives, then -and I would

7 imagine that those that created the statutes do so in a

8 very specific manner and are not trying to be vague,

9 but that they would

10 THE COMMISSIONER: You would be surprised how vague

11 they can be sometimes.

12 THE ACCUSED: Because I attempted to maintain my

13 honour and read the laws or the statutes as they are

14 and see whether they --how they apply to human beings

15 and whether they apply to human beings or to

16 corporations, and according to this interpretation, the

17 word "person" only includes corporation. It does not

18 include human being or --any human being unless they

19 act with consent as a legal representative of a person.

20 Now, I --in order to maintain my honour, I'm

21 entirely willing to accept these charges, and I'm

22 I'm in --I'm willing to --I'm willing to plead guilty

23 upon verified proof of claim that I am not a free man

24 on the land; that any contracts between myself and the

25 corporation known as the Province of Alberta have not

26 expired; that Alberta's Interpretation Act is not used

27 to interpret enactments of the corporation known as the

1 Province of Alberta from the language known as legalese

2 into common English; that Alberta’s Interpretation Act

3 does not clearly exclude free human beings not acting

4 as legal representatives of a fictional corporation

5 from being included in the legal definition of the word

6 "person"; and that at any time during the incident in

7 question there was any evidence that I was acting as a

8 1egal person as defined by the Interpretation Act; and

9 that the corporations known as the Government of Canada

10 and therefore, by delegation of authority, the Province

11 of Alberta do not hold de facto sovereign authority

12 over the land --or do not hold sovereign sorry -do

13 not hold de facto sovereign authority and therefore

14 hold no lawful authority over the geographic region

15 known as Canada; and that the geographic region of

16 Canada is not a common law jurisdiction; and that I was

17 not acting peacefully in fulfillment of my duty to

18 ensure continuance of the common law right to travel;

19 and that peace or police officers do not have a duty to

20 differentiate between law and statutes; and that anyone

21 who cooperates with peace/police officers after they

22 have been threatened with arrest is not considered to

23 be acting out of fear, and therefore, all actions taken

24 by them is to be considered nonconsensual and under

25 duress.

26 THE COMMISSIONER: I take it, Mr. Koornhof, that -

27 THE ACCUSED: I mean

1 THE COMMISSIONER: --you are reading that, and that

2 would be an appropriate written argument to submit, but

3 I am not going to deal with all of that verbally and

4 orally at this point in time.

5 THE ACCUSED: Okay. How do I submit that to

6 yourself in written form?


8 THE ACCUSED: Be --not being a lawyer, having no

9 experience with these proceedings, I would like some

10 assistance as to the processes in order to gain my

11 remedy according to law.

12 THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, you said that you had

13 read up on the law, that you had done some research on

14 this. Your research should have shown you that if you

15 had a lengthy argument, any lengthy arguments are to be

16 made in writing. And if you are taking objection at

17 the outset to the jurisdiction of this court, then

18 would have thought that what you should do is present

19 your written argument, provide it to the Crown well in

20 advance of the trial so that they have an opportunity

21 to go over it as well, because it is not fair to just

22 spring it on them at the trial, and secondly, then it

23 is put on the clerk's file along with the Crown's

24 response to your written argument, and then I get a

25 chance to read it prior to the trial.

26 THE ACCUSED: Your Worship, since --being that

27 once again, as I said, I do not know the proper

1 proceedings --and I have looked, and I have attempted

2 to find them --I did what I believed was right and

3 in submitting as all --as much information as I

4 possibly could and finding negotiation. I have on

5 numerous occasions contacted the Edmonton Police

6 Service, their legal counsel, Minister of

7 Transportation, the Minister of Justice, and the

8 Attorney --well, Minister of Justice and Attorney

9 General as well as the Lieutenant Governor, the Mayor,

10 the --the MLA for the region in where I live, the

11 Premier.

12 THE COMMISSIONER: You have spoken directly to all of

13 these people?

14 THE ACCUSED: I have sent communications via

15 registered mail. I have --I have confirmation that

16 they received them, and they have refused to --they

17 ignored me. And within my communications, it did state

18 that if they ignore me, I will assume that my

19 understanding of the events, of the situation is

20 correct.

21 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, to begin with, that is --you

22 cannot do that because that would be --you know, that

23 is similar to what telemarketers used to do. They

24 would send you something in the mail or over the phone,

25 and if you did not respond within 'X' number of days,

26 you were deemed to have agreed to buy whatever it is

27 they are selling, and you cannot do that.

1 THE ACCUSED: Well, -

2 THE COMMISSIONER: That is illegal, and

3 THE ACCUSED: --as -

4 THE COMMISSIONER: --similarly, taking this position

5 that you have just stated you did, you cannot do that

6 either,

7 THE ACCUSED: Well, as --as I said, -

8 THE COMMISSIONER: --same reason.

9 THE ACCUSED: --as a nonexpert in the system, in

10 this process, I would –


12 THE ACCUSED: --like to

13 THE COMMISSIONER: --maybe you should have hired a

14 lawyer to deal with it properly.

