Letter to RCMP
by Robert Menard » Fri May 29, 2009 8:04 pm
Hello and Good day.I am Robert-Arthur of the Menard family a Freeman-on-the-Land and founder of the World Freeman Society. Recently I was contacted by a friend who was according to him assaulted in the RCMP Detachment in Leduc. I understand you sent him a letter asking him to phone you. It is my hope as a advocate and peace maker that a resolution is possible. I understand you may find some of the concepts expressed in this correspondence to be contentious and perhaps threatening to your belief paradigm and claim of authority. Having met very many extraordinary police officers, and having never met you the only fair thing I can see is to assume you too are of exemplary character and I hope the ideas and beliefs expressed do not cause you to feel I have anything but love for the law and respect for justice. These are challenging and exciting times and I hope my efforts although they may upset those who think they have divine right to govern their fellow man, will in fact benefit all, even those who will have to be corrected and sanctioned. I hope my use of analogy, hyperbole and other tools in trying to express my position and ideas truthfully neither offends nor tires. It's just how I roll. Additionally the purpose of this correspondence is not just to help bring peace to this situation, but to help educate the public, empower my fellowman, meet a publishing deadline and lay a foundation for other future matters. That too is how I roll.
I have read the report and documentation and I find it simply amazing that two grown men, one who is a sworn peace officer and the other a devout Christian would allow such a situation to develop. I am sitting stunned here, wondering if I am dealing with children. Two grown men with over a hundred years of life experience between them and this is the best they can do? It is unbelievable to me and I have seen children treat each other better and act with greater dignity and grace. As one would expect there is significant differences in their claims of what happened and based on my experience the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Either way however the initiating actions were very far from Christian in nature, and that is recognized by Ken, who I believe is contrite and none too proud of his actions that day. I have suggested that he craft an apology and offer amends through honest discussion and in so doing come to peace with his adversary before going to court. This I know is the law and if peace can be found there is no need for court or conflict. I believe every one does the best they can with the information they have and their ability to process it. I see how people use anger to justify actions which they would otherwise find completely morally reprehensible. And I know a man is a measure not only of his mistakes, but of his 'fixin and amendin' and as this is an important part of spiritual development and personal empowerment and is required to learn to accept responsibility, failure when followed by remorse and contrition and amends should not be punished or pursued past peace. Furthermore I have never been able to make peace by throwing stones or casting insults and pointing fingers
To a degree I bear some responsibility for I have in the past and continue now to teach people about their rights, the law and how to distinguish in order to properly learn and grow. Most every one seems to go through a series emotional stages similar to grief with the first often being rejection or disbelief, followed by anger at what becomes clearly seen as an ongoing deception. When they see this deception being enforced by sworn peace officers, the anger at being apparently betrayed causes such situations to develop. This does not justify our anger, but highlights a need which must be addressed in order to grow. Some people want to be free, then allow themselves to become slaves to their basest emotions. Wrath is one of the most dangerous of deadly sins, and can cause much grief and harm and has apparently raised it's ugly head here. Luckily the law and previous sacrifices of those who came before us, has left us with the tools we need to make peace without further conflict being a requirement.
I would like you to meet with Ken and hear his side of the story and hope you hear his apology and discuss with him what all would consider proper amends, and then help those two grown men who really should know better find and keep peace. Then there will be happiness, perhaps dancing, and maybe dumplings. If when you meet you do not believe that Ken is in fact contrite, has learned a lesson and is ready to keep the public peace, or that his apology is not honest or heartfelt, or that justice will not be served by understanding, amends and forgiveness, then you will of course continue with your proper duties and I may or may not be compelled to go to court to try to help further. As it is part of me feels the two of them both should feel ashamed, and if we cannot find peace using the divine tools available, I might find myself lining up for a heaping measure of it myself. I trust you will accept his offer to discuss amends as that is the only honorable course of action, and rejection of that offer is a clear rejection of the teachings of Christ and the common law and completely destroys the courts presumed jurisdiction.
So that is the first part of this correspondence, and I thank you sincerely for your time in the previous matter, but this action has brought to my attention certain information which must be addressed, as I see it as my duty, as a peace maker and freedom engineer. Plus it will make for an amazing article in a number of widely circulated magazines.
In reading the report it came to my attention that the Officers involved operate with what I feel is less than required knowledge and has failed in their duty to perform due diligence. Their position is likely shared by most officers and is unsupportable by logic and dangerous to any community.
The issue boils down to what are and are not the duties of a peace officer versus the duties of a police officer, or statute enforcement officer. Additionally, I draw your attention to a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling establishing the power to seize property if said property is, based upon a balance of probabilities, the result of crime. Furthermore this order to seize can be a result of an order of the court with no charges ever being levied against the owner of the property and without them having any opportunity to defend in a court of law. That is one amazing ruling, and although seemingly an abandonment of basic justice, is in my view the Universe equipping the people of Canada with the tools needed to clean up our justice system and national police force.
