Robert Arthur Menard FOTL (Freeman on the Lam)

[Bill Lumbergh]

I think BMX is right... I made an earlier post to that effect back on page 12 of this very thread:

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10492&start=240

[LordEd]

I haven't been able to find any legislation or case law that supports Menard's interpretation that Process Servers are peace officers

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... age-1.html

“peace officer” includes
...
(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,

However, a process server trying to force a breathalyzer test is not acting as a peace officer, so wouldn't be afforded that protection.

There was a canlii case very clear on that. The powers of a peace officer derive from other acts. I'll try to track it down later.

[LordEd]

Perhaps Mr. Menard can show his T4 slip to prove he was employed as a peace officer?

[LordEd]

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/abou ... ion3.shtml

Employers are required by law to request each new employee's SIN within three (3) days after the day on which their employment begins, and maintain a record of the SIN of the employee.

[Jeffrey]

Perhaps Mr. Menard can show his T4 slip to prove he was employed as a peace officer?

Interestingly enough, you do not have to be paid to count as "employed" as a peace officer:

Employ does not necessarily involve actual monetary compensation although that is admittedly usually the case.

http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/20 ... 13029.html

Of course that case don't help Menard since that guy was a police cadet.

(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,

Color me crazy but I don't see process server in that list.

an independent supervising solicitor appointed by a court pursuant to an order which contains the terms found in the Model Anton Piller Order used on the Toronto Region Commercial List (a “Model Order ISS”) is employed for the service or execution of civil process and therefore falls within the Criminal Code s. 2 definition of a “peace officer” for the limited purpose of qualifying for the registration exemptions found in DPA s. 36(b).

Those attributes – his appointment by a public authority as an officer of the Court; sourcing his duties and powers in a grant of powers made by a public authority; his accountability to that public authority; and his supervisory role in the execution of civil process – combine to qualify a Model Order ISS as a “peace officer” within the definition

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... c1422.html

Unless I'm missing something, but it seems to me that only a court appointed process server would count as a peace officer, not a privately hire process server as Menard claims.

[arayder]

But the receptionist at the un-named process servers agency said so!

[LordEd]

http://canlii.ca/t/5bps

Intersting case. A part time, off duty young offender facility worker follows and arrests a drunk driver until the police arrive.

The trial judge concluded that Taylor was only a peace officer when employed at the youth facility. Taylor was acting under the provisions of s. 494(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and made a citizen’s arrest. Because Taylor was not acting as an agent of the state when making his citizen’s arrest, the Charter rights do not apply against Taylor.

In Nolan v. The Queen (1987), 1987 CanLII 66 (SCC), 34 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.), Dickson, C.J.C. stated at p. 298-299:

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.
...

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.

[17] The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal concluded that wildlife officers are included in the definition of subparagraph (c). At p. 149, Culliton C.J.S. stated:
... Thus applying the reasoning of Ritchie J., I have no hesitation in concluding that a wildlife officer in enforcing the provisions of The Wildlife Act of Saskatchewan is a peace officer within the meaning of the Criminal Code.
[18] Subparagraph (c), like subparagraph (b), has no restrictive wording in the definition of the persons listed, as subparagraphs (d), (e), or (f) have. Nonetheless, it is clear that the authorities restrict the person acting under provincial authority to the powers of a peace officer while performing the duties conferred upon the person by the provincial legislation. As stated by Ritchie J. In Beaman, supra, at p. 101:

The situation appears to me to be that although the sphere of a game warden’s authority is limited to the enforcement of a provincial statute, he is, nevertheless, for that purpose and by that statute clothed with all the rights, powers, and protections afforded to a peace officer by the Criminal Code. With all respect, this does not in my view mean that the Province is giving to one of its law enforcement officers “the authority to act in criminal matters” and I cannot see that this legislation gives rise to any problem or conflict between the provincial and Federal fields.

I believe I read at one point that serving papers makes you a form of peace officer in the course of that duty. The purpose is to provide the additional protection should somebody react negatively to you performing that duty. However, as indicated above, that status does not grant additional powers outside of the scope of that duty. You can't go arrest somebody because that is not part of your duty.

