Our protagonist was pulled over for an alleged traffic violation. Freeman routine follows and he ends up in cuffs. The case below is from what looks like a first appearance or at the very least, it's an appearance in set-date court. At first, someone named B. Wharton appears as agent on James' behalf, but things don't go very well from the start when it's discovered he is recording proceedings. Then James himself emerges to lead the charge for freedom, though he opts to play the name game with the court, which earns him a time-out in her Majesty's premier accommodations.
It also looks like James' strawman has its own wesbite! http://jrwc.info/
There's not much there, other than a very elaborate fee schedule.
J. Shortt J.P.:
MR. SIGURDSON: I wonder if we might be able to page Mr. James Wywrot, please. Mr. Wywrot off the first appearance docket.
CLERK OF THE COURT: James Wywrot for courtroom two, James Wywrot courtroom two.
MR. SIGURDSON: James Wywrot, step forward please, sir. Thank you.
THE COURT: You are James Wywrot?
MR. WHARTON: Uh, no, sir. Actually I'm here as Wharton, first initial B. I'm agent for the James Wywrot matter and I reserve all my rights to Condor (ph) and to common law in this matter. I'm here under special appear ...
THE COURT: I'm sorry. You're going to have to be a little clearer for me. Your name is?
MR. WHARTON: Wharton.
THE COURT: Can you spell that for the court, please?
MR. WHARTON: W-H-A-R-T-O-N, first initial B. Can you hear me okay?
THE COURT: And your role in Mr. Wywrot is what?
MR. WHARTON: Sorry?
THE COURT: You are a paralegal, you're a legal ...
MR. WHARTON: No, I'm just here as agent in this matter just to discuss the uh - I'm here under special appearance to discuss the constitutional issues in this matter.
THE COURT: Well, we don't do that ...
MR. SIGURDSON: I'm just going to interrupt the proceedings here for a second. I'm receiving information that these proceedings are being recorded and, of course, the Courts of Justice Act provides stipulations with respect to the ability of an accused person or a member of the public to record proceedings of the court. So, I'm just going to interrupt and ask that any recording devices be immediately A) shut off and B) removed from the courtroom.
MR. WHARTON: Your Honour, I'm just going to submit this here for your consideration and this gives me authorization to ...
THE COURT: I need you to shut off the recording instrument first, sir.
MR. WHARTON: I'm just gonna leave it here for a sec cause I'd like to - This gives me authorization to record in your courtroom, so ...
THE COURT: First of all, is it shut off?
MR. WHARTON: Yes, it is shut off. That's no problem.
THE COURT: All right. Now, you wish to argue the merits of recording it?
MR. WHARTON: This is just authorization that I have preapproved for recording in the courtroom. So, I just wanted to bring that in in case it got challenged.
THE COURT: Have you shared this with the Crown?
MR. WHARTON: Uh, not yet. I just have it here. I just didn't know we were starting just yet. I figured that was in their standing orders. I didn't know that they needed notice of that.
THE COURT: Well, sir, you're confusing this with the role of the court reporter who is recording the matter. That is her official function. It doesn't extend to counsel of private citizens.
MR. WHARTON: Actually, I think it does mention that in there. Anybody that's litigating can record it.
THE COURT: Mr. Sigurdson. Do you wish to see this document?
MR. SIGURDSON: Sure. Thank you.
MR. WHARTON: I believe it says that I can supplement my own notes with that document. I believe that document stipulates I can supplement my notes with that recording and it's a standing order from the Justice of Ontario, Chief Justice.
COURT SECURITY: Take your hands out of your pockets, please.
THE COURT: While Mr. Sigurdson is digesting that document, you started to say you wanted to argue the constitutional arguments. I think that's what you said. Is that correct?
MR. WHARTON: Uh, yes. There's actually been a constitutional ... let me just grab it here if I may.
THE COURT: The issue, Mr. Wharton, is that this a first appearance court. So, we don't argue matters of fact here or constitutional motions. That's in a different court.
MR. WHARTON: Well, we filed a notice of constitutional question and to be heard today. So, I guess maybe we had some misinformation from the clerk who accepted it. So, I do apologize if there's an error on that. Do you have this document in front of you? It was filed with the court last week. So, I apologize ...
THE COURT: Yes, I do.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. There's just been some serious constitutional issues and conflicts involved in this matter that we wanted to bring to the court's attention and ...
THE COURT: And I'm not suggesting you shouldn't. It's just that it's the wrong court, that's all.