15 THE ACCUSED: Well, I fail to see how I need to

16 pay somebody in order to gain justice in the land of

17 Canada, I --I mean, not being within the -18

18 THE COMMISSIONER: Then do not -

19 THE ACCUSED: legal jurisdiction of the

20 province.

21 THE COMMISSIONER: Then do not complain that you do

22 not know what you are doing if you are not prepared to

23 hire someone who does know what they are doing.

24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: May --may I speak for one moment,

Your Honour?

26 THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry. Your name for the record?

27 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sorry. My name's Greg, of the
1 Adams (phonetic) family.


3 MR. ADAMS: In this case here, they Renzo

4 has presented he's -he's contacted everybody that

5 he's able to contact.

6 THE COMMISSIONER: He has attempted to contact.

7 MR. ADAMS: Attempted to contact. He's had

8 communications, from my understanding, with the -the

9 Police Department, the police chief's office, and he's

10 what his capacity is to understand the law.

11 Like, the law is written in a legalese. I believe that

12 if somebody is able to interpret and understand the

13 laws, then they can be held accountable for that. If

14 somebody is not is able to understand to the law to

15 their own what they're able to understand is what

16 they should be considered -held

17 accountable for. In this case, Renzo has -

18 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, but if that was true, then

19 that argument taken to its conclusion would

20 mean that someone who, for example, is illiterate could

21 say, Well, I can't read the law, so therefore, I'm not

22 bound by any of it; therefore, I can walk out the

23 doors, and even though in the Criminal Code it says

24 it's illegal to murder, bang,

25 MR. ADAMS: Without lawful excuse.

26 THE COMMISSIONER: -that is not -that is not

27 illegal, -

1 MR. ADAMS: The

2 THE COMMISSIONER: --I can't read the law.

3 MR. ADAMS: The Criminal Code doesn't say that

4 you can't murder. It says you can't murder without

5 lawful excuse. We're presenting that in this case

6 there is lawful excuse.


8 MR. ADAMS: And that the lawful -


10 MR. ADAMS: -excuse is presented by his

11 THE COMMISSIONER: If you do not understand -

12 MR. ADAMS: --notice of understanding


14 THE COMMISSIONER: Now, I will grant you that a lot of

15 the statutes and a lot of the case law is written in

16 what commonly referred to as legalese. It is not a

17 "language," but that is why we have lawyers. That is

18 why we have

19 MR. ADAMS: But if you're -

20 THE COMMISSIONER: traffic representatives to

21 MR. ADAMS: If

22 THE COMMISSIONER: --try and help people to

23 MR. ADAMS: You're

24 THE COMMISSIONER: understand, and that is why

25 there is a significant movement to amend legislation,

26 to rewrite it in plain language and similarly for

27 judges to write --if they are making written


1 judgments, to write them in plain language so that it

2 is more understandable to the average person, so that

3 there is less of a requirement to go out and hire a

4 lawyer or some other person who is more familiar with

5 the law.

6 MR. ADAMS: Okay.

7 THE COMMISSIONER: But nonetheless

8 THE ACCUSED: Well, if --if the only way to

9 interpret the law and understand the law is through the

10 hiring of a lawyer, then is --well, then the law is

11 not reachable by everyone. I mean, the law is --there

12 should be equal equality under the law is paramount,

13 is –

14 THE COMMISSIONER: I would agree.

15 MR. ADAMS: Then if equality under the law is

16 paramount and the only way for me to understand the law

17 is to hire a lawyer for pay, then someone who has more

18 resources available to them can get a better

19 understanding of the law than I can, and therefore,

20 that –

21 THE COMMISSIONER: Which is part of the reason why

22 it is one of the reasons why legislation being

23 rewritten in common language, why decisions are being

24 written in common, plain language, plain English as

25 opposed to

26 MR. ADAMS: Then –

27 THE COMMISSIONER: or French, whichever, -


2 THE COMMISSIONER: -to try and facilitate that.

3 THE ACCUSED: Now, from -from my understanding

4 from the education that I received from the government

5 of Canada, if there is a problem with the

6 legislature -there is a problem with a legislated

7 rule, then it is the duty of the court system to effect

8 that change in order to make that law more

9 understandable to the common man, and the only way that

10 the -that the legislated rules will get changed is

11 through the challenge brought forth by common men who

12 do not understand and who wish to -who wish to live

13 lawfully, who wish to live peacefully, and are in fact

14 told -and who read one thing, are told something

15 else, read something else, are told something else.

