I have to admit, I am getting a huge kick out of following the case of Luc D’Abadie.
Even on its own merit, it is an interesting enough case, but it has a twist that makes it one of the most compelling things I’ve covered.
By way of background, D’Abadie was picked up by the Canadian Border Services Agency in 2010 trying to enter the United States with several ounces of pot.
Unfortunately for him, he also had records of a major grow-op he was running out of an old theatre in Grenfell, which led to a warrant, which led to charges of trafficking and production.
He dragged the case out for nearly three years with adjournments, changing lawyers and such. In 2013, he entered a guilty plea, then vanished, failing to appear at his sentencing hearing.
Somewhere along the line, he got it in his head that statute law doesn’t apply to him.
There are numerous people in Canada who have taken the stand that a person can opt out of being governed because laws, as most people understand them, are simply a form of contract. If one does not sign the contract, so to speak, it does not apply.
I struggle with the terminology when it comes to these folks, because you can’t really call them a group or even a movement. The common ground appears to be a fierce individualism, almost akin to classical anarchism.
For purposes of discussion, they are frequently referred to as Freemen on the Land or just Freemen.
At the extremist fringe it leads to situations like that being played out in Oregon where a small group of armed, self-styled militiamen, are occupying a federal wildlife refuge, ostensibly to protest what they view as the federal government’s illegitimate authority over public lands.
Mostly though, it manifests itself in a bunch of pseudolegal mumbo jumbo based on what proponents view as “natural law” or “common law.” Again, these terms mean something different to Freemen than they do to other people or to the legal system.
In practical terms, they believe it gives them the right to not pay taxes, debts, mortgages, etc., not register vehicles or possess a driver’s licence etc., and makes them exempt from legal proceedings where there is not a victim who is a natural person.
At his latest court appearance D’Abadie would only repeat the following:
“I am an idiot to legalese. If I have given the Court or the Crown any reason to believe I am a surety, the accused or a person in this matter, I apologize. I am a man. If there is no claim from a man or a woman against me, I require that my property be restored immediately and this matter be discharged and closed with prejudice.”
It is either disingenuous or naive for D’Abadie to believe his crimes are victimless. Our system has evolved so that the state is proxy for the person or persons affected.
And it is misguided for him to think parroting pseudolegal nonsense is going to take him anywhere in the justice system but to jail.
It is very entertaining, however, at least to me.
