Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Really!

Moderator: Burnaby49

Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Really!

Post by Hilfskreuzer Möwe »

And it’s time once again for everyone’s favorite program “You Can’t Touch Me I’m Freeeeeeeeeee!” [R. v. Zombori, 2013 BCSC 2461: http://canlii.ca/t/g4n2t]

Will our guests be Freeeeeeeeee or simply heavily discounted?! [canned laughter]

Tonight’s contestants hail from William’s Lake British Columbia – let’s have a great ol’ Quatloos welcome for … Catherine Zombori and Joesph Steve Zombori! [canned cheers].

Mr. Zombori is an electrician and entrepreneur, whose Zed-Tech Electric sells services ranging from the usual [http://issuu.com/blackpress/docs/i20121005070930205] to eco-friendly [http://thegreengazette.webs.com/green-collective]. His lovely wife [https://www.facebook.com/catherine.andersonzombori] homeschools her kids, and is a graduate (of some kind) of Okanagan College in Salmon Arm! [canned huzzahs! applause!]

But enough of introduction – let’s get on with the show – take it away Madam Justice Gropper!
[1] THE COURT: The accused in this case, who wish to be referred to as "Joe" and "Catherine" ‑‑

[2] JOE ZOMBORI: Who is not present.

[3] CATHERINE ZOMBORI: How are we ‑‑ sorry ‑‑
[canned laughter] Ha ha, great one Joe! You’re INVISIBLE! Well, it turns out Joe and Catherine are diversifying their business interests:
[4] THE COURT: ‑‑ respond only to my referring to them by those names. Joe and Catherine are named in an indictment of four counts. The first is that:
  • Count 1

    Catherine ZOMBORI and Joseph Steve ZOMBORI, on or about the 5th day of June, 2012, at or near the City of Williams Lake, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully produce a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis (marihuana), contrary to Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

    Count 2

    Catherine ZOMBORI and Joseph Steve ZOMBORI, on or about the 5th day of June, 2012, at or near the City of Williams Lake, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis (marihuana), in an amount exceeding 3 kilograms, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

    Count 3

    Catherine ZOMBORI and Joseph Steve ZOMBORI, on or about the 5th day of June, 2012, at or near the City of Williams Lake, in the Province of British Columbia, did fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right, abstract, consume or use electricity or cause it to be wasted or diverted, the property of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) and did thereby commit theft contrary to Section 326(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

    Count 4

    Catherine ZOMBORI and Joseph Steve ZOMBORI ‑‑
[5] JOE ZOMBORI: Who are not present.

[6] THE COURT:
  • on or about the 5th day of June, 2012, at or near the City of Williams Lake, in the Province of British Columbia, did wilfully interfere with the lawful use of property, to wit: a power meter belonging to the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to Section 430(1)(c) of the Criminal Code . . .
[7] These are the charges against Joe and Catherine.
Uh oh, it appears our contestants, who are not here today [canned laughter], may have slipped into a nasty habit! [canned boos and groans]. At least we know that with Joe’s expert skills that power tap will be safe for the whole family. [canned cheers!] And the only guys getting screwed are Capitalist Rats and Banksters! [canned cheers! applause!]

Let’s head to the first round – can Joe and Catherine be Freeeeeeee!!!! Or are they putzs who are riding the usual OPCA merry-go-found.

Joe!

Catherine!!

Take Your Best Shot At Frreeeeeeeeedom!!!
[8] Joe and Catherine apply under the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, for relief under s. 24(1) on the grounds that their rights have been infringed, particularly under ss. 7, 10, and 11(a). They seek declarations that the charges are of no force or effect and ask that they be nullified.

[9] The hearing today began at 9 a.m. Joe and Catherine began with a series of questions to me, including whether I was prepared to recognize them as human beings, whether I was a public servant, and the nature of my oath of office. This hearing was scheduled to allow Joe and Catherine to make oral submissions in respect of the notice of application that they filed in this court on June 28, 2013.