16 And that is why I'm here today, because I don't know, I

17 don't understand, and I would like to. I would like

18 help from the court system. I would like help from

19 I mean, my sovereign well, one of the sovereigns of

20 this land, someone that I have pledged allegiance

21 towards is the Queen of -Queen of Canada and, I mean,

22 as I said, you know, as from my understanding, the only

23 human being -or not the only human being, but the

24 only legal person who has lawful authority over this

25 land, because I have -because from -as I said

26 earlier, you know this is a de facto court, which has

27 de facto power flowing from the Governor General's
1 office down through the --through the federal

2 parliament, through the provincial parliament,

3 provincial legislature, and then to here, and that

4 and so therefore, they only have de facto power.

5 THE COMMISSIONER: They have delegated power.


7 THE COMMISSIONER: Power has been delegated from Queen

8 to the provinces and the federal government and from

9 the provinces to municipalities and so on.

10 THE ACCUSED: So, Your Worship, do you deny under

11 your full commercial liability that your --that

12 this


14 THE ACCUSED: --this court is a -

15 THE COMMISSIONER: --commercial liability

16 THE ACCUSED: --de facto court?

17 THE COMMISSIONER: --is not an appropriate term.

18 THE ACCUSED: All right. Do you deny that this

19 is not a court with de facto authority?

20 THE COMMISSIONER: This is a court that is enacted

21 to statute under Alberta legislation. Alberta

22 has the legal authority to create this court, and this

23 court is established, as I said, by statute.

24 THE ACCUSED: So you're not denying that this is

25 a de facto court?

26 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, to with, I do not know

27 what your definition of de facto is and -

1 THE ACCUSED: My definition of de facto is

2 combination of Section 15 of the Canada -of Canada's

3 Criminal Code along with Black's Law Dictionary, and

4 can enter these to --I can provide these to you so

5 that you may see my definition of de facto and as well

6 see an e-mail from the Governor General's office

7 affirming that the Governor General has de facto

8 sovereign power on the land of Canada and does not have

9 lawful authority over the land of Canada or the land

10 known as Canada, the geographical region.

11 THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, before we get into

12 that, I am not an expert in constitutional law. This

13 court, at this level of court anyways, does not deal

14 with constitutional law issues. If you wish to raise a

15 constitutional law issue, then you have to go to a

16 higher court.

17 THE ACCUSED: Your Worship, all I would like to

18 know is where the power, where the authority comes

19 from. You yourself said that it comes from the

20 provincial government. Does the provincial government

21 not get their authority from the federal government?

22 THE COMMISSIONER: In some issues, it does. In some

23 cases, it does not.

24 THE ACCUSED: And the provin --and the federal

25 government gets its authority from the Governor

26 General's office, does it not?

27 THE COMMISSIONER: I am not a constitutional law

1 expert. I have not

2 THE ACCUSED: Well, either this is a law -a de

3 jure or a de facto court.


5 THE ACCUSED: I mean, I would like to know which

6 before entering in contract with you.

7 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, we are not entering into a

8 contract. You are not offering to sell me anything. I

9 am not offering to sell you anything. I am not

10 offering -

11 THE ACCUSED: Well, you -you -you're –

12 THE COMMISSIONER: to buy anything from you.

13 THE ACCUSED: -offering to pass judgment upon

14 me, are you not?

15 THE COMMISSIONER: A contract is involving a buying

16 and selling of something.

17 THE ACCUSED: Where did you get that definition

18 from?

19 THE COMMISSIONER: A contract is -whether that thing

20 is a pen or whether that thing is services, but a

21 contract is an agreement between people to buy or sell

22 something or do something in exchange for something

23 else.

24 MS. LOGAN: If I may assist the Court, -


26 MS. LOGAN: -my name is Logan, first initial

27 'K', student-at-law with the Crown prosecutor's office.

1 I believe the precise definition that you're searching

2 for is consideration. Contracts must have some form of

3 consideration, and I see –

4 THE COMMISSIONER: There is none in this courtroom.

5 MS. LOGAN: -no consideration here.

6 THE ACCUSED: Very well. So I mean, in this

7 case, I mean, my -at this point, you refuse to -you

8 refuse to look into whether the interpretation -the

9 definition of person as per the Interpretation Act

10 applies to the Traffic Safety Act. Is that correct?

11 Your Worship, were you -from my understanding so far,

12 you were using your own definition of person, which you

13 have stated as simply being somebody that moves and

14 can -can speak and –


16 THE ACCUSED: -has -

17 THE COMMISSIONER: -I said that because you said you

18 were not a person.