MR. WHARTON: For sure. So, we just thought we would be prepared today for that matter and I apologize if we didn't get the right information.
THE COURT: Mr. Wywrot, presumably, is going to contest the charges before the court?
MR. WHARTON: . Well, um ...
THE COURT: If he's not, what are we doing here?
MR. WHARTON: Okay. Let me just point out one fact. Is that we did ask for full disclosure so that we would know how to proceed and we did not get full disclosure from the Crown. So, we don't even know what information there is. So, without the information we can't properly prepare a defence or let alone enter a plea in this matter. So, um
THE COURT: Did you make your request to the Crown in writing?
MR. WHARTON: Yes.
THE COURT: And when was that?
MR. WHARTON: Um, I have the information here if you just bear with me now. It was immediately after the event, of course. And, it was in certified mail. It was delivered July 11th, Canada Post Registered Mail receipt says it was signed for July 11th.
THE COURT: And did you specify the disclosure you were seeking?
MR. WHARTON: We specified full disclosure.
THE COURT: And you didn't specify anything in specifics?
MR. WHARTON: Uh, we specified full disclosure in relations to the charges and then there was a few specifics in there that we did specify, um, like any evidence from the officer and stuff like that. I don't have that information ...
THE COURT: Officers notes, that sort of thing?
MR, WHARTON: Correct. And I also went down to see Heidi Stewart (ph) at the OPP and discuss the matter with her for full disclosure and recordings of the officer's mic and all that stuff. So, we kind of went to the OPP and asked for it there and then we register mailed the Crown and, like I said, they received it on July 11th, which would have been probably two weeks ago, give or take.
THE COURT: Okay. So, at this juncture, depending on what disclosure is made available to you, thereafter you will make a decision whether or not ... or Mr. Wywrot, rather, will make a decision whether or not he wishes to contest the charges?
MR. WHARTON: Right. And, there's also an issue of criminal assault in this matter, which was raised in the notice of constitutional question. The whole matter resolves (sic) around the mistake of who the party is. The gentleman that received the notice was not actually Mr. Wywrot, that's part of the issue. He never identified himself as Mr. Wywrot. As you can tell here, within a minute of being pulled over the officer was ... sorry, just bear with me. The officer was demanding to see ID and according to Salhany's, Chief Judge or Supreme Court Judge, Salhany's Police Manual, the common law does not require a citizen to identify himself or carry identification and the police officer proceeded, within one minute of having detained him not ever asked for a driver's license or anything, he never asked for a driver's license, insurance or the ownership, he just asked for ID and Mr. Wyr ... or the gentleman that was pulled over said, "I don't believe I need to show you ID, you haven't given me any reason." So, immediately, within one minute of being pulled over on the side of the road to being asked for ID, to he was arrested and given these three charges. So, part of the disclosure we asked for was he never made the demand for the driver's license, he never made the demand for the insurance, he never made the demand for the driver's license. So, all three charges are ... like, we're just asking, let's get a recording or let's figure out what he did demand because our records indicate he didn't demand for any of those things. Now, after ... after he was demanded for ID he was placed into arrest. He was put into handcuffs and he was searched and on his possession he had certain documents that weren't his and the officer made the determination he was Mr. Wywrot, not the gentleman that was pulled over. And so, the officer issues these charges identifying Mr. Wywrot and so there's a whole lot of mistakes going on and that's why we're here to discuss it. I know we're not doing that today, but that's why we've come forward today with the constitutionality of the issues, So, there is a lot of disclosure that we need and we're just here to discuss the criminal assaults because it says right in the manual that if he or she ... the officer perceives that they're guilty of criminal assault and liable to civil damages. So, part of the thing that we want the disclosure for is to discuss the issues before you today and part of it we want the disclosure to decide whether we're going to proceed with criminal assault charges.
THE COURT: Mr. Sigurdson, feel free to jump in.