[10] Joe and Catherine refused to proceed without my answering the questions that they posed to me. I provided to them opportunities to address me concerning their application. They chose not to address the application. Accordingly, I heard from the Crown with a reply from Joe and Catherine.

[11] I have the benefit of written submissions which were made by Joe and Catherine, which I have carefully considered. I have had the opportunity to review the Crown's submissions, and I have heard from the Crown orally in respect of those submissions. My reasons will address the written submissions of Joe and Catherine and the oral and written submissions of the Crown.

[12] Joe and Catherine assert that as human beings, they cannot be treated as legal persons without their consent, and they do not consent. Joe and Catherine further argue that as human beings, enactments such as the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.19, enactments of the Parliament of Canada, do not apply to them. They assert that under the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, the word person refers only to corporate entities, not human beings.

[13] In Joe and Catherine's written notice, it is asserted that the court is not independent or impartial because judges are appointed from members of the provincial bar. Joe and Catherine also seek the return of items seized by the police upon Joe and Catherine's arrest, and monetary damages of $200,000.
Bold play, contestants! To remind our viewers at home – contestants on “You Can’t Touch Me I’m Freeeeeeeeeee!” – invisible or not [canned laughter!] – get a total of three shots to Prove They Are Free!

We’ve heard from Joe and Catherine, now it’s up to Justice Gropper.

Round One! Do Joe and Catherine Escape the Net of Precedent? [canned cheers!] The Net of Precedent traps contestants who argue something that has already been tried on “You Can’t Touch Me I’m Freeeeeeeeeee!” and which just bores us to tears. [canned boos, moans.]
[14] Assertions similar to those of Joe and Catherine's have been made before judges of this court and other courts. It is my obligation to follow the precedents which have been established by other judges in this court and others in their oral and written reasons unless they are clearly wrong or they fail to consider some aspect of an argument that is made to me. None of those features exist here.

[15] I have the benefit of decisions of this court to which I will refer extensively, which I consider address the arguments which have been made and under which I consider myself bound.

[16] Madam Justice Ker of this court considered similar arguments in a decision, R. v. Scott Douglas Petrie (Petrie), 2012 BCSC 2109 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 2109. In respect of Joe and Catherine's assertions that they are human beings, I will refer to paragraphs 54 to 60 of Madam Justice Ker's decision. Madam Justice Ker addressed Mr. Petrie's assertion that he was a natural person, not a submission like that made by Joe and Catherine that they are human beings. I will address, after I quote from Madam Justice Ker's decision, the position that Joe and Catherine take in respect of their being human beings.
EEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHH!!!! [canned moans, canned Nelson Muntz Haw Haw!]

NO! It’s R. v. Petrie! Justice Ker’s devilishly thorough response to yet another grow-op operator.

Gropper casts Petrie! Ker invokes RUSS!
[17] The Crown has provided a copy of the Petrie decision. It is at Tab 2 of that brief, which has been provided to Joe and Catherine, and I will refer first to paragraph 54. At paragraph 54, Madam Justice Ker refers to another decision of this court, R. v. Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67 (CanLII), 2012 BCSC 67 (referred to as "Porisky"):
[54] . . . In that case, the two accused were jointly charged with evading paying income tax under s. 239(1)(d) of the [Income Tax Act] and other offences [related to] their business enterprise . . .
[18] Moving ahead to paragraph 55:
[55] Mr. Porisky was also charged separately under s. 464(a) of the Criminal Code . . . with counselling others to commit fraud by evading the payment of income tax. Mr. Porisky was found guilty of evasion of paying his taxes, evasion of remitting GST, and counselling others to commit fraud.

