R. v. A.N.B., 2012 ABQB 556

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R. v. A.N.B., 2012 ABQB 556 Date: 20120907 Docket: 120707351U1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - A.N.B. Accused Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act ,

section 126.2. No one may publish the name or photograph of a child, or of the child’s parent or guardian, in a manner that reveals that the child is receiving, or has received, intervention services. NOTE: This judgment is intended to comply with the restriction so that it may be published. _______________________________________________________ Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on November 20, 2013; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Peter Michalyshyn _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] These written reasons expand on a decision given orally July 26, 2012 denying the bail review application under s. 520 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985 c. C-46, of A.N.B., a self-described Sovereign Free-will Man. [ 2 ] In

summary, B. faces charges of intimidating two justice system participants, both lawyers, and breach of probation in relation to earlier guilty pleas for, amongst other things, intimidating a justice system participant. [ 3 ] B. was arrested on these charges on June 18, 2012. In the course of his arrest, it is alleged he assaulted three police officers, leading to further charges against him for assaulting police officers. [ 4 ] On July 4, 2012 B. was denied bail in the first instance before Provincial Court Judge Susan Richardson. Judge Richardson denied bail on each of the three grounds set out in s. 515(10) (

c) of the Criminal Code . [ 5 ] A transcript of Judge Richardson ’ s oral decision is attached as Appendix 1 to these reasons. While her decision more than withstands scrutiny, I do not find it necessary to deal with her consideration of the third “ tertiary ” ground to justify B. ’ s continuing detention. [ 6 ] As set out in greater detail in what follows, B.'s application failed both on the basis of standard of review/change of circumstances, and - applying any standard of review - on its merits. II.

Procedural background [ 7 ] Following his bail denial on July 4, 2012 B. appeared July 11, 2012 in the Provincial Court for election and plea and to set further dates. As in most of his appearances, B. was not represented by counsel. He objected to the July 11, 2012 proceedings throughout. He complained the proceedings were fraudulent. He complained he was being intimidated and extorted into accepting "services" by threat of incarceration. [ 8 ] B. refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court. Pleas of not guilty were entered together with an election of trial by judge and jury.

Dates for preliminary inquiry were set for a week in December, 2012. [ 9 ] B. first appeared before this court in morning bail chambers on July 16, 2012. He was unrepresented; he wished to proceed accordingly.

[ 10 ] Crown counsel sought an adjournment of the s. 520 hearing to a date in late August, 2012. The original bail hearing before Judge Richardson took the better part of a full day. B. called three witnesses. He testified himself. No transcript of the original hearing had yet been ordered. Before me B. complained he had not been provided with full Crown disclosure. [ 11 ] B. initially opposed any adjournment of his bail review application.

He relented, however, when at this court's initiative July 26, 2012 was made available for a half-day hearing, and when a transcript of the decision before Judge Richardson was directed to be prepared and provided to all concerned. I seized myself with the application. I further directed that Crown counsel ensure B. receive any further available disclosure not already provided to him. At the end of the day B. concluded the adjournment was reasonable and in his best interests. III.

Standard of review [ 12 ] In the July 26, 2012 hearing B., still not represented by counsel, perhaps understandably did not address the question of standard of review. [ 13 ] Crown counsel argued B. failed to meet the onus on him to show a reversible error in Judge Richardson's decision, or to show a material change in circumstances. [ 14 ] I disposed of B. ’ s bail review application on the basis he failed to overcome the standard of review, although in the alternative I dealt with the merits of his application. [ 15 ] With great respect to those who adopt a different approach (see for example the discussion of the cases, and outcome in Justice Gates' decision in R. v.

Yoeun , 2011 ABQB 712 , 59 Alta. L.R. (5th) 86 ), I adopt the standard of review articulated in R. v. Pemberton , 2009 ABQB 107 , 468 A.R. 248 . [ 16 ] In Pemberton Graesser J. considered the prevailing authorities on standard of review in s. 520 bail reviews, the absence of appellate authority on the point, and the reasons of Watson J. (now J.A.) in R. v. Q.H.T. , 2004 ABQB 526 , then concluded: [28] ... Deference to bail decisions from justices of the peace and Provincial Court judges is appropriate. They hear large numbers of bail applications and are highly experienced in this area of the law.

They can appropriately assess the various considerations required under each of the three grounds. [29] A free hand in substituting or reviewing judge ’ s discretion does not give appropriate recognition to the skills and experience of the justices of the peace and Provincial Court judges. [30] On the other hand, deference should not be put on the same level as is appropriate after a full hearing with evidence under oath. Bail hearings are informal, often conducted without counsel and are usually quite brief. They proceed mainly on information, not evidence.

A reviewing judge must be free substitute his or her discretion in appropriate cases, notwithstanding that there are no new circumstances and the bail judge has made no palpable errors of law. [31] In my view, the level of deference to be given by the reviewing judge is high, but not as high as found in Lysyk or Ellahib , and not as low as found in McKinnon .