MR. SIGURDSON: Okay, great. Thank you very much, Your Worship, Just a few responses if I could. First of all, I'll just deal with the issue of the recording of the court proceedings and I'm grateful to this gentleman for bringing in s.136 of the Courts of Justice Act. I note that that is the appropriate section of that legislation and it does, very clearly, say that no person shall tape or attempt to tape an audio recording at a court proceeding. In fact, it sets out in s.136 that it is an offence to do so. There is, as he has highlighted, an exception and that exception is found in s.136(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and that allows either a lawyer, a person acting in person or a journalist for making an audio recording at a court hearing. Of course, what's important about that exception is that it has to have been approved by the judge in advance. So, the bottom line is this individual is not a lawyer, he is not the accused person, he has not identified himself as the accused person, nor is he a journalist. So, there is absolutely no basis for him to be audio recording these proceedings. In fact, to do so, without prior authorization of Your Worship, is an offence under the Courts of Justice Act. So, I would simply instruct the court or request that the court instruct him to cease and desist all attempts at recording these proceedings and certainly put him on notice that if he records in the future or attempts to record in the future he may be charged under the Courts of Justice Act. He may, in fact, be charged under that legislation for his attempts today because he did so without prior authorization of Your Worship, So, that is my response in relation to the first area. I will return that you, sir, thank you.
MR. WHARTON: Can I just interject real quick? Can I get your name? Sorry, I didn't get your name.
MR. SIGURDSON: And, actually, I'm just going to finish my submissions and then we'll deal with that ...
MR. WHARTON: Okay, sure.
MR. SIGURDSON: ... in a minute. The second point is in relation to disclosure. He has a right to review the disclosure at the Crown Attorney's office. This disclosure is sensitive, so you would need to contact the office and make an appointment to review that disclosure. It is not going to be provided to him in a written format in this particular case.
THE COURT: So, Mr. Wharton, the first order ...
MR. WHARTON: Can I just ask his name, sorry I didn't ... so that I know when to get disclosure and stuff. You're dealing with this matter as Crown counsel, right?
THE COURT: Mr. Wharton ...
MR. WHARTON: Yes.
THE COURT: ... he is the Crown prosecutor. The name is irrelevant at this point.
MR. WHARTON: Okay.
THE COURT: Let's go back to the recording issue because I want you to be absolutely clear on this. There will be no recording ...
MR. WHARTON: Okay.
THE COURT: ... even had you asked for it in advance there would have been no recording. If you want a transcript of the proceedings that's why this talented lady is here.
MR. WHARTON: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHARTON: May I just make one more submission to that effect without trying to change your mind?
THE COURT: Why not.
MR. WHARTON: It says here that the sole purpose of supplementing handwritten notes may be considered as having being approved without application to the judge. It says that it has been approved without it being an oral written application to the presiding judge. That's what this document says. I can underline that. So, anyway, I'm not ... I just wanted to specify. If you don't want me to record I won't record, but I'm not doing this in bad faith or trying to deceive. I laid this on top of the authorization that I'm reading this, it says it is deemed approved, so.
THE COURT: I'm sure the Crown will take that into consideration.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. So, I just wanted to make sure
THE COURT: That is the ruling for the jurisdiction of this court.
MR. WHARTON: Fine. I just wanted to make sure that I'm coming forward in good hands and ...
THE COURT: Now, as to the issue of disclosure ...
MR. WHARTON: Right.
THE COURT: I don't know the details of this matter. However, there appears to be some sensitivity related to it.
MR. WHARTON: Yes.
THE COURT: The Crown has indicated that Mr. Wywrot or his representative would have to go to the Crown's office having made an appointment first, in order to review the disclosure since they're not prepared to provide it totally without that attendance at their office ...
MR. WHARTON: Okay.
THE COURT: ... because of the sensitivity. So, my questions to you is, when, since you're going to represent Mr. Wywrot I assume, when would Mr. Wywrot likely be able to attend the Crown's office?
MR. WHARTON: Um, can I just - We can do that this week. Can I just get a clarification on where that office is because there seems to be two different offices? When we were putting in a motion to the court they said that there's two different offices.
THE COURT: It's over on Silver Street.
MR. WHARTON: Silver Street.
THE COURT: The other courthouse complex.
MR. WHARTON: Um, when would it suit the Crown to make that available or I'm not sure of the court days or what ...
THE COURT: I think you actually just have to phone the administrative person there and they sort of timetable you in.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. I believe that later this week shouldn't be a problem.
THE COURT: Okay. So, if that's in fact the case
MR. WHARTON: May I just reiterate? I'm supposed to call there and make an appointment and then come down?
THE COURT: They'll give you a time and place, yes.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. So, I will make the call this week, obviously I can't speak to when they ...
THE COURT: Fair enough. So, that then brings us to the purpose of this court, which was to first of all make sure you get disclosure and secondly, set a date when you can come back and we could set this matter for trial or resolution discussions.
MR. WHARTON: Correct.
