This Appeal contains several areas of law showing why both the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, sections 83 and 124, and Victoria City Parking Bylaw # 92 - 84 are of no force or effect with regard to the Appellant.

 The Respondent has cast this case as my attempt to merely dispute a four dollar ticket, however, they neglect to point out that the ticket I was issued was based on my being 14 minutes [p. 2 lines 1-2 of transcript] over the two hour time limit, arbitrarily set by the City. For the record, it is my Charter and Common Law rights that are the main points at issue.

 I also wish it known that I have made a good faith effort through both the Legal Aid Society, and the BC Court of Appeal, via section 684 of the Criminal Code application [Tab 6], to be provided counsel, and was denied. I trust, therefore, that my Appeal will be heard and judged on its merits alone, in the interests of justice.

[Just for the record..... it wasn't. Well not in so many words anyhow... What is interesting, and evidently un-noticed by most people (even some lawyers) is that the BC Court of Appeal has now (thanks to their 'reasons for judgement) rendered the entire Motor Vehicle Act of BC of no force or effect, by stating that the Act "modifies" our Magna Carta rights - oh, and they never bothered to pursue the fine.

The only way that the Motor Vehicle Act can LAWFULLY "modify" such rights would be 1) for us to wave them voluntarily... or perhaps, B) be instituted and put into force by God Almighty, since He alone has authority above Crown. So feel free to reserve your rights on your so-called "drivers license" because you now have complete immunity from the MVA, unless such politicians would prefer a full blow revolution in openly forcing us to comply - to which the Magna Carta was created to give us remedy.]

 Neither the Provincial Traffic Court, nor the BC Supreme Court has addressed my reliance on the Magna Carta in either a reasonable or understandable manner. In fact, no explanation whatsoever has been given to the Appellant as to where this document stands in the courts of this Commonwealth. There is only the intriguing testimony of the Respondent before Madam Justice Whelan, when on page  19, lines 38 – 44 of  provincial transcript, Crown  asserts that freemen and commoners live someplace other than “the cites of Canada”.  Why they are not permitted here in Victoria, or why Freemen of this country must effectively live in exile, is unclear and unresolved.

 The sections of the Charter that I’m relying on are sections 7 and 15. I did also raise sections 6, 9, 11 and 12 in Provincial Traffic Court [Tab ‘1’], and while I still believe those sections are in fact violated, I’ve agreed by the mutual consent of my ‘learned friend’ not to raise those sections to save time, and because it is my humble opinion that the protections of those sections are still covered under the broad scope of section 7.

 Before the Honourable Madam Justice Whelan in Provincial Traffic Court, I openly declared to the court, at that time, that I am a “Freeman and Commoner” (as opposed to a “citizen” or “subject”), having unlimited liability and absolute right to life, liberty and property, and subject only to Common Law. It is in this context that I express to this court three vital issues that are not in dispute. Those are: that I violated no lawful contract [Prov. Trans. page 14 line 43- 47 p.15 line 1-15]; that no party or parties were damaged [PT page  4 lines 42-47 page 5 lines 19]; and that my car was parked on the un-traveled portion of the highway without obstruction to other traffic [PT p. 1 line 41-44]. Under Common Law, then, I am of clean hands, without conscience of guilt, and innocent before the law.

 What I have apparently been found “guilty” of is nothing more than the product of the “arbitrary authority” of legislatures and councils - in other words, the “rule of men”.  As an owner, and not a driver, I was found “guilty” of an absolute liability offense.

 One of the Crown’s arguments is that the city has the right to regulate parking because it is a matter of “public safety”; however, throughout every proceeding on this matter no evidence (credible or otherwise) has ever been submitted before the courts to support the contention that public safety is in any way at risk. Evidence was entered in Provincial Traffic Court that my vehicle was parked for 2 hours and 14 minutes in a place which had a two hour designated limit. Their position, that this is therefore a safety issue, is at best capricious, subjective and void of credible substance. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not, nor was it in any way intended, to protect government legislation in matters of subjective public safety; rather the intent of the writers of the Charter is clearly to protect the Life, Liberty and Security of individuals.