19 THE ACCUSED: And I said according to the

20 Interpretation Act of Alberta, according to its

21 definition of the word "person." Now, if it has a

22 flawed definition of the word "person" according to

23 law, then can you help me in changing that? Because r

24 have no other method of doing that apart from coming

25 before you and stating this, because –

26 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what I am prepared to do is I

27 am prepared to look at the Interpretation Act if you

1 have a copy of it there. No. Hand it to the clerk.
* 5-15 minutes of the Commissioner reading the Interpretation act *
2 "Person" includes a corporation and the

3 heirs, executors, administrators or other

4 legal representatives of a person.

5 THE ACCUSED: I would interpret -

6 THE COMMISSIONER: So it does not mean it is only

7 those things.


9 COMMISSIONER: Those things are included -THE


11 COMMISSIONER: --in what a person is.

12 THE ACCUSED: From my understanding in a

13 THE COMMISSIONER: A person is a human being.

14 MR. ADAMS: Your Honour, I believe there's a

15 legal maxim; I can't remember what it's called, but -that

16 if --in law, all is -

17 THE ACCUSED: If - if something is - is

18 specifically included and stated to be included,

19 everything else is to be excluded. If they did not

20 wish to exclude they --they did say in there the

21 "legal representatives of a person." I interpret that

22 to mean that since they used the word "person" to

23 define --in the definition of the word "person," that

24 the word "person," when used in an enactment, is that

25 specifically and that the very last word in that

26 definition, the person that they use actually

27 references the common English definition of the word

1 "person," which is a human being with a capacity for

2 rights and duties and the ability to communicate;

3 therefore, they specifically say that it includes the

4 corporations and legal representatives of a human

5 being.

6 And again, I implore you, if that definition is

7 incorrect and vague, can we, together, in honour, find

8 a way to fix that so that all may live honourably.


10 MR. MELNEY: I'm not sure where to begin.

11 First of all, this is a court of competent

12 jurisdiction, so it would be the Crown's submission the

13 court has jurisdiction over this over this

14 offence; then we can therefore our business.

15 The issue of the definition of a word such a

16 "person," which is used in the legislation to define a

17 particular violation, in this case, a person who drives

18 without a valid driver's license, et cetera, et cetera,

19 is subject to argument, albeit at the end of the day.

20 To present an argument –

21 THE ACCUSED: Objection, Your Honour

22 MR. MELNEY: Excuse me. I'm in the middle of

23 this.

24 THE ACCUSED: --or Your Worship.


26 ACCUSED: Okay. Fair enough.

27 THE COMMISSIONER: You remain silent. You had your

1 say. Let him have his say.

2 MR. MELNEY: To --let me --let me try and put

3 this into some perspective. To argue that he's not a

4 person is one thing. To that you're not a

5 person because the legislation is wrong or to

6 contradict or --to chal the legislation in effect

7 a constitutional issue, and there are rules and

8 guidelines for constitutional issues, one being proper

9 notice under the Constitutional Notice Regulation, the

10 other in terms of an obligation under the Judicature

11 Act to notify the proper areas of government to which

12 you are addressing the argument, and that is namely the

13 constitutional law section of Alberta Justice.

14 THE COMMISSIONER: And the Federal

15 MR. MELNEY: Yes.

16 THE COMMISSIONER: --Department of Justice.

17 MR. MELNEY: Yes. And beyond that --I mean, if

18 the defendant is making that argument, he would --he

19 would, of course, be required to make those proper

20 notices. I know that he has referred in part in his

21 argument to some material he may have sent. I'm not

22 sure what all that material is or what it contains, but

23 it clearly wasn't presented to the Crown and didn't

24 trickle its way to me to deal with here today on these

25 charges. So if it was the defendant's intention to

26 challenge the legislation or present some other Charter

27 issue as to what is person or is not, none of that

1 has –

2 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, as I understand it, -MR.

3 MELNEY: --come to the Crown.

4 THE COMMISSIONER: --he is not only challenging the

5 legislation, but the definition of person and the

6 jurisdiction of this court as well.

7 Is that correct?

8 THE ACCUSED: Well, Your Worship, my only concern

9 here specifically today, what brought me here is the

10 definition of the word "person." I was merely --see ..

11 I was merely trying to help the situation by suggesting

12 that if in the Court's opinion, that that is what the

13 definition of the word "person" is, then that the

14 that the Court would help me to fix the legislature if

15 the legislature is wrong --legis --the --yeah, if

16 if the legislature enacted that incorrectly. My-that

17 is my only real purpose here.

18 Now, regarding the jurisdiction, I believe that I

19 understand the jurisdiction of this court and that I

20 haven't heard the Court say otherwise regarding the

21 jurisdiction of this court, so I'm not challenging the

22 jurisdiction of this court at all, Your Worship. I'm

23 merely saying the reason why I came here today

24 specifically, as I said, was because from what I can -from

25 what I've read, the definition of the word

26 "person" in the -in Alberta's Interpretation Act,

27 which applies to the Traffic Safety Act, as far as I

1 understand, does not apply to me.

