R.. v. Jebbett 2001 BCSC 829

    Date:   20010621

Docket:     V2118357

Registry:   Victoria







Counsel for the Crown:


Appearing on his own behalf:

T. DeSouza


M. Jebbett



           Date and Place of Hearing:                          May 16, 2001
                                                             Victoria, B3C.



R.      V. Jebbet                                              Page    2

[1] The appellant was issued a parking ticket for parking in excess of the two-hour parking time limit applicable for the 800 block of Humnbolt Street in Victoria, contrary to the City of Victoria Streets and Traffic Bylaw No. 92/84, s. 24. The bylaw restricts parking in a “Limited Time Parking” zone. The two-hour time limit is posted on signs that are spaced along that street. The appellant, who represented himself before the Justice of the Peace and in the present proceeding, does not dispute the facts. He contends that the city’s bylaw and s. 83 of the Motor Vehicle Ac:, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318 violate his Charter rights. In particular, the appellant submits his ss. 6, 7, 11(d), 12 and 15(1) Charter rights have been violated.

[2] The standard fine for parking over the time limit is $7.50. However, the Justice of the Peace reduced the fine to $4.00.

[3] The appellant argues that he never personally consented to be subject to the bylaw or the Motor Vehicle Act, and they have no application to him and his unfettered right to the tree use of the highways, which he claims is granted and continued unfettered by the Magna Carta. Underlying the appellant’s submission is that the Charter protects his right to free use of public highways without any infringement, i.e., he can park when and where he likes free of charge.

That’s right!  Just as in fact the Mayor, his councillors, MLA’s, MP’s, the leader of the Armed Forces, lieutenant Governor, etc… are “permitted” to do by specific bylaw exemption.  Our ONLY duty or obligation is to respect the equal RIGHT of others to free and peaceful use of the Queen's highways....

PLEASE SEE “SUPPLIMENTAL MATERIAL” which was requested by this so-called judge, yet as you can see by his “reasons for judgment” he is suffering from PROFOUND memory loss (Alzheimer's?), and it has now spread to the BC Court of Appeal. 

[ 4] The appellant argued a number of Charter sections. However, I conclude the right to park on city streets free of charge is not a right protected by the Charter.

No reason as to why it is "not a right" is given. Just “I conclude”. Conclude what? That it is A RIGHT... but its not protected by the Charter... Huh? So should we protect it by force then, if the court doesn't do so by peaceful order?? Shouldn't a judge know that any infringement of a RIGHT is an assault under the law? You learn that basic tenet in your first year of law school.

Lets face it, there is no money in protecting a right, but parking meters make men (including Mayors and Judges) rich beyond their dreams.

5]    In Buhlers v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) (1999), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 478 (B.C.C.A.), applications for leave to appeal and. for reconsideration dismissed, [1999)

S.C.C.A. No. 219 (Q.L.) (S.C.C.), Hinds J.A. (Prowse and. Linch JJ.A. concurring) after carefully reviewing the case law concluded that the right or privilege to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a liberty protected by s. 7. Driving is not a matter that is fundamental or inherently personal to the individual nor does it go to the root of a person’s dignity and independence so as to trigger the application of s. 7. Hinds J.A. commented at para. 94 on the legitimate restrictions placed on driving and the use of public highways:

 ... Driving a motor vehicle considered only as an extension of the individual’s right to move freely, might well be thought to contain a “liberty” component; but driving a motor vehicle on a public highway involves the use of the Crown’s property, and directly affects the rights of all other drivers and pedestrians to move freely and safely. It is the duty of the Crown to protect the safety of all, which underlies its right to regulate and control

Might well be thought to contain a liberty component” ?  Since when does Liberty have "components" that are of greater or lesser value? Even ONE "component" of Liberty means it is a protected right of Liberty, framed only by the EQUAL rights of others to their own Liberty (or components thereof).

Still, you have to love the statement "affects the rights of all other drivers".... Affects their what, Judge? Oh, and regarding "duty of Crown".... The only duty "Crown" has here is to uphold the entire content of the Magna Carta... which you'll notice he doesn't mention here, even though that was the reason for the petition and challenge.