Reading the Criminal Code of Canada I see that mischief, extortion, perversion of justice and fraud are all considered crimes. This is good. I know gross negligence is, in the eyes of the law, equal to fraud. I have been paying very close attention to the actions of the police and courts, empowering my fellow man, and studying and developing remedy. I actually planted the seeds for a global society and felt like Now remember the recent court ruling previously mentioned?
Now the officer involved in this issue and many others I am sure believe that anytime he does anything as a police officer he is also acting as a peace officer and that the duties of a police officer are in fact synonymous with his duties as a peace officer. This is what I call 'FLAWGIC' and is not supported by reason or logic and can only be justified by a level of ignorance that is nothing short of criminal.
Police officers are not the only ones granted the status and protection of peace officer. So are Mayors, JP's and many others. Since they are all peace officers, there must be a body of duties common to them all, and it is these duties and their proper fulfillment that justifies the status of peace officer. The duty of a peace officer is to preserve and maintain the public peace. If it is as he seems to think, then he would be claiming as a right the duties of mayor and JP, as they too are peace officers. As a litmus test, the Criminal Code of Canada states that those hired to preserve and maintain the public peace are also peace officers and the ability to hire people to do that job is not limited or restricted to the people in the government, courts or law society. The fact is anyone can be hired by anyone else to do those duties and enjoy the same level of protection you do as a peace officer. If your man is correct this means I can be hired by someone, enjoy peace officer status and then I can fulfill any of the secondary duties other peace officers fulfill, such as acting as a JP or a mayor.
You say everything you do is the duty of a peace officer, however if that is the case then it is the duty for EVERY peace officer, not just those who enforce corporate policy and call it law. Let us take that and apply it to other people granted that status and protection. A mayor is a peace officer and yet can do things you cannot so clearly those things he can do which you cannot are not the duties of a peace officer, but the duties of a mayor. You can do things he cannot and so clearly those things are not the duties of a peace officer, but of a policy enforcement officer. The same holds true for a Justice of the Peace. There is however a body of duties shared by all peace officers and it is this body of duties and only this body of duties which are the duties of a peace officer which cannot be obstructed. It is a body of duties that was meant to guide them in their other obligations, with this taking precedence.
That body of duties is to preserve and maintain the public peace. Anytime any JP or police officer or Mayor engages in their respective obligations they have a duty to do so in a manner that preserves and maintains the public peace. It does not mean anything and everything they do is automatically to be considered as preserving and maintaining the public peace and therefore beyond public scrutiny, wrath or liability for criminal actions. I have heard of police officers tackling a cyclist to the ground without warning or provocation and by lying in wait, for the serious crime of riding with no helmet and the police in this case felt that doing so was justified as the cyclist was apparently breaching the peace merely by virtue of the fact that he had no helmet. It is a mindset and belief which is not supported by logic, reason, consequence, need, law or justice and is supported only by a demented desire for a bully type control over your fellow man. Upon examination it clearly fails all tests and does not work in the macro or micro. I don't like it much and feel compelled by my love of Country and God to do a little something about it.
I would like to explain a little more the attitude I see and why it is so wrong.
At present most police officers apparently think like this: “I am a peace officer with a duty to preserve and maintain the public peace and I issue tickets, therefore issuing tickets is preserving and maintaining the public peace, and anyone who does not accept my orders when I am in the process of doing so is obstructing me, a peace officer.” That is the apparent attitude of the existing RCMP. It is a mindset that speaks of errant runaway power with no oversight or correction or control. It means people in authority are not limited by law, and merely questioning the way in which they gather or exercise that authority could be seen as obstruction of a peace officer in his duties. Look at the macro and apply it to any Mayor or JP. The tyranny of it and obvious abuse becomes apparent.
Here is how it should be: “I am a peace officer, and I issue tickets, and therefore when I issue them, I must ONLY do so in a manner that does not cause me to breach the public peace. This means since we are all equal and I have no contract, I have no power to order anyone without being liable for a bill, as doing is a breach of the public peace.”
It does not mean anything and everything you do is preserving and maintaining the public peace; it means everything you do is limited by your duty to preserve and maintain the public peace, and if enforcing a statute breaches that peace you are to limit your actions accordingly. If I hire a janitor to wash the floor and also as a peace officer to preserve and maintain the public peace and someone tracks mud on the floor he is trying to wash, would he be correct in arresting that man for obstructing a peace officer in the performance of their duties? See how illogical that position truly is?