2 MR. MELNEY: And of course, legislative

3 interpretation is the subject of an argument and not

4 necessarily a challenge in another way, so that would

5 be something to deal with at the end of the case. If

6 he's suggesting a person named so and so isn't a person

7 under the -


9 MR. MELNEY: Actually , it is --it's a mixed

10 argument actually. If you boil it down, it’s still a

11 mixed argument because he fails to recognize - some

12 constitutional issues.

13 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, in my judgment, the

14 definition of person is firstly a human being and,

15 secondly, includes all of these other things that the

16 Interpretation Act has listed, i.e., corporations,

17 heirs, executors, et cetera, so they are added to the

18 definition of person. They are not restricting the

19 definition of person to only those things, and the use

20 of the word "includes" in the definition of person, as

21 I understand the interpretation of statute, does not

22 automatically exclude everything else. Okay?

23 THE ACCUSED: In that case, Your Worship, since

24 there was a process that I was not aware of in my

25 research, in order to provide notice to the

26 prosecution, may I be given --may be allowed time in

27 order to pursue that process and issue notice so that

1 the prosecution may have these documents so that I may

2 submit them to the Court so that you may have them in

3 the future? And is there a possibility for me to have

4 assistance in finding out how to do that?

5 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I have suggested a way you

6 can go about doing that, but you do not want to do

7 that.

8 THE ACCUSED: Well, Your Worship, I'm reminded of

9 a --a third world dictatorship, where the only way in

10 which one may achieve peace or justice and be left

11 alone is to payoff the right people.


13 THE ACCUSED: And if the only way for me to

14 follow this process of yours is to pay members of the

15 legal society, members of the bar who are part of that

16 community that I am not a part of and --or for me to

17 find out how to do this is for me to become one of your

18 members of your society, then I would have to deal with

19 that. But is that the way --is that the case?

20 THE COMMISSIONER: No. You do not have to hire a

21 lawyer if you do not want to, but you then run the risk

22 that, number one, you are doing what you are doing here

23 out of sequence, out of proper procedural rules and so

24 on. You are running the risk of not knowing how to do

25 things properly, not knowing how to put your

26 documentation together properly, not knowing that you

27 need to give notice to the constitutional law section

1 of both the federal and provincial departments of

2 justice. You run that risk.


4 THE COMMISSIONER: But there is absolutely no -nothing

5 that says a person cannot represent

6 themselves


8 THE COMMISSIONER: -in this country.

9 THE ACCUSED: -Your Worship, -

10 THE COMMISSIONER: Anyone can represent themselves.

11 THE ACCUSED: -I would rather not like to

12 represent myself. I'd like to present myself

13 specifically. Now, if -I mean, as -as a human

14 being with flaws,


16 THE ACCUSED: -I mean, am I not allowed –

17 THE COMMISSIONER: -let me put it this way, let

18 me -let me change it

19 THE ACCUSED: -to make procedural errors and

20 have assistance from those that they claim authority

21 over me to help me, because if I do -if I am under –

22 if I am subject to their authority and their power,

23 then are they not just as responsible for my ignorance

24 when I have attempted contact?

25 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, to begin with, you cannot

26 expect -number one, I cannot assist you in preparing

27 your argument. All I can do is give you some

1 suggestion and guidance and direction as to what you

2 might do. Okay? But I cannot tell you how to put your

3 argument together.

4 THE ACCUSED: And that's –

5 THE COMMISSIONER: That is your job.

6 THE ACCUSED: That's -I'm


8 THE ACCUSED: I'm all right

9 THE COMMISSIONER: That is your lawyer's job, is to

10 figure that out and to do it properly. It is not the

11 judge's job every step along, every time this comes

12 into trial to say, Well, okay, you need to take this

13 procedural step, then this procedural I and you

14 missed this one and this one back here.

15 THE ACCUSED: Where can I find all of the

16 procedural information that will tell me what I need to

17 do in order to follow the procedures?


19 THE ACCUSED: Do I have to go to law school -THE

20 COMMISSIONER: Well, that would certainly help.

21 THE ACCUSED: -and become a member -~


23 THE ACCUSED: -of the society?

24 THE COMMISSIONER: The simplest -simpler solution

25 would be to simply contact a lawyer and talk to a

26 lawyer. You may well find a lawyer who is willing to

27 take this issue on a pro bono basis. Pro bono means

1 free –

2 THE ACCUSED: I understand.


4 THE ACCUSED: I know that word.

5 THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. They may find that this is

6 an issue that intrigues them enough that they are

7 prepared to do that. But you also have to understand

8 that a lawyer, in all likelihood, has a family to feed

9 just like everybody else has a family to feed or

10 themselves to feed, and so they may expect some

11 payment, but that is no different than somebody who is

12 running a corner gas station or convenience store. You

13 cannot expect them to be giving you free gas or giving

14 you free food. They have to pay for it. They have to

15 make a living. A lawyer has to pay his rent. He has

16 to pay for his computer, his paper, his pens, et

17 cetera. So-

18 THE ACCUSED: So your –

19 THE COMMISSIONER: -it is your -it is your

20 decision whether or not you decide to seek someone to

21 help you present your case in a proper fashion, but it

22 is not the Court's responsibility or the Court's job,

23 and in fact, it would place the Court in a conflict of

24 interest if the Court was to assist new preparing your

25 argument.

