The Nanaimo Three - Political Prisoners in Canada

[Burnaby49]

Tedious? As I said in my reporting of the full day portion of the trial my wife was making sketches of her foot. I don't know what she expected but she got as dull a day in court as I've ever attended, and I used to be a regular at the Tax Court of Canada. I've had more scintillating days watching tax lawyers wrangling over the implications of the deemed dividend requirements of subsection 84(1) of the Income Tax Act. Dave Smith, Bernie Yankson, Charles Norman Holmes; those guys were dynamic, challenging, entertaining, they gave value for money in court. Dave Smith even gave me my Quatloos signature! Ream was just passive and confused.

Anyhow, you stated;

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.

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.

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.

[Cathulhu]

Yeah, but now you've got a terrific sketch of your wife's foot. Win!

[arayder]

I strongly suspect that Menard, who, lest we forget, came up with this shit, never actually read the statute.

If you look at the Criminal Code of Canada a Peace Officer is anyone hired to maintain and preserve the public peace

. . . Menard explicitly endorsed the use of fake badges which is clearly an offense under 130(1)(b) as Burnaby points out.

Edit: Actually, I think I get where Menard's confusion comes from:

or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process

The language seems to allow for anyone employed in maintaining public peace to be classified as a peace officer; so why isn't Menard's liberal interpretation correct; ie; that if I hire say a private security guard then that makes him a peace officer since he's "employed in maintaining the public peace"?

The definition seems to only imply that it only applies to government agents since the 4 jobs listed before "or", " a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable" are clearly government police officers but the "or other person" seems to leave it wide open. . .

In addition to his poor reading comprehension skills Menard justifies the ACCP and the C3PO claiming that equality under the law means that anyone (he in particular) can do anything governments can do.

Thus Menard claims the right to create money and his own police force. This warped notion of equality ignores the reality that the USA and Canadian constitutions confer such power and authority on governments, not on individuals.

The vision of Ream, Menard and like minded freemen assuming the authority to keep the peace is unsettling. Thankfully, the truth is Menard and his crew thought the C3PO up, not to run police departments, but to justify following cops around and catch them violating freeman law.

As usual, Menard spouts tall tales claiming that his magnificent presence has cowed police officers into freeman appropriate behavior. In March of 2013 he went so far as to say he was getting an old car and would, free of plates and license, drive around western Canada laying down the law to any mountie who dared pull him over.

Menard never got off the couch.

[Burnaby49]

Yeah, but now you've got a terrific sketch of your wife's foot. Win!

She turned it into a full watercolour when she got home.

[notorial dissent]

Bobby makes/has made a lot of claims, all of which are veriest of hooey, some of which are as pointed out are more than a bit dangerous for anyone stupid enough to go along.

[Arthur Rubin]

However Alex couldn't be convicted of falsely representing himself to be a peace officer without a definition of what the law considered a real peace officer to be. So "Peace Officer" is defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

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

But .... it says "includes". Are you trying to tell me that "includes" really is limiting in this definition?

[Burnaby49]

However Alex couldn't be convicted of falsely representing himself to be a peace officer without a definition of what the law considered a real peace officer to be. So "Peace Officer" is defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

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

But .... it says "includes". Are you trying to tell me that "includes" really is limiting in this definition?

Hey, a good point I hadn't considered! That would have been a much better defense than anything Alex managed to throw at the court.

[notorial dissent]

I think the concept is well beyond Alex's comprehension level, and certainly well beyond his ability to explain, so a no goer. If someone who did were to write out a script for him, he couldn't/wouldn't get through it without getting lost, and the first time someone asked a question he'd have that deer Alex in the headlights look he is so good at.

Alex got really lucky, let's hope for his sake his luck holds and he loses touch with this batch of "friends" and gets in with a group who aren't so bent on getting him jail time.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

However Alex couldn't be convicted of falsely representing himself to be a peace officer without a definition of what the law considered a real peace officer to be. So "Peace Officer" is defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

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

But .... it says "includes". Are you trying to tell me that "includes" really is limiting in this definition?

I suspect the a "... "peace officer" includes ..." language was adopted because jurisdictions other than the Federal government can designate persons as peace officers. The issue then becomes making coordinating all possible jurisdictions where these definitions may overlap. A strictly limited definition runs the possibility that one would have a person who is designated as a peace officer for the purposes of provincial legislation, but not under the Criminal Code.

