Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Burnaby49]

Menard/winteral is back at his default of playing silly word games over at Ickes to deflect from the main issue;

Question: What supports your belief that the word 'employed' when used in the Criminal Code is defined as 'hired as an employee' and not 'to make use of'?

I don't think it means what you think it means....

This is in response to Jeffrey/edofquatloos's statement;

I think his possible lines of defense are:
a) I am actually a peace officer.
b) I did not represent myself as a peace officer.

If he takes route 'b', then he would be admitting he has no personal belief in his "Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers". He could probably get away with that, except that those details will probably be retrieved from public records and revealed. It also harms what he has represented for a long time.

If he goes route a, he will need to prove he meets the definition:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...46/page-1.html

peace officer”
« agent de la paix »
“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,
(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,
(c.1) a designated officer as defined in section 2 of the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act, when
(i) participating in an integrated cross-border operation, as defined in section 2 of that Act, or
(ii) engaging in an activity incidental to such an operation, including travel for the purpose of participating in the operation and appearances in court arising from the operation,
(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts,
(d.1) an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,
(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft
(i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or
(ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations,
while the aircraft is in flight, and

(g) officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are
(i) appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or
(ii) employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers;

I bolded the one I believe he has argued with before. However, I think he would have difficulty proving 'employed'. I also think you are required to have a SIN to be (legally) employed in Canada, which he insists he no longer has.

Well Rob, you've found your loophole, "employed" doesn't mean "employed" at all in the Criminal Code. It means whatever convoluted nonsense you've decided as an alternate definition to bedazzle the court. I await with great interest your impassioned argument in defense of that new definition at trial.

But let's first just see how it flows if we substitute your definition of the word "employed" in the text rather than using the word itself;

"(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person to make use of for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,"

Wow! Fits just like OJ's gloves. Much better than the awkward commonly accepted definition which would read as;

"(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person hired as an employee for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,"

Now that you've found the fatal flaw in the Crown's argument, one not discovered by the four "Nanaimo Three" defendants (all of whom either pled guilty were convicted at trial under the same charges you face), you can get back to flogging your magic beans debit cards.

An invitation to winteral/Menard. Why not come and play here too? We won't ban you for arguing.

[slowlyslowly]

Ikes policy is perfectly clear, former banned members can never come back.
To allow Winteral to carry on posting is a clear flouting of that rule.

I should know, I have been banned around 30 times.

[Jeffrey]

I think we should quit acting like Menard's argument hold any merit or deserve some sort of well thought out response.

Per Arayder, he was already given case law via JREF explaining that his argument was incorrect. Even if we concede there was some ambiguity in the 1985 statute, the 1987 Nolan case resolved that particular bit of ambiguity.

And even if you limit the discussion to purely the Criminal Code itself, if anyone can claim to be a peace officer as Menard claims, then it would make no sense for the Criminal Code to later on also criminalize falsely claiming to be a peace officer.

Menard is not a peace officer, if he wants to be one, he can join RCMP or get a job as any of the positions that actually qualify for the definition.

It's ridiculous that anyone is defending Menard's actions here. You cannot have a bunch of maniacs like Menard running around with fake badges pretending to be cops, that is an absolute recipe for disaster.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/2 ... 29325.html
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/75930 ... rapes-her/
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Ne ... 47861.html

[rumpelstilzchen]

Question: What supports your belief that the word 'employed' when used in the Criminal Code is defined as 'hired as an employee' and not 'to make use of'?

I don't think it means what you think it means....

It is obvious what BobbyWinter is up to here. One of the FOOTLes' favourite arguments is that a driving licence is only required when you are "acting in commerce". No licence is required when travelling in your private conveyance. For this they cite the definition of "driver" from an old edition of Black's:

DRIVER
One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a railroad car.

The FOOTLes say that in order to be a driver you must be employed, you must be getting paid to drive. If you are not getting paid you are not driving, you are merely travelling. The debunkers then point out that the word "employed" has more than one meaning. They draw attention to the fact that to "employ" can mean "to use" and that is what is meant by the definition in Black's. If you are using a car you are driving it. So my guess is that BobbyWinter will say that you can't have it both ways. If "employed" means "to use" in the case law cited in Black's then "employed" means "to use" end of.

Bobby, let me give you some advice. Context, dear boy...... context.

[slowlyslowly]

I think we should quit acting like Menard's argument hold any merit or deserve some sort of well thought out response.

I stopped doing that 4 years ago.
I used to just tie him in knots as to his idea about "consent"

His whole argument is about him not consenting to the law yet he wants to use the regulations to become a Peace officer???

Well I dont consent to his authourity as a peace officer and as such if hes true to his argument of laws only applying with consent then he has to respect that and leave me alone.

Ludicrous.

[arayder]

Question: What supports your belief that the word 'employed' when used in the Criminal Code is defined as 'hired as an employee' and not 'to make use of'?

