JAG/RAG: Teacher, Pothead, Traveller & Psychiatric Patient

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Have an unusual one:

• JAG (Re), 2014 CanLII 32619 (ON CCB): http://canlii.ca/t/g7kbm

The “ON CCB” is the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board. This is a tribunal that hears disputes where a mental health physician and patient disagree about treatment. What this usually means is that a physician wants to administer some form of drug treatment, and the patient says no.

And that’s what happened here. JAG (also know as RAG) has been diagnosed by his treating physician, a Dr. Arthur Keith, as delusional, and requiring treatment by anti-psychotic medication. Alternatively, Dr. Keith commented there is a “small but definite prospect” the JAG is not delusional but instead is subject to “oppositional defiant disorder”. The latter activity would not benefit from anti-psychotic medication.

So what are we talking about here?

It seemed clear to Dr. Keith that the beliefs JAG held, which were similar to beliefs of Freeman on the Land, had been an important factor in JAG’s behaviour which had caused him to come in contact with the criminal justice system. Sometime prior to his hospitalization JAG had been charged with cannabis offences, driving without a licence or insurance, causing a disturbance, and failure to attend court. The doctor recounted in second or third hand fashion an encounter between the police and JAG relating to auto insurance. JAG apparently indicated that he was exempt from the insurance requirement. His reported explanation, bizarre to most ears, had something to do with $1 billion in silver bullion being sent to an Ontario Minister of the Crown, which protected JAG from all liability.

Oh yeah, we’re familiar with that.

Dr. Keith had acquainted himself with OPCA-type beliefs (here identified as “Freeman on the Land” ideas) via Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, and concluded JAG had analogous beliefs even though he did not self-identify as a Freeman-on-the-Land.

The decision also provides some context. JAG is in involuntary psychiatric treatment following “a criminal justice process.” He’d been held in that state for six months, and showed no sign of improvement. His detention was reviewed on March 20, 2014 by the Ontario Review Board which confirmed that JAG should be held in hospital involuntarily. The reason for detention was clearly a typical ‘Freeman travelling’ scenario. The Review Board appears to have classified JAG as a threat to the public.

JAG is 50 years old, a former school teacher and principal with a masters degree level education. He is currently on long-term disability via government support. This probably relates to chronic pain or injury, since Dr. Keith identifies JAG as having “Cannabis Dependence, Nicotine Dependence, and a Pain Disorder.”

It seems JAG and Dr. Keith (and other facility) staff did not get along. JAG rejected the therapy because of its side effects: “a chemical lobotomy.” JAG preferred treatment by Naturopathy (naturally!) and Psychotherapy. JAG preferred to stay in hospital than have his mental state affected by drugs.

The test on whether a patient can reject therapy is from a Supreme Court of Canada judgment called Starson v. Swayze, 2003 SCC 32, [2003] 1 SCR 722 (http://canlii.ca/t/1g6p9), which in essence indicates that if a patient understands the consequences of a proposed treatment (or non-treatment) then the patient decides whether or not that treatment should occur. Only in very limited cases can treatment therefore be imposed on a patient. It doesn’t matter if the patient’s choice is an obviously poor one, he or she is in control of their therapy unless the patient’s choice is irrational.

[As a brief aside, this is a classic Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms type case where state intervention is subordinated to personal rights and integrity. I could go on at length on the wisdom of this approach – but I suspect that would get a little annoying.]

In the case of JAG he clearly had OPCA-type beliefs. However, the hearing officer did not evaluate whether those beliefs were “delusional”:

… On a few occasions his statements (both at the hearing and reported at the hearing about incidents in the community) match theoretical constructs espoused by Freeman of the Land types. Whether it is appropriate to label the beliefs underlying those statements as “delusional” in a psychiatric sense, I cannot say.

Instead, the hearing officer concluded that JAG was aware of the risks and benefits of the proposed drug treatment. It was therefore his choice to choose or reject that therapy:

The evidence of JAG established that he had a clear appreciation on one possible consequence of refusing the recommended treatment. When the patient testified that “having an undrugged brain is worth giving up my bodily freedom” it demonstrated that JAG was alert to the prospect that refusing anti-psychotic medication might mean he would languish in the hospital involuntarily for a longer period than otherwise. This brings to mind another comment from the Starson case by Justice Major at paragraph 62:

In any event, Professor Starson made it clear that he would rather remain in custody and take his chances with the Review Board than take the proposed medication. While the Board may not agree with the wisdom of that position, it is not one that is so irrational that it can reasonably be said to be evidence of incapacity.

.

This is an interesting little decision for a number of reasons. First, it confirms that persons with OPCA beliefs are being diverted into the mental health apparatus. That has been previously documented in an professional psychiatric journal article from a pair of Canadian doctors:

• Jennifer Pytyck and Gary A. Chaimowitz, “The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial” (2013) International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12:2, p 149-153

Their conclusion was that OPCA-type beliefs are a form of extreme political belief fostered and reinforced by membership in deviant subgroups. These people sound psychotic because of their belief in absurd concepts and false history; they mimic psychotic behavior.