[56] Part of Mr. Porisky's argument was essentially that he was a natural person and that taxpayers are artificial persons. The distinction as to capacity of the person was rejected by Mr. Justice Myers [who wrote the Porisky decision], who noted that the law has long recognized the distinction between a natural person and an artificial person, such as a corporation. Moreover, the law has recognized a corporation sole, which applies to an office such as that of a bishop. Myers J. found that Mr. Porisky was twisting the legal distinction between a natural person and an artificial person into something not recognized in law (see Porisky, at paras. 46-55).

[57] After setting out Mr. Porisky's theory of the distinction between natural persons and artificial persons, Myers J. went on to state at para. 58 that his theory "not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense." Describing it as a "failed attempt at word magic”, Myers J. concluded the defence “has no validity" (see Porisky, at para. 58).
[19] Madam Justice Ker continues at paragraph 58 of the Petrie decision:
[58] The same can be said for the applicant's attempt to place any legal significance on the determination of the capacity in which the name Scott Douglas Petrie is being used in the Indictment. As Mr. Justice Myers noted in Porisky, the courts have rejected the natural person argument in several tax evasion cases.

[59] While the applicant has not used the words "natural person" in argument before me, he has raised the capacity argument suggesting there is a distinction between a living person, a government agent person and the like, even though they may possess the same name.

[60] The capacity argument suggesting there is a distinction between a "person" and a "natural person" (or a "living person" or a "sovereign man") has been addressed a number of times in the jurisprudence. The decisions are decidedly against the point the applicant seeks to advance.
[20] In respect of Joe and Catherine's assertions that they are human beings and that Petrie refers to natural persons, the point that was made by Madam Justice Ker is there that there no distinction between a “natural person” and a “person.” Similarly, there is no distinction between a “human being” and a “person.” I agree with the Crown that this is a matter of nomenclature and has no effect at law. I therefore reject the assertion in respect of human beings made by Joe and Catherine.
Uh oh! Spaghetti-Oh! [canned laughter!] [Wuh wuh wuh effect]

That’s a rough start for Joe and Catherine (if they were here!) [canned laughter!] but no worry, our electrical pot-grower duo have TWO more shots to Escape the Net of Precedent [canned cheers!]

Round TWO! FIGHT!
[21] I now refer to the argument that Joe and Catherine make in regard to the applicability of enactments such as the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. For reference, I will refer to their position, which is that they do not consent to the application of those enactments and they are not incorporated persons. This argument is made under s. 32 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 5.

[22] This was also addressed in Petrie, and I will refer extensively to Madam Justice Ker's decision in that regard.

[23] Madam Justice Ker refers to Mr. Petrie suggesting a reading of s. 32 of the Charter which she summarizes at paragraph 73 as:
  • (a) that the Constitution, and by extension the laws of Canada, only applies to government agents, and therefore not to private citizens;

    (b) that as [Mr. Petrie] is a private citizen and the name Scott Douglas Petrie in the Indictment is a government agent, the charges have nothing to do with the applicant and ought to be dismissed.
[24] Madam Justice Ker addresses this argument beginning at paragraph 75:
[75] Section 32 of the Charter and the jurisprudence interpreting this section makes it clear that the Charter applies to all actions undertaken by state authorities and government agents when they interact with private citizens, meaning that private citizens who have an interaction with a government actor benefit from the rights afforded to them by the Charter during that interaction and have recourse to the courts if they believe that the government actor, and by extension the government, has breached one or more of their Charter rights. To give a concrete example: state conduct, i.e. government action, such as police investigating and arresting a private citizen must conform with Charter values and respect the Charter rights of the private citizen. Thus an individual private citizen, when investigated by the police, has the right to be secure from an unreasonable search and seizure by virtue of s. 8 of the Charter and has the right to retain counsel upon arrest or detention by virtue of s. 10(b) of the Charter.
[25] Madam Justice Ker's continues at paras. 79 and 80:
[79] With respect, the applicant appears to be endeavouring to turn the jurisprudence pertaining to s. 32 of the Charter on its head. If he is arguing that because he is a private citizen the Constitution, and by extension the laws of this country, only apply to government actions and agents, he is mistaken. He, too, is subject to the laws of Canada, including the CDSA. He cannot pick and choose what laws apply to him, nor can he engage in what Myers J. characterized in Porisky at para. 67 as "legal numerology" by picking and choosing extracts from statutes and cases and weaving them together in an attempt to create logical links where none exist.

