Appeal tossed for ‘natural man’ who wouldn’t tell cop his name

A traffic stop near the Coquitlam Grill led to a man spending 12 days in jail and being sentenced to 40 hours of community service after refusing to give his name to a police officer.

In February 2025, after getting a tip from the public, Const. Connor Craddock spotted a Ford pickup truck with a fictitious laminated paper licence plate, a cracked windshield, and a missing rear window.

The truck wasn’t insured.

After watching a driver get in the vehicle, Craddock pulled him over and asked for the man’s licence.

The driver, Peter William Embleton, refused to give his last name, only identifying himself by his “sovereign names” Peter William.

Craddock repeatedly warned Embleton that he’d be arrested for obstruction of justice if he continued to refuse to provide his surname.

Embleton continued to refuse to provide his surname. Craddock arrested him for obstruction of justice.

After being booked as “John Doe,” Embleton eventually had a bail hearing where he refused to sign documents regarding his release and future court dates. Embleton argued the documents failed to incorporate: “conditions relating to his asserted sovereign status.”

Even though his release was ordered, Embleton stayed in jail an extra six days because he wouldn’t sign the documents. A different judge eventually decided Embleton’s signature wasn’t required and he was released.

Six months after the initial arrest, Embleton went to trial and again refused to identify himself, asserting he was there due to: “special divine appearance.”

The judge issued a bench warrant and the sheriffs eventually identified Embleton based on an expired passport in his pocket.

Embleton was subsequently found guilty of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to one year of probation and 40 hours of community work service.

He was also prohibited from: “providing information on OPCA (Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial Argument) ideologies to anyone under the age of 19.”

The court defined Embleton’s arguments about withdrawing from “public representation” as a “living man” as OPCA-style concepts.

The judge dismissed the argument and material Embleton tried to introduce as “nonsense.”

Embleton appealed the verdict, arguing the judge made an error by failing to see the distinction between a “living” person and a separate legal entity.

He also contended that his ideas weren’t related to OPCA.

However, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Sukstorf found Embleton’s concepts were consist with arguments that courts have repeatedly rejected.

Sukstorf found the trial judge “properly concluded” Embleton’s ideas didn’t exempt him from his obligation to provide his name to the police officer.

Sukstorf rejected Embleton’s appeal.