26 THE ACCUSED: Well, Your Worship, as I said

27 earlier, is the Court to allow to me to do

1 that, to give me the time –

2 THE COMMISSIONER: I am prepared to grant you an

3 adjournment so that you can prepare proper written

4 argument and make your submissions properly.

5 THE ACCUSED: Because if -as –



8 THE COMMISSIONER: But I suggest to you it probably

9 would not be in this court because essentially you are

10 raising constitutional issues here, and this court does

11 not have jurisdiction over constitutional issues.

12 Okay?

13 THE ACCUSED: Right.


15 THE ACCUSED: So how -

16 THE COMMISSIONER: it would be Provincial Court

17 would have.

18 THE ACCUSED: Okay. And what sort of a time

19 frame do I have in order to prepare?


21 THE ACCUSED: I mean, if you're willing to grant

22 that, Your Worship.

23 THE COMMISSIONER: Right now, we are scheduling trial

24 dates into February, so that gives you several months.

25 The - you would have to go down to the criminal

26 clerks, I believe, and get a date from them.

27 But they are probably closed now, aren't they?

1 THE COURT CLERK: Yes, sir.


3 MR. MELNEY: Well, he's also going to need to

4 follow the Constitutional Notice Regulation,


6 MR. MELNEY: -which has deadlines and

7 guidelines, in order to make that argument.

8 THE ACCUSED: Would those deadlines and

9 guidelines be from today or from some point in the

10 past?

11 THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, they would not be –


13 THE COMMISSIONER: from the past, no.

14 THE ACCUSED: Okay. Because I mean, if -if

15 it's a regulation that's been published same as every

16 other,

17 THE COMMISSIONER: It is published.

18 THE ACCUSED: then I can find that. Then I

19 can find those information, and I mean, if I to a

20 lawyer and if a lawyer's willing to me -but I

21 mean, all I would like -all I'm asking for right now,

22 since you've said, you know -from what you've said,

23 the only option that I have, if it's -if I'm

24 understanding you correctly, is to do this another day,

25 where I have the opportunity to provide notice to the

26 prosecution and to the court itself.

27 THE COMMISSIONER: I think that would be the

1 appropriate way to deal with this, and then the Crown

2 will have an opportunity to see what your arguments are

3 and will have an opportunity to respond to those

4 arguments, and similarly, then a Court can actually see

5 it in writing and can read your argument, can read

6 their argument over, and make a better decision than I

7 can off the top of my head at this point. Okay?

8 THE ACCUSED: Very well. I mean, if what I've

9 submitted is not enough, then yeah.

10 MR. MELNEY: Well, he's missing part of it. He

11 hasn't submitted anything to the Crown.


13 MR. MELNEY: So we're not in a position to say

14 anything or argue anything.


16 Can we obtain a new date, Madam Clerk?

17 THE COURT CLERK: In traffic or in criminal?

18 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let's –

19 MR. MELNEY: We'll have to do traffic, I think.

20 THE COMMISSIONER: Let us obtain a date for trial in

21 traffic court or –

22 THE COURT CLERK: I did call for a date. I've been

23 given a date of November 7th.


25 MR. MELNEY: How much time do we have for that?

26 THE COURT CLERK: There are 14 slots available. No?

27 More?

1 MR. MELNEY: We need a half day



4 MR. MELNEY: at least.

5 THE COURT CLERK: -February 24th? Sorry. She gave

6 me the courtroom -the date, but I did not get a

7 courtroom number or time, and she's gone.

8 THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Why don't we do this, why

9 don't you try calling her quickly just in case she

10 might still be at her desk.

11 THE ACCUSED: Your Worship, how would I obtain a

12 copy of this proceeding today, of the recording?

13 THE COMMISSIONER: You can order a transcript from the

14 clerks downstairs.

15 THE ACCUSED: From the clerks downstairs. Thank

16 you.

17 THE COMMISSIONER: She is gone? No?

18 THE COURT CLERK: There's no one there.


20 MR. MELNEY: We could bring it back into court

21 to speak to.

22 THE COMMISSIONER: I think we will have to do that.

23 Mr. Koornhof, because the schedule clerk has already

24 left, we cannot --we cannot schedule a new trial date

25 for this at this point. When are you going to be

26 can you come back downtown another day this week?