Reviewing judges should be slow to substitute their decision of a bail judge or justice of the peace, but may and should do so when their disagreement reaches the point of discomfort with the decision being reviewed. [ 17 ] Pemberton thus acknowledges that judges on s. 520 reviews should show considerable deference to the decisions of justices of the peace and provincial court judges. Pemberton also suggests however that this court retains authority to review bail decisions in the

absence of an error of law and/or a material change in circumstances. [ 18 ] Applying the Pemberton standard to B.'s bail review application, I note at the outset that the hearing before Judge Richardson was a formal and lengthy one. B. did not wish to be represented by counsel. B. called evidence. Together with his witnesses, he was cross-examined at some length.

As noted, thorough reasons were given. [ 19 ] On the review application before this court, B. did not identify any errors of law that might justify interference with Judge Richardson's decision. [ 20 ] I have carefully reviewed the transcript of the application before Judge Richardson including her reasons for decision. I have reviewed the additional materials before me including exhibits and of course the applicant's materials originally filed in support of the s. 520 application. [ 21 ] On my consideration of the evidence and submissions I conclude Judge Richardson appropriately denied bail.

I can find no error. This is clearly one of those cases in which deference to her decision is in order. IV. Material change in circumstances [ 22 ] B. did not specifically identify or argue any material change in circumstances as such. [ 23 ] On the other hand, a material change arguably arises following his court attendance of July 11, 2012, a week after he was initially denied bail. [ 24 ] As noted, on July 11, 2012, over B.'s objections an election of trial by judge and jury was entered. A preliminary hearing was set for a week in December, 2012.

By then B. will have been on remand since his arrest on June 18, 2012, for more than five months. His trial by jury will obviously be some months thereafter. [ 25 ] Arguably the July 11, 2012 appearance gives rise to a material change in circumstances if only given the lengthy remand before B. ’ s preliminary inquiry. The length of time on remand between arrest and trial is a relevant factor touching on an accused's right to bail. [ 26 ] However, it is just one factor. As Justice Veit observed in R. v.

Alcantara , 2007 ABQB 247 at para. 48 , “ ... the mere fact of lengthy pre-trial incarceration is not a reason to grant bail when other factors point to incarceration. ” It must be therefore be assessed alongside other factors which may suggest ongoing detention notwithstanding the passage of time on remand. [ 27 ] As will be apparent in my discussion of the merits of the s. 520 application, on balance the likely passage of time here does not overcome the justification for B.'s ongoing detention. V.

Release denied on the merits [ 28 ] If I am wrong on the standard of review, and in order to address the arguable material change in circumstances, for reasons which follow I would not hesitate to deny Mr. B. ’ s bail review application on the first and second grounds in s. 515(10) (

c) of the Criminal Code . I do not find it necessary to address the third "tertiary" ground.

The Primary Ground [ 29 ] B. made no relevant submissions on his s. 520 review application regarding the primary ground concerns expressed by Judge Richardson. Those concerns arise from both the acknowledged record for two failures to appear in court in 2011, together with an older and less consequential failure to appear in 1990. As noted by Judge Richardson, also relevant to the primary ground is B.'s persistent denials that the criminal justice system has no authority over him.

The Secondary Ground [ 30 ] Is B.'s ongoing detention justified for the protection of safety of the public having regard for all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that he will, if released, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice? [ 31 ] Relevant to that test is the fact that while on probation in connection with a sentence imposed in September, 2011, B. is alleged to have committed a similar offence of intimidation; I have considered the strength of the Crown's case as more fully outlined in the proceedings before Judge Richardson, including the evidence called by B., and the additional affidavit evidence received in connection with the s. 520 bail review, and I find the Crown's case is a strong one. [ 32 ] Also relevant is the fact B. is charged with assaulting three police officers in the course of his June 18, 2012 arrest for the intimidation and breach of probation counts.

I am mindful that B. denies the assaults, and that he is supported in that regard by the evidence of his mother S.B. Nevertheless, I have considered the strength of the Crown's case, and find it is a strong one. [ 33 ] Of course also relevant to this ground is the fact that by his own admission B. does not abide by Canadian laws unless he gives his consent, which he does only when it suits him.

His position flows from what he calls his “ security agreement ” and related documents, which is dealt with in further detail below. [ 34 ] For now, I do not ignore B.'s assurances to me that he would consent to an order granting him release and would consent to terms of such an order.

But his assurances are conditional: before me, B. stated he could not consent to be bound by the rule of law unless he was released: … if you're willing to, you know, let me out of imprisonment and willing to let me defend myself properly … I'll agree to the proceedings for the Crown … but I - you know, I can't consent while I'm being intimidated and incarcerated in this manner. [ 35 ] I note B. made similar promises to obey the law when he appeared before the provincial court on September 13, 2011 to plead guilty to two counts of intimidating justice system participants and one count of criminal harassment, and to be bound by an order for probation.