 The Supreme Court of Canada [1985 2 S.C.R] File No.: 17590. found in tab ‘2’, deals with the appropriate application and definition of the “principles of fundamental justice”. This case was appealed from the BC Court of Appeal by the Attorney General of BC in defense of s.94 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

On page 11, paragraph 22  the court asserts that any interpretation of the rights and freedoms of the Charter be:

 “a generous rather than a legalistic one, aimed at fulfilling the purpose of the guarantee and securing for individuals the full benefit of the Charter's protection.” [Emphasis Added]

 The court also cautions at page 12 paragraph 25:

 “the narrower the meaning given to "principles of fundamental justice" the greater will be the possibility that individuals may be deprived of these most basic rights. This latter result is to be avoided given that the rights involved are as fundamental as those which pertain to the life, liberty and security of the person.”

Page 27, paragraph 104   Justice WILSON states  

“Section 7 affirms the right to life, liberty and security of the person while at the same time indicating that a person may be deprived of such a right if the deprivation is effected "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice". I do not view the latter part of the section as a qualification on the right to life, liberty and security of the person in the sense that it limits or modifies that right or defines its parameters. Its purpose seems to me to be the very opposite, namely to protect the right against deprivation or impairment unless such deprivation or impairment is effected in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

 In R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. [Tab ‘11’], the court stated that the psychological integrity (or wholeness) of the individual, like physical integrity, is also a protected right under section seven (7). Justice Wilson refers to this on pages 6&7 [highlighted] and page 97, paragraph 243.  “This right protects both the physical and psychological integrity of the individual.”

 So In section 124 of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act [Tab ‘5’] we find:

 “(u) the enforcement of bylaws adopted under this section by fine or imprisonment, or both, and imposing fines, penalties and costs;”

 Fines, in this case up to two thousand dollars, clearly have the potential to deprive life, liberty and security; particularly to someone on a low fixed income.

Again I refer to the Supreme Court Case at Tab ‘2’ where they state on page 2 paragraph 7.

“An absolute liability offence violates s. 7 only if and to the extent that it has the potential to deprive life, liberty or the security of the person. ”  [Emp Added]

 Section 124 of the motor vehicle act allows the following in subsections g) and h) respectively:

g) the removal, detention or impounding of vehicles unlawfully occupying a portion of a highway or public place, and a scale of fees, costs and expenses for that purpose;

(h) the recovery of the fees, costs and expenses from the owner or by sale of the vehicle referred to in paragraph (g) at public auction or by action in a court of competent jurisdiction; [Emp. Added]

Confiscation of ones vehicle, as authorized within section 124 of the MVA, is a direct threat to the liberty and psychological integrity of the individual. The Liberty constraints of having a vehicle seized and/or sold are self evident, and the psychological impact of such a loss of liberty by, in effect, having ones vehicle “stolen by force of the state” are most apparent when we also consider the cultural importance, personal identity, and attachment often placed on ones vehicle. The subsequent impediment of freedom to travel, that vehicles provide, as well as the impact to ones personal identity and psychological attachment to such an item, when lost for what could be a permanent or indefinite period, can for some, have a significant psychological impact. Clearly such an impact need not be universal to be an infringement, which was the reasoning of the court as to why jail did not need to be mandatory [page 2 paragraph 7 of Tab ‘2’] . All of us can attest to the stress, anxiety and loss of personal security we feel when we simply leave our vehicles unattended in a “bad area”, and if our property is stolen it can be very upsetting to us on a personal  and psychological level.

I feel it significant to point out that the Supreme Court of Canada clearly felt in the case before them  [Tab ‘2’] that there was in that case, an issue of public safety, and address what they call on page 3 paragraph 9: “the desirability of keeping bad drivers off the roads”

and again at page 26 paragraph 94 –

 “S. 94 is but part of the overall scheme laid out in the Motor Vehicle Act by which the Legislature is attempting to get bad drivers off the road”.

 Bearing in mind that this was a suspended license case, many times these cases involve dealing with issues such as driving under the influence, dangerous driving, street racing, etc. I, on the other hand, have been found “guilty” of parking 14 minutes over the arbitrary time limit.  

 Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada [Tab ‘2’] did not have to deal with the issue of whether, for example, MLA’s were exempt from having their licenses suspended, contrary to section 15. In other words, even if the Victoria City Bylaws did not discriminate on the basis of political elitism, as I will point out to you, it would still violate the principles of fundamental justice based on its potential to deprive ‘life liberty or security of the person’. So in comparing these cases, if we consider the whole picture, I submit we have a violation that is well beyond any section one (1) rescue that Crown might attempt, as they failed also to do the case with the Supreme Court case I refer to at Tab 2.

 Please also consider that the Supreme Court of Canada has laid down a guideline for testing the reasonable limits of section one that is frequently relied on. Those are found in R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. [Tab ‘10’]

“, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. […]. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.”

 The Parking Bylaw is clearly arbitrary, and with regard to the exemptions I will point out to you, profoundly so.

 I refer also to Justice Wilson again, at page 27, par 105  of [Tab 2]

“  If, however, the limit on the s. 7 right has been effected through a violation of the principles of fundamental justice, the enquiry, in my view, ends there and the limit cannot be sustained under s. 1. I say this because I do not believe that a limit on the s. 7 right which has been imposed in violation of the principles of fundamental justice can be either "reasonable" or "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

 Section 15(1) lists four different kinds of legal equality: equality before the law, equality under the law, equal protection of the law, and equal benefit of the law. This section is intended to ensure that laws that confer benefits as well as those providing sanctions would be subject to the section, and to ensure that both the substance and application of any law would be non-discriminatory and that those that make the law can not place themselves above it.

 The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”  For the “law makers” to place themselves above the law they create is not the rule of law but “the rule of men”.

 

The only exemptions permitted as ‘just’ under section 15 are those policies that have as their objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups. It is doubtful the writers of the Constitution considered, or would consider, the political elite of this Province as a disadvantaged group in need of special protection or privilege.

 

 I have been charged under both sections 24 and 41 of bylaw 92-84.  [Note – Tab ‘1’ page 4 and Tab ‘7’ attachment ‘A’].  The issue of the exemptions is raised from the beginning in my Constitutional Challenge notice at Tab ‘1’ page 2 item 9.

 

In the Victoria City Bylaw, sections  24 (2) we have:

 

(2)   Subsection (1) shall not apply to the driver of any vehicle belonging to or in use by the City, its agents, servants and employees in the course of their employment as evidenced by appropriate signs or markings or by a notice signed by the City Engineer, City Clerk, or Police Chief and displayed on the vehicle.

 

And again at section 41 (10)

 

(10)  Subsections (2), (3) and (4) do not apply on holidays or on other days between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., subject to any special regulation made pursuant to this bylaw, and indicated by a sign or signs at or near the metered space, nor to the driver of any vehicle belonging to any of the following classes:

 

(a)           vehicles belonging to the City, its officers, employees and agents and being used in the course of their employment, as evidenced by appropriate signs or markings or by notice signed by the City Engineer, City Clerk, or Police Chief, and displayed on the vehicle;

 

(b)   vehicles belonging to and driven by the Mayor, a City Councillor, a member of Parliament, or a Member of the Legislative Assembly, as evidenced by a notice signed by the City Engineer or Police Chief and displayed on the vehicle;

 

(c)   any vehicles in use by the Canadian Armed Forces or public utilities as may be designated as emergency vehicles by the City Engineer;

 

(d)   vehicles in use by an organized Fire Department or Police Department, and ambulances;

 

(e)   vehicles bearing the distinguishing flag or insignia of His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia or of the Senior Officer commanding the Canadian Armed Forces on Vancouver Island.

 

 There simply is no lawful reason why any of these groups or individuals should be treated any differently than any other group or individual. The exemptions are an affront to the constitution, plain and simple.

[Please note that neither the Supreme Court of BC, nor the BC Court of Appeal addressed this section 15.1 issue in their reasons for judgement. This matter remains an issue at law for appeal, and/or additional constitutional challenge in lower court. In fact, i had the opportunity to challenge yet another ticket on this ground ALONE, and the ticket was thrown out when "Crown" decided not to proceed. SEE: supplemental information. ]

 The next area I want to argue is one that I consider of considerable important within the context of  the fundamental principles of justice, and that is, where exactly does the Motor Vehicle Act and Victoria City Bylaw gets its authority? Does it come from the Queens Mace, from brute force, or from consent?

  I submit that within the context of the fundamental principles of justice, the issue of consent in relation to the source of authority, as apposed to the application, is not trivial.

