Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
CONTRIBUTION · 5th February 2011
Terrance Hudson
When a person is approached by the police, people are often confused as to what is required of them. Do they have to cooperate? Do they have to give a statement? What information are they required to provide to the police?

There is no positive obligation on an individual to cooperate with the police unless it is specifically provided for by a statute (legislation passed by the government). The Courts have held that absent a statutory provision requiring a person to identify him or herself to the police, there is no obligation on an individual to identify themselves to the police until a police officer "is in a position to arrest that person or to issue some form of summons to him" or her. (See: R v. Legault, 1998 CanLii 387 at para. 8)

An example of a statutory requirement requirement to provide the police with your identity and other related information arises under the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996 where you are the driver of a vehicle. If stopped by the police you must provide your driver's licence, registration and insurance. Failure to do so can result in issuance of a ticket under the Act. In further example, under the Motor Vehicle Act if you are in an accident, you are required by the Act to provide a statement about the accident; however, if the police decide after taking the statement from you that they will be proceeding with criminal charges under the Criminal Code of Canada, the statutorily compelled statement taken pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Act cannot be used against you.

In the event that you are arrested, the police must advise you at the time of your arrest as follows:

1) That you have the right to speak with a lawyer of your choice, and/or the availability of legal aid duty counsel, and this duty includes offering you access to a telephone book, list of local lawyers and a telephone, as well as legal aid if you cannot afford a lawyer or don't know who to call;

2) They then have to give you a reasonable opportunity to speak with a lawyer, in private, prior to continue questioning you;

3) They are also required to advise you that you have the right to silence and that anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

Once you have been given your rights, and given the opportunity to exercise your rights, there is no obligation on the police to stop asking you questions; rather, the onus is on you not to answer their questions. If you choose to answer their questions, you do so at the risk that what you say can and will be entered at trial as evidence against you.

In most serious cases the police , as trained investigators, will continue to ask you questions but you do not have to answer them, nor should you. In my experience as a criminal defence lawyer where a person answers the police's questions, the information obtained rarely assists them and normally causes them to be convicted by their own words.

As such, people who are faced with continuing police questioning after the exercise of their right to counsel ought to do as follows:

1) Tell the police explicitly, "No I do not wish to give a statement";

2) Pull the back of your shirt over your head so that your head is completely covered;

3) Put your head onto the table; and,

4) Do not answer their questions.

You may ask yourself why would I do that?

The reason is simple, the interviews are recorded via audio and video recording. There is no clearer statement to the police, and ultimately to the Court, that you do not wish to provide a statement and thus that you are not voluntarily providing a statement.

You may wonder well if I don't answer the police officer's questions will the Court not assume I am guilty or will the police not think I am guilty? No, you are presumed innocent until the Crown proves that you are guilty. There is a time and place for you to provide your statement, the time and place is in Court during your trial. You are under no obligation to provide any form of statement, written or otherwise, prior to your attendance at trial, nor should you.

Terrance E. Hudson,
Barrister & Solicitor, Smithers, BC.

If you have questions regarding this or other legal issues, feel free to ask using the comment feature at the top right of this article

Please note that this article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice to you. Legal advice pertaining to your particular situation can only be given by a lawyer who has met with you to obtain all pertinent background information necessary to give you an informed legal opinion. For more information visit our website www.hudsonlaw.ca or call us (250) 847-8000.
Terrance E. Hudson,
Comment by Sheldon Davidson on 12th February 2011
Please do educate me. Shall I take your silence as consent?

Am I not right to say that in legal language that to "include" means to explicitly exclude everything else?

If I am right, then a living human soul is indeed NOT a "person" by legal definition.

Please do inform.
Black's Law Dictionary
Comment by Sheldon Davidson on 10th February 2011
I take it the last paragraph is your own opinion on the definition.

It is my understanding in legal language that to "include" means to explicitly exclude everything else.

Is this correct?
Black's Law Dictionary
Comment by Terrance E. Hudson on 10th February 2011
To answer your question, Black's is likely the most popular legal dictionary in North America. I cannot speak of other areas of the world.

The definition cited is not actually correct. The legal definition of a person is as follows:

A person is: An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

So a person includes a human being, as well as corporations and other legal entities that have been given the above status via legislation.

Freeman continued
Comment by Sheldon Davidson on 9th February 2011
A Free Man on the Land is Sovereign.