THE COURT: So, how much time would you anticipate that would require? Typically it's about two weeks from first appearance.
MR. WHARTON: I would suggest two weeks from when we get disclosure. So, assuming we get disclosure this or next week, three weeks, four weeks, does that seem reasonable?
THE COURT: Three weeks reasonable?
MR. SIGURDSON: Three weeks is fine, sir. I don't have a problem with that.
THE COURT: That would make it the 21st of August.
MR. WHARTON: 21st of August. And then, may I ask one more question or are ...
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. So, this motion that we put forward of the constitutionality that we want to discuss, is that something that will or won't be heard in this courtroom?
THE COURT: It won't be heard in this courtroom. It will be heard before - If the matter goes to trial it will be heard before the trier of fact.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. So, that's part of this proceeding but not in this courtroom. Is that correct?
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. WHARTON: That would be still part of this proceeding but not in this courtroom. Is that correct?
THE COURT: And not before this justice.
MR. WHARTON: So, we're gonna determine if it goes to trial. If it goes to trial then we would hear this matter in another courtroom?
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. That clarifies it. Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Any further questions?
MR. WHARTON: Um, not at this time. I'm just waiting for disclosure before I make any further submissions I guess.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHARTON: Um, when you said we come back in three weeks, what are we expecting to do in three weeks then, just ...
THE COURT: I would expect in three weeks you would have a position as to whether or not you wish to go to trial or whether or not you've already initiated resolution discussions with the assigned Crown.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Sigurdson, any ...
MR. SIGURDSON: I have one question from the Crown's perspective. Where is Mr. James Wywrot? I appreciate that this individual is appearing reportedly as his agent today, but part of what the court may wish to inquire into is the whereabouts of James Wywrot.
THE COURT: Perhaps you can shed some light on that, sir.
MR. WHARTON: Yeah. I have a couple submissions here.
THE COURT: Have you shared this with the Crown?
MR. WHARTON: Yes.
MR. SIGURDSON: Thank you.
MR. WHARTON: This is part of when we did the request for disclosure. A lot of this information was sent. The Vital Statistics Act authorized the admission of these documents to be placed in any court of ... any court of the facts so stated and so we wanted to submit these documents into the court record as to evidence that the name James R. Wywrot is property of the Ontario Government and the corporation ...
THE COURT: I'm sorry, say that again.
MR. WHARTON: The name James R. Wywrot has been registered to the Ontario Government and is one of their properties and that matter is to who the owner of that property is has already been adjudicated in a court of law and is on file in down in the U.S. district court. And so, when you, for example, go to a bank to make a deposit the bank becomes a legal trustee of the ... of the documents of the cheque or whatever ...
THE COURT: MR. Wharton.
MR. WHARTON: ... and you become a beneficiary thereof.
THE COURT: Slow down.
MR. WHARTON: Sure.
THE COURT: I'm not real smart about these things, but I just want to know where Mr. Wywrot is.
MR. WHARTON: Well, that is what I'm attempting to explain. Maybe not doing it very eloquently, but I'm trying to explain the fact that the name is the property of the Ontario Government.
THE COURT: Let me reword this. We just want to physically find Mr. Wywrot.
MR. WHARTON: According to the documents that you have before you, it would be on file with the Department of Vital Statistics, so on file and maintained by them.
MR. SIGURDSON: My whole point, Your Worship, is I'm just relying on s.800(2) of the Code that says a defendant may appear personally or by counsel or agent but the summary conviction court may require the defendant to appear personally and may, if it thinks fit, issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. So, that's why I'm inquiring as to the whereabouts of this individual because at some point in time the Crown may bring an application for a warrant if this individual does not appear before this honourable court. I'm relying on the authority of s.800(2).
MR. WHARTON: In order to speak to that, sir, that - The Criminal Code also in section 2, the definition clearly - May I just read that section again, sir?
MR. SIGURDSON: Yes. I'm looking at 800(2).
MR. WHARTON: Okay. Basically, it's referring to anyone who's liable under the Criminal Code and the Criminal Code refers to everyone, person ... similar expressions include Her Majesty and an organization and that was the point of the documents here before you, is that the man that was pulled over and given these documents is not Her Majesty and is not an organization. And so, when the Criminal Code applies to these sections, that was part of the constitutional issues that we want to present to this court case. Obviously we're not here to discuss that today, but it's our position that the documents are registered to the Ontario Government, which happens to be Her Majesty as you can see by the flag here and Her Majesty is the one that's holding those documents in trust, on file and maintained by the Office of the ... General. Now, the man that was served the documents and who feels that he was criminally assaulted in this matter is here.