And since when does having "a duty" to respect others safety translate to authority to restrict their rights? Your concept of law is cartoonish, Mr. Maczko. Duty and authority are completely different things..... We may indeed, for example, have a duty to respect others property, but does that mean we then gain authority to break into our neighbours homes and lock away all their valuables - as part of our "duty" to respect their property, and keep it safe? Any such duty ENDS where OTHERS RIGHTS begin.... Wouldn't you think a judge would know this? His position isn't even coherent, let alone qualify as a legal argument. He is manufacturing a safety issue... manufacturing a duty.... and disregarding the real issue... the preservation of our right to move about in peace, free from government harassment.

Oh, and Mr. Maczko - I think we'd also like to actually see this mythical document you are supposedly quoting, that you claim puts such a massive "duty" on Crown for "our safety", that it becomes of greater weight than the Constitution  - our Magna Carta, which was declared in 1368 (by Edward III) to be "the Law of the Land" and that "Magna Carta shall have no sovereign"...  You are totally full of crap when you claim there is some over-riding document that states "it is the duty of the Crown to protect the safety of all" [from parked cars, no less].... and then use such a legal fiction to disregard the actual law, and duty of Crown, and infringe our rights in the alleged name of safety. You are a piece of dirt, a treasonous leech and serious threat to our country, and have disregarded our most sacred of documents. The duty of "Crown" is preservation of our RIGHT to free and peaceful use of the highways, and you abandoned your post!! Please go back and study your law school notes on the meaning of a right - assuming you went to law school(?)


You can almost picture these parasites grasping for the straws when they say make these idiotic statements. For goodness sake, either we have a Constitution or we don't, either we have a right to liberty or we don't, and part of our protected right of liberty most definitely includes:

  • Determination of where one lives, works, buys and sells goods or goes to their place of worship. These are not new concepts as the court would have you believe; and part of the ability to do these things may involve the use of a conveyance, which may require a measure of competence, and individual duty to respect the right of others but such does not diminish the right.

Please read R. v. Chong (1909), 11 W.L.R 231, 14 B.C.R. 275 (C.A.) which reiterated the rights we inhereted in perpetuity, OR as the court itself stated the "normal rights which are available to every British Subject AGAINST ALL THE WORLD"), and include:

[3] "...the unmolested pursuit of one's trade or occupation and free use of the highways."

A right frozen in our Laws by the contractual guarantee of the Magna Carta, wherein King Edward made the Magna Carta the eternal "law of the land" for all people within the commonwealth. A right, that if infringed by parliament (which is an heir of Crown) can be ignored without LAWFUL penalty.

 the use of its highways through licensing statutes, and the limitations on individual rights which they necessarily impose. The right to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway is therefore more correctly to be characterized as a privilege which the Crown may restrict without infringing the liberty interests protected by s. 7 of the Charter.

  [6] Hinds J.A. also referred to the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. V. Neale, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 577 at 584-585, which recognized that while the ordinary right of movement is protected, the right to circulate in a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental liberty, but is a licensed activity subject to regulation and control for the protection of life and property.

Parking is not an activity “Subject to regulation and control for the protection of life and property”. Perhaps the “reasons for judgment” of dishonest or foolish judges should be subject to regulation and control, but certainly not safely parked cars. Their fraud is exposed before your eyes....

[7] While in Buhler provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act permitting 90 day temporary license suspensions for impaired driving were in issue, the reasoning of that case is equally applicable here, i.e., that driving is a regulated activity and there is no Charter protected right to drive. One aspect of driving regulations is prescribed fines for traffic offences.

Any judge who compares a parked vehicle at the side of the road, as in any way comparable to a vehicle traveling down the highway with an intoxicated driver, should at least be required to take the short bus to the court house. This "judgement" not only defies ALL common sense, it shows a brazen contempt for it, and rips the veil of supposed "impartiality" of our Supreme Court.

