Anyhow, you stated;
I agree that nobody was confused for a moment about whether or not Ream and the rest of the hapless gang were real peace officers. They were essentially a bunch of sad-sacks waving pieces of paper at courthouse staff, nothing more. However the judge went strictly on part (a); did Ream purport to be a peace officer with his Chief supplied, or at least Chief notarized, peace officer paperwork? As you indicated there was no doubt about that. Ream couldn't confess it often enough. However he didn't claim to be a peace officer as defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code. He didn't claim he was a sheriff, bailiff, police officer or any of that extensive list. So, going on a strict statutory interpretation and ignoring the slapstick element, I think Ream was fairly nailed by Section 130(a) even if Ronald McDonald would have carried as much credibility as our boy. At least the judge thought so. But if he was Judge Jeffreys in his decision he atoned for it by being Santa Claus in the sentencing. However, as generous as the court was in minimizing the inconvenience of a criminal sentence to Ream's life and livelihood, I have serious doubts he'll keep even the trivial terms imposed on him. He seems to have a serious martyrdom complex. It was explained to Ream that the obligation that he "keep the peace" was nothing more than a boilerplate requirement that he not break the law while on probation but he really seemed to think the court had somehow made him a real peace officer. I don't think he is dense but he doesn't have both feet planted in reality either.Alex's closing argument was very close to what the ultimate issue in the case was. What should have been put to the judge was, for the accused to be convicted, must he:
a) merely represent himself (falsely, that part not seriously in dispute) to be a "peace officer", or,
b) represent himself (falsely) to be one of the specific kinds of peace officers enumerated in the Code.
If the answer to that was (b), then Alex would be acquitted, since the document he presented clearly identified himself as being a Peace Officer of the Land of the Seriously Befuddled, and not anything else, regardless of the presence or absence of the Coat of Arms. It (the argument would be) is of little more significance than if Alex had handed the sheriff a Chinese take-out menu, since the sheriff acknowledged that he instantly recognized his papers to not be genuine.
Keep in mind I make no claim to any penetrating legal analysis of the issues. I just recorded what happened (scribbling away furiously in a notepad) and tried to bundle up what I considered to be the relevant parts into a coherent narrative. I left out or missed a lot, particularly in day 2 when Ream was reading from his prepared statement and I just couldn't keep up. I'm not a lawyer and while I have an extensive background in the Canadian Income Tax Act I have, essentially, only a layman's understanding of the Criminal Code.