For example, let's look at Alex's home jurisdiction of British Columbia. It's Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238 s. 29 has a separate definition of "Peace Officer", again using an inclusive list:

"peace officer" includes

(a) a mayor, sheriff and sheriff's officer,
(b) a warden, correctional officer, and any other officer or permanent employee of a penitentiary, prison, correctional centre or youth custody centre, and
(c) a police officer, police constable, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace;

Partially the same as the Criminal Code list, but without other specific examples.

Other provincial legislation identifies further types of peace officers. Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53, s. 106(5) makes members of the Conservation Officer Service peace officers, but with certain restrictions. This is a purely provincial organization. The Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488 has a similar peace officer designation.

Provincial legislation also includes broad peace officer definitions, such as in the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318 and Creston Valley Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 84.

Simply put, to prove one is a peace officer you're going to have to point at government legislation that authorizes one to have that authority. The Federal and provincial definitions use the 'includes' language simple to avoid cross-jurisdiction coordination issues.

SMS Möwe

[JamesVincent]

I'm wondering, I was offered a job a long time ago of being a private armed security guard contracted to basically walk a beat in a section of Baltimore not exactly known for its tourist value, if you get my drift. Did not want the job so I never really looked into it. Is it possible to be a privately contracted "peace officer"?

[grixit]

Well what kind of authority came with it?

[JamesVincent]

Well what kind of authority came with it?

Like I said, I didn't want it so never really looked into it. It was one of many positions that Abacus Security had. They are also the company that provides armed guards for inmate travels (to and from courthouse, to and from outside work details, etc.), armed guards for courthouses (the actual Bailiffs are retired police officers, all others are contracted) for several counties in Md. I got the vaguest description of the detail when it was offered, basically, like I said, you would walk a certain area, in this case part of Fell's Point where the strip clubs were, and you would be armed and in uniform. A friend of mine was on their detail inside John Hopkin's University and he did have full powers to detain and whatnot, inside the University.

[Jeffrey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1cYrkMgaZg

Can't believe I never noticed this one before. But on the topic of impersonating a peace officer, according to Dean's roommate, Dean fell for the Peace Officer scam and during his arrest last year told the cops he was a peace officer.

Odd that an impersonation charge isn't listed for either the February or July arrests.

[Burnaby49]

Time to revisit the past. In early March Clovenhoof and Fmotlgroupie had the following exchange (pages 20-23 of this discussion);

The victim surcharge has been the subject of some is cushion in my part of the woods. Until this past fall it was optional, and judges in their wisdom invariably waived it, often without even giving reasons. With the new changes there is a mandatory surcharge of $100 for summary offences and $200 for indictable offences. In the same range as a speeding ticket, so you'd think that it wasn't an egregious abuse if these poor criminally convicted offenders. Except that some of the judges concluded that it was, and decided to get around it. If there is a fine then the surcharge is a percentage of the fine instead of the fixed amount (I imagine this might be appropriate for tax offenders, for example). Some of our local judges then have started giving out $1 fines (as your crown suggested). to "stay within" the exact wording of the law while ignoring its intent entirely, with the result of some serious domestic violence getting resolved by $1 fines. He'll of a message to society about the rule of law, much less the relative value of domestic violence vs, say, a cup of coffee

The surcharge is a part of the sentence imposed over and above the court-imposed aspects of the sentence -- jail, fine, and/or probation. It isn't accurate to describe it as having any relative value to domestic violence.

There are two problems with it. The first is that it violates a long-standing principle of sentencing that a judge must consider the means of an offender before imposing a fine or a restitution order. The courts recognize that a $10,000 fine might be a mere blip for person A, while $500 might be an enormous hardship for person B, and they sentence accordingly.

The second is the idea that everybody is entitled to serve their sentence and be free and clear of it, at some point in their lives. Though the courts have not yet ruled on this point, it is generally accepted that until the surcharge has been paid, the sentence is not yet completed. This means that a person who commits a trivial offence, gets a suspended sentence and probation, but lives in abject poverty such that they can never pay the $100 or $200 can never get a pardon for their crime, and can never enter the United States, among other consequences.

I of course say screw the bleeding hearts. Sure, maybe we forced you into a government-sanctioned residential school where you spent years being repeatedly sodomized by the people we were paying to take care of you, and then we denied any kind of counselling to you so that you were forced into a life of profound despair and alcoholism. But there are laws, and when you steal that bottle of Jack Daniels to give yourself a couple of hours of respite, well, there's a victim there. Us, the government. So you can... okay, I digress.