[80] Section 32 of the Charter mandates that the Charter applies to government actions such as the RCMP's investigation and arrest of the applicant in this case, which means that the applicant's Charter rights are to be observed and protected in the carrying out of such actions.
[26] At paragraphs 81 to 83 Madam Justice Ker says:
[81] If the applicant is trying to assert the Court has no jurisdiction over him to try the offences because, by virtue of s. 32 of the Charter, the Constitution and the laws under which he is charged only applies to government agents, and he is not a government agent, he has fundamentally misconceived what s. 32 of the Charter means and what the jurisprudence has interpreted its purpose to be.

[82] If the applicant is trying to advance the argument that the laws under which he is charged do not apply to him because he is not a government agent, again he is mistaken.

[83] If the applicant is suggesting the Court has no jurisdiction over him to try the offences because he is a private citizen and thus outside of the Court’s jurisdiction, then, as Mr. Justice Hollinrake noted in R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII), 2001 BCCA 510 at para. 13 . . . his argument would be "a complete denial of the constitutional history of this country as it applies to the rights and obligations of its people before the law." Arguments of this kind must be and are "rejected as being without any legal, historical or constitutional foundation whatsoever": Warman, at para. 14.
[27] Madam Justice Ker concludes (at para. 84):
There is no legal merit in the point the applicant advances under s. 32 of the Charter.
[28] I reiterate that the reference to a private citizen or a human being does not change the result of the cases to which I have referred. I must reach the same conclusion as Madam Justice Ker in respect to the argument that Joe and Catherine make in respect of s. 32 of the Charter.
SMACKDOWN! Gropper and Ker tagteam our contestants with a second round of the Net of Precedent! [canned cheers!]

Will our contestants escape a even single trial level precedent decision and have to face our second challenge, the Dreaded and Savage Meads Machine? [canned shrieks of fear!]

Round THREE! Justice Gropper – go ahead… Call That Argument!
[29] I move to Joe and Catherine's next argument, and that is the impartiality of the court. That assertion was addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 39 (CanLII), 2005 SCC 39. That case is also included in the Crown's brief of authorities, which has been provided to Joe and Catherine, at Tab 11. I refer to paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of that decision, first of all to describe the argument that was made before the Supreme Court of Canada by Mr. Bertrand on behalf of Mugesera and then refer to the court's reasoning and conclusion in regard to those arguments.

[30] At paragraph 11, the court summarizes Mr. Bertrand's arguments and his personal affidavit:
[He] alleged influential members of the Jewish community manipulated the Canadian political system and the country’s highest court for the sole purpose of having Mugesera deported, and it would be impossible for the respondents to receive a fair hearing as a consequence. The only solution, the respondents submitted, would be for the Court to acknowledge its inability to act impartially because of its contamination, and to grant a permanent stay of proceedings.
[31] At paragraphs 12 and 13, under the heading “principles governing a review of abuse of process and the application of judicial impartiality,” the court states:
12 The legal framework for stays of proceedings and the principles defining the tests for judicial independence and the impartiality requirement are well known. On the one hand, the stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy for an abuse of process. In the case at bar, the relief sought by the respondents would mean that the substantive arguments filed by the Minister in this appeal in support of the validity of Mr. Mugesera’s deportation order would never be reviewed in a definitive manner by the Court. Nor would the public’s interest in having this review take place be protected. However, this decision must be made in a legal context in which this Court has in past decisions ruled that the stay of proceedings is a remedy that must be limited to the most serious cases, such as in situations involving abuse by the prosecution (R. v. Regan, 2002 SCC 12 (CanLII), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297 [and other cases].

