IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation: R. v. Jacobi, 2017 BCSC 1106

Date: 20170629

Docket: 100496

Registry: Kamloops

Regina

v.

Dale Martin Jacobi

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Dley

On appeal from: An order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, dated April 19, 2016 (R. v. Jacobi, Kamloops Registry No. 100496 (unreported))

Reasons for Judgment

Counsel for the Crown: O. Potestio Dale Martin Jacobi appeared on his own behalf: Place and Date of Hearing: Kamloops, B.C. June 22, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Kamloops, B.C. June 29, 2017





[1] Mr. Jacobi was convicted of resisting a peace officer. Mr. Jacobi contends that he has been unfairly labelled as a “Freeman on the land” and that influenced the trial judge’s duty to be impartial. He contends that he experienced a bias, unfair and prejudicial hearing.

[2] Mr. Jacobi has appealed the conviction and sentence.

[3] For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

Background Facts

[4] On December 10, 2015, Mr. Jacobi was travelling alone in his car. He came to a traffic check stop in Merritt, British Columbia. He was asked by the investigating officer for his driver’s license, insurance and registration. Mr. Jacobi questioned whether the officer had any authority to make the requests.

[5] As a result of the exchange, the officer became concerned that Mr. Jacobi did not have insurance and that he might leave the scene. Mr. Jacobi refused to pull his car aside resulting in the officer arresting him for obstruction.

[6] Mr. Jacobi refused to get out of his car. Ultimately, other officers arrived and Mr. Jacobi was physically restrained. Mr. Jacobi refused to identify himself. Mr. Jacobi possessed an expired Alberta driver’s license in his name, along with other identifying documents.

[7] On January 19, 2016, Mr. Jacobi was arraigned on a charge of wilfully resisting or obstructing a peace officer contrary to s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The following exchanges took place between Mr. Jacobi and the provincial court judge:

THE COURT: Thank you. May I see the record of proceedings, please, Madam Clerk? Thank you.

Mr. Jacobi, do you have a lawyer?

THE ACCUSED: Are you talking to me?

THE COURT: I am, yes.

THE ACCUSED: I just -- that is not my name. I don’t recognize that name, and I don’t consent to be identified by that name. I object to the proceedings in this court. This court has no jurisdiction. You have not proved jurisdiction. Jurisdiction has been challenged. It must be answered.

THE COURT: Do you have a lawyer?

THE ACCUSED: I don’t require a lawyer.

THE COURT: All right. Matters on the list today, to comply with instructions, I gather. Are you ready to be arraigned on the charge, sir?

THE ACCUSED: I object. I’m not ready for anything. I would object to everything that the Crown has alleged. She has alleged facts and terms which are not in evidence before this court. This court wished to proceed without any material facts or evidence to state that there has been a crime committed, then you are committing barratry on the bench, malfeasance and misfeasance of office as well.

THE COURT: All right. Now, you, sir, stand charged that on or about the 10th of --

THE ACCUSED: I don’t stand for anything.

…

THE COURT: All right. Well, I do gather from that, sir, that you do not wish to enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty to the charge I have just read?

THE ACCUSED: I am innocent. I will not enter any other plea.

THE COURT: All right. A plea of not guilty will be entered upon your --

THE ACCUSED: Are you practicing law from the bench now? That’s barratry, and I’m sure that the Law Society of British Columbia will be very interested in your barratry.

THE COURT: Well, we’re going to move along with this matter, sir. I have directed that a not guilty plea be entered on your behalf.

THE ACCUSED: I object.

THE COURT: You may object.

THE ACCUSED: And what is the ruling on my objection?

THE COURT: We’re not dealing with it today.

THE ACCUSED: You’re not dealing with it today.

THE COURT: No, we’re not.

THE ACCUSED: Okay. So this court wants to practice malfeasance, misfeasance, and barratry, and then proceed to trial.

THE COURT: Your trial is going to be set down based upon the plea that I have recorded on your behalf, a plea of not guilty.

[8] The matter proceeded to trial on March 3, 2016. The trial judge reserved her decision until April 19, 2017. Mr. Jacobi was convicted of the offence charged and the following exchange took place:

THE COURT: So you will be provided with a copy of this decision. You can sort out now whether you wish to speak to sentence, or maybe wish to take some time and consult with legal counsel, or do what you want to do.

The choice is yours, sir.

THE ACCUSED: Are you speaking to me?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

THE ACCUSED: I reject your decision.

THE COURT: Well, that’s something you can take up on appeal. I’m dealing with sentencing now.

THE ACCUSED: I don’t accept whatever sentence you’re going to determine.

…

THE COURT: Okay. So the Crown is seeking a 30-day sentence, of which they have said you have already served your time. I have some issues with that, because you were only in custody because you refused to sign the bail documents.

THE ACCUSED: Everything that the gentleman has said is hearsay. There has been no evidence presented that I was a driver. There was no evidence presented that --

THE COURT: I’m not talking about my decision. I’m talking about the sentence.

THE ACCUSED: I don’t accept your decision, and I don’t accept any sentence that you may give.

THE COURT: Thirty days, time served. You have victim fine surcharges payable in 60 days. Thank you.

[9] The trial judge did not consider any criminal record and sentenced Mr. Jacobi to 30 days in jail, which was satisfied by time he had already served.