It is my understanding that the legal definition from Blacks Law Dictionary of the word "Person" is a fictional entity or a Corporation. It is my understanding that Blacks Law Dictionary is a standard in the legal world.

Is this correct?


Freeman continued
Comment by Terrance E. Hudson on 9th February 2011
Unfortunately this "Freeman" philosophy is simply that, a philosophy. It is not founded in the common law. The common law refers to law developed by Judges, not statutory law. Our rights and freedoms in Canada are established by the British North America Act (BNA) and/or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the numerous other statutes enacted by the Federal and Provincial Governments within their spheres as defined by the BNA.

The BC Supreme Court Justice in Mia v. Medical Services Commission of British Columbia, 1985 CanLII 148 (BC S.C.), had this to say about "Freeman":

"Our history shows that restrictions on movement for purpose of employment were, short of imprisonment, the most severe deprivation of freedom and liberty. This is demon­strated by a brief glance at medieval English history.

Before the Conquest in 1066, there were four main classes in Anglo-Saxon society: these were the noble or eorl; the ordinary freeman, or ceorl; the partially free man, later called serf or villein; and the slave or thrall. Hall and Albion in A History of England and the British Empire, 2nd ed., 1946, Ginn & Co., described the freeman as a small farmer who held his land from the lord of the manor but he usually paid rent instead of servile labour (socage).

Ridley in The History of England, 1981, Routledge & Kegan Paul, at p. 36 explains that after the Conquest there were four kinds of freehold tenure-knight service, sergeanty, frankalmoign and socage-and the majority of the freehold tenants held their land in socage (labour service). By the time William completed his Domesday Book in 1086 A.D. only 13% of the general population were freemen or small landholders. The balance were serfs who acquired that appellation because they were "tied to the soil".

Hall and Albion note at p. 72 that the freemen came to be known as yeomen standing midway between the feudal aristocracy and the serfs. They say about freemen:

[Page 52]

"The freemen held their land from the lord of the manor, but they generally gave him rent instead of servile labor. They might have three or four times as much land as the ordinary serf, and sometimes they hired laborers to assist them. Unlike the serfs, they could move to another manor if they saw fit, and without the lord's permission could marry their daughters outside the manor or send their sons to study for the clergy. They could take part in the activity of the hundred and shire courts; later they could carry their grievances to the royal courts and serve as jurors, vote for members of Parliament, and sometimes even sit in the House of Commons." (my underlining)

Although the Normans purported to abolish the status of thralls or slaves by making them into serfs, this was largely cosmetic because the serfs remained tied to the land of their lord's manor. Although all of the four kinds of freehold tenure mentioned above could be held by freemen, the majority of the population were villeins or serfs living on the manors and they held land, if at all, by copyhold rather than freehold tenure. Ridley,'at p. 36, points out:

"The copyholders were normally required to work in the fields of the lord of the manor, or sometimes to perform other services for him, in the same way as free­hold tenants; but unlike the freeholders, who were free to leave if they wished and to try to make a better bargain for other land with other lords, the villein copy-holders were compelled by law to continue working on the same plot of land for the lord or for any of the lord's successors who acquired the land." (my underlining)

[Page 53]

Gradually freemen lost their special status and they became almost indistinguishable from the larger class of serfs. The title "freeman" eventually became honorific only. authority as provided by the BNA."

As you can see from the Chief Justice's review of the "origin" of "freeman" as a special status discussed above, it all predated the establishment of the "Rule of Law" within the Feudal system. The Rule of Law came about as part of the establishment of first constitutional monarchies, and later democracy.

I don't know about you but I would prefer to be governed in a democracy than to exist in a Feudal Kingdom.
Maybe one day
Comment by Jeff Brydges on 8th February 2011
Ooops... I failed to properly cite my sources in my last message. I had inadvertently enclosed them in triangular brackets which html undoubtedly ignored because they weren't commands.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Anti-Terrorism_Act
2. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=416390&cmd=apop
On the second link, 'Frank' does an hour long lecture followed with an hour long Q+A session.

I realize that the Freeman Society is a minority within the Canadian state, and as such I have been treading gingerly in an area that I am not all that well versed in. It is my belief that the Vancouver police force is acquainted with this society and honours its relationship with the state. If the statements of Mr. Maynard are true, a number of them even support the movement, as it places them in the role of public servant and not tax collectors for the corporation of Vancouver.