Indeed, at that time he was the model of contrition: he acknowledged he had made threatening statements and sent threatening emails. At the September 13, 2011 appearance B. stated, with regard to his guilty pleas: " It's been a very humbling experience, Sir. The time that I spent in gaol has not been wasted. And I agree that, you know, I've - my emotions took - got the better of me, and you know, I've - I've broken my own cardinal rule to treat everybody with respect, and I realize that."

[ 36 ] B. reiterated his apparent remorse in a further affidavit received July 20, 2012, dated June 29, 2012 and sworn by B.'s "authorized representative" S.B., his mother.

This affidavit asserts, amongst other things, that: "I have learned my lesson from the conviction of September, 2011 and have made every effort to be polite and respectful of everyone." [ 37 ] And before me on July 26, 2012 he stated he pleaded guilty in September, 2011 "to a few statute codes" because things "got out of hand … and I'm - you know, I learned off that, and I'm trying to afford everybody some respect." [ 38 ] These expressions of apparent remorse and contrition and promises to obey the law are difficult however to reconcile with B.'s other statements regarding the proceedings on September 13, 2011. [ 39 ] Now for example B. says the September, 2011 guilty pleas were the product of duress and extortion.

On the bail review application B. submitted a copy of an “ Official Complaint/Claim and Testimony of A.-N. ” , addressed to the Ombudsman of Alberta and received by the court July 20, 2012.

Referring to his arrest and subsequent detention in mid-2011 culminating in the September 13, 2011 guilty pleas, he states: After four months of blatant extortion by the Provincial Courts I concedded [sic] and accepted that I would be held indefinitely if I did not enter a guilty plea to the vexatious extortion in order to be set free. [ 40 ] B. repeats that he has no intention to cause harm to anyone and that his beliefs and conscience do not allow him to be a physical aggressor or to intend to intimidate anyone. [ 41 ] His beliefs and conscience have not prevented him from engaging in threatening behaviour. [ 42 ] Much of that behaviour, particularly as it relates to intimidation leading up to the September, 2011 guilty pleas, is outlined in the transcript of proceedings of September 13, 2011 wherein B. confirmed he made statements and sent messages which the court accepted was evidence of criminal misconduct. . [ 43 ] And B. ’ s threatening behaviour since September 13, 2011, is summarized in Judge Richardson ’ s reasons and decision and need not be repeated here, except to say I agree entirely with her characterization of a series of emails in the spring, 2012, which “ belie [B. ’ s] assertion that his communication was benign and without the intention to intimidate ” .

The “ Security Agreement ” [ 44 ] B. argued before me that " … nobody seems to want to address the fact that I've got the security agreement." He elaborated: … what I've done is I've actually secured my person with the commercial affidavit in front of you, the commercial security agreement marked as ANB09041971SA … And I know the - a lot of legal representatives like the Crown here seem to think that it's some sort of non-sensical document, but I'd like to - to submit, Sir, that the IRS receipt in the very back, the IRS believes that it's valid, and the - the United States Treasury believes that it's valid.

So I believe what I've done here, Sir, is I've pulled myself out of this society …

[45] The “security agreement” is attached as an exhibit to B.’s affidavit of May 8, 2012 filed in this court’s action no. 1203 05969.B. submitted the affidavit as part of his bail review application. [46] The “security agreement” and related documents also exhibited to the affidavit run some 65 pages. Part of the package is a“Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Denial of Governance” dated January 23, 2009 purportedly addressed to the Governor General ofCanada, the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, and the Prime Minister of Canada.

A copy of this notice is attached to these reasons asAppendix 2. [47] Amongst other things this notice states that B.: ...hereby den[ies] my acceptance to governed [sic] by you, your office, or anyone representing your office and from any external fictionalentity whatsoever!!! I was not fully informed, now I am, and I deny consent from this day forward. How do you like them chicks? Quack, quack ...hey? ... My name is A. N. of the B. family, I am a free sovereign man, I wish to govern myself...

I am not subject to your petty, degrading,unfair, unreal, unjust statute laws and by-laws or anything else you people seem to hold above me to claim authority over me. [48] A further part of the package is a “Claim of Right” dated February 12, 2009 in which, amongst other things, B. asserts: The right to keep and bear arms without license or record, for the purpose of defending my rights and property. [49] Contrary to B.’s assertion that ‘nobody seems to want to address his security agreement’, in fact courts have readily concludedsuch agreements are meaningless: Henry v.

El, 2010 ABCA 312, leave refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 138; Mercedes-Benz Financial v.Ivica Kovacevic, ONSC. [50] The problem is not that 'nobody wants to address the security agreement'.