[10] In his written argument on appeal and presented as an “Affidavit of Facts”, Mr. Jacobi states the following:

1. Affiant is of the age of majority, is of sound mind, competent to testify as to the facts contained herein from first-hand knowledge and knows of no legal impediment to prohibit or prevent him making of this Affidavit.

2. Affiant hereby avers that at trial in Case No. 100446-1 [the learned trial judge] committed Barratrous Acts by denial of Affiant's right to due process through selective discrimination, blatant partiality, violated Federal Court of Canada Ruling against 'Noble Cause Corruption' on behalf of her employer, who benefits from her denial of due process to Affiant, in order to maintain an administration of law which does not conform to precedent and Constitutionally guaranteed rights, all in furtherance of the Crowns position while accepting salary, commissions and other emoluments and bribes from the Government of British Columbia to rule in the Government's favor, in that she denied:

a. the Affiant due process by denying Affiant's right to full disclosure demand made to Crown;

b. refused to allow Affiant, despite Affiant's objections and under threat of being jailed, to fully examine the police officers, as to their employment history as Police Officers, their knowledge of the B.C. Highway Traffic Act, or any other statute, law, or by-law as well as the Canadian Constitution, who were witness against him;

c. failed to substantially address Affiant's Constitutional question or to recognize substance over form as required by law;

3. Affiant avers that in her ruling [the learned trial judge] presented no facts or evidence in support of her overturning of Alberta Supreme Court ruling: 28 WWR page 36 through 39 (Alta., 1959 Egbert J.) R. EX. REL. CHRISTOFFERSON v. MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS;

4. Affiant avers that in her ruling [the learned trial judge] failed to present any facts or evidence in support of her ruling and overturning the Supreme Court of Canada rulings in R. v. Dell, R. v. Big M Drug Mart, nor, as well R. v. Buhay;

5. Affiant avers that Crown Counsel failed to produce any material facts or evidence which would demonstrate that the Canadian Constitution Act 1982 applied to Affiant;

6. Affiant avers that in her ruling [the learned trial judge] failed [to] acknowledge that Crown Counsel failed to produce any facts or evidence that the Canadian Constitution Act 1982 applies to the Affiant as demanded by Affiant;

7. Affiant avers that Crown Counsel failed to produce any material facts which would demonstrate that Affiant was subject to the British Columbia Highway Traffic Act or that Affiant was engaged in commerce, as demanded by Affiant;

8. Affiant avers that in her ruling [the learned trial judge] failed to acknowledge that Crown Counsel failed to present any facts or evidence which would tend to demonstrate and support the standard that at the time of the alleged offence Affiant met the requirements of the HTA, in that Affiant was engaged in commerce;

9. Affiant avers that Crown Counsel failed to produce any material facts or evidence that Affiant was a 'Driver' within the meaning of the Act as charged;

10. Affiant avers that despite his objections, Crown Counsel presented no evidence as to the definition of the term 'Driver' within the meaning of any B.C. legislated Act;

11. Affiant avers that in her ruling [the learned trial judge] failed to acknowledge that Crown Counsel failed to present any facts or evidence which would demonstrate and support her ruling that Affiant met the requirements for the Definition of a "Driver" under the Act as charged;

12. Affiant avers that Crown Counsel failed to produce any material facts which would demonstrate that Affiant's car was an automobile within the meaning of the Act as charged;

13. Affiant avers that in her ruling [the learned trial judge] failed to acknowledge that Crown Counsel failed to present any facts or evidence which would demonstrate and support her ruling that Affiant's car was an automobile as defined within the act as charged;

14. Affiant hereby affirms that this affidavit is true, correct, certain complete and is not made or intended to be misleading in any respect, as Yahweh is my witness;

15. Further Affiant sayeth naught.

Discussion

[11] The trial decision may only be overturned if there was an error of law or an error of fact. For an error of fact to prevail, the error must be palpable and overriding: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33.

[12] There was no error of law and there was no error respecting the facts.

[13] The trial judge understood Mr. Jacobi to be espousing language used by Freemen of the land. That did not affect the manner in which the trial was conducted. The trial judge instructed herself to be aware of any Charter issues and concluded that there were none.

[14] The trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence and concluded that Mr. Jacobi was guilty. The facts support the conviction.

[15] The trial judge considered Mr. Jacobi’s arguments that he had not been provided disclosure and concluded that he had been provided with relevant material pertaining to the charge he faced. Mr. Jacobi had been provided with the relevant disclosure and the trial judge was correct in dismissing that argument.

[16] The trial judge considered the cases that Mr. Jacobi cited as support for his argument. The trial judge was correct in her assessment that the cases did not assist in Mr. Jacobi’s defence to the charge.

[17] I have reviewed the transcript of the trial and conclude that the trial judge was patient and listened to Mr. Jacobi’s arguments, even though many of the arguments had no relevance to the issues before the court. Mr. Jacobi received a fair hearing.

[18] Simply because a trial judge does not agree with a litigant’s personal views of the applicability of this country’s laws does not give rise to an unfair or unjust result.

[19] I am satisfied that the trial judge made no errors of law or fact.

[20] The sentence was within the proper range for the offence. Mr. Jacobi did not assist the trial judge during the sentencing phase, but no error was made. The sentence was fit.

[21] The appeal is dismissed.

“S.D. Dley J”

DLEY J.