 

Consent is implied by behaviour [The golden rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, is the sum of the law according to the Bible], while consent is expressed in voluntary contracts. Or to use a simple example: If my neighbour cuts down my apple tree because I allow it, then he gains authority by consent. Simply cutting it down because he can get away with it, or has a bigger army, is 'authority by force'. The only place that authority by force exists or is justified is in the mind of the tyrant or despot.

 The origin of authority is not the same as the application of authority. Authority attained or created by force alone is the weakest form of authority when measured by the “principles of fundamental justice” or common law, and this is the form the Province, and hence also the City, is employing. This is not merely my own opinion, but was expressed by Justice Mazcko in my appeal before the Supreme Court, where in responding to my question, in argument, as to whether the authority of the Motor Vehicle Act was by force or consent, he responded without hesitation that  “it’s absolutely by force”. If simple force is satisfactory for a government body to claim authority over an individual, who has essentially done nothing wrong - what theory of law then prevents individuals from likewise using force to gain there own “authority”?

  I have made it abundantly clear from the beginning, in court filed documents, that I do not consent to the City’s attempts to control my common law right to the peaceful and lawful use of the highways. The City does not have exclusive claim of ownership, as I have paid abundant fees for their repair and construction, through copious gasoline taxes, and they are not representing any damaged party in there action against me.

 If on the other hand, the Respondent is of the opinion that I am under a contract, why was no relevant contract produced when I referred to this matter in Provincial Court? When I attempted to express to the Provincial Court that my so-called “Drivers License” could not be used as proof of consent via a valid contract, (because I made a legal reservation of my rights [Tab ‘8’] on both my temporary and permanent license by referring to the Uniform Commercial Code Tab ‘ 15’), I was cut short from demonstrating this. Instead, I was informed by the Court that I was not being charged as a “driver”, but as an owner only, and that this issue was, according to Madam Justice Whelan [p.16 line 23] “crucial”. The only contract referred to was my common law right of legal ownership of my vehicle, as stated on page 16 lines 22 – 29 of the transcript, thereby making me responsible under ‘absolute liability’.

 The only principles at work in a system where authority ‘originates by force’ is that of ‘might makes right’. Authority by force is either moral or immoral, and no person or government can justify themselves of such action, while denying others of the same right or privilege; and for a court to allow a government to do so is to support the notion that governments have more rights and privileges than that of individuals, which is incompatible to section 15.

The Crown’s Case Law.

The case law referred to in Justice Maczko’s reasons for judgment [Tab ‘14’], namely Brazier v. Vancouver  is, in my respectful opinion, offensive. To imagine that a court would permit the use of force, via confiscation of vehicles [s. 24 (3) of bylaw], threat and/or risk of imprisonment and fines, in order to “encourage” pedestrian traffic because the government “wants” to, is an insult to section 7 of the Constitution. It may well be in keeping with the principles of universal social collectivism or tyranny, but certainly not fundamental justice as referred to in the Constitution.

 Government power is like fire; it makes a good servant, but a terrible master. A Government that employs force as its means to create authority to obtain what it “wants” can hardly object when individuals or groups use similar tactics towards them; they have, after all, consented to such force by expressed example. Governments do NOT have superiour rights, if indeed they even have equal rights, since they are not individuals under the law.

 The other theory of Crown casts the parking issue in terms of a ‘limited resource’. Parking spaces become available on a first come first take basis, and once possession is taken, the right or liberty of others to that space ends. The only issue of law from that point is; arguably, whether a wonton disregard for others exists (i.e. malice, rather than lawful necessity) and can be clearly demonstrated by an examination of the facts. It is not consistent with the principles of justice to assume guilt over innocence, merely in the interests of political or judicial convenience. There is no charge or accusation of malice against me in the matter before you, nor could any be reasonably supported by evidence.

 Furthermore, given the Crowns submission that parking is a “limited resource” what theory of law does the Crown rely on to then grant the mayor and his political elite an unrestricted portion, when freeman and commoners are not? Commoners who, failing to receive their right to equal protection and benefit of the law, now face fines, confiscation of property or vehicles and threat of jail. By what theory of law do the selfish needs or wants of these few outweigh the rights of the Appellant?

 Is parking a safety issue?