I don't think it means what you think it means....

It is obvious what BobbyWinter is up to here. One of the FOOTLes' favourite arguments is that a driving licence is only required when you are "acting in commerce". No licence is required when travelling in your private conveyance. For this they cite the definition of "driver" from an old edition of Black's:

DRIVER
One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a railroad car.

The FOOTLes say that in order to be a driver you must be employed, you must be getting paid to drive. If you are not getting paid you are not driving, you are merely travelling. The debunkers then point out that the word "employed" has more than one meaning. They draw attention to the fact that to "employ" can mean "to use" and that is what is meant by the definition in Black's. If you are using a car you are driving it. So my guess is that BobbyWinter will say that you can't have it both ways. If "employed" means "to use" in the case law cited in Black's then "employed" means "to use" end of.

Bobby, let me give you some advice. Context, dear boy...... context.

It's just more of Fez Boy's word games. When he wants to he is "employed" as a peace officer, then as needed "hired", then "put to use". If being "employed" requires a SIN, then he says he's "put to use".

Bobby thought up the idea of the C3POs all by himself and then he got himself "hired" as a C3PO by his own subterfuge. In the beginning Bobby claimed to be hired under contract to the people of Canada. Hired! His words, not mine!

Fez Boy wanted to make it seem he was hired as a peace officer so he developed the $1 pay scale. Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bL7KeUQTfE we see him showing up at a what seems to be a charitable gathering for Covenant House of Vancouver (or maybe it's just a bunch of retirees waiting for a tour bus?) in the hopes youtube viewers would think it's an army of C3PO supporters. We see him, all by himself, swearing himself in as a C3PO. He asks those present to hire him as a peace officer and asks for the $1 hiring fee which he says will go to the charity. Several middle aged Canadians step forward to give Menard loonies not realizing they were feeding the delusions of a hopeless narcissist.

In the YouTube Menard goes on to claim these people hired him as a peace officer and that he has a contract with them and magically by extension the people of Canada! I suspect "the people" thought they were giving money to the Covenant House while a fezzed loudmouth pledged to keep the peace!

A few of the people there signed the "contract", so Menard has their names, if he didn't lose the paper in the last 5 years. So he should bring the contract to court! One wonders when in the last five years has any of the folks who "hired" Menard have done one thing an employer commonly does in relation to the one hired?

-------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 45 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

[NYGman]

Would a contract to hire someone in perpetuity for $1 even be enforceable in Canada and even if it was, there doesn't seem to be any meeting of the minds here, so do we even have a contract?

[grixit]

Would a contract to hire someone in perpetuity for $1 even be enforceable in Canada and even if it was, there doesn't seem to be any meeting of the minds here, so do we even have a contract?

Wouldn't that be an indenturement?

[NYGman]

Wouldn't that be an indenturement?

That was kind of where I was going, has he just sold himself in to slavery? I thought that was illegal in Canada too

[Jeffrey]

Maybe he can wiggle around that by arguing that it's his strawman that's enslaved.

[arayder]

Menard so often opines that the governments, courts and laws of the western democracies are just fairy tales freemen don't have to accept.

Then in a stunning bit of hypocrisy Fez Boy wants us to believe that him standing in a driveway taking the C3PO oath in front of a handful of middle aged Canadians constitutes a contract with the people of Canada.

What a self serving twit!

-------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 46 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

[slowlyslowly]

one of my favourite Menard threads
Thomasj totally destroying Menards consent theory
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthre ... 764&page=9

[LordEd]

I've asked Mr. Winteral if he would care to comment, but I could use some actual legal mind interpretation as well.

http://canlii.ca/t/1ftmv

[19] On the level of principle, it is important to remember that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code is not designed to create a police force. It simply provides that certain persons who derive their authority from other sources will be treated as "peace officers" as well, enabling them to enforce the Criminal Code within the scope of their pre‑existing authority, and to benefit from certain protections granted only to "peace officers". Any broader reading of s. 2 could lead to considerable constitutional difficulties. Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that the administration of justice falls within provincial legislative competence. See Di Iorio v. Warden of the Montreal Jail, 1976 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152, and Attorney General of Quebec and Keable v. Attorney General of Canada, 1978 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218. Although the ability of the federal Parliament to create a national police force has never been challenged and any such exercise of authority is presumptively valid, to treat s. 2 of the Criminal Code as a broad grant of authority to thousands of persons to act as "peace officers" in any circumstances could well prompt a constitutional challenge. In the context of division of powers, legislation should be interpreted, when possible, so that it is not ultra vires. The assessment of legislation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, of course, subject to different considerations. See Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., 1987 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110.

[20] I would therefore conclude that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code serves only to grant additional powers to enforce the criminal law to persons who must otherwise operate within the limits of their statutory or common law sources of authority.

Does this put a nail into Menard's coffin to relying on the CCC definition of peace officer?