Anyway, there are some -- like, almost everyone involved in the justice system -- who find the new surcharge provisions utterly offensive.

These comments are suddenly part of a live issue again because a well respected Canadian judge has deemed the surcharge unconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment;

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/01 ... unishment/

The judge agreed with Clovenhoof's point that;

. . . it violates a long-standing principle of sentencing that a judge must consider the means of an offender before imposing a fine or a restitution order. The courts recognize that a $10,000 fine might be a mere blip for person A, while $500 might be an enormous hardship for person B, and they sentence accordingly.

As the judge said;

“This is a crushing amount for him, beyond his foreseeable means. It is a sum that, in relative hardship, is many multiples of what a moneyed offender would have to pay,” Paciocco wrote. “Simply put, Mr. Michael is being treated more harshly because of his poverty than someone who is wealthy.”

The Crown made one argument that I think was just outright stupid;

In his decision, Paciocco — who has authored books on criminal law and is considered one of Canada’s foremost experts on evidence — dismissed Crown arguments that the surcharge wasn’t a punishment so therefore couldn’t be found to be cruel and unusual.

If it isn't a punishment what is it? A court fee? If so why is it only imposed on the guilty but not the innocent?

The judge made short work of that point;

“All extrinsic sources confirm that the victim surcharge was enacted to make offenders pay for their crimes,” wrote Paciocco. The name of the law, the Increasing Offenders Accountability to Victims Act, and statements made by the justice minister and other politicians are “situating this legislation among tough-on-crime initiatives” designed to deter offenders and hold them responsible for their actions.

[Hyrion]

I'm wondering, ... Is it possible to be a privately contracted "peace officer"?

In concept, I'd say yes. In reality, I don't think they should be called "peace officers".

I think it's important Society is able to tell the difference between "security paid by taxes" and "security paid by non-elected-entity". That could very well explain why Police are called Police and others are called Security Guards.

Ironically - if the FMOTL types presented themselves as security guards rather than peace officers, they might very well not fall afoul of the criminal laws surrounding impersonating a peace/police officer.

Instead, they'd likely fall afoul of the Laws surrounding being properly licensed - probably only civil-type fines to begin with.... unless they decided they are free to pack firepower... then it's back to criminal laws depending on jurisdiction such as being in Texas.

[notorial dissent]

If, and I say if advisedly, I read the statutes Menard is attempting to abuse correctly, the answer is a qualified yes, with the qualification that the "peace officers" be identified essentially as security or guard or some such, and be visibly identifiable as such without resort to their badges, uniforms etc, which is of course the exact opposite of what Bobby wants. He is wanting and counting on the confusion. I think, from reading that statute, that guards and such would be considered "peace officers" under the statute, but would not be entitled to use of the name, as that is reserved for the gov't issued and controlled types. Just my take, but far more reasonable than Bobby's.

[Hyrion]

That's the kicker, Bobby would like to take the security guard aspect a step further.

For example, under normal circumstances, a security guard does not have any kind of authority to arrest a Police Officer - or even interfer with the operations of said Officer.

Think of a security guard for a mall telling a Police Officer who had just caught someone shoplifting that the Police Officer needs to leave immediately or be charged with loitering/tresspassing.

It would not, in the slightest, surprise me Bobby would like any form of authority over the real Police. That would certainly fit in with his claims of "I showed dem my badge and dey became a lot more 'spectable" - ok, bad accent on my part but it outlines the concept

[notorial dissent]

I think what Bobby wants is for a counter force to actually be used to threaten the real police if they don't do what Bobby wants. I think that is exactly what he was heading for trying for. Isn't ever going to happen, but Bobby can fantasize/hallucinate about his greatness and power though, and find some more gullible schmucks to keep funding his beer/pot budget.

[arayder]

Freemen gurus fantasize that their little cult has all the power and authority of a democratic government, the latter having has its authority conferred upon it by the people.

Menard has let the his narcissistic side show by dreaming he can create his own courts, arm his own police force, annex land and create his own money out of thin air. In the end all he's ever done is stick something in his mouth and get himself arrested.

In order to make it seem they could do a better job of running things freemen search the net for stories about incompetent judges, bad cops and greedy bankers. But the sad fact is freemen are zero for life at running anything.

[morrand]

I'm wondering, ... Is it possible to be a privately contracted "peace officer"?

In concept, I'd say yes. In reality, I don't think they should be called "peace officers".

Well, how about the Canadian Pacific Police Service?

I would love to see Mr. Menard try to put that one to work.