The problem is that B. does not accept that hissecurity agreement, and others like it, and the arguments which flow from it, are nonsense - as is B.’s belief that by reason of "thedoctrine of acquiescence" various authorities' failure to give what he calls "qualified rebuttals" of the security agreement justifies B.'sreliance on it. [51] However, until B. abandons his faith in the security agreement and related documents and beliefs, his own reliance on themmust be taken seriously.

One thing follows the next: B. clearly believes he is entitled to and has withdrawn from society and from therule of law; as long as he holds to these beliefs, this court can have no confidence in his expressions of remorse, or promises that he willabide by an order giving him "reasonable bail”: s. 11(

e) of the Charter, or by an order that is "necessary for the protection or safety ofthe public": s. 515(10)(

b) of the Criminal Code. To a similar effect, R. v. McCormick 2012 NSCA 58 at para. 43, although in the contextof a bail pending appeal application. VI. Conclusion [52] The bail review application is denied. Heard on the 16th and 26th days of July, 2012. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 7th day of September, 2012.

Peter Michalyshyn J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: E. Orest Yereniuk, Q.C. for the Crown A.N.B. for the Accused _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Memorandum of Decision of Honourable Mr. Justice Peter Michalyshyn _______________________________________________________ 1. Publication Ban added. 2. In paragraphs [32] and [36] the initials of the A.N.B. ’ s mother were changed to “ S.B. ” . 3. The Accused ’ s name throughout the Decision was changed to initials A.N.B., or variations thereof. 4.

In Appendix I the Accused ’ s name was changed to initials A.N.B., or variations thereof. 5. The document in Appendix II has been reproduced in electronic format and the Accused ’ s name was changed to initials A.N.B., or variations thereof. 6. The action number has been changed to 120707351U1. Appendix 1 - Partial Transcript of July 4, 2012 Provincial Court of Alberta Proceeding 120707351P1 (page 113, line 19 to page 19, line 2) - Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Judge Richardson

113 ... 19 Reasons for Judgment 20 21 THE COURT: The accused is charged with six counts on 22 two Informations, and he applies for a judicial interim release in relation to both 23 Informations. One Information alleges three counts of assaulting a peace officer and one 24 count of breach of probation, these allegations being in relation to the circumstances of 25 his arrest. The Crown proceeded summarily on these charges. The second Information 26 alleges two counts of intimidating a justice official contrary to

section 423.1 of the 27 Criminal Code . These are indictable matters. 28 29 The accused was arrested on both Informations on the same day, June 18, 2012. His 30 application for judicial interim release is, therefore, under section 515(2) of the Criminal 31 Code, with the onus on the Crown to show cause on a balance of probabilities why his 32 detention is justified having regard to the first, second, and third grounds found in 33 section 515(10). The Crown opposed the accused ’ s release on all three grounds. 34 35 During the bail hearing the accused entered five documentary exhibits.

I have reviewed 36 all of them in detail. The Crown entered one exhibit, which contained the accused ’ s 37 criminal record and a transcript from September 13, 2011, when the accused pled 38 guilty and was sentenced for two counts of failing to appear and two counts of 39 intimidating a justice official under

section 423.1 and a criminal harassment charge in 40 relation to Brian Kash. The accused was sentenced to four months on a time served basis 41 and was placed on probation for one year, with a no contact provision with 114 1 Mr. Kash, who is a lawyer with Alberta Justice, who was conducting a child welfare 2 matter in relation to the accused ’ s children. 3 4 At this stage in the criminal proceedings against the accused he is presumed innocent. 5 The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system and applies 6 throughout criminal proceedings and is in effect at the bail stage.

Section 11(

e) of the 7 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also codifies the Charter right of any person

8 charged with an offence not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. 9 10 I note on the evidence heard and read at the bail hearing. In my view the accused has a 11 well-developed and entirely distorted understanding of the Canadian justice system. He 12 explained that he is a child of God, has free will and sovereignty over his own mind, 13 body, and spirit. He further explained that he has joined a separate society that has 14 charged the Vatican. There is no way for this court to accurately recount his 15 compromised comprehension. I have to apply the law. 16 17 On the primary ground.

The primary ground is designed to address the issue of 18 ensuring the accused will attend court in order to be dealt with according to law. The 19 accused disputes the failing to appear entry for 2000 on his criminal record, that was 20 provided, so I have disregarded that entry. The accused has a criminal record that dates 21 back to 1990. The entries are in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 2011.

I raise the multiple 22 entries as a means of demonstrating that the accused had a longstanding familiarity with 23 the criminal justice system that would have enforced upon him the requirement to 24 attend court when directed to do so. In September 2011 the accused has two entries 25 on his criminal record for failing to appear, and according to the transcript that 26 formed part of Exhibit 6, one of the failing to appears was for a trial and one failing to 27 appear was for a preliminary hearing. 28 29 The accused testified on his own behalf on this bail hearing.