 It is difficult for any reasonable person to imagine how a vehicle parked on the un-traveled portion of the highways could be a threat to the safety of the general public. It is even more difficult to imagine how the placing of a coin in a machine next to such a vehicle, or the arbitrary restriction of various parking time limits throughout the city, could possibly contribute to the safety of anyone or anything. Furthermore, how are the vehicles operated and parked by the Mayor of Victoria, his Councilors, the Military, MLA’s, MP’s or ANY of the other ‘privileged political elite’ in any way less (or more) of a safety threat? There is no issue of public safety involved with parking restrictions; but even if such existed then there should be no double standard that excuses those in “authority” from the same safety concerns as commoners. How, for example a parked military vehicle (vehicles, not surprisingly, used for the transport of high explosives and the like) could be safer than a civilian vehicle, is untenable to the rule of logic.

 

In addition, there is no parking bylaw enforcement on Sundays, holidays and evenings [Tab 13 p3]. The weeks surrounding Christmas likely sees the largest traffic volume of any other time of the year, yet through some strange metamorphosis, all safety and/or ‘limited resource’ issues, as raised by the Respondent, cease to exist. No tickets are issued, yet we witness no eruption of chaos, contrary to their theory that this will occur.

 My right to park my car on the un-traveled portion of the highways, in the pursuit of a livelihood, as part of the enjoyments of life, secure from Government aggression, is of significantly greater need of protection than some unproven, mysterious, discriminatory, and illogical public safety need.

 Moreover, Governments have often suspended very real issues of safety in what they consider matters of ‘necessity’. An example of the need to suspend “safety” over necessity is that of the police, fire and ambulance services. All these organizations have exemptions to the BC Motor Vehicle Act that permit them to, in effect, endanger the public to greater or lesser degree because it is deemed, by governments, to be necessary. These exemptions include the highly controversial practice of police chases (street racing in other words). My pursuit of a livelihood under the context of section 7 is a protected right under the Charter, while the pursuit of suspected robbers, speeders, etc., by lead footed police officers, for example, regardless of how pressing or vital, is not.

MVA [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318 Exemption for emergency vehicles (section 122)  [Tab ‘5’]

122 (1) Despite anything in this Part, but subject to subsections (2) and (4), a driver of an emergency vehicle may do the following:

(a) exceed the speed limit;

(b) proceed past a red traffic control signal or stop sign without stopping;

(c) disregard rules and traffic control devices governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions;

 If this does not convince you of the apparent hypocrisy, and lack of credibility of the Provincial government, regarding their alleged concern for public safety, then consider the fact that the Provincial government is also the sole distributor of products they themselves vociferously contend to be of extreme risk to public health and safety: namely tobacco and alcohol. I submit that when profit is to be had, the government can easily convince itself that they need not worry so much about public safety, even when those concerns are real and expressed by themselves. I submit that their so-called concern for the parking of vehicles is not over public safety; rather it is the danger that they will lose millions of dollars in revenue through fines and confiscation of vehicles.

 Magna Carta (Contract Law, Common Law)

Clearly the law has, for as long as time, recognized the authority of contracts - and that such are binding if they were entered freely and without fraud or coercion. For any party to use force or fraud in altering or undermining the authority of a contract that deprives life, liberty or security is not consistent with section 7.

The protections of the Eternal Magna Carta also have Constitutional authority under section 26. A copy of Magna Carta is available at Tab ‘4’.

The Magna Carta is no ordinary contract. The eternal nature of the rights and liberties entrenched in the document holds the status of a covenant (aka, blood covenant). The term covenant means little to most of us in our so-called ‘civilized’ world, but many of our great ancestors survived because of the cultural reverence such agreements were given. Any person who broke a contract of this nature was put to death as per the ‘agreed to punishment’ of such contracts; so it goes without saying that a great deal of attention was paid to the content and specifics of the wording. In some cultures, the practice of animal sacrifice was introduced as a substitute to the death of the covenant breaker, in order that the benefits could continue at the price of the offender’s finest animal, and not his or her own life.

