[1]         RYAN J.A.:  Mr J appeals from the order of Mr. Justice Maczko pronounced 21 June, 2001, dismissing the appeal of his summary conviction for a parking offence under s. 24 of the Streets & Traffic Bylaw entered after a trial before a justice of the peace on 29 June, 2000. 

[2]         The appellant defended himself in traffic court, on the basis that the Motor Vehicle Act and Parking Bylaw offend Magna Carta and several sections of the Charter.  He pursued this defence in the summary conviction appeal court.  The summary conviction appeal judge, Mr. Justice Maczko, held that the right to park on city streets free of charge is not a right protected by the Charter.  The judge noted that a city has the right to pass a bylaw to control illegal parking, including prohibiting parking unless specifically authorized, where it has a valid purpose for doing so.  The judge found that limiting the time for parking so as to allow more people to use the available parking is a valid purpose.

[3]         On the appeal to this court, leave having been granted by a Justice in Chambers, the appellant says that the summary conviction judge erred in law in his resolution of the Charter issues, and that he erred in law in failing to address the Magna Carta.

[4]         Unlike the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Magna Carta is not a constitutional document.  As the Canadian constitutional scholar, Peter Hogg, has noted in his text, Constitutional Law of Canada, the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights are simply English statutes amenable to ordinary legislation.  The Magna Carta was imported into the law of British Columbia by a series of enabling statutes.  It remains a part of British Columbia law by virtue of sections 2 and 3 of the Law and Equity Act, which provide:

2 Subject to section 3, the Civil and Criminal Laws of England, as they existed on November 19, 1858, so far as they are not from local circumstances inapplicable, are in force in British Columbia, but those laws must be held to be modified and altered by all legislation that has the force of law in British Columbia or in any former Colony comprised within its geographical limits.

 

3 Section 28 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1828 and all sections of the Real Property Act, 1845 are not in force in British Columbia.

 [5]         The statute of Magna Carta was discussed by Mr. Justice McPhillip in Re: Immigration Act and Munshi Singh (1914) 6 W.W.R. (B.C.C.A.) 1347.  At p.1371, he said:

    Magna Carta and The Habeus Corpus Act, ... -  having relation to criminal and supposed criminal matters, as well as the Act for more effectually securing the liberty of the subject ... having relation to other than criminal or supposed criminal matters – is the law of British Columbia, but, as we have seen, subject to be modified by all legislation having the force of law in the Province of British Columbia.

 Applying these principles to the case at hand, if the Magna Carta ever provided the rights suggested by the appellant in this case, in my view those rights must be taken to have been modified by the passage of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act and the Streets & Traffic Bylaw of the City of Victoria.  The appellant's argument, based on Magna Carta, cannot succeed.

[6]         Neither am I persuaded, for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Maczko, that the Motor Vehicle Act or the bylaw in question offends any provision of the Charter and I would, for those reasons, dismiss the appeal.

[7]         FINCH C.J.B.C.:  [Duh,] I agree.

[8]         THACKRAY J.A.:  [Duh,] I agree too.

[9]         FINCH C.J.B.C.:  The appeal is dismissed.

“The [Dis]honourable Madam Justice Ryan”

So lets go over some of the highlighted areas to assess just what our "highest court" in BC is saying about the state of our Rights in BC.

Firstly, the court of BC (both Supreme, and Appeal) has stated that it is ok for a government to use force (fines, theft and sale of your property, bodily injury, intimidation by the state police, threat of jail) in order to "allow more people to use the available parking".

WOW!! Did either court actually READ section seven of our Charter?

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

So apparently, our courts (who's sacred duty is the protection of our liberty, not legislation) read this section as allowing deprivation of our basic rights, in order to help everyone find a parking space. HOWEVER, THIS CONCERN IS NOT EXTENDED TO THE MAYOR OF VICTORIA,  MLA'S OR MP'S, all of which (along with the leader of the Military) can park for as long as they wish!

This is a perfect example of the manipulation of the obvious. You think the law grants you a right or privilege, until a judge, or some piece of legislation takes it from you at their whim.  Something to consider when reading, for example, the so-called protection provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Act might say it protects you, but as you can see, judges are not particularly fussy about what rabbit they pull out of a hat to quash your "rights".

The real give away that something profoundly wrong is occurring is the opinion of Just-us Ryan where she claims that our rights, "must be taken to have been modified by legislation". Pardon me MAAAM, but wouldn't that make them PRIVILEGES!

In other words: you have no rights.... everything you think are "rights" are just privileges arising from government legislation. You can lose them tomorrow, and it doesn't take a majority of the public vote either.

NEWS STORY (Mr. J's emailed comments included in blue)
"Stubborn ticket fighter still refusing to pay $4"

Sandra McCuloch of TimesColonist sat in on the entire proceedings.

Saturday, February 01, 2003

A Victoria man who took his dispute over a $7.50 parking ticket to the province's highest court has lost his appeal and is ordered (by threat of force) to pay up.

The Supreme Court of BC took over a month to give a judgement and left out ALL comment on the exemptions violation (despite statements in open court that I had shown a "clear violation"). The Court of Appeal took less than 15 minutes to render its incoherent and treasonous judgement.

A judgement that basically says the Queen has the authority to grant absolute power to our legislatures to make law (even law that destroys a right) yet "Her Majesty" is powerless in enforcing her obligations under Magna Carta.

That, folks, is a classic example of an incoherent argument. Remember, the Queen signed and enacted our Constitution via the Parliament of the UK, by THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.

But Mr J, says he still will not pay the fine, even though the $7.50 ticket was reduced by a lower court to $4 because he is on a disability pension.

