Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Jeffrey]

I think that's Rod Class's fake court.

[Bill Lumbergh]

I have no idea why Menard thinks this next one is relevant, he's too deep for me;

mrmitee 7 hours ago

+Doazic Oh and Doazic, care to address the plainly observable fact that these other persons can also be employed not just to preserve and maintain the public peace but also for the service and execution of civil process, and that the public regularly employs them for that purpose? Do you wish to claim that these process servers cannot be directly employed by members of the public, even though that happens every day? Do you wish to claim that only governmental agencies can employ a process server? Or will you simply gloss over that key and determining fact?

I think what's he's getting at is the following argument:
1) Process servers are peace officers as defined by the Criminal Code
2) Process servers can be hired by regular Joe Schmoe
Therefore
3) regular Joe schmoe can hire can employ a peace officer
4) regular Joe Schmoe can employ another person to preserve the public peace

This of course doesn't make sense, particularly when considered in light of the Supreme Court' ruling in Nolan, which I won't repeat as it has been thoroughly covered. What Menard fails to grasp (per Nolan) is that simply meeting the definition of a peace officer does not empower you to do anything. A process server does not have the power to enforce the criminal code as there is no legislative authority for them to do so.

Here's an example from a recent BC Court of Appeal case- R v. Lord: http://canlii.ca/t/fm2p0

At issue was whether members of the Canadian National Railway police force were peace officers. The accused was charged with obstructing/assaulting them and resisting arrest. He wanted to argue on appeal that they were not peace officers, but was shot down. The court upheld the lower court ruling - here's a little excerpt:

[15] Although the Crown argued before the summary conviction appeal judge that this ground was not raised before the Provincial Court judge who convicted the applicant, it was nonetheless addressed by the summary conviction appeal judge. At paras. 24-26 the summary conviction appeal judge concluded:

[24] There is no question that the definition of "peace officer" is very broad. As Mr. Lord noted, the definition includes such individuals as a mayor, a reeve, a pilot in command of an aircraft, and officers acting under the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.) and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20. Subsection (c) does not make reference to other statutes but includes a large number of individuals who are appointed or "employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process".

[25] Although this definition is very broad, that does not make it vague or unenforceable. The question with regard to the facts of this case, or indeed the facts in any case where someone is charged with assaulting a peace officer or resisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty, is whether the individual in question falls within the definition of "peace officer". Here, there is no doubt that Constables Michaud and Brisard were police constables at the time of the incident. They were duly appointed as such pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. It does not matter that the Act is not specifically mentioned in the definition in the Criminal Code. What matters is that the two constables were appointed as police constables and were "employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace". This was proved by the evidence led at trial, and as a result they fall within the definition of "peace officer" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

[26] It is clear that Parliament intended the definition of "peace officer" to be broad. Our society requires that many individuals be employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace. Parliament intended that individuals who are appointed as police officers, police constables, bailiffs, constables, or other persons who carry out the important task of preserving the public peace have the powers and protections given to peace officers in the Criminal Code.

[16] In his oral submissions in this Court, the applicant emphasized that one of the basic objections that he had to the appointment of police constables pursuant to s. 44 of the Railway Safety Act was that such appointments were, in the case of CN, at the initiation of a multinational corporation, and created police constables who were immune from Charter scrutiny. This submission is without merit. Section 44 of the Railway Safety Act requires a judge of a Provincial superior court to make the appointment, providing assurance that only suitable candidates will be appointed. Once appointed, these constables exercise their authority pursuant to the statute under which they are appointed , and as such, are then subject to the same Charter scrutiny as any others who fall within the definition of peace officers found in s. 2 of the Code.

So what do we learn from this?

1) Statutes not mentioned under (c) of the definition are relevant and applicable in governing the people/positions referred to in the definition.
2) Even in a case where a corporation creates/employs peace officers, their authority comes from the statute that allowed for their appointment. They are therefore subject to constitutional scrutiny.