13 On the other hand, we recently considered the principles that define the nature of a judge’s duty of impartiality and how this duty is applied in the review of an application to vacate a judgment of this Court (see Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45 (CanLII), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259, 2003 SCC 45). The duty of impartiality requires that judges approach all cases with an open mind (see para. 58). There is a presumption of impartiality. The burden of proof is on the party alleging a real or apprehended breach of the duty of impartiality, who must establish actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. In the case at bar, the situation must be considered in the context of the role and operating procedures of a collegial court consisting of nine judges serving as Canada’s court of final resort [and that refers to the Supreme Court of Canada].
[32] The same presumption applies to Joe and Catherine’s assertion in respect of impartiality in this case. Joe and Catherine have not proven a real or apprehended breach of impartiality and their argument in that regard is also rejected.
[siren] [flashing strobes] [canned groans and laughs!] WIPEOUT! It’s a WIPEOUT! Oh, Catherine, Joe – thank you for playing. Stevie-O, what great consolation prizes do our contestants receive (that is - if they were here!!) [canned laughter]

[Sleazy narrator voice] Why the Zombori’s get … nothing at all – except a no-expense paid return trip to the William's Lake Supreme Court Courthouse!!!!! [canned cheers!]
[33] There are two other features of Joe and Catherine’s argument in their notice of application, and that is that they seek the return of items seized by the police upon their arrest and monetary damages of $200,000. I reject both of those claims as well as there is no legal basis upon which to grant those applications. There were items seized which are now in the custody of the police and are to be used for the purposes of the hearing of the charges in this matter. In respect to a claim of $200,000 monetary damages from the Crown, there is nothing remarkable or oppressive which has been demonstrated in this application. These claims are without merit and are therefore dismissed.

[34] In summary, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that Joe and Catherine’s rights under the Charter have been breached, and therefore their application is dismissed. This matter is therefore remanded to the next fix date to establish a trial date for a judge and jury.
[credits roll]

[Sleazy narrator voice contines]

Advice to Joe and Catherine (if they were there to receive it) was provided by various Freeman-on-the-Land twits, including:
Contestants on “You Can’t Touch Me I’m Freeeeeeeeeee!” appear by direct indictment, with no preliminary hearings! And this week were the subjects of further exciting hearings that are not available for review online.

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]
LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by LordEd »

If a tree falls in a forest on a freeman who is no there, does it make a sound?

There's some natural law for you.
Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:09 pm

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by Fmotlgroupie »

Oooh, jury selection at the end of the month! Maybe a reasons for sentence may be on its way!

Thanks for another interesting post, and for the exciting gameshow theme.

And on a minor detail, fascinating to see an electrical professional (of some variety) running a grow op. I guess the electrical meter bypass was probably more safely done than most, but did Steve really not think BC Hydro has ammeters? Silly boy now has to play the Freeeeeee! game.
GlimDropper
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by GlimDropper »

The Zomboris are doubling down on the BS, they've called in Karl Lentz.

There is no reason for this video to exist, it's just Karl discussing on the phone with a very polite clerk's office employee the logistics of getting a copy of the case files. And give the man credit, they're getting those copies. Victory!!! I queued the link up to the only mildly interesting part. Karl wants to "blank all that crap" the Zomboris filed and replace it with his own. I wonder how much they're paying him for his "services."

And just a general note about Sovereign/Freeman types and facial hair. It isn't working for you guys and you need someone in your social circle to be honest with you about it. Remember, you are fighting to liberate yourselves from oppressive courts not from the generally established paradigms of physical presentation. Karl's mustache might however be a mark of inadvertent honesty, it makes him look much more like a certain Walrus.
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

The pot growing Zomboris - Just everyday common law folks

Post by Burnaby49 »

A Williams Lake couple have just been convicted of growing pot and related offenses. Williams Lake is an isolated community in central British Columbia;

http://www.wltribune.com/news/295048931.html

Husband seems like a real sweetheart;
The judge sentencing a Williams Lake couple convicted last week of grow-op related charges said they believed they had done nothing wrong and had a God-given right to grow marijuana.