Of note on the primary 30 ground he explained that it is his understanding that "If I don ’ t consent to a statute law, 31 then it doesn ’ t apply to me," and he repeatedly noted that he questions the authority of 32 the criminal justice system over him, saying that he does not believe they have any 33 authority over him if they don ’ t show him their oath of office. 34 35 On the second ground.

The second ground contains a number of considerations. 36 Under section 515(10) it relates to the protection or safety of the public, the 37 protection or safety of any victim, the protection or safety of any witness, the 38 protection or safety of minors, any substantial likelihood that the accused will 39 commit a criminal offence if released, and any substantial likelihood that the accused 40 will interfere with the administration of justice if released. All of these considerations 41 must be made "having regard to all of the circumstances." 115

1 2 On the second ground I note that the offence of

section 423.1 is in relation to the 3 complainant Kash, was alleged to have occurred at the time the accused was on 4 probation with a no contact provision with Mr. Kash. The probation order as an order 5 of this court was not sufficient to dissuade the accused from allegedly intimidating 6 Mr. Kash. The probation order as an order of this court was not sufficient to 7 dissuade the accused from allegedly committing further criminal offences. And here I 8 am referencing all the charges on both Informations before the court. I am taking into 9 account the entire nature of the interaction between Mr.

Kash -- and I understand that 10 some of this is the subject of the section 264(1) conviction from September 2011 -- and 11 Mr. Kash ’ s assessment that the level of threats or intimidation expressed by this 12 accused has recently escalated. I note as well the accused stated belief that the 13 statutory laws of this country do not apply to him unless he consents. This goes to 14 whether the accused would or could comply with any condition placed upon him to 15 address the secondary ground concern. I am also taking into account the three related 16 and recent entries on the accused ’ s criminal record for

section 423.1 convictions, 17 two of them, and one section 264(1) conviction, all three from September 2011. 18 19 As well, a theme in the accused ’ s testimony at the bail hearing is that he has no internal 20 ability to regulate his actions on the child welfare matter. He explained that Mr. Lewis, 21 one of the complainants on the 423.1 offence, "has a duty to tell me if my 22 communication with him is offensive." This indicates the accused ’ s inability, in my 23 view, to regulate his own conduct.

Again the accused testified that he had put some 24 material on You Tube indicating his view of certain legal principles, and he 25 explained that "If I ’ m wrong, people have to tell me I ’ m wrong." 26 27 Mr. B. also testified that he had put liens or a claim on a justice system 28 participant -- this is Mr. Lewis. After sending Mr. Lewis a notice for a debt, and 29 because there was no notice disputing Mr. B. ’ s claim, he put a lien on 30 Mr. Lewis ’ s property via the personal property registry. 31 32 The accused seems to believe that he can do whatever he wants until he is told 33 otherwise.

However, his conviction in September 2011 for intimidating two justice 34 officials in relation to the two child welfare workers was not sufficient for him to cease 35 similar behaviour against the two lawyers who are also involved in the child welfare 36 matter. 37 38 Finally, on the second grounds I am taking into account the fact that the related entries

39 from September 13, 2011, relate in substance to the child welfare matter involving the 40 accused’s children. I understand that a judge of this court granted a PGO over both 41 children on June 20, 2012. The accused has stated that his behaviour, then and now, is 116 1 explained by him and by his witnesses on this bail hearing as something that anyone 2 would do if their children were taken away. The issue of custody of the children remains 3 outstanding to the accused despite the fact that his parental rights have been 4 terminated. He denies the legal validity of the permanent guardianship order.

He has 5 testified to an intention to continue to attempt to get "due process" from the system. 6 7 On the tertiary grounds. The tertiary ground is designed to address the issue of 8 maintaining confidence in the administration of justice. In considering this issue, 9 under

section 515(10(

c) the court must "have regard to all the circumstances, 10 including the apparent strength of the Crown’s case, the gravity of the offence, the 11 circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, the fact that the accused is 12 liable on conviction for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment. As a 13 relatively new

section in the legislation dealing with judicial interim release, there is 14 limited appellate jurisprudence on the consideration and application of this section. For 15 another case I have recently read all of the English language Canadian Courts of 16 Appeal cases which have judicially considered R. v. Hall 2002 SCC 64, a decision 17 which dealt with this section. None of those cases were cases where

section 423.1 of 18 the Criminal Code was involved. 19 20 There are several things to this jurisprudence: number 1, the denial of bail on the tertiary 21 grounds should be rarely used; number 2, there are no offences to which the tertiary 22 ground presumptively applies; number 3, in applying the four criteria in section 515(10)(c) 23 the court must "not pander to public opinion and must take a detached and 24 dispassionate approach, applying the test of ordinary, reasonable, fair-minded members of 25 society or persons informed about the philosophy of the legislative provisions, Charter, 26 and detention, and whether that is necessary to maintain the public confidence in 27 the administration of justice." And that is a quotation from paragraph 18 of R. v. 28 Nguyen, a 1997 case of the BC Court of Appeal, (BC CA), 119 CCC (3d) 269.