Note that the appellant here tried to raise the argument that the statute that allows for the appointment of CN police constables was unconstitutional, as infringing on the provincial policing power. He failed to give proper notice of the application, so the court didn't consider it, but it raises yet another obstacle for the C3PO gang - the constitution doesn't authorize Joe Schmoe to create his own police force.

I hope this was somewhat coherent - I get a bit scatter-brained when writing posts. I have more to add, but the wife just came home and is asking why I'm "on that weird llama site" again.

[Burnaby49]

My take was far more basic. He seemed, to me, to be saying that since real peace officers can be process servers then any process server is a real peace officer. But that interpretation is so stupid that it can't be correct, can it Rob? It is the same as saying that since police officers can act as reception/clerks at the station's front desk clerks and receptionists are also peace officers. However Rob's take on statutory interpretation is a bit idiosyncratic so he might well mean exactly that.

Time to test it in court Rob, not from the kitchen of your latest squat.

[Jeffrey]

I think we need clarification on one of the premises. I don't see process servers listed under the peace officer definition.

Either way, if hiring a guy to serve papers makes him a peace officer, then that's a one way road. He only became a peace officer because you hired him to serve papers. You can't then extend that to say that guys you hire to do other stuff also become peace officers. That would then mean that every single mall cop in Canada is a peace officer. Every single security guard in the country would be a peace officer if Rob is right.

Walmart could start a peace officers corp. Monsanto could start a peace officers corp.

[Burnaby49]

If Rob's moronic followers qualify to be peace officers under Rob's definition why not mall cops? Rob's position is that the law allows ANYONE to be a peace officer. He may make exceptions for convicted criminals and the like but, if so, I've not heard him say it yet.

[bmxninja357]

I worked the door in several bars where my job was to verify age via government identification and to preserve and maintain the Peace. I was given many many many opportunities to remove, restrain, and call the police. Despite the real danger of the job (my friend Travis was killed at the front door on a night I was to work it but I was at my other job) we are given no coverage as peace officers.

Point being anyone may choose to preserve and maintain the public peace. You may be employed to do just that. But it does not legally grant you the status of peace officer. Nor does it grant any protections, rights or duties of one.

Any citizen may act to stop the commission of an offense using as much force as necessary. Any citizen may make an arrest. But the subject must be turned over to an actual peace officer/police officer immediately.

Doing the right thing is a right. But it does not make you a peace officer. And aside from a good Samaritan law one has no legal duty to do it. The moral duty is at your discretion.

Why does one need such a group to do what can legally be done without it?

Peace
ninj

[Burnaby49]

I worked the door in several bars where my job was to verify age via government identification and to preserve and maintain the Peace. I was given many many many opportunities to remove, restrain, and call the police. Despite the real danger of the job (my friend Travis was killed at the front door on a night I was to work it but I was at my other job) we are given no coverage as peace officers.

Point being anyone may choose to preserve and maintain the public peace. You may be employed to do just that. But it does not legally grant you the status of peace officer. Nor does it grant any protections, rights or duties of one.

Any citizen may act to stop the commission of an offense using as much force as necessary. Any citizen may make an arrest. But the subject must be turned over to an actual peace officer/police officer immediately.

Doing the right thing is a right. But it does not make you a peace officer. And aside from a good Samaritan law one has no legal duty to do it. The moral duty is at your discretion.

Why does one need such a group to do what can legally be done without it?

Peace
ninj

I think Menard's gang want to carry guns. They also want to enforce the law as they see it, their interpretation of common law, things like arresting those pesky judges for treason when a trial isn't working out for them. They have the deluded belief they can do all this if only Rob can get them real peace officer status. More to point if Menard can carry it off he avoids all those Toronto charges.

[bmxninja357]

I think the idea of holding officials accountable is a fantastic idea.

But I think the quickest way to achieve that would be a lobby group seeking better over site for our law enforcement and elected officials than a bunch of untrained folks thinking they get the distinct privilege of doing it without outside over site.