Second, JAG shows a classic OPCA-type personal profile: educated person, on state support, marijuana user, in conflict with authorities. It’s pretty unusual for someone to be institutionalized for this length of time so JAG must have engaged in some pretty over-the-top conduct. I’m going to try to track down the Ontario Review Board decision mentioned to see what occurred that led to this individual as being classified as a public threat who required detention.

And there’s that interesting, perhaps philosophical question: at what point does irrational or extreme belief become insanity that requires treatment? In many senses OPCA-type beliefs could be re-framed as analogous to religion, they require absolute belief in the primacy of certain texts, continued conduct in the face of public rejection and personal failure, these concepts are propagated by persons of elevated status whose personal failings are secondary to their perceived importance to the cause – the list goes on.

I suppose in a certain sense that is all secondary to the simple fact that if these beliefs lead to illegal conduct then state and court response is to intervene to halt and control that misconduct. Whatever the OPCA litigant believes is immaterial. Except where it leads to a harsher sentencing response due to continued rejection of government authority.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I have identified J.A.G./R.A.G., and the results are a little surprising. The trick, incidentally, was to look up decisions of the Ontario Review Board on the date indicated in the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board hearing – there were only a couple so it was easy to narrow down the person in question. The Ontario Review Board decision does not provide any particularly interesting data other than our subject, Joseph-Andre-Robin Fortin-Girard, was found not guilty of certain offences due to mental incapacity. That has led to him being subject to indefinite detention in mental health facilities until he is ‘better’.

The name led to a number of interesting places. First we have a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal:

• Fortin-Girard v. Monteith Correctional Facility, 2013 HRTO 1748: http://canlii.ca/t/g1lc7

This is a complaint against various police officers, a judge, court officials, and employees of prison facilities. Joe’s complaint is summarized in this manner:

[3] The Application arises out of the applicant’s interactions with several police officers/constables, a judge, various individuals associated with the courts, a correctional facility and other individuals following his release from the correctional facility. The applicant states that the last event is inside of one year but is “part of a continuous fictional construct prejudice to Our rights initiated by the ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE on the nineteenth day of May 2003”.

[4] The applicant alleges that he was refused “doctor-approved [2000] A.D.] Natural symbiotic Medication” (which based on the Application appears to be cannabis) from November 24, 2011 to January 24, 2012 by “the unconsented corporate services of the Ontario Provincial Police, of the Timmins Provincial Courts, of the Monteith Facility, of the town of Newmarket and of the Riopel Group of Lawyer (Crown)…”. Among other things, the applicant alleges that he was “captured” under a fraudulent name; that he was refused “Fragrant-cane medication” by Dr. Ching (a physician on duty at the Monteith correctional facility); and that Ms. Whissell, (whose role is not defined) intervened “in our family against our patriarch wishes with an unlawful power of attorney” and took without permission a briefcase containing various items that are particularized.

[5] The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of citizenship, disability and creed in the social areas of services, contracts and housing. The allegations based on citizenship appear to relate to the applicant’s “capture” and imprisonment under what he asserts is the false name of “Joseph Robin Girard”; the allegations based on disability and creed appear to stem from the applicant being refused “natural medication” (i.e. cannabis) or otherwise being treated in a manner which is inconsistent with his religious beliefs. In identifying his creed, among other things, the applicant identifies the Church of the Universe.

Lots of familiar motifs – however the surprise is Girard's self-identification with the Church of the Universe (http://www.iamm.com/) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Universe).This is a ‘pot church’ run by Walter Tucker and Michael Baldasaro since the 1960s. It’s basic tenant is that marijuana is sacred – let’s get naked and stoned. (Filthy hippies.) The Church and its dynamic duo have a massive litigation history which, while interesting, does not usually seem relevant to the typical OPCA scenario. Tucker and Baldasaro persistently advanced claims that marijuana use is a protected religious activity.

That said, Tucker and Baldasaro are linked to the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International and “minister” Belanger (viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9261). I have seen Belanger/CERI documents that mention and are cc’ed to the Church of the Universe. Girard’s beliefs are my first indication that the Church of the Universe may have on a broader level adopted OPCA concepts – this is an aspect of that organization which I have not explored in any depth.

Back to the Human Rights Commission complaint – there’s no question that Girard has adopted OPCA concepts. A few more excerpts from the decision:

[18] The applicant alleges that there was a “defacto court” in 2009 (alleging that the wearing of a black robe was against the applicant’s religious beliefs); that the respondent admits to being liable for a bill; that the respondent refused to accept “our” appointment of fiduciary agent for the charge; that the respondent made certain statements (stating the matters for [robin girard] are settled); and that this respondent tries to identify “us” by a particular name. The applicant also refers to other incidents that appear to stem from the respondent’s role as a judge in the court proceeding.