As well, the Court 29 of Appeal in the Hall case previously mentioned at paragraph 41, the chief justice said 30 in relation to the application of the statutory considerations on the tertiary ground: [as

31 read] 32 33 "The judge must be satisfied that the detention is not only 34 advisable but necessary. The judge makes his appraisal objectively 35 through the lens of the four factors Parliament has specified. At 36 the end of the day the judge can only deny bail if satisfied that 37 in view of these factors and related circumstances a reasonable 38 member of the community would be satisfied that denial is 39 necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of 40 justice." 41 117 1 The five factors set out in section 515(10)(

c) are: 2 3 Having regard to all the circumstances I have briefly outlined these circumstances 4 above, including that the accused does not believe that he is bound by the laws of this 5 country and his stated intention to continue his course of action to attempt to get due 6 process. 7 8 Number 2, including the apparent strength of the Crown ’ s case. On this point I 9 recognize that on the assault peace officer charge there may be mitigable issues.

On the 10 intimidation of a justice official charges much of the action alleged was in the form of 11 e-mail communication, which the accused acknowledges, as he entered many of these 12 e-mails into evidence at his bail hearing. Some of the acts alleged are by way of voice 13 mail, which, I understand, have been transcribed. The escalation of the behaviour 14 coincides with the court dates on the child welfare matter. The Crown ’ s case is strong, in 15 my view. 16 17 Number 3, the gravity of the offence. The

section 423.1 offences are extremely grave. 18 The criminal justice system is a cornerstone of our democracy. In order to operate 19 effectively, people involved in the criminal justice system must be free to do their jobs 20 and exercise their discretion without fear from any corner. Without the ability to 21 perform these functions freely, our entire system of rule of law will descend into 22 anarchy. 23 24 The fourth criteria, circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. And I

25 am dealing with the intimidation of justice official Information now. These offences 26 involved lengthy, repeated interaction with these complainants, with escalating levels of 27 tone and threat and violence. The allegations relate to contact at work and filing a 28 claim against one of the participants personally at the personal property registry. 29 There are two complainants, both of them the government lawyers who dealt with the 30 accused ’ s child welfare matter. The accused testified that in relation to contacting 31 Mr. Lewis and Mr.

Kash, the complainants, his contact was a benign interest in getting 32 them to clarify points of law in relation to the child welfare matter. 33 34 Madam Clerk, can I have Exhibit 3 again? I gave it to you, but I am going to need it 35 back. Thank you. 36 37 The following are excerpts from e-mails and Exhibit B-3 that belie his assertion that his 38 communication was benign and without the intention to intimidate.

On May 31, 2012, the 39 accused writes: "I will never stop until my children are safely home with me." On May 40 21, 2012, the accused writes: "I fear that the outcome of my case may be a tipping 41 point. It might be something you probably want to consider." On the same date: 118 1 "There are quite a few free people watching this case, Doug." This is a reference to 2 Mr. Lewis, the complainant. The accused goes on: "I have a feeling that this will be the 3 last straw for many. There is talk of revolt.

Some have even mentioned armed 4 rebellion." On the same date: "My group is talking about having protests in front of your 5 house and walking around the block with huge signs telling people you are a child 6 abuser and a sicko pedophile that gets off on torturing kids." On the same date, May 21, 7 2012: "If you are using force and violence to keep my children hostages -- hostages -- 8 do you think it would be necessary for me to use equal force and violence to protect 9 them from criminal pedophiles like you?" And, finally, May 18, 2012, the accused 10 writes in an e-mail: [as read] 11 12 "So what would you charge me for, breaching a fraudulent court 13 order?

Laughing my ass off. Do you think it would stand up in 14 court? Last time you guys tried to charge me with breaching a 15 condition, it didn ’ t go so well for you guys. In fact, none of it 16 has gone well for you guys, has it? Kind of hard when you do

17 not have consent or authority, isn ’ t it? If you think I will follow 18 any of your bullshit, fraudulent, fictional orders, you are 19 kidding yourself, you crook. You should be ashamed of 20 yourself, holding my children hostages. Three and a half years for 21 what? Because I questioned their authority? You are all going 22 down, my friend. And when I win the civil case, I am entering all 23 my evidence into the International Criminal Court, and I ’ m 24 going to have you freaks locked up for a long time. Freakin ’ 25 torturing little kids so you can get a paycheque. You people 26 are sick, man.

I will have justice." 27 28 There you go, Madam Clerk. Thank you. 29 30 And the fifth, the consideration under section 515(10)(

c) is the fact that the accused is 31 liable on conviction for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment. I note that the 32 maximum punishment for

section 423.1 of the Criminal Code is 14 years in jail. 33 34 Finally, on the third ground the case of R. v. S.B., a 2007 case of the Ontario Court of 35 Appeal, 560. In that case the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 7 that "the tertiary 36 ground is not limited only to cases with exceptional circumstances where all four 37 statutory factors are at the highest level." 38 39 Judgment 40 41 Having regard to all of the above information and the law that I have to apply on both 119 1 Informations, sir, your bail is denied on the primary, the secondary, and the tertiary 2 grounds. Appendix 2 - A.N.B.

Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Denial of Governance 34. ENCLOSURE: COPY OF NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING TO PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA JANUARY 23, 2009

Stephen Harper, acting as; The Prime Minister of Canada Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street Ottawa K1A 0A2 and to all whom it may concern: Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Denial of Governance Recent events have made me do an extensive search into to the law, I have devoted allot of my time studying it and becoming somewhat of a adept at the subject, in my own humble opinion of course. Some very interesting information has come to light, and I wanted to share my understanding of it all, and let you know what I intend to do about it.

Reading many, many law books, from such titles as The Bible, The Magna Carta, Bouvier's , Blacks, The Canadian Constitution, The U.S. Constitution, Bill of rights, UN laws, U.C.C., our various codes, law's and acts here in Canada, and the U.S. etc., just to name a few, I have found that securing your person, as it mentions in various constitutions, as well as the constitution here in Canada, means something entirely different than what I was led to believe!

I now know what is going on and there is but one logical thing to do and that is: reaffirm my sovereignty and shake off the governance of such a tyrannical system. Do you believe in God? I do, I can feel that I am not alone, and death is just a new beginning, there is light and goodness to look forward to. When I die I want to be remembered as doing good, and living in accordance with the teachings of God, passed down to us through the ages for the betterment of humanity. How do you want to be remembered?

I have noticed that not once in all of the Canadian laws does the word “ love ” or “ compassion ” flicker into existence.....??? What kind of laws do you have us all living under, I am feeling more and more oppressed by the day, I didn't think it was going to get worse. I see videos every day, of cops brutalizing and humiliating people for simply asking what law they broke!!! I am afraid, and for my kids.

I must draw the line somewhere, and this is it, good sir! “ I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! ” to quote the show “ Network ” from back in the 70's, looks like they had the same problems back then too. Same oppression, just different oppressors. I am sorry to say such words, it must make you cringe to be thought of as oppressive, but that is what the plain truth is...oppressive and deceptive. How does the old saying go??..."if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck...it's probably a duck".

I am tired of living in fear, I might slip and fall and break a by-law or statute, there are so many, and most do not follow any course of law or sense of fairness whatsoever. Police officers are forced to dawn a new hat, the oppressive enforcement hat, why? in the interests of profits? This is why we are being treated little better than animals!? I say this has to stop, and hereby deny my acceptance to governed by you, your office, or anyone representing your office and from any external fictional entity whatsoever!!! I was not fully informed, now I am, and I deny consent from this day forward.

How do you like them chicks? Quack, quack...hey? Guess what? I am not through yet.

I hope you will see the wisdom in my actions, as I do love this country and I feel it is the best place in the world to live and I do appreciate what we do have, but alas its going downhill quick, and in my humble opinion it has everything to do with the runaway supra-corporations, and the corruption they spread.

I just cannot lawfully in my good conscience partake in this fraud any further, until something good, and positive is done to empower this once great country and give us all back our dignity and the abundance we should be encountering. my name is [A.N.] of the [B.] family, I am a free sovereign man, I wish to govern myself, I am competent, I am in good mental & physical health.

I am not on a fictitious corporation, created by a fictitious government, which is subsidiary to a fictitious country/corporation, with the only goal being commerce and profits, with no regard to human life and love, and compassion, and happiness. I am not not subject to your petty, degrading, unfair, unreal, unjust statute laws and by-laws or anything else you people seem to hold above me to claim authority over me. ANB-09041971-SA Pg. 37/51 Lets put this into perspective shall we.

God is top supreme, I live for God, this nation lives for God; next is me/us/I/we the people; then me/us/I/we create the nations and the governments, they do not create us, and thus I will not be ruled, intimidated, unlawfully detained or succumb to any such perversion of justice. Canada is a sovereign nation founded under God, and I am a sovereign man created by God, and am beholden to none but God. So it is written, and I do so declare. If you would like to negotiate on this matter, by all means try rebutting. Maybe my information is weak, and my understanding is clouded?

Maybe.....but I think the truth shall remain the truth, no matter when or where we are, wouldn't you agree? No matter how many lies are jammed down our throats all it takes is some oppression, a bit of tyranny, a dash of brutality and we are forced to face the truth, and once you step off the ship there is no going back in my opinion, not unless there is some love and compassion and freedom applied. I am not some anti-government activist trying to incite trouble... I'm just a regular guy, trying to get by, raising a couple kids; trying to live in peace.