THE COURT: Is here?
MR. WHARTON: Is here.
THE COURT: Where?
MR. WHARTON: But he does not consent to be titled Mr. Wywrot.
THE COURT: Okay, I think I'm getting the picture now.
MR. WHARTON: Sure.
THE COURT: That gentleman who you've pointed to in the white shirt, you've identified as Mr. Wywrot, but he doesn't consent to being identified as ...
MR. WHARTON: No, I didn't identify him at all, sir.
THE COURT: Well, I asked you where and you pointed at him.
MR. WHARTON: I said the man that received the documents is here, not Mr. Wywrot.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHARTON: Mr. Wywrot, I believe, is evidence before you.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WHARTON: Can I give you one more quick analogy that might clarify it? This gentleman here has a Criminal Code book and he also has a notepad and a pen. Those documents and the notepad were given to him, they're probably the property of the Ontario Government, he has the right to use them, he has a right to use the pen. He is not the pen, he is not the notepad, he is not ...
THE COURT: That's a terrible analogy. That's really confusing me even further.
MR. WHARTON: So, the name that you're looking for is on file with the Ontario Government. This gentleman has the right to use it at times. The name change (sic) Act means ... says, clearly states he does not need to be recognized by that if he chooses not to be recognized that (sic). He has the right to use it just like this gentleman has the right to use the pen, that's the property of the Ontario Government. It doesn't make him the owner, it doesn't make him Mr. Wywrot, it doesn't make this gentleman the pen.
THE COURT: Okay, hold that thought.
MR. WHARTON: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Sigurdson, are you seeking the attendance of Mr. Wywrot in the immediate?
MR. SIGURDSON: Yes I am, sir.
THE COURT: You see, this puts us in a really awkward position.
MR. WHARTON: I understand exactly where it puts you, sir, and this is the problem that we face when this gentleman has certain rights and beliefs and he has the right protected by the Charter of his beliefs and that Charter is represented here today by the emblem behind you and what's gonna happen next is that somebody ... well, what could happen next is several different things. But, one possible outcome is that he's gonna have to come up here under duress and consent to being Mr. Wywrot to make sure that his rights and freedoms aren't infringed any further, which is why we have the constitutional challenge before you, obviously not hearing it today, but that's why we prepared it to determine exactly who he is. And, we already have adjudication with the Ontario Government as to the holder of the name is and who Mr. Wywrot is. That's already been established and it's already in the court record. So, that puts us in a position that what do we do when we sit there and we have rights that are protected by the constitution and everybody here's got guns and sticks and clubs and cop cars and arrests and bullpens and everything else and what do we do? We wait until after our rights are violated, then we step forward and then we try to undo the irreparable harm that was done by confessing to be that name under duress and I don't think that's fair to be honest with you.
THE COURT: Well, you see, the respect for the rule of law makes us a democracy. Whether we agree with it or not really is somewhat academic and until parliament changes the law we are all obliged to respect it. So, I'll tell you what, I'm going to have the court clerk page that name ...
MR. WHARTON: M'hmm.
THE COURT: ... and we'll page it a couple of times, in fact I'll even give you five minutes if you want to discuss any issues privately with whomever may be in the court or not in the court.
MR. WHARTON: Yes.
THE COURT: But, the problem is if that person doesn't appear, Mr. Sigurdson, as his duty requires him to, is going to ask for a warrant for his arrest. I, then, will order the warrant for the arrest ...
MR. WHARTON: Right.
THE COURT: And as you pointed out, the place is crawling with cops and guns and cars and everything else, and I'm thinking that Mr. Wywrot will become a guest of Her Majesty.
MR. WHARTON: And so, you mentioned that you have the duty to respect the rule of law, is that correct?
THE COURT: I do.
MR. WHARTON: Then the question is, if the law states that that name is maintained by Her Majesty and that her matter is already been adjudicated and it's already in a U.S. district Superior Court position, then how do we get ... how do we deal with this matter until the matter's adjudicated before a trial judge? How do we deal with that?
THE COURT: Well, the first thing we do is we forget about American law because it has no application to this province.
MR. WHARTON: Right. This isn't American law, this was done in Canada under ... it was just used as a U.S. witness.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WHARTON: Right.
THE COURT: So, what I suggest is we have a little recess, as I said, the name will be paged and then we'll go forward from there.