In the game warden case above, that game warden has authority to enforce the wildlife act (or whatever act is is, not sure). The game warden does not have authority to enforce the traffic act.

[LordEd]

Just going to bring this previous discussion forward:

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.

[Jeffrey]

The quote you're using is from the Civil Constables Association though:

All regular Members of CCANS have been appointed Provincial Civil Constables by the Nova Scotia Department of Justice pursuant to the Police Services Act of Nova Scotia.

http://www.nsbailiff.ca/about.php

Provincial Civil Constables are peace officers yes, but only because they're appointed by a government agency and act under a statute. And even then they're only peace officers while serving papers. I'm not seeing where that allows for me to hire BMX for example to serve someone with divorce papers and that therefore making him a peace officer.

[LordEd]

I read into it that if you hired BMX to serve me papers that if I decided to decline the papers with a swing of a baseball bat, that I could be charged with a more significant crime than if I took up the call from burnaby and assaulted BMX for use of puns.

But I could be wrong.

[AndyK]

The overall quality of Quatloos residents seems to have declined markedly.

This thread (The life and times of Menard) has been going on for quite a while

BUT

No one has incorporated or made the slightest oblique reference to:

"Brave Sir Robin ran away ..."

[LordEd]

"Brave Sir Robin ran away ..."

I have not neglected my duties:
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10492&p=186508&hil ... ve#p186508

Edit: I demand an apology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY

[bmxninja357]

The assult with the bat while serving court issued documents for due process of law would be an aggravating factor. Thus the sentence would reflect this and would likely result in the same punishment as if I was a peace officer. You assulted a citizen for the purpose of preventing due coarse of law. Basically the same protection just different sections of the ccc apply.

Peace
ninj

[Jeffrey]

I've spent about 2 hours looking for that type of criminal case. Easiest way to settle it would be to find a criminal case where someone assaulted a process server and was charged with assaulting a peace officer. I haven't found such a case on Canlii.

Closest I've found so far is this one in which a process server claimed to be a peace officer but whether it was true or not was never addressed.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlst/doc/2 ... shp39.html

Which in retrospect has been an incredibly wasteful use of time since the basic argument, that because you can hire process servers you can therefore hire your own police force, has no merit.

And I just noticed that Menard included the process server argument in his statement of claim and it was rejected.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/yyct95xbk ... -43-15.pdf

So this is a settled matter either way.

[LordEd]

Which in retrospect has been an incredibly wasteful use of time since the basic argument, that because you can hire process servers you can therefore hire your own police force, has no merit.

Fully agreed here.

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".

Just quoting this yet again because this is the key line.

[grixit]

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!

From what Burnaby tells us, he ought to be drinking Molson.

[bmxninja357]

Actually from what Burnaby tells us no one should be drinking Molson. Or labatts.

As long as 40's of Old English are OK I will be in the alley with my Dr. Dre cassette. ...

Peace
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

I just got back from participating in a one-hour webinar discussing Canadian Freemen and I gave Menard his full due and recognition. I said that at one time he was perhaps Canada's leading guru with a huge following but now he is just a broke bum on the run from an arrest warrant begging for money on the internet. I noted that his hear-felt plea for aid had brought in $38 so far.

So Rob, don't say that you don't get fair treatment at my hands. Everything I said was objective and verifiable.

I'll be writing about the Webinar in a separate discussion.

[Burnaby49]

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.

Well. There it is. The smoking gun. Menard has proven his case beyond any reasonable doubt and made me look like an idiot. So humiliating.

So, Rob. I assume that since you now have this new and clearly definitive evidence you are heading back to Toronto to finally present your case in court and get court authorization for your 3CPO band of goons. Is this correct?

[Burnaby49]

A point of interest in his video I failed to note in my posting. He told the receptionist that he may need the services of a process server in Toronto. To do what? File documents on judges and crown counsel? Your fans demand to know Rob!