R. v. Jacobi Date:, 2016 BCPC 121

Citation: R. v. Jacobi Date: 20160419 2016 BCPC 0121 File No: 100496-1 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. DALE MARTIN JACOBI REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME

Counsel for the Crown: Mr. Oliver Potestio Appearing on their own behalf: Mr. Dale Jacobi Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Dates of Hearing: March 3 and 4, 2016 Date of Judgment: April 19, 2016 [ 1 ] Dale Martin Jacobi, who calls himself Dale Martin of the family Jacobi, is charged with resisting or obstructing a peace office in the execution of that peace officer’s duty, contrary to s. 129 (

a) of the Criminal Code . NOTICE OF CHARTER APPLICATION [ 2 ] At the outset, the accused commenced the proceedings attempting to bring what he styled as a constitutional challenge. He referred to a Notice of Charter application he filed on February 11, 2016. I reviewed that application at the outset, which is a variation on the Freeman on the Land doctrines. It does not disclose a constitutional question nor does it properly seek Charter relief. I dismissed the application before the proceedings commenced.

However, the facts as alleged by the accused remained in my mind as we proceeded through the trial in the event that a proper Charter issue should arise, given that he is self-represented. None did. THE CHARGE [ 3 ] The facts of this case are not largely in dispute. What is at issue is the misguided notion of the accused that he is somehow exempted from laws unless he specifically contracts to be bound by them. He argued that statutes are not binding upon him because they are not laws and he has not contracted to be bound by them.

While he approached his defence somewhat differently from most Freemen on the Land, the arguments are essentially the same. [ 4 ] Constable Fahlman was on duty on December 10, 2015 in Merritt, British Columbia with the Central Interior Traffic Services conducting a check stop. A vehicle approached with no front plate. The vehicle was driven by the accused and no one else was in the vehicle. Constable Fahlman motioned for the vehicle to stop. He approached the driver and identified himself as RCMP and notified the driver it was an RCMP road check for licences and insurance.

It immediately struck Constable Fahlman as odd that the accused only rolled down his window one to two inches. This typically indicates to Constable Fahlman that the occupant is hiding an odour. This raised Constable Fahlman’s suspicions. [ 5 ] Constable Fahlman asked the accused to produce his driver’s licence, insurance and registration. The accused questioned Constable Fahlman’s authority to stop him. Constable Fahlman repeated the reason for the stop and asked him to lower the window so he could hear better. The accused said he could hear fine.

The accused told Constable Fahlman that he was not driving but was travelling. He began to espouse doctrines that are familiar to Constable Fahlman as the philosophies of the Freemen on the Land. This was a concern for Constable Fahlman because he has received police bulletins regarding security issues around Freemen on the Land. Specifically, he has learned that they often do not comply with police direction and do not recognize police authority.

He testified these bulletins claim Freemen are also often armed and willing to use armed forced against the police. [ 6 ] It is not the role of the court today to decide whether any of this information is true about the Freeman on the Land adherents. The evidence is relevant only to explain the course of action that Constable Fahlman took and whether that course of action was reasonable in the circumstances.

This is an important point from the perspective of the accused because he testified that he is not a violent person, he is elderly and lacks the capacity for violence, and wishes to be left to live in peace on his own. Whatever the case may be, Constable Fahlman relied upon bulletins he receives in the course of his duties as a peace officer. He legitimately based his course of action on that information. [ 7 ] Constable Fahlman said he was also concerned because Freemen are known to drive without licences or insurance.

Constable Fahlman was concerned about flight, particularly if the accused ignored his directions and caused a pursuit. This would be dangerous to Constable Fahlman and to the public. He directed the accused to pull over. The accused continued with “catch phrases” commonly associated with Freeman on the Land adherents. The accused cited the Charter and Black’s Law Dictionary becoming more argumentative and hostile with Constable Fahlman. [ 8 ] Because other vehicles were approaching from the rear, and traffic was coming from the other direction, Constable Fahlman again asked the driver to pull over.

He again asked him for his driver’s licence and registration. The accused asked if Constable Fahlman had a warrant. He told Constable Fahlman that Constable Fahlman had no authority over him. Constable Fahlman determined the accused was actively obstructing a Motor Vehicle Act investigation and detained the accused for investigation. He was then arrested for obstruction. [ 9 ] The accused refused to exit the vehicle or to lower the windows or open the doors. Constable Fahlman activated his recorder and asked for back up. He advised the dispatcher he was arresting the accused for obstruction.

Multiple police vehicles attended in response. [ 10 ] Constable Fahlman again instructed the accused to pull to the side of the road and open his window. The accused asked if he was free to go and Constable Fahlman advised him that he was not, having being arrested for obstruction. The accused responded along the line of not being under “your statute”, not being under Constable Fahlman’s control, not driving but travelling, and not in a vehicle but a car.