“They have a notion that at common law they are not engaging in illegal activity,” Justice Miriam Gropper said during her sentencing of Joseph and Catherine Zombori in B.C. Supreme Court in Williams Lake Thursday. “They are simply wrong. In a just, peaceful and democratic society, citizens are not entitled to pick and choose the laws that apply to them. That is anarchy.”

The Zomboris, who seem to follow the freeman on the land movement, were found guilty of possession of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking and for removing the hydro metre from the outside of their Fox Mountain home.

Throughout the trial by jury held the first two weeks of April 2014, where they were found guilty, the Zomboris represented themselves and insisted they were not bound to the law.
That attitude was still evident during the sentencing where Mr. Zombori constantly interrupted the judge and yelled a profanity at her.

As Gropper began her deliberation, Mr. Zombori interjected.

“Who is Joe, I need to know who Joe is?” he shouted.

“You are sentencing a person and I need to know who that person is.”

Gropper looked at him and said, “I am talking about you.”

He shouted back: “I am a man of common law I am not a you. Bring forth the man or woman forward to claim that I have done wrong.”

As Gropper continued to read her sentencing, Mr. Zombori kept talking and at one point told the judge she was destroying his life.

“I am not going to be quiet,” he insisted. “As a man of common law I have a person, I’m not the person. You have charged the person and I’m curious what you are going to do about that?”
Eventually Gropper asked the four sheriffs in the court room to restrain him so she could continue sentencing.

When Mr. Zombori began protesting that the sheriffs did not have permission to touch him, they placed him on the ground.

There were six people in the court room to support the Zomboris.

“Leave him alone,” one woman told the sheriffs. “Don’t fight Joe,” another person said.
Turning to the Justice, Mr. Zombori swore at her and kept yelling, demanding that she verify he had done wrong.

At that point Gropper recessed the court for 15 minutes.

When court resumed, Mr. Zombori refused to stand up, so the sheriffs dragged him back into the court room.
He got 18 months. A gross miscarriage of justice since they were incarcerating two different people, the corporate Joe and the human being Joe, yet they only have to feed and bunk one of them. Shouldn't he get a break for that money-saver?

They probably pulled the meter because they didn't want the utility to notice that they were using huge amounts of electricity for a single family residence. A dead giveaway about a grow-op that often triggers a police check. Then again maybe they just didn't want to pay for all that power they needed to conduct an illegal activity. Men of Common Law shouldn't have to pay for whatever they feel like taking!

This isn't the first time that the Zomboris have been in front of judge Gropper. A few years back when this all started they tried to make a Charter argument that they had the right to do what they wanted because they were not the accused, those guys were somebody else;

R. v. Zombori, 2013 BCSC 2461

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... ultIndex=1

However their defense was badly compromised by the fact that they were self-represented but they didn't show up for the hearing. We have it on the best authority that they weren't there; they said so themselves;
[1] THE COURT: The accused in this case, who wish to be referred to as "Joe" and "Catherine" --

[2] JOE ZOMBORI: Who is not present.

[3] CATHERINE ZOMBORI: How are we -- sorry --

[4] THE COURT: -- respond only to my referring to them by those names. Joe and Catherine are named in an indictment of four counts. The first is that:

Count 1
Catherine ZOMBORI and Joseph Steve ZOMBORI, on or about the 5th day of June, 2012, at or near the City of Williams Lake, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully produce a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis (marihuana), contrary to Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Count 2
Catherine ZOMBORI and Joseph Steve ZOMBORI, on or about the 5th day of June, 2012, at or near the City of Williams Lake, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis (marihuana), in an amount exceeding 3 kilograms, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Count 3
Catherine ZOMBORI and Joseph Steve ZOMBORI, on or about the 5th day of June, 2012, at or near the City of Williams Lake, in the Province of British Columbia, did fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right, abstract, consume or use electricity or cause it to be wasted or diverted, the property of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, of a value not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) and did thereby commit theft contrary to Section 326(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Count 4
Catherine ZOMBORI and Joseph Steve ZOMBORI - -

