Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Moderator: Burnaby49

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:32 am

A new and very interesting judgment has issued from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench:


The judge is A.C.J. Rooke. I am beginning to suspect he is assigning himself cases in this subject area.

There are many interesting aspects to this relatively brief decision. The overall scenario is, in many ways, rather straight forward. Two persons were in a motor vehicle, and an accident occurred. The passenger, Perreal, was allegedly injured. She later sent the driver, Knibb, a foisted unilateral agreement that claimed to create and settle an injury claim of about 3/4 million dollars, unless Knibb replied and refuted her "Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand" in 30 days. The UCC, naturally, is invoked. Knibb did nothing. Perreal declared victory and then went to court to enforce her claim.

Justice Rooke dissects this process in some detail (paras. 6-20), and much of the Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand is reproduced as an appendix to the judgment. Unsurprisingly, Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 is invoked as the standard authority for evaluation of OPCA strategies and to classify this mechanism as unlawful:

[8] In August 2012, Mr. Knibb received (by fax) an unorthodox document entitled “Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand”, dated August 27, 2012. An abridged version of that document is attached to these Reasons as Schedule A. This document appears to purport to both initiate a legal action (a “Statement of Claim”), but without the document being filed in any Court of competent jurisdiction. However, in doing so, it also purports to set that action “in commerce”, according to the “... Uniform Commercial Code as adopted and enacted in Canada and all Canadian Provinces”. The Uniform Commercial Code [“UCC”] is U.S. legislation and has no relevance to Canadian litigation: Meads, para 331. Overbroad reference to the UCC is a common feature in OPCA litigation: Meads, para 150.

[9] The August 27, 2012 document continues outlining Mr. Knibbs’ alleged misconduct and Ms. Perreal claims for damages, which total $749,000.00. The “Notice and Demand” component of the “Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand” at para 1 broadly states that Mr. Knibb has 30 days to reject and prove incorrect all his alleged misconduct. If he does not do so, then this document becomes “... a self executing consensual, valid, ratified contract and true bill ...”. Mr. Knibb is deemed then to have waived all possible defences, consented to default judgment against him, and agreed that he is “... without recourse to any Legislative created Administrative Tribunal or Court ...”. That, presumably, would include the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

[10] The August 27, 2012 document is what is classified in Meads as a foisted unilateral agreement (paras 447-528). In this instance Ms. Perreal’s “Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand” appears to both create and resolve a legal claim against Mr. Knibb unless he replies and disproves her allegations. This is a common application of foisted unilateral agreements: paras 474-486.

[11] The “Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand” is unusual in that it purports to straddle two domains of law; in certain ways it resembles a document that could initiate a lawsuit, if it were filed in a court of competent jurisdiction (which it was not), but the “Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand” also has contract-like aspects; it claims to be commercial and to operate under commercial law.

[12] It is trite law that a person has no obligation to respond to a Statement of Claim that is not filed in court and then served. At the most generous I could interpret the August 27, 2013 document as a kind of contract offer. If so, then the principle in Felthouse v Bindley (1862), 11 CB (NS) 869, 142 ER 1037 (Ex Ch) that a person cannot impute agreement in contract from silence means Mr. Knibb had no obligation to reply to this “Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand” - see also Meads, at paras 458-472. The document’s claim to exclude all court authority is equally ineffective; a superior provincial court, such as the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, has an inherent jurisdiction which cannot be defeated in this manner: Meads, paras 351-378.


Perreal follows up the Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand with another letter, then goes to the Court of Queen's Bench, with a conventional statement of claim, but only to enforce the allegedly proven debt. A supporting affidavit states:

That I herewith enclose and make this Affidavit in Support a part of my Court of Queen’s Bench, Form 10, Statement of Claim, to certify and affirm that Ernie Knibb, herein Defendant, was served with my Private commercial Statement of Claim … I allowed Defendant thirty days to respond, deny or refute the facts and claims contained therein. … Defendant failed to answer or respond in any manner whatsoever. I then served upon Defendant a Notice of Default/Dishonor and Opportunity to Cure and Contest Acceptance … Defendant failed to deny, refute or respond in any manner, therefore, Defendant by his silence and failure to respond consented to all the terms of said Private commercial presentment, Statement of Claim, in commerce, whereby said presentment became a self executing, consensual, valid, ratified contract, wherein Defendant, by his silence, stipulated and agreed to all facts and claims made within said Private commercial presentment, Statement of Claim, a True Bill in Commerce and further agreed that Defendant was thereby devoid of and waived all defences and became a Debtor for the full amount of said claim.