27 THE ACCUSED: Not this week, no, Your Worship.


2 THE ACCUSED: I would imagine that the courts are

3 not open on Saturdays, correct?

4 THE COMMISSIONER: No. Not yet. But that is under

5 discussion as well, to make it more convenient to the

6 public.

7 THE ACCUSED: Okay. See. Well, let's -let's

8 say Friday next week.

9 THE COMMISSIONER: 9:30 or 2?

10 THE ACCUSED: 2:00 would be better.

11 THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Friday, August --what would

12 that be the 29th at 2 p.m. in courtroom 272 for

13 fixation of a trial date. Okay. And that is all it

14 is, is to schedule a date. And in the meantime, you

15 can look up the Constitutional Regulation and see what

16 the requirements are for that, because if you are going

17 to be making a constitutional argument, you will also

18 need to go over to the criminal clerks, Provincial

19 Court criminal, and get a date from them in order to

20 make the constitutional argument in front of a

21 Provincial Court judge. Okay? And that hopefully

22 would be --if you do that, then we can schedule a

23 trial date here that would be after that date.

24 THE ACCUSED: All right.


26 THE COURT CLERK: So, sir, am I to stick with the

27 date?

1 MR. MELNEY: That brings to end a rather

2 eventful day, sir.

3 THE COMMISSIONER: We are adjourned.

4 ------------------------------------------------------------------


6 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht
Arnoud Engelfriet

Leeftijd: 49
Geslacht: Man
Sterrenbeeld: Boogschutter
Studieomgeving (BA): UvA
Studieomgeving (MA): UvA
Berichten: 1385

BerichtGeplaatst: zo 01 feb 2009 18:24    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

Tsja, wat moet je hier nu op zeggen. "Ik ben geen persoon want de wet zegt dat personen 'include corporations' en dat is een alomvattende definities." Die rechter heeft bizar veel geduld met deze meneer.

Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht
Verstuur e-mail

Leeftijd: 44
Geslacht: Man
Sterrenbeeld: Schorpioen
Studieomgeving (BA): RUG
Studieomgeving (MA): RUG
Berichten: 4351

BerichtGeplaatst: zo 01 feb 2009 21:26    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

Inderdaad. Ik overigens niet meer. Evil or Very Mad Dat 'mensen' niet onder 'personen' vallen is overduidelijk gelul 3000. Angrybye
This is a court of law young man, not a court of justice
- Oliver Wendell 'the great dissenter' Holmes -
Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht
Verstuur e-mail Bekijk de homepage

Leeftijd: 60
Geslacht: Man
Sterrenbeeld: Tweelingen

Berichten: 77

BerichtGeplaatst: zo 01 feb 2009 21:44    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

Oeps Duch je lijkt wel boos te worden.

Je bent natuurlijk gewoon een mens.
Bij de registratie bij een overheid heb je een naam gekregen, welke je persoon vertegenwoordigd.

Wie is de eigenaar van die persoon ?
Wel kijk even in je paspoort: het persoonsdocument behoort de staat.
Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht
bona fides

Geslacht: Man

Studieomgeving (BA): UL
Studieomgeving (MA): UL
Berichten: 22895

BerichtGeplaatst: zo 01 feb 2009 21:49    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

De vele draden met steeds dezelfde onzin over personen vs. mensen doen het forum m.i. geen goed. Misschien kunnen de moderatoren onderling eens overleg plegen hoe hiermee om te gaan? Eén of twee draden is tot daaraan toe, maar het is nu steeds hetzelfde inmiddels wel uitgekookte liedje.
Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.
Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht

Leeftijd: 60
Geslacht: Man
Sterrenbeeld: Tweelingen

Berichten: 77

BerichtGeplaatst: zo 01 feb 2009 21:54    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

Bf ik kan me je behoefte aan censuur wel voorstellen.
Dat werkt meestal het beste om afwijkende meningen uit te sluiten.

Als grote mensen zich ergens aan ergeren lezen ze het gewoon niet.
Ga jij het maar tegen de juf vertellen meid Smile

Als de redenatie je niet bevalt verzoek dan simpelweg de Nederlandse regering om de vrijheid van meningsuiting op te schorten.
Als de discussie je niet interesseerd lees het dan gewoon niet.
Wel klagen over de meerdere draadjes dan wel weer reageren en dan achterbaks gaan beklagen bij de moderatoren.

Beetje tegenstrijdig.

Het bijgevoegde stuk is een relevant stuk welke weergeeft hoe hier over in het buitenland gedacht wordt.
Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht
bona fides

Geslacht: Man

Studieomgeving (BA): UL
Studieomgeving (MA): UL
Berichten: 22895

BerichtGeplaatst: zo 01 feb 2009 22:09    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

Aservire schreef:
Bf ik kan me je behoefte aan censuur wel voorstellen.
Dat werkt meestal het beste om afwijkende meningen uit te sluiten.

