Court dismisses B.C. man's 'nonsensical bafflegab,' convicts him of driving, tobacco offences

Scales of justice. (Shutterstock)

A B.C. man who argued he could not be prosecuted for driving and tobacco offences because – among other reasons – he had changed his name to Tiberius Rex has been convicted of all three charges he faced.

In a decision issued earlier this month and posted online Tuesday, provincial court Judge Peter Whyte described the defendant's arguments as "nonsensical bafflegab." 

Though the case is known as R. v. Kenneth Jeffrey Cooper, Whyte refers to Cooper as "the defendant" throughout, because of his insistence that he is no longer known by that name, but as Tiberius Rex, or just Tiberius.

The defendant represented himself throughout the trial, advancing a variety of arguments that Whyte describes as Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial Arguments (OPCA).

"He says that as a living man and a natural born human, he possesses certain inalienable rights that transcend the rules and regulations thrust upon him by the corporate entities of British Columbia and/or Canada," Whyte summarizes in the decision.

"As I understood him, the defendant’s position was that he was entitled to behave in any way he deemed appropriate, so long as he did not physically hurt anyone. This included possessing items that he wanted to, whether or not laws, acts or regulations deemed it legal to do so."

The judge noted that, though the defendant was "polite and respectful" throughout the proceedings, his position was "at its core, untenable."

"It is baseless and without merit," Whyte wrote. "I am encouraged to summarily dismiss such arguments as nonsensical bafflegab, and not waste the taxpayer’s money or the court’s time on submissions that have a zero chance of success … I feel, nonetheless, compelled to make a few comments."

THE CHARGES

The defendant was charged with three offences: driving while prohibited, possession of an unstamped tobacco product, and unlawful possession of tobacco.

All three stemmed from a motor vehicle stop that occurred on Highway 1 near Popkum, B.C., in May 2020.

According to the court decision, the defendant was behind the wheel of a Mercedes Sprinter van, travelling east on the highway. A police officer testified that the van was travelling at 114 km/h in a section of the highway that was under construction and had a reduced speed limit of 60 km/h.

Police initiated a traffic stop and, because the vehicle had been recorded travelling at more than 40 km/h over the posted limit, determined they needed to impound it. They also arrested the defendant for driving while prohibited, the decision reads.

Before towing the vehicle, officers searched it and found 16 cases of 50 cartons of cigarettes each – a total of 160,000 cigarettes – all of them lacking taxation stamps, according to the court.

THE DEFENCE

Whyte's decision notes that the defendant "admitted virtually all of the essential elements of each of the charges he faced."

His defence was not to argue that he didn't commit the crimes, or that the Crown lacked sufficient evidence to convict him, but rather that the laws in question didn't apply to him.

On the driving while prohibited charge, the defendant argued that he was not driving, but rather "travelling," which he claimed was not the same thing and was not subject to the province's Motor Vehicle Act.

In his decision, Whyte describes this attempt to argue a meaningful distinction between the two verbs as "astounding."

"Giving effect to the defendant’s argument would be the worst example of elevating form over substance," the judge wrote.

"It would render virtually any law meaningless, merely by referring to the prohibited conduct by another name. One could not be convicted of shoplifting when they were simply repurposing unsold goods for personal use. Assault would no longer be criminal, when the defendant was guilty only of intentional force application absent consent. Murder would be allowed as purposeful non-consensual early life termination."

The defendant also argued that changing his name from Kenneth Cooper to Tiberius Rex had "disassociated" him from the person who committed the offences, and that because the charges against him displayed his given name in all capital letters, they were not actually referring to him, according to the decision.

Whyte rejected both of these arguments, as well as several others, including the defendant's assertion that the trial itself was illegal.

"The defendant’s argument that since he did not consent to this prosecution, somehow it was unlawful, is summarily rejected," the judge wrote. "Such a claim is deserving of no further comment. It is not a valid use of taxpayer-funded resources to refute manifestly unsound, baseless conjecture."

Ultimately, Whyte found the defendant guilty of all three charges he faced.

The decision does not deal with sentencing, which typically happens after a separate hearing following a verdict. Online court records associated with the case indicate that the defendant's next court appearance is scheduled for June 13.