MR. WHARTON: Can I interrupt you for 30 seconds?
THE COURT: If it's the last 30 seconds, okay.
MR. WHARTON: Yes.
2 Do you just want to consent because they're obviously gonna proceed no matter what we do. Are you going to come forward under duress because they're gonna do it anyway.
MR. WYWROT: Okay.
MR. WHARTON: Then, in order to save time for the court, it would make uh, your life easier and to save time for the court, obviously, someone has something they'd like to share with the court under duress.
THE COURT: Sir, could you identify yourself?
MR. WYWROT: My biological parents gave me the name James, I'm of the family Wywrot and this is the foundational document that supports exactly what I said. For and on the record, I'm holding up the statement of live birth and I would like to continue.
MR. WHARTON: If you're here under duress just say it on the record and let's just get the court ...
MR. WYWROT: On and for the record, I'm here under duress. On and for the record, I claim - On and for the record I'm here under special appearance as a living man in common law ...
THE COURT: I'm sorry, as a what?
MR. WYWROT: I'm here under special appearance as a living man under common law with all inherent rights and I claim your oath of office, Your Honour, and I bind you to it. And having said that, I'm ...
THE COURT: What's your date ...
MR. WYWROT: ... reminding you that you ...
THE COURT: What's your date of birth, sir?
MR. WYWROT: Excuse - I'm reminding you - Let me finish. I'm reminding you that you have a fiduciary duty to protect me and my inherent rights.
THE COURT: What's your date of birth?
MR. WYWROT: Your Honour, I have to stay in honour. I have no first-hand knowledge of that. Anything I bring forth would be hearsay. I have to stay in honour.
THE COURT: On the statement of birth, which you're representative has provided to the court, there is a James Ronald Wywrot. So, is that you, sir?
MR. WYWROT: My name, as I repeated earlier, I'll repeat it again. My name, given by my biological parents, is James, I'm of the family Wywrot.
THE COURT: Well, James of the family Wywrot, we're going to have a recess. You talk to your representative, but I'm warning you right now the inside of Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre is coming closer and closer to you. Now, I can tell you ... I can guaran-friggin-tee you will not find that a pleasant experience.
3 Let's have a recess, Madam Clerk.
Recess
Upon Resuming:
4
MR. SIGURDSON: Sir, if we might be able to recall the matter of James Wywrot please? Mr. Wywrot.
CLERK OF THE COURT: James Wywrot matter in courtroom two.
THE COURT: Mr. Wywrot, would you come forward there?
MR. WHARTON: Sir, may I just ask a question of clarification on something I seen when I left?
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. WHARTON: Um, when I was leaving, like you're obviously the judge here today and ...
THE COURT: Justice of the Peace, actually.
MR. WHARTON: Justice of the Peace, sorry.
THE COURT: There's a distinction to be made there.
MR. WHARTON: Right. And you're obviously here under the ... appointed by the constitution of Canada and all stuff, right?
THE COURT: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
MR. WHARTON: You're obviously appointed under the constitution of Canada and acting, right?
THE COURT: Actually it's the Lieutenant Governor, excuse me, the Queen, but let's not be technical about this.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. Um, and if there's a conflict of interest here today what would that do to the proceedings?
THE COURT: Well, is there a conflict of interest here?
MR. WHARTON: Well, I just noticed that when you were getting up everybody was bowing to you. So, I'm not quite sure, what does that mean?
THE COURT: Well, this is really probably not the time for a lesson in civics ...
MR. WHARTON: Right.
THE COURT: ... but it goes back to the rule of law, respect for the court.
MR. WHARTON: Are they not officers of the court then?
THE COURT: They also respect the bench. Not necessarily the individual on the bench, this being the bench.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. Right.
THE COURT: You'll notice that they do that with the judges too.
MR. WHARTON: Yes. Okay.
THE COURT: So, where's the conflict?
MR. WHARTON: So, I was just wondering, were they bowing to you or to the bench then?
THE COURT: They were bowing to the bench.
MR. WHARTON: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
THE COURT: No problem. So, where were we? Mr. Wywrot, yes?
MR. WHARTON: This gentleman would like to make a statement if that's okay.
THE COURT: Why not.
MR. WYWROT: First of all, I would like to say on and for the record I reclaim all the claims already on the record and under the threats made before recess. I consent to being James Wywrot under duress, further violations of my rights by the court and its agents.
THE COURT: So, for the record, sir, you are James Wywrot?