Seems like a pseudo vigilante squad with an inflated sense of self worth brandishing pitchforks, pillowcases full of doorknobs and novelty shop badges.

Contrary to most here I like rob. But he is dead wrong on this. And I think skipping court shows he may know that too.

I believe he should be served electronically and if he fails to appear a trial should be held in absentia. I'm sure his views could be presented by duty council after a dutiful read of his arguments.

He had the floor to defend his views. Now it's wasting the courts time and the taxpayers dime.

The show must go on as they say.

Peace.
ninj

[arayder]

Talking out of both sides of his mouth as he usually does Menard tries to make it seem he's only about keeping the peace. The truth is he has made it very clear over the years that the activity of C3POs would to shadow the "regular" police and restrain them from enforcing the laws freemen don't like.

This was an amusing fantasy until Menard started talking seriously about arming C3POs. In reality Menard is now advocating the armed obstruction of the police as they perform their duties.

[Jeffrey]

BMX as usual brings up a good point. The Criminal Code already gives everyone in Canada the right to use force to prevent the commission of offenses and to prevent bodily harm to other people. i.e. Guy is beating a woman in an alleyway, you can intervene and you're fine. This even applies in airplanes.

27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or

(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

R.S., c. C-34, s. 27.

Marginal note:Use of force on board an aircraft

27.1 (1) Every person on an aircraft in flight is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of an offence against this Act or another Act of Parliament that the person believes on reasonable grounds, if it were committed, would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the aircraft or to any person or property therein.
Marginal note:Application of this section

(2) This section applies in respect of any aircraft in flight in Canadian airspace and in respect of any aircraft registered in Canada in accordance with the regulations made under the Aeronautics Act in flight outside Canadian airspace.

Not only that, but anyone can make arrests as well. You don't even need to be a PO.

Arrest without warrant by any person

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

But Rob claims he wants extra magical peace officer protections so let's use the evil powers of the search tool to figure out what those are:

[*]4(5)(b) allows peace officers to serve documents: not really beneficial.

[*]25. Allows use of force to enforce the law but that authorization also includes private persons under (1)(a).

[*]25(4) Deadly force to protect himself or others and to prevent escape of inmates (5). I think safe to say, nobody thinks Menard or mall cops should be able to use deadly force and I doubt C3P0 will be patrolling jails looking for escapees. Arguably redundant since section 34 allows private individuals to use deadly force for self defense.

In 25.1 we have an example of an activity which Peace Officers are prohibited from engaging in:

Condition — civilian oversight

(3.1) A competent authority referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of that term in subsection (1) may not designate any public officer under subsection (3) unless there is a public authority composed of persons who are not peace officers that may review the public officer’s conduct.

So yeah, peace officers cannot review the actions of other peace officers. So C3P0 for example, could not serve as civilian oversight.

[*]31 and 30: Breach of Peace. Non peace officers can detain anyone who is breaching the peace and wait until a peace officer shows up. Peace officers can arrest people who breach the peace. Again, not sure we want Menard or mall cops to have the power to arrest.

[*]32: Peace Officers can use force to prevent riots, but so can individuals as listed in (4).

[*]33: Peace Officers have a duty to arrest or disperse rioters.

[*]69: Peace Officers who fail to suppress riots are guilty of indictable offense, 2 years jail max. Not sure how Menard benefits from this extra liability.

[*]78: Peace Officers can bring guns on planes. Not sure Menard is willing to test that one since it involves 14 years jail max.

[*]83.29 Peace Officers may execute arrest warrants. So C3P0 could arrest Menard on his warrants?

[*]83.3 PO may arrest without warrant under certain conditions.

[*]105 Lost firearms must be reported to peace officers. Have you ever heard of someone reporting a lost firearm to a process server?

[*]120 Illegal to bribe a PO

[*]128 PO misconduct is indictable offense, 2 years max

[*]129 Illegal to obstruct a PO.

[*]130 Illegal to claim to be a PO falsely.