[5] JOE ZOMBORI: Who are not present.
Leo Fung blazed the trail ahead of them on that defense and it worked as well for them as it did for him;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10477

This hearing puts them squarely in the Freeman dual personality camp;
[9] The hearing today began at 9 a.m. Joe and Catherine began with a series of questions to me, including whether I was prepared to recognize them as human beings, whether I was a public servant, and the nature of my oath of office. This hearing was scheduled to allow Joe and Catherine to make oral submissions in respect of the notice of application that they filed in this court on June 28, 2013.

[10] Joe and Catherine refused to proceed without my answering the questions that they posed to me. I provided to them opportunities to address me concerning their application. They chose not to address the application. Accordingly, I heard from the Crown with a reply from Joe and Catherine.

[12] Joe and Catherine assert that as human beings, they cannot be treated as legal persons without their consent, and they do not consent. Joe and Catherine further argue that as human beings, enactments such as the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.19, enactments of the Parliament of Canada, do not apply to them. They assert that under the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, the word person refers only to corporate entities, not human beings.
[13] In Joe and Catherine's written notice, it is asserted that the court is not independent or impartial because judges are appointed from members of the provincial bar. Joe and Catherine also seek the return of items seized by the police upon Joe and Catherine's arrest, and monetary damages of $200,000.
$200,000 for inconvenience? Glenn Fearn demanded trillions. We Canadians are just too modest.

Their dual personality argument didn't pass the road test;

[20] In respect of Joe and Catherine's assertions that they are human beings and that Petrie refers to natural persons, the point that was made by Madam Justice Ker is there that there no distinction between a “natural person” and a “person.” Similarly, there is no distinction between a “human being” and a “person.” I agree with the Crown that this is a matter of nomenclature and has no effect at law. I therefore reject the assertion in respect of human beings made by Joe and Catherine.

[21] I now refer to the argument that Joe and Catherine make in regard to the applicability of enactments such as the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. For reference, I will refer to their position, which is that they do not consent to the application of those enactments and they are not incorporated persons. This argument is made under s. 32 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 5.

[28] I reiterate that the reference to a private citizen or a human being does not change the result of the cases to which I have referred. I must reach the same conclusion as Madam Justice Ker in respect to the argument that Joe and Catherine make in respect of s. 32 of the Charter.
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

I'd bet that is what the judge wished about Joe and Catherine after that hearing. She at least ensured at sentencing that Joe won't be there for a while.
"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: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: The pot growing Zomboris - Just everyday common law folk

Post by Burnaby49 »

And as soon as I posted the above I found that Mowe had beaten me to it;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9869&p=168177

And of course he explained it better than I did.
"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
LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: The pot growing Zomboris - Just everyday common law folk

Post by LordEd »

If only there was a moderator who could merge the topics...
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: The pot growing Zomboris - Just everyday common law folk

Post by Burnaby49 »

LordEd wrote:If only there was a moderator who could merge the topics...
Watch your phraseology Ed, your postings are too vague to be of any use in this discussion. I can only assume that you meant;

"If only there was a competent moderator who could merge the topics..."
"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: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by Burnaby49 »

There. Happy LordEd?
"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
LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by LordEd »

Yep. By keeping the forum orderly it keeps the Freeman minded confused.