MR. WYWROT: Can I repeat what I said? On and for the record, I reclaim all the claims already on the record and under the threats made before recess. 1 consent to being James Wywrot under duress of further violations of my rights by the court and its agents.
THE COURT: Could you confirm your date of birth?
MR. WYWROT: Your Honour, I have to stay in honour. I have no first-hand knowledge of when I was born. It would be purely hearsay and it would be inadmissible and I would be in dishonour if I gave something that I thought was incorrect or not a falsehood. I have no first-hand knowledge of that, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Mr. Sigurdson, we seem to be at a bit of a crossroads here. Are you satisfied on the basis of the statement that this individual has made that he is James Wywrot in the absence of a date of birth? And, if you're not satisfied with that is it your position that James Wywrot has failed to attend court?
MR. SIGURDSON: It's for the court to determine whether or not Mr. Wywrot has sufficiently identified himself and typically the procedure that's used, as Your Worship knows so well, is individuals are required to identify themselves by name and also be providing a date of birth that corresponds to the court record and in this case somewhat of a jumbled name has been provided by Mr. Wywrot. We have not received a date of birth. So, it would appear as though one of the two steps that are typically fulfilled has not ...
MR. WHARTON: Well ...
MR. SIGURDSON: If you could just let me finish, please, sir. Thank you very much. ... has not been satisfied in this case. So, I would suggest that he has not properly identified himself.
MR. WHARTON: I would like to ask something, Your Honour. What is the Crown relying on to say that these are the things required to identify one self, that the name and date of birth - Where was that coming from? What law is that being quoted?
THE COURT: That's standard criminal procedure, sir. All of the criminal documents, like the information that is before me, has a date of birth for James Wywrot.
MR. WHARTON: Correct, but he was just saying that this is how it's done and I just wonder what legal precedent or what law he's relying on to make that statement or is that just arbitrary ...
THE COURT: He's relying on standard criminal procedure.
MR. WHARTON: So, there's no actual law, he's just saying that's what you normally do? Okay. Well then I can testify, sir, that the document that you have before you that I evidenced as being held by the Ontario Government, shows that June 21st, 1958 shows as the date of birth being held by the Ontario Government for James R. Wywrot.
THE COURT: Perfect. Now, if Mr. Wywrot would just confirm that then we can all move on.
MR. WYWROT: I will confirm that on and for the record it does say on this statement of a live birth, filled out by my mother, that June 21st, 1958 is supposedly the date that I was born, but again, on and for the record I have no first-hand knowledge and have your ... wish to remain in honour. So, if this is good enough for the Province of Ontario, I'm sure it's ... I'm sure it's good enough here. I have no first-hand knowledge though. I can't ... I cannot tell a lie.
THE COURT: Mr. Wharton, I wonder if you'd have a seat in the body of the court.
MR. WHARTON: Sorry?
THE COURT: Have a seat in the body of the court. Mr. Wywrot, I wonder if you ...
MR. WYWROT: At least if you could call me - I don't see the name Mr. Wywrot, it just says Wywrot. Could you call me James, if that's okay? Thank you.
THE COURT: James, I wonder if you'd give that folder to your counsel, Mr. Wharton. And the folder you have as well.
MR. WYWROT: Okay, it's - Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Sergeant, I'm instructing you to take this man into custody.
MR. WYWROT: I do not consent. I do not consent.
MR. SIGURDSON: Did you want to finish off your matters, Mr. VanMeppelen? I apologize for the delay.
5 ... WYWROT MATTER STOOD DOWN
MR. GLOVER: Mr. Wywrot. Thank you.
6 Mr. Wywrot is before the court, sir. I've spoken to him as duty counsel. I was not in court -Please have a seat. I was not in court when he was committed to custody, but I would offer my assistance. I understand that he was committed to custody by Your Worship. My understanding, perhaps it was for a form of contempt ...
THE COURT: No.
MR. GLOVER: ... to Your Honour's ...
THE COURT: It was a question of identity.
MR. GLOVER: Yes, sir. Mr. Wywrot has confirmed to me that the name that appears on the statement of live birth was the name that he was born to and from the sounds of it he has certain issues with the use of the name, but he accepts that that's his family name and the name that his parents gave him. I also asked him his birth date to help with identification and he did follow an old school or theory of law that - Historically a person is not able to testify as to their birth date because they did not have personal knowledge of it. The Government of Ontario or maybe it's the Federal Government amended that perhaps in the Interpretation Act, I'm going from memory, to confirm that a person can identify themselves with their own birth date even though it's a matter of hearsay, something they would have been told by their mother. Perhaps it's that Mr. Wywrot is not familiar with the fact that legislation has been amended to assist people on this question. But, he does accept that the birth date that appears on the statement of live birth is historically the birth date that's always been attributed to him. Does that help in any way, sir? I didn't get to the point of asking him whether he'd be prepared to address the court on that issue before being called into court. Would Your Worship care to hear from him directly?