In other words, I win.

At this point Dale Martin Jacobi appears and identifies himself as Perreal's representative, appointed via a power of attorney. Jacobi sends a letter to Knibb's lawyer, claiming the lawyer is a third-party interloper in a contractual relationship between Perreal and Knibb. Justice Rooke disposes of that too, at para. 19:

[19] This demand by Mr. Jacobi represents another common OPCA concept: that all relationships are in contract and contract alone: Meads, paras 379-416. Mr. Jacobi attempted to apply the principle of privity of contract to exclude Mr. Knibb’s lawyer as a ‘non-party’ to the “Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand”. This is, of course, incorrect in law, as the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8 permits lawyers to represent persons, inside and outside of court proceedings.


Justice Rooke concludes at para. 21 this entire strategy to create, prove, and then enforce this claim is fatally flawed, and he would had disposed of it on that basis on the authority of Meads v. Meads, but he was not asked to do so.

Though it was not argued before me, an attempt to enforce a ‘debt’ in the Court of Queen’s Bench on this basis could not succeed. I would have struck out this action on that basis per Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule 3.68, as this action is based solely on legally incorrect OPCA concepts that are frivolous, vexatious, and cannot succeed at law.


The second component of the decision is also very interesting, because it homes in on Perreal's associate, Jacobi. It turns out that Jacobi has a history; he is one of the leaders of the Montana Freemen from the mid 1990's. The judgment at paras 28-32 provides a brief recap of that group, Jacobi's key role in that group, and other elements of his history. Jacobi is Canadian, a former member of the Calgary Police Service, who then embraced increasingly radical beliefs and ultimately became a core member of the Montana Freemen. While it is not mentioned in the judgment, Jacobi was arrested when the FBI tipped off local police that a snatch team was on its way to 'arrest' a local judge for summary common-law trial and a hanging. There is lots of other very interesting documentation on Jacobi online. Definitely a dangerous individual. He was sentenced to a little under 14 years prison time in the U.S.

Knibb somehow got wind of Jacobi's history - judgment does not explain how. Knibb's first lawyer appears to have quit - I suspect after finding out the kind of person on the other side. Knibb's replacement lawyer subsequently made an ex-parte application that they remain anonymous and appear only by telephone, as Jacobi was a substantial and realistic threat to her safety. This kind of order has been granted in the past in Canada, first in ANB v Alberta (Minister of Human Services), 2013 ABQB 97. The threshold in that case for such an order was low:

[26] In ANB, I permitted several lawyers to appear anonymously. ANB had a history of criminal misconduct directed at opposing lawyers. In those Reasons I observed that litigants who use OPCA strategies are known to direct violent and harassing activities against persons they see as enemies, typically peace officers, government and court employees, lawyers, and members of the judiciary. This misconduct flows from their ideology as I noted at para 14 of ANB:

… his potential aggression flows from the false historical and theoretical constructs within which OPCA concepts are advanced. An OPCA litigant is typically advised (incorrectly) by a guru with whom he is associated, that the state has no hold over the litigant. That is meant to indicate (again incorrectly) that any state action must be unlawful, and, in the result, the OPCA litigant is therefore (improperly) counselled to be free (and often encouraged) to strike back at his ‘oppressors’.


[27] At para 20 of ANB I concluded the threshold for safeguards such as anonymous representation should be low provided that the proposed step does:

… not affect an OPCA litigant’s ability to advance and respond to arguments in court. … A court may order a safeguard of this kind where a party establishes an air of reality to an actual or potential threat or danger. …


Jacobi without question met that threshold, and so the order was granted: paras. 13-14.