[*]140 Offence to mislead a PO

[*]147 Illegal for PO to allow someone to escape custody

[*]172.2 It is not legal to solicit a child for sex via telecommunication even if you believe the child is a PO.

[*]175 PO statements can be used as evidence in cases of public drunkenness, public nudity or loitering.

[*]178 PO may use tear gas if necessary.

[*]184.1 PO may intercept communications to prevent bodily harm.

[*]199 PO can arrest everyone found within a gambling house or brothel.

[*]231 Murder is automatically first degree murder if the victim is a PO.

Murder of peace officer, etc.

(4) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the victim is

(a) a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties;

(b) a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard or other officer or a permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties; or

(c) a person working in a prison with the permission of the prison authorities and acting in the course of his work therein.

[*]249.1 Driving away from a PO that is pursuing you is a crime.

[*]254 PO can test for drunk drivers

[*]269.1 Illegal for PO to torture

[*]270 Can't assault PO

[*]339 PO can arrest for stolen lumber or lumber that is suspected stolen

[*]354 Immunity for PO to hold stolen goods if they are doing it as part of their job

[*]447 PO can bust cock fighting rings.

[*]462 PO can seize fake currency

[*]462.31 Immunity from prosecution for transferring illegal money if part of an investigation.

[*]487 PO can order you to not delete computer data.

[*]487 Huge list of regulations on how PO must take urine and blood samples.

[*]487.11 Warrantless search in case of emergency.

[*]489 Seize stolen goods

[*]494 Anyone can arrest anyone without a warrant for committing indictable or criminal offenses.

[*]495 PO can arrest anyone for the same reasons as a private individual with the added bonus of "reasonably believes there are warrants"

___________________________________________


My question to Menard is simple. Why exactly does he want to call himself a peace officer? The magic protections he seems to believe peace officers have, don't appear anywhere in the code.

[notorial dissent]

Why didn't Bobby fight it out in court? For the same reason he's never pulled the trigger on any of his "projects". The same reason he's begging funds for a legal argument he knows he's already lost.

He's a narcissist who manipulates others.

He's a great blustering windbag that deflates and collapses to nothing at the slightest pressure you mean.

[Burnaby49]

He's back to trying to confuse the issue in the comments to his video;

mrmitee 3 hours ago (edited)

Doazic Dude, seriously... here is what the Chief Justice had to say in R v Nolan:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE‑‑The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether a military police officer is a "peace officer" within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, as amended, when he or she is purporting to exercise authority over a civilian who is not subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with the sole issue settled in that case. You can stop referring to that case, since it states within it the sole issue raised is about military police. Nice attempt at avoiding the issue though. Are you going to deal with the process server point? Do you claim that only governmental entities can employ process servers, or do you accept that members of the public can also do so?

He was the same when he was Winteral at Ickes. He never denied he was arrested for his antics in Toronto but instead kept deflecting the issue by demanding that his critics prove he was arrested at the scene, a totally irrelevant point. While the point at issue in Nolan was whether military police were peace officers the Supreme Court of Canada analyzed the statute to interpret what it meant in relationship to who was or was not a peace officer. This review has general application not just in respect to military police but to all potential peace officers and it screws Menard. So, instead of admitting this, he rambles on how Nolan is irrelevant since it is specific to the military. And, in a typical Menard touch, he accused Doazic of attempting to avoid the issue when that is exactly what menard is doing.

Some news for you Rob, the decision of the Supreme Court related to the the peace officer status of the military because they were the ones involved in the specific incident under judicial review but the analysis of who is or is not a peace officer relates to all potential peace officers. Or in your case non-peace officers.

Again, if you are such a genius at statutory interpretation, why did run away rather than make this argument in court?

Doazic pointed this out to Rob;

Doazic 2 hours ago

You know you have to read the full court decision, not just a summary right. Paragraph 19 quite clearly negates your theory: "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." The court specifically rejected your expansive definition of peace offficer which is why the Attorney General put it as clearly as possible to you that the definition of peace officer only relates to members of legislatively recognized law enforcement agencies. And the judge in his decision, agreed with that statement by the AG which is why they threw your case out and hit you with costs.