This is all nonsensical and entirely wrong minded. [ 11 ] Constable Fahlman asked Constable Ryan, who was now in attendance, to deal with the accused in the event that it was simply

a matter of the accused objecting to Constable Fahlman. Constable Ryan was no more successful. Constable Fahlman approached the driver again and told him that he would be physically removed from the vehicle. Constable Fahlman attempted to break the window with a glass breaker but the accused used his hand to deflect the impact of the glass breaker. Also, with the window partially opened, the glass breaker was not effective. Throughout this activity, the accused continued with his nonsensical responses. [ 12 ] Constable Fahlman requested a supervisor and watch commander. Sergeant Flemming attended.

Sergeant Flemming spoke to the accused who eventually agreed to come into custody. [ 13 ] As the accused exited the vehicle, Constable Fahlman took his arm. The accused pulled away and told him not to touch him. Another member moved in and Constable Fahlman controlled the arms of the accused. He was more resistant than Constable Fahlman had expected and he had to force the accused to put his arms behind his back to be handcuffed. As a consequence, the handcuffs were tighter than Constable Fahlman would normally have made them. These were loosened subsequently.

I find that the force used by the police was reasonable and necessary for the lawful execution of their duties. [ 14 ] Constable Fahlman testified about taking the accused through the arrest, police caution and Charter of Rights . When Constable Fahlman asked the accused if he understood, the accused said no. Constable Fahlman read it again. The accused did not respond. He did not respond to the police caution or the offer of counsel.

It was clear that he was persisting in his resistance to the authority of Constable Fahlman rather than exhibiting any lack of knowledge of his rights or understanding of what was transpiring. I am satisfied the accused was not only afforded his Charter rights but that he understood everything he was told. [ 15 ] The accused was subsequently identified. There was a wallet next to where he had been sitting in the vehicle. It had an expired Alberta driver’s licence in the name of Dale Martin Jacobi which matched the appearance of the accused.

There were other client cards including a Costco card with his name on them. [ 16 ] There was some objection by the accused at this point in the trial that he had not received disclosure of these documents but it is clear from the Crown records that disclosure was given on two occasions. On one occasion, the accused threw the disclosure package on the floor when the Crown, Mr. Potestio provided it to him, and the judge directed the sheriff to give it to the accused. [ 17 ] There were other items in the vehicle which identified the accused.

There was a registration for another vehicle which was associated with the plate on the vehicle the accused had been driving. There was also a health plan card in the wallet. The registration and plate were associated with a vehicle registered to the accused in his name. The vehicle identification number for the vehicle he was driving on this occasion was registered to Totem City Motors. A copy of the purchase agreement from Totem City Motors disclosed the name of the accused.

The accused objected to these documents at this point not on the basis of their admissibility but because each document identified a fictional entity. This is the Freeman doctrine which has repeatedly been rejected by the courts and I will spend no further time addressing them. [ 18 ] Constable Fahlman also found a sheet of paper and other documents which were seized by another officer.

These contained guidelines for dealing with check stops and listed responses to be used by a Freeman when encountering the police. [ 19 ] Upon being served with a violation ticket, the accused was transferred from police custody to sheriff custody. The police had attempted to release the accused but he would not identify himself or agree to appear in court. [ 20 ] The accused testified at trial. The facts are not largely in dispute except that the accused endeavoured to justify his responses in accordance with the doctrines embraced by Freemen on the Land. This is folly.

He claimed to have studied the law at some length and to be well familiar with his right not to be forced into a contract. He has obviously read the law but has tortured the cases and

definitions into meanings they do not have. He also testified about the bruising he suffered as a result of the arrest. He testified that he wishes to be left in peace and to be left to choose when he will use the legal name inflicted upon him in order to contract for services he prefers to receive. The bruising is tragic but is entirely a product of his unreasonable and resistant behaviour. [ 21 ] In his argument, the accused cited a number of cases respecting when the Charter does and does not apply. I have reviewed each of those cases for any indication that they might be relevant for this case. They are not.

They relate instead to whether corporations can seek Charter relief; whether a private citizen becomes an agent of the Crown when effecting an arrest or a search; whether the Charter applied to Medical Services Plans, and the like. None of the cases stand for the propositions the accused seeks to propose. None of them relate to whether he is entitled to contract out of provincial legislation or to pick and choose which laws he will comply with. [ 22 ] The accused is also wrong that a car is not a vehicle. A car is merely a kind of a vehicle.

I dismiss his argument that he was travelling rather than driving; and that he is not required to have a license to travel. The accused was behind the wheel of a car and had care and control of it. He was driving. The accused is also wrong that bylaws, statutory laws and regulations are not laws.

They are laws and they bind the accused, as well as they bind every other person who enjoys the privileges of living in this province. [ 23 ] I am satisfied that Constable Fahlman was acting in the execution of his peace officer’s duty and that the accused resisted or obstructed Constable Fahlman in the course of those duties. I convict the accused of those charges. _________________________________ S.D. Frame Provincial Court Judge