THE COURT: I must have done something to offend you, Mr. Glover. No, certainly. If he wishes to participate in the presumptively open process here, fair enough.
MR. GLOVER: From in custody, sir?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GLOVER: Stay right there.
MR. WYWROT: First of all I would like to beg my forgiveness to you, Your Honour, and to the bench. I have the utmost respect for everybody who works here. In fact, as a matter of fact I was commissioned to write a piece to the Toronto Star about ...
MR. GLOVER: Okay, so ...
MR. WYWROT: So, I just want to say I have the utmost respect for everybody here. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. So, I just wanted to ...
MR. GLOVER: Mr. Wywrot. I did not ask whether you should speak in order to give you an open floor.
MR. WYWROT: Okay. I just wanted to forgive, that's all.
MR. GLOVER: But I would ask you, are you prepared to identify yourself by the name and birth date that you have historically been given?
MR. WYWROT: This is the statement of live birth.
MR. GLOVER: What is your name, sir?
MR. WYWROT: My name?
MR. GLOVER: Yes.
MR. WYWROT: According to the statement of live birth it's Wywrot, Ronald James. I prefer to call myself James.
MR. GLOVER: And does that form of identification relate to you personally?
MR. WYWROT: Well, it depends on the word identification. If identification means the same, I'm a living man and this is a piece of paper, but ... but I don't understand the question.
MR. GLOVER: In that case let me know that you don't understand the question.
MR. WYWROT: Okay.
MR. GLOVER: Does this document relate to you, give information as to your birth?
MR. WYWROT: At the time of birth I weighed nine pounds, eight ounces and all this information is correct, my mother and father.
MR. GLOVER: Yes. So, does this document relate to you in particular?
MR. WYWROT: Yes.
MR. GLOVER: Okay. And what birth date does the document indicate that you have?
MR. WYWROT: The birth date is, I'm going to read it, June 21st, 1958.
MR. GLOVER: Are you satisfied, following discussion with your own parents, that that birth date is accurate?
MR. WYWROT: I celebrate my birthday on June 21st, 1958.
MR. GLOVER: All right. Is that sufficient, sir?
THE COURT: That's certainly more refreshing. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Mr. Sigurdson, any comment?
MR. SIGURDSON: Nothing further from the Crown, sir. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Wywrot, you may be released to the body of the court. If I can give you some advice, sir ...
MR. WYWROT: Yes.
THE COURT: Whatever social allegiance you have to a movement, so called movement known as Freeman of the Land, I have to advise you that the courts are taking an increasingly dim view of that organization.
MR. WYWROT: And here so, also.
THE COURT: And the beliefs that support that organization.
MR. WYWROT: And here so too, Your Honour. On and for the record, please, I want to note that I'm not affiliated with Freeman of the Land, anything like that. I want that on the record, please.
MR. SIGURDSON: And the only comment I would make, Your Worship, is simply that Mr. Wywrot be advised that on future court appearances, part of the requirements of appearing before this honourable court are to properly identify himself by name and properly identify himself by way of date of birth. So, this process that was utilized today to get to that ultimate end is not going to be available to him on future appearances. He needs to be cooperative in that respect.
THE COURT: All right. So, is that message clear, Mr. Wywrot?
MR. WYWROT: Um, I've heard it, yes. I hear what he's saying.
THE COURT: Okay. So, you can be released to the body of the court. I see your agent is also present. You need to come up with a future court date to bring this matter back.
MR. SIGURDSON: I'm suggesting the 21st of August, sir, 9:00 in courtroom two and that was what was being proposed before Mr. Wywrot was brought into custody.
THE COURT: For disclosure?
MR. WYWROT: I think the 21st may be a problem. Can we make it a couple more days later?
THE COURT: How about the 28th?
MR. WYWROT: That would be okay.
THE COURT: That gives you four weeks plus. So, the 28th of August we'll see you back in court.
MR. GLOVER: Thank you, Your Worship.
MR. SIGURDSON: Thank you.