This analysis is interesting in a number of ways. One is that the Canadian courts are taking an aggressive stance to protection of persons potentially affected by threats driven by OPCA ideology. In an "executive summary" to the decision A.C.J. Rooke states:

The Court will grant orders to protect officers of the Court and their staff, court staff, and others involved in or connected to litigation, from all realistic potential threats to their safety, and to prevent intimidation which targets any lawful activity in the litigation process.


I think that is sensible, and though no doubt 'peace loving' Freemen will shriek foul, the test from ANB v Alberta (Minister of Human Services) is very practical - persons with these beliefs have no right to information that is not relevant to their litigation because they are known to misuse it.

It is also interesting to see the court is considering not only litigants but logically involved parties. And Jacobi was probably the mind behind this whole thing - that is Justice Rooke's guess as well: para. 33.

Another interesting point is that Knibb somehow got his hands on a police CPIC report (para. 32):

Mr. Knibb’s affidavit attaches a March 2013 Canadian Police Information Centre report on Mr. Jacobi that cautions he is considered violent, armed and dangerous, and is a special interest to police due to his U.S. activities, described as “vigilantism & extremist”.


I thought these reports were confidential. I might be wrong. The fact this showed up in an affidavit that supported Knibb's anonymity application is very interesting. It suggests that police services are not only very well aware of the threat posed by Freemen/Sovereigns, but are willing to reach out and support not only other government entities, but private citizens. I'd love to know more about the backstory on that tidbit. Regardless, a good thing.

The CPIC report also hints at a much higher degree of watchfulness.

I did a little math from some of the sources I found and I think Jacobi is over 70 years of age now. Adding up dates, it sounds like his prison term ended only a short time before Perreal began her campaign against Knibb. I have no idea how much of that sentence was served in prison. I presume the U.S. deported Jacobi back to Canada after he served his time. I can't blame them.

The remainder of the decision addresses the actual basis on which the lawsuit was terminated. In brief, the statement of claim filed in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench was filed too late (paras. 44-45) and in any case there is no authority to sue in tort for an accident in Manitoba as that jurisdiction has eliminated that remedy via a no-fault insurance scheme (paras. 46-47).

The hearing to strike out the lawsuit was held on Dec. 20, 2013. Perreal and Jacobi did not show. The last interesting tidbit is that A.C.J. Rooke indicates he would not have permitted Jacobi to appear and represent Perreal on several reasons: Jacobi is not a lawyer, he's an OPCA guru and is therefore an inappropriate representative, and because a power of attorney appointment does not make a person an attorney, no matter the name. Justice Rooke cites a couple cases for that point, and one, The Law Society of B.C. v Robbins, 2011 BCSC 1310 (http://canlii.ca/t/fn9rw), made me break out laughing. I'll reproduce the choice bit in full - because it is genuinely fun:

[43] Mr. Robbins does not make the mistake made by Mr. Bryfogle and others of arguing that he is therefore entitled to act as an "attorney" in the American sense, using the word as a synonym for "lawyer" (see Bryfogle, BCSC, at paragraphs 32 and 33). Mr. Robbins' argument is more ingenious. He points metaphorically to the Christian sacrament of the Eucharist. As the bread through the process of transubstantiation becomes the body, asserts Mr. Robbins, so does he, via his Powers of Attorney, become his wife and his mother-in-law in Action No. S-106413. On this analysis, he is in effect his wife and mother-in-law acting in person as permitted by s. 15(1)(a), not Glen P. Robbins acting in the name of another as prohibited by s. 15(5). It is a nice point.