And feel free to disregard the new moderator sarcasm. I don't know much about it, but as an on ice ref, I eventually learned to ignore the whining benches.
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7502
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by The Observer »

LordEd wrote:And feel free to disregard the new moderator sarcasm. I don't know much about it, but as an on ice ref, I eventually learned to ignore the whining benches.
How sad! With a simple phrase he consigns our newest moderator to the sidelines as a benchwarmer.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by Burnaby49 »

The Observer wrote:
LordEd wrote:And feel free to disregard the new moderator sarcasm. I don't know much about it, but as an on ice ref, I eventually learned to ignore the whining benches.
How sad! With a simple phrase he consigns our newest moderator to the sidelines as a benchwarmer.
Better than being compared to a hockey parent. I have a friend that refs junior hockey and he tells me stories.

LordEd had previously mentioned that I should move a discussion topic to a different forum. That one still defeats me.
"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
LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by LordEd »

Better than being compared to a hockey parent. I have a friend that refs junior hockey and he tells me stories.
We have less issues with parents in ringette than hockey. I think it's because a parent can and will be ejected from the rink with a much lower threshold.
LordEd had previously mentioned that I should move a discussion topic to a different forum. That one still defeats me.
Did I? I don't remember that.
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by Burnaby49 »

LordEd wrote:
Better than being compared to a hockey parent. I have a friend that refs junior hockey and he tells me stories.
We have less issues with parents in ringette than hockey. I think it's because a parent can and will be ejected from the rink with a much lower threshold.
LordEd had previously mentioned that I should move a discussion topic to a different forum. That one still defeats me.
Did I? I don't remember that.
Sorry, confused you with Arthur Rubin. From the "Great, so now I'm pink" discussion;
Arthur Rubin wrote:Hmmm. Shouldn't this thread be moved to the "About Quatloos" forum?

Just asking.... :)
LordEd wrote:If only we had some moderators to enforce some order in here...
:Axe:
I thought it a valid exercise but I couldn't figure out how to do it. Turned out I couldn't do it because, as a quasi-moderator, I didn't have access to the Moderator's Control Panel. As soon as I was switched to being green there it was. But by that time the Chief was taking my attention so I didn't bother. So when you mentioned merging discussions I decided to give that a try.
"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
ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3755
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

He got 18 months. A gross miscarriage of justice since they were incarcerating two different people, the corporate Joe and the human being Joe, yet they only have to feed and bunk one of them.
Suggestion for the judge: next time sentence them both to consecutive terms.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 660
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by Hyrion »

ArthurWankspittle wrote:Suggestion for the judge: next time sentence them both to consecutive terms.
You raise a good point. Since freemen like to separate the physical human being with all the fleshy parts from the abstract human being (legal character) - and since the physical human being must have been present for all the physical acts involved (such as pulling the meter, carrying the product) - shouldn't the two of them be brought up on charges of conspiracy?

Just a philosophical question to wake up to :thinking:
ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3755
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

I like this ^ because whichever one ends up serving the jail sentence, the law has at least apprehended one of the conspirators.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 3076
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by Jeffrey »

Raises prisoner dilemma issues. What happens if the legal person/strawman rats on the flesh and blood man?
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by fortinbras »

If they deny they are in court, then take them at their word. Issue a warrant for their arrest for failure to appear, impose a default judgment if allowed (this is allowed in traffic court), add failure to appear to the charges against them -- and when brought in on the warrant insist on a high (or no) bail bond because of the likelihood of repeated non-appearance.
User avatar
noblepa
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:20 pm

Re: Catherine & Joe Zombori - We Are Not Here In Court - Rea

Post by noblepa »

fortinbras wrote:If they deny they are in court, then take them at their word. Issue a warrant for their arrest for failure to appear, impose a default judgment if allowed (this is allowed in traffic court), add failure to appear to the charges against them -- and when brought in on the warrant insist on a high (or no) bail bond because of the likelihood of repeated non-appearance.

Isn't that what happened to Terry Trussell in Florida, when he was arraigned for simulating legal process, regarding his Common Law Grand Jury? IIRC, he refused to approach the bench when called repeatedly.

The judge took him at his word, issued a bench warrant for Failure to Appear and ordered the bailiff's to take him into custody, right then and there.