…

[27] The applicant alleges that on November 22, 2011, Ms. Hurtubise (whose precise role is not described) ignored the returned summons and the fact that “we” were present in the de facto court. The applicant alleges that the false certificate is “responsible for” the applicant’s abduction and subsequent events including public agents trespassing “on property and SUZANNE WHISSELL dishonouring our trust in our ecclesiastical duty to honour father as claimed”. The applicant alleges this is discriminatory because false information was entered (which I presume is the entering of information that the applicant was not present in the court) which is “preventing medication” and the public servant functioned against his religious belief “in a ritual to Baal enabling the creation of a prison bond”.

…

[39] The description of what happened includes that “revenue agents” gave “us” an offence notice which is returned for improper presentation to “our private name that they do not own” and that the information was given under duress with coercion; intercourse with servants is without consent but with protest; bill is refused for cause as original copy is refused; cannot produce order that “we are trespassing” and “she” states without claim that “we were told”; and no one told “us” and no one has the authority to prevent “our” visit with father. The applicant alleges that these incident(s) are discriminatory because Ms. Black is obstructing “our honouring of our father” and this is against “our religious beliefs and commandment of God”.

…

[50] The further submission of the applicant repeats some of these allegations and adds that Ms. Whissell removed a “Sovereign Soil” sign on claimed land with “father’s permission” and did not book certain medical or dental appointments for the applicant’s father. The submission also describes Mr. Whissell as acting as agent for Ms. Whissell and threatening the applicant by sending police services (although where is not specified) which the applicant views as refusing to establish communication and consultation “as statue” by the “Substitute Decision Act”.

…

[74] The applicant also alleges that during his “unlawful capture” during the period, November 2011 to January 2012, Margaret Haskins, the superintendent, refused “multiple attempts at communications with dishonour”. The applicant explains this is discriminatory because:

No prescribed medication given. Prevented from our God given cure. Interfered in a natural process by omission of duty. Not able to function naturally behind the bar for proper and just presentation. Held captive under a false never seen commercial construct of JOSEPH ROBIN constructed with fraud and without consent, knowledge and understanding.

[75] The applicant makes similarly vague and confusing allegations against the respondent Roger Graham, the deputy superintendent. In the Application, the applicant alleges that Roger Graham refused “natural medication”. In his subsequent submissions, the applicant repeats that Mr. Graham refused many “notices” (without describing what the notices were about) and questioned “us” toward “our King’s edict to bring us a magistrate” and the reasons for demanding the name of the nurse and guard escorting us to the medical doctor. The applicant states, again in his own words, that this is “prejudice” to our beliefs and to “our man made chronic condition”.

Girard's allegations are an interesting mix of OPCA motifs and 'gimme pot - pot is sacred'.

Unsurprisingly the complaint was dismissed on a preliminary step without further investigation. This is the best source I have identified to this point on Girard's beliefs and interests.

A second decision that involves Girard is a Ontario Labour Review Board complaint (Girard v. ADFO, 2004 CanLII 3049 (ON LRB) (http://canlii.ca/t/1hhds) which confirms his employment as a school principal. Otherwise this is of little interest.

Mr. Girard has been the subject of some media reports. In 2010 he (as Robin Girard) was busted for operating a marijuana grow-op (http://www.timminstimes.com/2010/06/03/ ... ma-grow-op) in Gogama, Ontario. He was charged with possession and production of marijuana per the Controlled Drug and Substances Act. I did not locate any report or judgment which indicates whether Girard was later convicted.

The incident which appears to have led to Girard’s ongoing detention is, unsurprisingly, that good ol' OPCA standby - “travelling” (http://www.timminspress.com/2013/06/10/ ... for-police) (http://www.thealgomanews.ca/news/region ... -driver-4/). Girard was stopped by police and a “physical confrontation took place”. Girard was charged with driving while suspended, “using an altered plate”, failure to stop for police, driving without insurance, and obstructing police.

I think at some point I’ll try to dig further into the Church of the Universe and its ‘legalish’ beliefs. (Or someone else can – from my exposure it’s a quirky organization!)

In the meantime, Girard sits in a mental health facility until he is ‘cured’. It would be interesting to know more about just what occurred that caused Girard to be placed in that kind of scenario. ‘Not guilty due to insanity’ outcomes are pretty rare in Canada, so it seems there may be more of a story than has emerged to date.

SMS Möwe

[Fmotlgroupie]

The only odd thing I get out of that is that he used to be a school principal! I suspect that he may have a compelling personal history of being normal, followed by an event (traumatic injury like Lance Thatcher, or the onset of schizophrenia), and then the descent into Freemanry.