xparte or walk away

MacLean said the trial was a fraud because he wasn't the man named on the informations before the court.

"That's not me," he said.

MacLean was just a name on some documents that belonged to the government, a name that he just had the use of, he tried to tell the court.

Several times when the name John James MacLean was referenced he would question who that was, saying it wasn't him.

When he was told "that is you", he would ask the court "who's you?"

For what seemed like a very long time, MacLean tried to argue the issue of his own identity, continually interrupting the Crown and the judge when they tried to say anything he didn't agree with.Orr repeatedly told MacLean to stop interrupting.

In turn, MacLean repeatedly denied that he was.

"I'm not interrupting, I'm objecting," MacLean said.

Orr tried to tell MacLean that his identity was not an issue, that she had accepted the documentation he himself had provided -[week prior] including a driver's licence with his picture on it and a birth certificate - as proof that he was indeed MacLean.

But he would have none of that.

Over MacLean's continuous objections, Crown Counsel Gerald Quinn identified MacLean as someone who subscribed to the free-man-on-the-land ideology.

"Freemen (or Sovereign Citizens, Living Souls or Natural Persons, as they sometimes call themselves) believe that all *statute law is contractual," says a briefing note by the Law Society of British Columbia. "They further believe that law only governs them if they choose or consent to be governed. By implication, they believe that, by not consenting, they can hold themselves independent of government jurisdiction."

Quinn read from case law which suggests that courts attach no merit or weight to ideological arguments advanced by those espousing such views.

Throughout all of this MacLean objected profusely, rising numerous times to speak his mind despite orders from the bench to sit down and let Quinn speak.

Rising from the defence table he told Orr his business was done there and walked out.

MacLean had been duly advised that the trial could proceed without him but that did not deter him.

He essentially told the court to go ahead because he wasn't staying.

Not even a warning from Orr that he could be charged with contempt of court if he left the courtroom could keep him there.

In his absence the trial proceeded and MacLean was ultimately found guilty of all charges.

None of those who testified had any trouble identifying him.

Orr has now adjourned the case for sentence and issued an order for MacLean's arrest.

The ownership of those was never disputed as i handed them in go ahead hold 30 day assessment on a paper find it in=competent and contempt the first prosecutor after my verbal refusal for cause and no plea the judge kept the my documents for evidence and then proceeded with not guilty pleas on my behalf the first crown had enough and recused himself a week prior to the trial that i begged to be held in contempt of court but as the judge was my Attorney as she pleaded not guilty for me her practice of law from the bench and her role as judge was contempt enough i suggested new Queens Council or head DA. get those charges judge as my attorney settle this mess all hearsay and so scripted mind you just myself in the court being myself i was painting this picture and news paper is the public record avoiding all court settings and 72 hr identify NAME vs claim each to his own this a look who is still on the hook Jack North Beach PE. pick it apart or nothin to see here Suitor your selves its what can not what happen.