As to process servers, if you want to make a Canadian Corp of Process Servers, knock yourself out. By the way, who told you process servers are peace officers?

[Bill Lumbergh]

They did not throw my case out, had I not been ill, I would have responded in time. Had I done that, it would have gone to court. The issue was not settled as it never got before a judge. A protonotary is not a judge.

The issue was not settled. They asked the court to not settle it, to not allow the action. I was quite ill at the time, and could not respond to their response, and I failed to respond in time. Therefore the matter was dropped, NOT determined. The issue at heart was not judicially settled. But now it will be. Show me where the court ruled on the issue Steve. A 'protonotary' is not a judge.

I thought I would address this claim about prothonotaries and that the matter was not settled.

Let's see what the Federal Court Rules say about the matter, shall we?

The Crown brought their claim to strike pursuant to section 221(1)(a):

221. (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it

(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be,

Hmm... nothing in there about a judge having to determine the issue. But it does say that the "Court" may strike out pleadings, so let's see how that term is defined (s.2):

“Court” means, as the circumstances require,

(a) the Federal Court of Appeal, including, in respect of a motion, a single judge of that court; or

(b) the Federal Court, including a prothonotary acting within the jurisdiction conferred under these Rules.

Well gosh-darnit, looks like prothonotary is included in the meaning of "Court" as long as he has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Hmm... so what types of matters can a prothonotary hear?

Prothonotaries

50. (1) A prothonotary may hear, and make any necessary orders relating to, any motion under these Rules other than a motion
(a) in respect of which these Rules or an Act of Parliament has expressly conferred jurisdiction on a judge;
(b) in the Federal Court of Appeal;
(c) for summary judgment or summary trial other than
(i) in an action referred to in subsection (2), or
(ii) in respect of a claim referred to in subsection (3);
(d) to hold a person in contempt at a hearing referred to in paragraph 467(1)(a);
(e) for an injunction;
(f) relating to the liberty of a person;
(g) to stay, set aside or vary an order of a judge, other than an order made under paragraph 385(a), (b) or (c);
(h) to stay execution of an order of a judge;
(i) to appoint a receiver;
(j) for an interim order under section 18.2 of the Act;
(k) to appeal the findings of a referee under rule 163; or
(l) for the certification of an action or an application as a class proceeding.

Motions to strike are not on the list of matters that are outside of a prothonotary's jurisdiction, so it looks like they can certainly hear and rule on it. The matter doesn't need to be before a judge.

There's also s.30:

30. (1) A judge or prothonotary who is not sitting in court may make an order on a motion if
(a) the judge or prothonotary is satisfied that all parties affected have consented thereto;
(b) the motion was brought in accordance with rule 369; or
(c) for any other reason the judge or prothonotary considers that the order can be made without a hearing without prejudice to any party.

Huh. Wouldn't you know it, the Crown's motion was brought in accordance with rule 369, so the prothonotary didn't even have to be resolve the matter in court. And yes, the matter was resolved, you see...

392. (1) The Court may dispose of any matter that is the subject-matter of a hearing by signing an order.
(2) Unless it provides otherwise, an order is effective from the time that it is endorsed in writing and signed by the presiding judge or prothonotary or, in the case of an order given orally from the bench in circumstances that render it impracticable to endorse a written copy of the order, at the time it is made.

Not to mention, that a motion to strike considers the very possibility of whether the claim has any hope of success. It's actually a hard test for the moving party to meet. Here is the SCC commentary from R v. Imperial Tobacco, 2011 SCC 42 :

The parties agree on the test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action under r. 19(24)(a) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules. This Court has reiterated the test on many occasions. A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735.

19 The power to strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success is a valuable housekeeping measure essential to effective and fair litigation. It unclutters the proceedings, weeding out the hopeless claims and ensuring that those that have some chance of success go on to trial.