Take it to a logical conclusion and see what happens if other people such as Mayors were to try to claim such a ludicrous position. They too have peace officer status, protection and duties. I am a Mayor and my job is to run this city and I am a peace officer so I get to order people around and if they do not accept my orders they are interfering with my authority and obstructing me in my duties.
1.Is there a difference between the duties of a police officer, a JP, and a Mayor and is there a shared body of duties which join them as peace officers and which has nothing to do with their other duties of office? I believe there that is the case.
2.Is ignorance of the law an excuse for sworn peace officers to break the law?
3.Can any issue be decided by the one most affected by the outcome of a court case?
4.Since Canada is a common law jurisdiction, does any man have the right to govern another without the consent of the governed?
5.Do you agree the recent ruling concerning seizing property for criminal activity is applicable to every peace officer in the land, and that failure to distinguish between duties as a peace officer and obligations as a police officer, mayor or JP is in fact gross negligence equaling fraud and thus subjecting them to having their property seized without a trial or chance to defend against any charges?
6.If it is established that the common law right to travel is unaffected by any statute and yet it becomes obvious based upon a balance of probabilities that ignorant peace officers routinely commit mischief by stopping those who travel without license or permission would you agree the officers would be liable to have all their property seized by the people of Canada for their continued mischief and extortion?
7.If it is established that a statute or an Act such as the Highway Traffic Act, is a rule of a society, and a society is a number of people joined by mutual consent, and officers who are incapable of identifying by proper legal name the society enforce those rules upon the non-consenting would you agree that again they have opened themselves to liability and possible forfeiture of all property they purchased with all the paychecks they have ever received, due to their gross negligence, fraud, breach of trust, extortion and unjustified violence when used in the course of their crimes?
8.Do you agree that people who act as judges and JP's are not above law and if it is determined that many of them have been acting unlawfully their entire careers by acting without the full informed consent of those who they serviced that they too would be liable to property forfeiture and seizure?
9.Do you agree that since the issue to be determined will so seriously affect existing judges and court operators that they are not suitable to judicially determine these things and since it affects so many members of the public that a jury should be convened to determine the limits of governmental authority and their liability in light of this new ruling?
10.If it is judicially determined that an unendorsed warrant is invalid instrument and not enforceable and it is found that in the past police routinely acted upon them, do you agree that all officers who have ever acted upon an unendorsed warrant are liable to full property forfeiture?
11.Do you agree the people of Canada have the right to hire peace officers and empower them to merely keep the peace and conduct investigations of other peace officers who fail for whatever reason to first and foremost preserve and maintain the public peace?
12.If is is judicially determined that people have no obligation to have identification or legal name, and that peace officers who have in the past demanded identification under threat of violence and threatened arrest for obstruction were perverting the course of justice in doing so, do you agree that based upon a balance of probabilities they have been doing so their entire careers and have been grossly negligent and committing fraud and thus they too are liable to have all their property seized and forfeited to the people of Canada?
13.If it is judicially determined that in a common law jurisdiction orders generate liabilities for bills and that anytime any judge or peace officer gave an order to their fellow man, they became liable for a bill for that order, and then it was established based upon a balance of probabilities that certain officers and judges refused to honour the bills presented and thus committed fraud, and have been doing so their entire careers in ignorance, would you agree they should be subject to forfeiture of all property and monies they received from their criminal career? Or do you believe they should not be subject to the rules and policies they seek to enforce upon others for profit and power?
14.Would you be upset if you came home one day to find that due to a court process to which you were not invited your home, car, boat, bank account and all personal property has been seized because it was established based upon a balance of probabilities that you have failed to distinguish between a person and a human being, or an act and the law, or your duties as a peace officer and your role as a policy enforcement officer for a corporation which is providing defacto government services, and that your entire career you have been breaking the law or would you accept it with good grace, as a peace officer who serves the law?
15.If there was a path that avoided all that and at the same time helped to usher in a new era of peace and abundance and freedom for all would you not agree that as a peace officer your duty would point to taking that path?
I would now like to share with you what my plan entails and how I see it unfolding. Before doing so I feel it may be wise to explain to you my motivation and what end goal is. There are those who will not like what I propose and many more who will love it. It is my hope that you and other good peace officers will be in the latter group. It is written “Woe be to you lawyers and experts in the law, for you have taken and hidden the key of knowledge and entering in not yourself, those who have entered in you hindered.” It is also written “Woe be to you lawyers and experts in the law, for you laden men with burdens you would not touch with your littlest finger.” These people will not be appreciative at least at first of my course of action, regardless of how it is completely lawful.
In the same book I feel there are things found which refer to folks such as yourself, and it is written “Blessed be the peace makes for they shall be called the sons (and daughters) of God.” My course of action does not propose to harm you or any other peace officer nor does it affect you provided you accept your duty to your fundamental oath and if you confirm it, I seek to see you raised up and better honored. There has to be a change and a growth and yet I now see a path that allows that to happen with little harm or acrimony.