[8] The City of Victoria had the authority to pass the bylaw. Section 124(1) (c) of the Motor Vehicle Act grants a municipality the power to regulate, control or prohibit the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles in the municipality,


R.               v. Jebbett                                                  Page 5

by passing a bylaw. 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. In Braeier v. Vancouver (City) (1997), 46 B.C.L.R. (3d) 372 (B.C.C.A.) the Court of Appeal found that the City’s by—law designed to encourage pedestrian traffic on a specific boulevard was sufficient reason for parking restrictions. I see no difference in a parking regulation which limits the time for parking so as to allow more people to use the available parking in certain areas of the city.

Translation: Government wants and needs (for money) are far more important than your absolute right to liberty, property or security from government aggression. Welcome to the socialist prison. There is no peaceful way out, as these appeals from our courts seemingly demonstrate rather clearly.

Note: Compare this judges comment (below) to those cases cited by this so-called BC “judge”. You be the judge and see who is honouring their solemn duty to protect our rights, of which, the Magna Carta most DEFINITELY is included.

Regina ex rel Christoffersen v. Minister of Highways.

Justice Egbert of the Supreme Court of Alberta :

 At the outset I must express my shocked amazement at the contention of counsel for the minister that the claim of a resident of Alberta to a driver’s licence—and consequently to drive upon the highways of Alberta—is a privilege and not a right. Since time immemorial the Queen’s subjects have been free to move along the Queen’s highway provided only they kept the Queen’s peace. While the requirement of technical competence in the operation of that modern mode of conveyance, the motor vehicle, may, for the public safety, require the subject to prove that competence, as a condition to the issue of a licence to drive — and the consequent right to drive - that requirement does not reduce a “right” to a “privilege.” Because it is my duty to be technically competent to drive, my right to drive is not destroyed, although it may be taken away from me or suspended if I fail in the performance of my duty. The introduction of a dangerous mode of conveyance has not destroyed or impaired my right, but it has enlarged my duty. The keeping of the Queen’s peace now embraces an obligation on me to be so technically and physically competent that I shall not drive to the danger of any other of Her Majesty’s subjects. When I have fulfilled my obligation, when I have performed my duty, my right to move freely upon the Queen’s highway remains intact and unimpaired.

[9] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

[10] The Crown sought costs in the amount of ~250.OO, I see no reason to impose the costs at this stage since I think the appellant had a legitimate and arguable case. The Court might, however, consider imposing costs on future cases if the appellant continues to break the law.

In other words, if you appeal this great decision of mine, you will be fined. [See Buhlers paragraph 33, to see what happens if you dare not pay your fines: the courts make death threats against you.]

What a joke of a court system. This judge states in open court that the exemptions in the Victoria City Traffic Bylaws 92-84 (s.24 and 41) [see supplemental material link] are “gross violations” and asks for additional material (he wanted a copy of the bylaw) then mentions NOT A WORD about this violation in his judgment.

Does this in any way resemble justice to you?

And just when you think it can’t get any worse, you have to read what the BC Court of Appeal said…. Apparently, government is the source of ALL our “rights” (an incoherent statement) and can remove them at will with "legislation". [BTW, legislation is a very fancy nomenclature for "a piece of paper with rules on it". It does not even have the same weight as a contract as far as its lawfulness. Any ideas beyond legislation being a mere piece of paper is all pixie dust and mirrors. Particularly now that the BC Court of Appeal has ruled that the Sovereign enacted Magna Carta has less authority than LEGISLATION.

Baring in mind that we live in a multi-party system, this means any special interest group can put forward their law (rules on paper) through legislation, and the courts will enforce those  "pixie dust laws", regardless of fundamental rights or principles of justice.

Didn't we fight a war to stop governments from interfering with individual fundamental rights?

Are there other exemptions in the statutes??? 

ICBC marks dignitaries with red - A bright red licence plate shining through the gloom of Vancouver's winter streets. By The Vancouver Sun December 29, 2007

Diplomatic plates are a double-edged sword, Cronin said. They get you free parking at city parking spaces and make you easy for police to spot in an emergency, but their visibility could also be a security threat, he said.