[Jeffrey]

Also worth including in the discussion section 130.1 of the Criminal Code:

130.1 If a person is convicted of an offence under section 130, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the accused personated a peace officer or a public officer, as the case may be, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence.

Menard's goal with C3PO has always been to facilitate the commission of other offences, be it traffic or criminal or whatnot, so there's really no excuse for the judge to go easy on sentencing. When Parliament wrote that law, it was to prevent people from doing what Menard attempted to do and it's a good law which is why there are equivalent laws down here in the states and pretty much all countries.

[LordEd]

Going to add another case on point:

http://canlii.ca/t/1smdn

[48] The authorities do not readily reveal a set of overarching principles. However, they show that when the authority of a person to do a particular act is questioned, the issue falls to be determined on the scope of the statutory authority and the facts of the case. Because what is at stake is often, as it is here, the power of a person to interfere with the liberty or privacy of others, statutory authority is read carefully, indeed, somewhat narrowly. State power to act as a peace officer should be found only where that is clearly the intention of the legislature.

[slowlyslowly]

Looks like Robs at the Mooseheads, his mask has slipped on Ickes.
He is now responding directly as opposed to a long time interested lurker.

[LordEd]

Winteral has brought up a point about process servers.I don't have a chance to research it at the moment. Is there an act from which a process server is defined or regulated?

[notorial dissent]

Some sucker must have ponied up for one of his fake cards, so Bobby is back in beer money for a while, and he has been binging after the long dry spell.

[arayder]

Looks like Robs at the Mooseheads, his mask has slipped on Ickes.
He is now responding directly as opposed to a long time interested lurker.

Ya' have to question the judgement of a guy who faced with a possible jail term for impersonating a peace officer decides to violate his bail agreement by sockpuppeting on a freeman forum.

-------------
Dope Clock II
It has been 47 days since Robert Menard announced the revival of the Association of Canadian Consumer Purchasers. So far there is no documentation of a successful purchase using Menard's system.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Winteral has brought up a point about process servers.I don't have a chance to research it at the moment. Is there an act from which a process server is defined or regulated?

While it's an interesting quirk about s.2 and peace officers it really doesn't support Winteral or C3PO.

As far as I know, process servers are not regulated or licensed, simply because all they do is deliver documents. They don't give legal advice or decide which documents to serve. They are essentially a courier service with added legal protection. The key is the passage from Nolan that you cited above:

[19] On the level of principle, it is important to remember that the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code is not designed to create a police force. It simply provides that certain persons who derive their authority from other sources will be treated as "peace officers" as well, enabling them to enforce the Criminal Code within the scope of their pre‑existing authority

Process servers do not "derive their authority from other sources". They do not have "authority" to do anything. They certainly don't have "pre-existing authority" that would define a "scope" to enable them to enforce the Criminal Code, beyond that conferred to every citizen. This is why, in Winteral's own quote from the Nova Scotia bailiffs it says this:

"We would like to point out that Process Servers and Bailiffs are defined in the Criminal Code of Canada as Peace Officers. In Canada it is Unlawful to Obstruct a Peace Officer in the performance of his/her duties. It is also Unlawful to Obstruct a lawful process, which includes the service of court issued documents. We are not however, Police Officers and as such have no authority to act under any penal statutes. We have the same powers of arrest as those afforded any civilian in Canada. As Peace Officers we are however, able to serve Subpoenas to Witnesses in Criminal matters.

So while process servers are are peace officers, they cannot enforce the Criminal Code beyond what any ordinary citizen can do. So then what's the point of including them in the definition of a peace officer? Once again, Nolan has the answer:

to benefit from certain protections granted only to "peace officers".

We don't want process servers obstructed or assaulted while doing their job. The Criminal Code thus adds additional protection for them by identifying them as peace officers.

Now Winteral seems to think that because any member of the public can hire a process server (and thus, hire a specific type of peace officer), then that must mean that any member of the public can hire someone to be "employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace" (ie. a different type of peace officer). This is not a logical conclusion. Winteral keeps harping on this question:

Can one singular member of the public employ one other member of the public to act as a peace officer?

The question is deliberately ambiguous because it seeks to conflate the different "types" of peace officers in s.2 and it assumes that they have the same powers and authority as each other. As seen with the process servers, they do not.

The proper question would be: Can one singular member of the public employ one other member of the public to act as a peace officer for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

As I've explained on p.7 of this thread as well as in the Nanaimo 5 thread, the answer is a resounding "No", as there is no constitutional or any other legal basis for doing so. You can hire your own security guards, but they are not peace officers, nor are they employed to preserve the public peace at large. Perhaps Winteral could point to the authority that would allow Joe Blow to hire Joe Schmoe to preserve the peace for the public at large? Because the Supreme Court clearly said (and as seen with the process server example) s.2 doesn't do that.