[44] In addressing it, I find I do not need to reconsider the conclusion of the 13th session of the Council of Trent held in October of 1551. It is sufficient to note that the theological concept of transubstantiation is best left to the realm of religion and has no application to the Power of Attorney Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 370. That Act equates the relationship between a donor and her attorney to that between a principal and her agent. It does not convert the agent into the principal. They remain distinct both empirically and substantially. The Powers of Attorney, at best, authorize Mr. Robbins to do what his wife and his mother-in-law can lawfully do by an attorney/agent (in the sense of the word “attorney” discussed by Groberman J. in Bryfogle). Among the things that Ms. Robbins and Ms. Matich cannot lawfully do by an attorney/agent is commence, prosecute or defend a proceeding in any court, unless that attorney/agent happens to be a practising lawyer.


Now that is great stuff! Justice Grauer has an excellent sense of humour!

So presumably that's the end of the lawsuit.

I did some digging. Perreal and Knibb are both involved in the equestrian world, she is an equine therapist, Knibb seems to be a horse trainer. Perreal shows no unusual interests that I could identify. I suspect she and Dale Jacobi are relatives, her father is a horse trainer named Glen Jacobi.

I have found no online presence for Dale Jacobi. Given his age and where he has spent the last decade-plus, that is, perhaps, not a surprise.

A few more general comments. I am going to be very interested to see if any Canadian legal academic commentators pick up on this case and Jacobi's most interesting history. There seems to be a tendency to date among those academics to characterize OPCA litigants as some kind of gentle, misguided fools. I am at this point tempted to invoke the "useful idiot" label. I now eagerly await a response: however will they respond to the fact that Canadian courts are facing what are, quite literally, domestic terrorists?

Second, I have a favour to ask my American colleagues here on Quatloos. I am not terribly familiar with much of the U.S. Sovereign Citizen documentation and argument, particularly the older material. Justice Rooke's decision reproduces a very large amount of one of Jacobi's key documents. I am curious as to whether this is the 'state of the art' in Sovereign circles in the mid-1990's? Or has Jacobi been keeping himself up to date? Any observations would be very welcome.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2522
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Jeffrey » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:30 am

I tried to see if the CPIC report was available online but they apparently keep that stuff behind a registration wall only for law enforcement only. That search however did lead to a Calgary Sun article that mentions the Montana Freemen and Jacobi, maybe the press coverage is what alerted Knibb:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/10/11/mo ... a-movement

Perreal shows no unusual interests that I could identify


Oh how naive of Mowe. On her website she advertises her services for equine chiropractic, equine osteopathy, equine massage, equine herbal therapy and equine acupuncture. All the services she offers would be quackery if performed on humans, doubly so on a horse. I think the connection between these sorts of unlicensed faux professions and OPCA litigants has been noted previously. You can work for cash, no set work hours, little to no education required; etc.

http://www.equineremedialtherapy.com/

My gut tells me the document is "state of the art". "PERSONAL UNLIMITED LIABILITY" is a phrase we've seen Clifford, Menard, OPPT's Heather all use. Requiring that the rebuttal be done with "specificity" is another one Heather at least threw around often. The capitalized references to "True Bill" and "Commercial Paper" also stand out to me at least.

But to be fair these tactics really haven't changed in years.

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Fmotlgroupie » Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:57 pm

CPIC, for those who aren't familiar, is a police database maintained by the RCMP. Off to one side it is a repository for criminal records, but it's main function is a database of temporary entries for vehicles (stolen, associated to a prohibited driver etc), property (stolen), currency (counterfeit), and especially people (on a warrant, on bail/probation conditions, or of "special interest" - which could include many things but especially anyone who would be dangerous to deal with.). The rules for who/what are added, how, how long they are left on, and how the information can be disclosed, are all centrally determined by a unit of the RCMP.

The contents of entries aren't exactly state secrets, but they are generally kept under wraps, both for individuals' privacy and, especially in the case of dangerous police-haters, it doesn't di any good to give them an extra informational advantage over the poor cop who just pulled them over. The contents may well be disclosable by an appropriate agency ("for your safety planning you should know that Mr Jacobi was convicted in the US of ....), but I'm sure that leaking the CPIC records was illegal, and I hope TPTB investigate and take appropriate action.