I promise all my actions are completely lawful and are designed to serve and maintain the public peace while simultaneously empowering my fellow man and ensuring true freedom for future generations. The first step involves a period of public discussion and open forums with affected parties invited to participate and attend. The basic function will be to establish our right to convene a court within which a few simple issues can be judicially determined in a manner that gives the public confidence that justice is served equally and impartially. This will likely be televised and attended by a great many people and media journalists. Since these outcome will seriously affect the authority now claimed and exercised by many and will open them to liability to property forfeiture it is clear the existing courts are simply not suitable for this judicial process. Nor does the Law Society or existing commercially operating courts have any claim to a monopoly for the establishment and operation of courts, and we as a people certainly have the power to do so, especially if it is needed to correct a failing government or hijacked system.
Once that is done a court will be convened and within it over a period of about a week, thirteen basic truths will be revealed by claim and counterclaim before a proper jury. Every one presently acting in the existing yet clearly defacto and profit motivated government and court system affected by these truths being revealed, will be invited to argue their positions in this court, before a jury of those they sought to deceive and control. Once that process is finished, we then move onto the next step.
Using the same courts, we will establish using the previously judicially determined truths and based upon a balance of probabilities that certain people have been committing mischief, gross negligence, extortion, fraud and perversion of justice and have been doing so their entire careers and as such everything they have ever been paid an rightfully be considered proceeds of crime and subject to seizure, forfeiture and dispersal to either the state, or in this case the people directly who allow it's existence.
It is with forgiveness we learn to share God's grace and peace and abundance, yet if that begets tolerance of a continued injustice then the promise of that grace, is never reached and the abundance nothing but bait with the promise of peace a trap.
In order for your group to avoid the sanctions and corrections others will receive you will be required to metaphorically speaking, shine your boots, identify and learn to toe the line better and most importantly shift your perspective so your backs are to the dance of peace and abundance, and not your increasingly armored fronts. As it is you seem to be attacking our dance, wearing muddy boots and you are crossing the line way too often for anyone to be comfortable. I realize this is due to your present understanding of the law and even though your position is a result of deception by others, it was a desire for control over your fellow man that caused you to see it as an acceptable state of affairs. When the truth is revealed, I am confident that people of duty will not shy from their obligations to the law, even if that involves a radical re-examination of their beliefs. Those people are likely to be forgiven, unless they attempt to obstruct justice as we convene these new courts. Of course they have nothing to fear if they have not done anything wrong.
CONTINUED THREE DAYS LATER
Hi! I am back. I realize that you may read in one sitting words I invest weeks composing and as I am a creature of growth and open to Universal correction and guidance, I have, since beginning this correspondence had a slight shift in perspective concerning my duties, obligations, and my role in this developing world. Since I began this letter, Gordon 'DUI' Campbell has been re-elected in an election with about the lowest voter turnout ever, I was a witness to a disturbance and met with a peace officer employed by the RCMP and I had a basic revelation concerning judgment and balance.
Last week I had an opportunity to meet an RCMP officer as he had attended to a disturbance in the neighborhood. I was very impressed with his calm and confident demeanor and projection of professional competency. I sensed a man fully capable of force if needed, but fully willing to bring compassion first. When he knocked on my door it was in a very quiet and non-authoritative or demanding manner. I answered the door and inadvertently and ignorantly acted in a discourteous manner by standing on a step or two above him and his response to that, caused me to see my lack of etiquette.
He made me wonder if I have been less then fully respectful to you and as such I would like to take this time to express as fully as possible my position.
There are two types of peace officers. Those who are compassionate whenever possible and forceful only when needed, and those who are forceful whenever possible and compassionate only when needed. This man was clearly of the of the first class. And he did not even do anything super special, just toed the line and acted with respect to the importance of human dignity. I realized that I was likely dealing with simply a standard officer, yet due to the incredibly poor packaging of your organizations product, it seemed amazing. Can you tell me why when people see one of your officers on a highway in their rear view mirror they always feel incredible apprehension, yet when dealing with your officers individually one generally finds such incredible and positive spirit? I am talking about people who not only saw a very special line which many never see, or ignore when they do, but the type who are also willing to stand in defense and under oath. I have enormous respect for those who can do that well.
I am sincerely hopeful you are such an officer and that you will see the wisdom and and justice in sitting down with Ken Campbell and seeing if an apology and diversion is a suitable course of action here. Remembering it is what we sow that determines what is reaped, I ask you sow with me some seed of peace.
Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will vexation or frivolity,I AM
Robert-Arthur: MenardFreeman-on-the-LandAll Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended, By The Grace of God. Robert Menard
I suppose some still are...