 I raise this briefly, because although it should be abundantly clear from the wording of the Magna Carta that the document was to remain complete and unaltered for ever, it is ever clearer to us when we understand the cultural reverence of such documents, and the intent of the founders at the time the document was established as law. The rights and liberties of the Magna Carta are granted to every freeman and his heirs, and those rights remain in perpetuity. Intent of the writers is always a consideration in determining the weight or appropriate interpretation of critical legal documents, and I ask the court to consider this in applying the Magna Carta to this case.

 King John of England, in 1215, knowingly bound not only himself but "his heirs, for ever" to grant "to all freemen of our kingdom" the rights and liberties the great charter described. He authorized that handwritten copies of Magna Carta be prepared on parchment, affixed with his seal, and publicly read throughout the realm. With Magna Carta, King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law.

 Former head of British Parliament, Sir Winston Churchill, stated in 1956 “here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it.”

 Article one (1) and 63 express the eternal nature of the document, and states that “all the underwritten Liberties” are “to be enjoyed and held by them [namely freemen] and by their heirs, from us and from our heirs.” [Emp. Added]

Article 20 states: “A free-man shall not be fined for a small offence.” Both the Motor Vehicle Act, and Victoria City Bylaw provide for fines, contrary to this provision. “Offenses” under the context of article 20 are those under common law.

 Articles 24, 38 and 39 state in various ways that: “No Sheriff, Constable, Coroners, nor other of our Bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our crown.” And that “No Bailiff, for the future, shall put any man to his law, upon his own simple affirmation, without credible witnesses produced for the purpose.”  The only witness entering evidence against me in this matter is the commissionaire under contract for the Crown [PT page 1 line 31-34], which also contravenes article 20 which states “none of the aforesaid fines shall be assessed, but by the oath of honest men of the vicinage.”, or in other words, good men of the neighbourhood, and not employees who indirectly depend on parking revenue for their income.

Article 41 and 42 ensure safe and secure mobility on land or sea, within the kingdom. Security includes the freedom of harassment from city councils, their employees and MLA’s that place themselves above the law, and use aggression to impose their “wants” on freemen and commoners.

 Article 63 Shows that the rights and liberties mentioned are “in all things and places, forever as is aforesaid”, showing that the document has authority throughout the commonwealth.

 The Magna Carta is the foundation of English and Canadian law, which includes the Constitution. The Canadian Charter is, after all, a document intended for the sole purpose of preserving the Rights and Freedoms of individuals; not corporations – which is what the City of Victoria is in terms of its place under law.

 In a dictatorship it may well be expected that the “wants” of a government take precedent over the liberties of the inhabitants; however we thankfully inherited a higher standard. For a government to impose fines, confiscate and impound vehicles, threaten incarceration, and restrict or bar a Freeman from the pursuit of a livelihood and the enjoyment of life, is not acceptable in a “free AND democratic” country. If the "democratic choice" is only between varying degrees of competing tyrants, who in turn procure a system of hundreds of little tyrants, is that really a democracy?

Furthermore, if I pay a penny for a house I may well be said to have gotten a good deal, but I did not get it for “free”. Free is, then, a very specific and exact word that when united with the word “democracy” in a legal context, and gives no room for the abuses of governments that seek to place their “wants” above an individual’s life, liberty or security. The “wants” of government are completely non sequitur in a free and democratic country.

 What then is democracy? Is it not a society characterized by formal equality of rights, human dignity and freedoms maximized for the benefit of all? Or is it, as some might argue, merely the exercise of force by a majority over the minority? Does consent mean nothing? Surely it is the role of ANY court within a “free and democratic” country to place the liberty of even those of the minority within its protection, and to uphold the standard that those that make the law must not be above it. The mayor of Victoria and his council members are above the law that I have been found “guilty” of. This is a clear violation, and section 1 of the Charter is not reason to excuse them; rather it condemns them.

 Governments use the principles of Common Law, including Magna Carta, when it justifies a position that it finds of benefit to itself. The Magna Carta is not a document by which some parts can be ignored and others used as an authority; it is an eternal contract specifically designed to not be fragmented, but to endure the changing whims of human subjectivity, politics and bias. King John certainly intended the document to last forever, and under English Law it is an act of highest treason to undermine such authority. Does a parliament, city council or court have more authority than a King; particularly given the symbol of their authority is the Royal Mace?

The Magna Carta will always be the law of the land, either by peace or by war. I place myself under its protection, as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I ask this court for the protection of the law.