I see the oppression and tyranny and I am afraid of the world my children will have to exist in. I have found a way to state my protest with this simple act of peaceful disobedience, and with some keen commercial incites and actions I will have secured my person as it was intended. I trust in the interests of fairness you will forward this notice on to all affected parties so they may have the opportunity for rebuttal. I do reiterate: I disavow and nullify any contracts, agreements or treaties that have any agreement, expressed or implied to submit to governance or authority of any other, save for God.

You all have been fairly noticed and I challenge a rebuttal form any and all affected parties. If no rebuttal comes, I do intend to enter a fee

schedule regarding any further interference of my pursuit to life, liberty, happiness, and the security of my person, by unauthorized pirate corporations, who

wish to use force to turn us into slaves for the mega-conglomerates.

I know this may be difficult for some of you to understand so I will try to use a format you may be more familiar withbelow, to help clarify my understanding: • Whereas I understand that Canada is a nation founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and, • Whereas I am competent, and compelled by my unrelenting faith in God to handle my own affairs, and, • Whereas I understand the only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representative one, and, • Whereas I understand a representative relationship relies upon a foundation of mutual consent, and, • Whereas I understand the appearance of consent can be achieved through silence and inaction, and, • Whereas I understand no one can be my representative without my consent, and, • Whereas I understand it appears that my governments rely upon deception to gain the right to govern, and, • Whereas I understand that public servants must ‘ provide service to the public within the legislated framework within which • public service is provided ’ , and, • Whereas I understand that if they are unable to define the legislated framework they are also unable to claim to act with respect to it, and, • Whereas I understand a ‘ statute ’ is defined as ‘ a legislated rule of society which has the force of law ’ , and, • Whereas I understand a ‘ society ’ is defined as ‘ a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act for a common goal ’ , and, • Whereas I understand statutes do not have the force of law over those who do not consent to be governed, and, • Whereas I understand that a principal has a duty to ensure that the people acting as their agents understand the source, nature and limits of the authority in their mandates, and, • Whereas I am desirous of living my life with love, compassion and truth, and, • Whereas the only people who can possibly expect me to follow them must have more love, compassion and truth than I do, and, • Whereas due to the deception found in so many statutes, and your obnoxious trespass of my right to Rule of Law, • Whereas I can no longer believe that any government agent or principal acts with the truth, and, • Whereas certain government policies adversely effect and trespass the needs of the most disadvantaged in society, and, • Whereas those policies cause me to believe that the present government is not guided by the principles of compassion, and, love by trespassing on my compassion and love to comfort those in emotional and physical need, and, • Whereas I could not find the word ‘ love ’ or ‘ compassion ’ in any statute, bylaw or regulation, and, • Whereas I cannot in good conscience support an organization that uses deception to cause people to register their offspring, as property and chattel, and, • Whereas I am desirous of not being governed by those not guided by love, compassion and truth, and, ANB-09041971-SA Pg. 38/50 • Whereas I understand I give up certain benefits and legal rights by existing outside of society, and, • Whereas I understand I recapture all Common Law rights by existing outside of society, and • Whereas I come in peace, I covet, and do not abandon, the Rule of Law.

ALL CONCERNED PARTIES HAVE TWENTY

(20) DAYS TO DISPUTE, DISPROVE OR DENY ANY OF THE FACTS

MENTIONED ABOVE, WITH A SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF REBUTTAL SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PURJURY, AND IN THE EVENT YOU FAIL TO RESPOND IN THE ALLOTTED TIME IT SHALL INDICATE FULL ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENT.

Note : This revocation is a lawful means of peacefully ensuring full government accountability and is presented without malice, aforethought, or frivolity, and done with a pure heart to follow Thoreau ’ s advice that: “ You cannot fix a sinking ship by staying on the sinking ship ” , and with love and compassion., I ’ m compelled to fix this ship with any lawful and peaceful means available to me: I do so declare so help me God. Without prejudice, ill will, or vexation [signature] A. N. B.

Sovereign, free-man-on-the-land, secured party, attorney ‘ in-fact ’ , creditor, not in any federal zone and not subject to, or in accordance with the jurisdiction of Canada, Crown, Queen, North American Union, United States, or any derivatives thereof, or any other territory, possession, enclave, dwelling, et al., implied or expressed. Information for postage A.N.B. [address] Edmonton, Alberta T – 4 – non-domestic Canada ACKNOWLEDGMENT/NOTARY Edmonton (City of) ) Alberta ) ss.

Canada ) original jurisdiction The above declarant proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the one whose address (name) and autograph is subscribed to the within instrument. Affiant swears under the pains and penalties of perjury that all statements made therein are true, correct, certain, and no misleading.

Duly subscribed and sworn on this 23 rd day of January, 2009 Notary Public [signature] ANNA SHULMAN BARRISTER & SOLICITOR A Notary Public in and for the Province of Alberta WITNESSED AS TO EXECUTION ONLY NO ADVICE SOUGHT OR GIVEN ANB-09041971-SA pg. 39/50