Als grote mensen zich ergens aan ergeren lezen ze het gewoon niet.
Ga jij het maar tegen de juf vertellen meid Smile

Met censuur heeft het niets te maken. Je hebt je zegje over dit evident onzinnige onderwerp nu wel gedaan. Er komt niets nieuws uit. Zodra iemand je met serieuze argumenten confronteert start je een nieuwe draad op. Je bent wat dit onderwerp betreft slechts een querelant.

Net zoals dit rechtenforum geen herhaalde draden over zeg de sportvisserij hoeft te accepteren, hoeft dit forum naar mijn mening ook geen herhaalde draden over deze pertinente onzin te accepteren.
Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.
Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht

Leeftijd: 60
Geslacht: Man
Sterrenbeeld: Tweelingen

Berichten: 77

BerichtGeplaatst: zo 01 feb 2009 23:02    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

Bf je lijkt wederom weer boos te worden.
cen·suur de; v toezicht op voor publicatie bestemde teksten.
Dat is nu eenmaal het vervelende als je in een land woont, mensen kunnen andere meningen hebben.

Nog niet zolang geleden vond men het onzin als je beweerde dat de aarde rond was.
Je mag het absurd vinden, die mening mag je van mij hebben.
Als je regelmatig je absurde mening blijft verkondigen lees ik die gewoon niet, maar ga ik niet om de juf roepen....

Het betreft hier een juridische gedachte gang over mens versus persoon.
Als je de vrijheid van mening wenst in te perken, richt je tot de 2de kamer van jouw staten generaal.
Jouw mening weten we nu wel, maar vervuil dit draadje er niet mee.
Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht
bona fides

Geslacht: Man

Studieomgeving (BA): UL
Studieomgeving (MA): UL
Berichten: 22895

BerichtGeplaatst: zo 01 feb 2009 23:39    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

Aservire schreef:
Bf je lijkt wederom weer boos te worden.


Het is simpel: je begint iedere keer weer een draad over hetzelfde onderwerp. Dat is niet de bedoeling. Zelfs niet als het wél om een juridisch onderwerp zou gaan. Dat het bij jou steeds weer over onzin gaat maakt het alleen maar erger.

Dus: deze draad is een dubbele post.
Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.
Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht

Leeftijd: 60
Geslacht: Man
Sterrenbeeld: Tweelingen

Berichten: 77

BerichtGeplaatst: zo 01 feb 2009 23:45    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

BF dit is een engelstalig stuk en onder het engelstalige gedeelte van het forum geplaatst.

Als ik hulp nodig heb, wanneer, waar en hoe ik postings plaats stuur ik je een PM.
Ga je nu weer fijn buiten spelen Smile

Dan kunnen we het hier over persoon versus mens hebben.
Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht
Arnoud Engelfriet

Leeftijd: 49
Geslacht: Man
Sterrenbeeld: Boogschutter
Studieomgeving (BA): UvA
Studieomgeving (MA): UvA
Berichten: 1385

BerichtGeplaatst: ma 02 feb 2009 11:10    Onderwerp: Reageer met quote Naar onder Naar boven

Aservire schreef:
Dan kunnen we het hier over persoon versus mens hebben.

Dat heeft geen zin want dat onderscheid is er niet.

De zaak die je aanhaalde, ging over de vraag of "person" onder Canadees recht mede bedrijven omvat of alleen bedrijven. Een heel ander punt: dat kun je wijten aan een slordige redactie van het wetsartikel. Nergens kwam in die zaak aan de orde dat meneer een mens zou zijn maar geen persoon.

Verder verbaast me het hogelijk dat mensen zich op juridische definities beroepen om te kunnen betogen dat ze niet onder het juridische systeem vallen. Als je je op die definities beroept, erken je hun geldigheid en daarmee de geldigheid van het systeem. Het is dan tegenstrijdig om daarmee te betogen dat je niet onder het systeem valt.

Bekijk profiel Stuur privé bericht
Verstuur e-mail
Berichten van afgelopen:   
Plaats nieuw bericht   Plaats reactie Pagina 1 van 1

Tijden zijn in GMT + 2 uur

Wie zijn er online?
Leden op dit forum: Geen

U mag geen nieuwe onderwerpen plaatsen
U mag geen reacties plaatsen
U mag uw berichten niet bewerken
U mag uw berichten niet verwijderen
U mag niet stemmen in polls

Ga naar:  

Home | Over | Agenda | Visie | Downloads | Links | Mail deze site | Contact

Sites: | | | | | | | |

© 2003 - 2018 | Gebruiksvoorwaarden | Privacyverklaring | RSS feeds