The issue is, of course, not about the amount of the fine, but about the authority of the servant government to infringe a right, and the integrity of the courts to decide between our rights versus government aggression and plundering.

He was issued a parking ticket on Oct. 15, 1999, when he exceeded the time allowed for hourly parking. Parking tickets are issued under Section 24 of Victoria's streets and traffic bylaw.

Exceeded it by a staggering "14 minutes". So who is being stubborn about what? They brought the summons to court, and we all have a right to defend ourselves. (Until, of course, our government writes legislation that interferes with that right next, according to the BC "Court" of Appeal they have the green light to do so.)

He told the B.C. Court of Appeal that the city bylaw limiting parking offended the Magna Carta and sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Which is does, and does so clearly, profoundly and deliberately.

The court managed to find a bogus1914 case with some incoherent babble about our constitution and the Magna Carta, which it feels will fool most people; however even they could not find anything equally as incoherent to "justify" the exemptions for the Mayor, MLA's, MP's etc.... so.... they simply said NOTHING! Oh, and so did the paper, interestingly enough.

"I'm not saying I have the right to go street racing or drive drunk on the road," J said.

He said the public has a right to free use of the highways, which includes a right to park, and argued that street racing and drunk driving raise safety concerns while parking does not.

In Victoria, a person receiving a parking ticket can pay $15 up to 14 days after the ticket is issued, $20 from 14 to 45 days afterward, and $35 thereafter.

The city has a right to impound a vehicle if a single parking ticket is unpaid.

Justice Catherine Ryan pointed out to J that unlike the Canadian Charter of Rights, the Magna Carta is not a constitutional document, but simply English statutes.

This she even managed to say with a straight face; though none of them could look me in the eye when they read their reasons for judgement. In this case the "BC" stands for bazaaro court... where black is white, up is down, left is right and constitutions are statutes and statutes are constitutions.... What useless court this truly is......

The Magna Carta IS an edict from THE Sovereign that was CLEARLY intended to maintain our rights and liberties FOREVER, and has the highest Crown authority possible. Whether classed as a "statute" or not (and it was clearly NOT the creation of legislatures, but THREE Kings), the intent of the document is as an ever lasting protection of our RIGHTS. Intent of the writer is always the key to determining the scope and authority of a legal document; however our "highest court" disregarded this, and apparently can't define the words "for ever" or "in all places".

One has to wonder what other authority King John, King William and King Edward, could have used to enact the strongest will of the Sovereign? How did a "legislature" come to have more power than the Sovereign who granted it its authority; or the freemen who received a right in perpetuity?

Oh, and the reporter apparently didn't notice that the matter was brought to Appeal via a "Constitutional Challenge" so not only does the Magna Carta NOT preserve our rights [according to the three monkeys on the Appeal Court], but neither does the precious "Canada Act, 1982", which we now at least know does nothing to preserve our rights, and is clearly NOT the supreme law - as indeed the court stated other legislation could infringe our rights it was supposed to preserve. 

 [The Charter challenge was issued under section 7, 15 and 26]

"You have all these rights until legislation interferes with them," she said.
Governments have the right to create laws that infringe on certain rights, she said.

Tyranny is alive and well when a court says your "rights" are actually government granted "privileges". This case was in reference to the right to life, liberty and security (as well as the equal application of the law) so the "certain rights" she is referring to are in fact our most basic fundament rights as referred to in section seven (7) of our make-believe, and futile constitution.

Victoria has been to court five times on this matter, said the city's lawyer, Troy DeSouza. He argued that while the public would love to park for free, removing parking restrictions would create chaos downtown.

So who's fault is that? Crown chose to not drop the fine or give an exemption similar to those currently enjoyed by the Mayor and his political friends. I asked, and they refused... so court was the only option to preserve the law and our rights.

"People would park for days on end if they had the opportunity," he said.

DeSouza referred to the principle of "tragedy of the common," which refers to a flock of sheep all drinking from a pond. When the pond is depleted, the sheep die.

The same holds true for parking spaces in a downtown, he suggested. Free parking would lead to road rage and arguments over a meagre number of free spaces.

A very silly and unsupported argument. Parking spaces are neither consumed or extinguished; they pass on to the next person when the previous user is finished. Furthermore, in order to deny a right (under s. 1 of the Charter) an issue must be "pressing and substantial" and carried out in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. There was NO genuinely aggrieved party presented in this case; no damages, no irreparable consumption of shared resources.  Besides, as has already been pointed out, the politicians receive free parking, so why is that same argument not used for their "free use"?

Cars that are "abandoned" ("left for days") are not "parked". You would think our highest court would understand the difference between parked cars, and those that have been abandoned, but their decision leaves the question open.

In dismissing the appeal, Ryan and Justices Lance Finch and Allan Thackray ruled that a city "has a right" to legislate parking and there is no violation of the charter in the parking bylaws.
 

Except for:

• The use of force against the morally innocent.

• The act of treason in undermining the authority of the Sovereign.

• Profound violation of the rule of law in failing to address or put a stop to the exemptions to the parking bylaw for the very people who put the law into effect.

The highest court of BC has said that it is somehow consistent with the "fundamental principles of justice" to use force and intimidation against the morally innocent, and infringing their rights that were preserved as a lasting heritage throughout the realm, in the Mother of All Constitutions.

This will not correct itself, it will get worse and worse. You have no rights in Canada... you only have government approved privileges.  Just watch as you lose more and more of them every day.

Just a parking ticket you say? HAH! Look again at what is being said, and be afraid for your future, and that of your children.

Go HERE to see how this judgement will affect YOU in regards to travel...