I do believe that Mr. Hudson is correct when he states that a number of Courts have not recognized the Freeman argument, as it seems to be working with a section of the law which does not receive a lot of attention. However, if we still have access to Habeas Corpus, and Common Law is recognized, then persistence should reward any individual wanting to join this group. As I stated earlier, I am not yet in a position to make the transition myself, but maybe one day...
Terrance E. Hudson
Comment by Sheldon Davidson on 8th February 2011
Terrance is absolutely correct. The information Jeff Brydges presents is not legally correct.

However, it is completely LAWFULLY sound as far as I can tell.

It is my understanding that the nation of Canada is under Common Law Jurisdiction.


Good work, Jeff, on the information you have presented.

I am very glad to see there are well informed people in the area! This makes me happy.



Common Law
Comment by Jeff Brydges on 7th February 2011
Thank-you for your reply. Is there an easy answer for why the Court has not recognized the Freeman Society? Does Canada still have Common Law? I recall Jon Stewart observing a moment of silence when the Homeland Security Acts suspended Habeas Corpus in America. I am guessing that we also lost Habeas Corpus when the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act received Royal Assent on December 18, 2001 .

Perhaps you could give your opinion on some other 'entertainment' that I came across from 'Frank' in Australia . He says that with the absence of Common Law, we are now bound by three different forms of Courts:
1) UCC 1933 (punishment=fines)
2) Maritime (punishment=imprisonment)
3) Talmudic (punishment=death)

Apparently, when a judge calls for a 'recess' he retreats from one form of Court, and when the Court reforms it is in the next higher form. This is conditional on your silence, as silence is considered to be consent. Should the defendant object to the 'offer', then the Court can 'adjurn' for a short period of time and when the Court is reformed it remains in the same form.

Frank also discusses 'appearing' in Court as "a trustee of an assured trust" as opposed to a "corporation". His weapons work primarily with positive, natural, and spiritual canons.

Again, I must assert that I am an amateur and none of this information should be taken for Truth. I would appreciate any professional guidance that would clarify how the Canadian System works. Links to reputable sources are always welcome, as opposed to what I seem to be producing. ^^ I do apologize if anybody finds this dialogue tedious. I've pretty much gone as far as I can in this field.
Freeman Society
Comment by Terrance E. Hudson on 7th February 2011
In reply to your statements regarding the "Freeman Society", the information you have come across is not actually legally correct. It has been argued before the Court in an number of instances and has not been accepted.

Terrance E. Hudson
Freeman on the Land
Comment by Jeff Brydges on 6th February 2011
I just wanted to add some other information that I've come across in my studies. I am not a legal professional, so any of this information is best regarded as for 'entertainment purposes' only. It has to do with the Freeman Society and the rights all Canadians have once they join this society. This is going under the assumption that we are still a nation governed by Common Law, which might not be the case, if we have lost habeas corpus. I am just an amateur in these matters.

I received the majority of my knowledge from Robert Maynard, who has spoken on behalf of the Notary Public Association from time to time on these matters. He is affiliated with the World Freeman Society: http://worldfreemansociety.org/Welcome+Page, and has several videos on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9VQLfgSPo&feature=player_embedded. He is a unique individual, so have some patience when watching. ^^ I assure you, you will find it worth your while.

Basically, if you hold a BC drivers license (and other government ID), you are a member of the BC law society, and are bound by their statues and acts. Once you produce ID the RCMP know that they act on you. A Freeman has renounced all government assistance and gives up all ID. This is not a free ride; you are telling the government that you are no longer a child and can support yourself without their aid. Any license is just 'permission' granted by the government for their children to act accordingly. Freeman are supposedly bound only by Common Law, which, I believe, can be summarized thusly: 1) Do no harm to others, 2) Do no harm to other's property, 3) Commit no fraud. If you are not breaking any of the above Laws, the police have no right detaining you. Both parties are equal in power as human beings, and where the citizen does not have to produce ID (contrary to what the authorities were told at the G20 conference), the police must produce a badge number, business card, and ID signed by the solicitor general. The Freeman has a very different relationship with the authorities than does the child.

If this information intrigues you, as an alternate way of living within Canada, I encourage you to spend some time with Mr. Maynard's videos. I'm not in a position to make the transition myself, but I find the possibility intriguing. Please, do not use this information as Truth. I am an amateur, and the System doesn't take kindly to amateur combatants.