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:13 pm

Jeffrey wrote:...
Perreal shows no unusual interests that I could identify


Oh how naive of Mowe. On her website she advertises her services for equine chiropractic, equine osteopathy, equine massage, equine herbal therapy and equine acupuncture. All the services she offers would be quackery if performed on humans, doubly so on a horse. I think the connection between these sorts of unlicensed faux professions and OPCA litigants has been noted previously. ...


Very fair comment!

I think I have become just a little jaded... it probably seems weird to me when, for example, someone in this community isn't exclaiming that aircraft-spread chemicals or government controlled EMP generators aren't the cause of all severe weather, their preference for Burger King over McDonalds, and accelerated toenail growth.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby grixit » Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:02 pm

Hilfskreuzer Möwe wrote:


[44] In addressing it, I find I do not need to reconsider the conclusion of the 13th session of the Council of Trent held in October of 1551. It is sufficient to note that the theological concept of transubstantiation is best left to the realm of religion and has no application to the Power of Attorney Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 370. That Act equates the relationship between a donor and her attorney to that between a principal and her agent. It does not convert the agent into the principal. They remain distinct both empirically and substantially.



A little theology would have made the point more clear: they remain unchanged both in Substance and Accident.


So presumably that's the end of the lawsuit.


Except, i hope, for Knibb being awarded costs.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

User avatar
Lambkin
Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:43 pm

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Lambkin » Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:10 am

Fascinating and entertaining story. Thank you, SMS Möwe.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri May 20, 2016 2:58 am

Over two years ago Mowe posted this background of Jacobi in this discussion.

The second component of the decision is also very interesting, because it homes in on Perreal's associate, Jacobi. It turns out that Jacobi has a history; he is one of the leaders of the Montana Freemen from the mid 1990's. The judgment at paras 28-32 provides a brief recap of that group, Jacobi's key role in that group, and other elements of his history. Jacobi is Canadian, a former member of the Calgary Police Service, who then embraced increasingly radical beliefs and ultimately became a core member of the Montana Freemen. While it is not mentioned in the judgment, Jacobi was arrested when the FBI tipped off local police that a snatch team was on its way to 'arrest' a local judge for summary common-law trial and a hanging. There is lots of other very interesting documentation on Jacobi online. Definitely a dangerous individual. He was sentenced to a little under 14 years prison time in the U.S.

I did a little math from some of the sources I found and I think Jacobi is over 70 years of age now. Adding up dates, it sounds like his prison term ended only a short time before Perreal began her campaign against Knibb. I have no idea how much of that sentence was served in prison. I presume the U.S. deported Jacobi back to Canada after he served his time. I can't blame them.


According to Mowe's calculation Jacobi is over 72 now but he's still full of pep! And he's now here in British Columbia. Thanks Alberta.

R. v. Jacobi, 2016 BCPC 121
http://canlii.ca/t/gr695

A routine traffic stop that turned into an arrest for the usual moronic freeman reasons.

[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.

[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.

[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.


At trial he defended himself with the usual idiotic freeman arguments;

[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.


My favorite part? This line;

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.


In other words he's expressing a willingness to be that repugnant illegal creation of the government "Dale Martin Jacoby" from time to time in order to swill away at the government trough getting his Old Age Pension and free medical but he's also free to exempt himself from any laws or obligations to the same government by not otherwise using that vile name.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri May 20, 2016 5:23 pm

A bit of background on Jacobi to give you a better idea of the man he was when in his prime;

In one afternoon that fall, though, Brush not only disavowed Dale Jacobi but the Freemen as well. He later explained why to John Bohlman, the Musselshell County prosecutor: One morning, Brush told Bohlman, when he drove into town for supplies, Jacobi took Brush’s 8-year-old daughter, with her dog in tow, out to a remote part of their land. He carried with him a stool and a piece of rope. Under a tree, Jacobi set up the stool and placed the little dog on it. Then he made a noose with the rope, placed it over the dog’s neck, and slung it over the tree. He pulled the open end of the rope tight and held it at a distance from the dog, then told the girl to come stand in front of him. Call the dog, he told the girl. She did. It jumped off the stool and hung itself as Jacobi held the line taut.