20 This promotes two goods -- efficiency in the conduct of the litigation and correct results. Striking out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success promotes litigation efficiency, reducing time and cost. The litigants can focus on serious claims, without devoting days and sometimes weeks of evidence and argument to claims that are in any event hopeless. The same applies to judges and juries, whose attention is focused where it should be -- on claims that have a reasonable chance of success. The efficiency gained by weeding out unmeritorious claims in turn contributes to better justice. The more the evidence and arguments are trained on the real issues, the more likely it is that the trial process will successfully come to grips with the parties' respective positions on those issues and the merits of the case.

21 Valuable as it is, the motion to strike is a tool that must be used with care. The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.) introduced a general duty of care to one's neighbour premised on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim. The court must rather ask whether, assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. The approach must be generous and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial.

So the prothonotary took Menard's idiotic statement of claim, assumed that the pleadings in it were all true, and not only determined that the claim would have no hope of success if it proceeded to trial but that it is so hopeless, that amending it wouldn't help. What I'm not sure of is whether Menard can try again with a brand new claim... I suspect he may be barred from relitigating the same issue.

[Hyrion]

who told you process servers are peace officers?

Love that logical fallacy that Rob is employing. To put in another context:

• All apples are fruit therefore all fruit are apples

I seriously doubt he believes an orange is an apple. And yet:

• Peace Officers are process servers therefore process servers are also peace officers

At least, from what I recall reading, that's what Rob is pushing.

[Jeffrey]

JUDGE: Where you acting in the capacity as a Process Server during all 4 incidents when you claimed to be a Peace Officer?
ACCUSED: No, I was acting to preserve and maintain the public peace as per my lawful contracts and oath.
JUDGE: I find you NOT GUILTY on all 4 counts of false representation of being a Peace Officer, as the criminal code identifies those employed to preserve and maintain the public peace as peace officers.

Menard apparently losing the capacity to distinguish reality from fantasy?

https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=WMFEoDt0eFY

[Bill Lumbergh]

And there's a new video where he calls a process server company, with a special shout out to Burnaby49!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

I'm still unclear as to how this is relevant or what point he's trying to make.

[wanglepin]

And there's a new video where he calls a process server company, with a special shout out to Burnaby49!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

I'm still unclear as to how this is relevant or what point he's trying to make.

caption

Quatlooser have no clue

What was his point? Is this some sort of defence for him impersonating a cop/ "peace officer"?

[Jeffrey]

Menard's video did allow for a journey down the rabbit hole that is Canlii. I haven't been able to find any legislation or case law that supports Menard's interpretation that Process Servers are peace officers (and no a phone conversation with a receptionist is not proof, no offense to receptionists), setting aside the logical gymnastics involved in that argument.

I did however find this juicy little case which I think settles the matter, not sure if we had discussed it previously:

R v. Burns
http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/20 ... ca161.html

Which meaning was intended by Parliament in defining “peace officer”? Or did Parliament intend to encompass both? I do not think there is any doubt that Parliament used the word solely in its first meaning. Everyone referred to in the definition section, other than a “bailiff,” is patently a public or statutory officer performing public duties. There is no reason to believe that Parliament intended to include, as a peace officer, a person who was a private appointee performing non-public duties.

Which I think addresses both of Menard's points. Peace officers appointed by Menard would not fall under the definition of a peace officer nor are private process servers.

Also found two cases that discuss that security guards / mall cops are not peace officers:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/20 ... pc308.html
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/20 ... bpc64.html

[arayder]

Who says a few decades of drug and alcohol abuse doesn't mess with one's judgement?

Menard is on the run from the law so he decides to have a YouTube argument over a point of debate that doesn't do squat to help him.

Have another Moose Head, Bobby!

[bmxninja357]

I'm on a phone so research is a bit tricky but if memory serves me correctly a few years back process servers were granted the same legal protections as peace officers however this did not give them the legal authority of peace officers. I believe it only counted if they were assulted and such. Someone may have a better device for Google fu than me to search it on.

Peace
ninj