So what lengths is the Government willing to go in enforcing admiralty law where their is no breach of the peace, or injured parties?

The Crown, in R. v Jebbett, submitted the Benilevic case, and this case gives us evidence as to the lengths our courts are willing to go. [Note paragraph 33]

¶ 29 Mr. Banilevic is fined the face amount on his ticket and Ms. Cairney the face amount on hers, that’s $112 and $102. How long do want to pay it?

¶ 30          MR. BANILEVIC: I’m going to appeal it.

 

¶ 31 THE COURT: I know. But how long do you want, stand up when you address the Court, how long do you want to pay it?

 

¶ 32 MR. BANILEVIC: I don’t intend on paying, so--

 

¶ 33 THE COURT: Well, I’d be careful. I’d be careful of that, because the authorities, even though you deny their existence, they’re still rattling around with guns, warrants and so on. I’ll give you 90 days to pay it, and your friend as well. The other two matters I’m going to set down for trial. I don’t feel disposed to simply airily make a decision on these matters today. I’m going to set them down for trial in front of Judge Conroy. I don’t want to hear them. Pleas of not guilty are directed on both of them. And if he wants to give credence to your arguments he can do that. I’m not going to say to you now your arguments are wrong, therefore it’s going to trial because it looks too much like bullying and despite your conviction that that’s what I’m doing, I’m not. Okay. What trial dates for the two of them?

What else are we to conclude from this arrogant judge's comments, other than a direct threat against Mr. Banilevic's life for the enforcement of a mere traffic fine?

What do we call a government that is willing to use death threats to enforce its plundering of wealth by legislation?