The girl was in hysterics when her father returned home. Enraged, he asked Jacobi why he did it. Jacobi told him he felt the girl needed some toughening up, and that this would help her. Brush screamed at Jacobi to leave and never come back. Jacobi packed his things into his car and left.


http://dneiwert.blogspot.ca/2015/03/tales-of-montana-freemen-girl-and-her.html
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby JamesVincent » Fri May 20, 2016 5:36 pm

Sounds like another poster boy for summary justice.
"Just knowing we're in the same genus makes me embarrassed to call myself Homo." Professor Farnsworth

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10644
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby notorial dissent » Fri May 20, 2016 5:50 pm

If that is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, that is one seriously sicko.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby eric » Fri May 20, 2016 6:42 pm

JamesVincent wrote:Sounds like another poster boy for summary justice.

I have zero respect for animal abusers - he is one sick man. Some of my boys would gladly give him a short lesson in animal abuse.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri May 20, 2016 9:01 pm

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

noblepa
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:20 pm

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby noblepa » Fri May 20, 2016 9:45 pm

Has Jacobi been sentenced?

What are the potential penalties he faces? Jail? Fines?

This may not apply to Jacobi, but I just finished reading another thread about a freeman who attempted to use a foisted unilateral contract to settle a claim for damages in a traffic accident. It occurs to me that these freeman idiots object to laws as being contracts that they choose not to enter into with the government. On the other hand, many of them have no problem whatsoever with attempting to force someone else or the court itself into a contract with THEM. They seem to feel that they have the right to reject the government's offer of contract, but that no one else has the right to reject THEIR offer of contract. Do they not realize the contradiction there? SIlly question, of course they don't.

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby eric » Fri May 20, 2016 10:24 pm

Possible sentencing - maximum is two years
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... ce_Officer
That being said, something much shorter is the typical norm. I'm not sure of the status of Jacobi's driver's licence but he may pick up the mandatory minimum on that which is one week for driving while prohibited.

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Hercule Parrot » Mon May 23, 2016 10:42 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:Over two years ago Mowe posted this background of Jacobi in this discussion.


SMS Möwe is sadly missed. Jacobi not so much.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:59 am

Jacobi appealed his conviction and, not surprisingly, had his appeal dismissed;

http://infotel.ca/newsitem/southern-interior-freeman-on-the-land-has-appeal-tossed/it43922#.WVl8jrjnjZx
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
coffeekitten
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:15 pm

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby coffeekitten » Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:54 am

Well, if he's not a freeman-of-the-land, what is he?

LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby LordEd » Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:21 am

I classify all these non-persons as a variety of turnip.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 5:48 am

coffeekitten wrote:Well, if he's not a freeman-of-the-land, what is he?


To quote from the first posting on this discussion by the legendary Hilfskreuzer Möwe;

The second component of the decision is also very interesting, because it homes in on Perreal's associate, Jacobi. It turns out that Jacobi has a history; he is one of the leaders of the Montana Freemen from the mid 1990's. The judgment at paras 28-32 provides a brief recap of that group, Jacobi's key role in that group, and other elements of his history. Jacobi is Canadian, a former member of the Calgary Police Service, who then embraced increasingly radical beliefs and ultimately became a core member of the Montana Freemen. While it is not mentioned in the judgment, Jacobi was arrested when the FBI tipped off local police that a snatch team was on its way to 'arrest' a local judge for summary common-law trial and a hanging. There is lots of other very interesting documentation on Jacobi online. Definitely a dangerous individual. He was sentenced to a little under 14 years prison time in the U.S.


So he was quite willing to call himself a Freeman while in the United States. Perhaps he's just being snobbish and not willing to be associated with our non-second amendment Canadian Freemen.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5640
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dale Martin Jacobi: the Prodigal Freeman Returns

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:45 pm

The appeal decision;

R. v Jacobi
2017 BCSC 1106
http://canlii.ca/t/h4l12
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest