Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers.

[rob menard]

The Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
INVITATION TO SERVE
July, 20, 2010
FROM: Robert Menard, Interim Chief of Peace Officers,
The Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers.

This is an invitation to serve the people of Canada and help guide this great nation away from a police state, and to ensure the rights and freedoms so hard fought for are not lost to overly aggressive police actions such as those witnessed at the G20 Summit.

We are inviting the best and brightest legal minds blessed with the noblest of spirits in Canada, to form the first Board of Directors of the newly formed Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers. In time these positions will be filled by election of the membership however at the moment we require proper lawful guidance and oversight, as well as support in establishing a fluid yet effective communication, command and control structure. We seek the input of those with experience and reputations as selfless public servants and defenders of the law. We require a Board with common sense, knowledge of law and human nature, a love of peace, and a desire to protect those freedoms and rights which seem to be rapidly eroding.

Recognizing that the Criminal Code of Canada identifies any person hired to maintain the public peace as a peace officer, the people of Canada have taken it upon themselves to hire each other as peace officers, now empowered to deal with the existing and seemingly out of control police officers of Canada. They have the power to arrest, apprehend, charge and prosecute police officers who act without respect to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Leadership is however still required, and your Country and your fellow Canadians need you.
One of the dangers that we face is that we will be labelled as illegitimate, militant, angry misfits intent on harm. If we lack proper and publicly accepted leadership, we will not have the appearance of legitimacy that will be required and it is for this reason a list of the best legal minds who are not burdened by political motives, and who know and love peace and justice, are being invited to stand for their country and their fellow man.
Another danger faced is becoming that which we fight, and succumbing ourselves to the lure of power and control, and it is for that reason invitees are those who have demonstrated concern for our rights, a love for justice and previous public service that evidences moral character and embodies dignity. We intend to be peace officers, not punishment officers, and require leadership that inspires peace and good will without abandoning our power to act lawfully and effectively.

The rights and freedoms Canadians enjoy did not just happen, nor will they simply remain in existence all by themselves. People fought, killed, died, suffered and lost a great deal to see that we enjoy the rights, freedoms and protections we now do. It is not time to rest on our laurels, but to stand collectively and firmly against these opprobrious transgressions.

Invitations are being sent to the 100 of the best lawyers, retired public servants and concerned Canadians. The first 13 to respond positively will have the honour of sitting on the first Board of Directors of the Canadian Common Corp of Peace Officers.

Please consider donating your time, talents and passion to this cause.

Sincerely, and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Arthur of the Menard Family
Interim Chief Peace Officer
Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers.
604 721 0890
chief@cccpo.org

INVITATIONS are being sent to:
Finn Makela,, Assitant Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke
Sharryn J. Aiken, Associate Dean (Graduate Studies and Research) and Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University
Sibel Ataogul, Attorney, Melançon, Marceau, Grenier et Sciortino (Montreal)
D. G. Bell, Professor, Faculty of Law, UNB–Fredericton
Pierre Bosset, Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal
Bruce Broomhall, Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal
Pierre Brun, Attorney, Melançon, Marceau, Grenier et Sciortino (Montreal)
Marie–France Bureau, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke
Catherine Choquette, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke
Michael Cohen, Attorney, Melançon, Marceau, Grenier et Sciortino (Montreal)
Steve Coughlan, Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University
Blair Crew, Review Counsel, Criminal Division, University of Ottawa Community Legal Clinic, Faculty
of Law (Common Law Section)
Hugo Cyr, Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal
Maneesha Deckha, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria

Annick Desjardins, Attorney, Human Rights Service, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Julie Desrosiers, Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval
Mathieu Devinat, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke
Richard Devlin, Associate Dean (Graduate Studies and Research) and Professor, Schulich School of
Law, University Research Professor, Dalhousie University
Brenda Gunn, Assistant Professor, Robson Hall Law School, University of Manitoba.
Freya Kodar, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria
Jasminka Kalajdzic, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor
Fannie Lafontaine, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval
J. Chris Levy, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
Alexandra Law, Attorney (Montreal)
Jean-Frédérick Ménard, Assistant Director, Quebec Research Centre of Private and Comparative
Law
Nicole O'Byrne, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Jacques Papy, Attorney (Montreal)
Steven Penney, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta
Patricia Peppin, Professor, Faculty of Law. Queen's University
Melanie Randall, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of Western Ontario
Denise Réaume, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Annie Rochette, Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal
Simon Roy, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke
Giuseppe Sciortino, Attorney, Melançon, Marceau, Grenier et Sciortino (Montreal)
Elizabeth Sheehy, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
James Stribopoulos, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School
Don Stuart, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University
Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law (Civil Law Section), University of Ottawa
François Tanguay-Renaud, Professor and Acting Director, Nathanson Centre on Transnational
Human Rights, Crime, and Security, Osgoode Hall Law School
Robert Tétrault, Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke
Édith Vézina, Notary, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke
Rosemary Cairns Way, Professor, Faculty of Law (Common Law Section), University of Ottawa
Larry C. Wilson, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor

Rob Kidrich, LLB, rob@borfo.com

Elaine Menard-Swayne, Legal Counsel | Conseillere juridique
NHQ - Legal Services - Citizenship and Immigration Canada

[steven1]

"Hello I'm Robert Arthur Menard, I'm a peace officer, can I ask what your doing?"

"No you cant I dont recognise your authourity"

"You have to I'm a peace officer."

"Who says?"

"I say. I have the power of....."

"Hang on a minute mate, you are just some bloke in a uniform."

"No Im not, Im a peace officer and your under arrest..."

"I do not consent to your authourity."

"errrrr......??????"


Now Rob do you enforce consent or let him go?

nowayout*

[rob menard]

Man you are so deluded and obviously clutching at straws. I will try to explain it for you, and must remember to sign in before I come back next time so I can avoid your drivel.

Anyone can be arrested and charged without consent for breaching the peace, or committing acts contrary to the law, as expressed in the Criminal Code.

Acting contrary to a statute however is not a breach of the peace, nor contrary to the Criminal Code, and does in fact require one to first consent to the Act, before being enforced.

The criminal code refers to anyone who, and thus includes everyone, even Freemen. Acts and statues refer to 'any person who' and not 'anyone who' thus is limited to those who have consented to government services and burdens.

Your inability and refusal to even look at the most basic of things, and refusal to distinguish between concepts is your loss. Your belief that you have won due only to your continued ignorance is laughable.

The end result will be me enforcing the Criminal Code on existing police officers. Or do you think I am going to back down due to your lack of logic?

[steven1]

Man you are so deluded and obviously clutching at straws. I will try to explain it for you, and must remember to sign in before I come back next time so I can avoid your drivel.

Rob just admit you read them all.

Anyone can be arrested and charged without consent for breaching the peace, or committing acts contrary to the law, as expressed in the Criminal Code.

I dont consent to the criminal code

Acting contrary to a statute however is not a breach of the peace, nor contrary to the Criminal Code, and does in fact require one to first consent to the Act, before being enforced.

I dont consent to the criminal code

The criminal code refers to anyone who, and thus includes everyone, even Freemen. Acts and statues refer to 'any person who' and not 'anyone who' thus is limited to those who have consented to government services and burdens.

I dont consent to the criminal code

Your inability and refusal to even look at the most basic of things, and refusal to distinguish between concepts is your loss. Your belief that you have won due only to your continued ignorance is laughable.

I have won unless you can show me where I have to consent to your authourity

The end result will be me enforcing the Criminal Code on existing police officers. Or do you think I am going to back down due to your lack of logic?

Come back when you have made your first arrest and fill us in how you got on.

The point is Rob, you are hoping to force your authourity on others which goes against everything you stand for.

I dont know where you are going with this, its tantamount to political suicide.

dougie howser*

[steven1]

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org...9b29393e2324f4
It seems to be backfiring on Robs WFS site.
Rob wrote

I am still looking for others to ask to join and would appreciate suggestions. They do not have to be lawyers, and will accept retired police officers of good character, journalists, and even ordinary citizens with good common sense and more then average knowledge of law.

Do not "have" to be lawyers which means preferably lawyers and retired police officers of good character, who assesses these peoples character is anyones guess.

blindside*

[steven1]

Psssst........hey guys and gals, Rob could do with a little support with this one.
Let him know you are behind him.
If not at least have the bottle to speak up.

gregori*

[rumpelstilzchen]

Hi, rob
I see that you have been a peace officer for three months now:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113874

Have you arrested anybody?

[lord bob haulk]

i read it, but it was just too ridiculous for it to be real.

Claimed your bond yet? $8million dollars, that would go a long way to help set up your idea, that, and it would buy a huge carry out. A win win situation.

[ignoranto_bliss]

Originally Posted by lord bob haulk

i read it, but it was just too ridiculous for it to be real.

Claimed your bond yet? $8million dollars, that would go a long way to help set up your idea, that, and it would buy a huge carry out. A win win situation.

After 12 beers im a Piss Officer ... You are under aaa!! ... ugh i need some rest ...

[steven1]

Rob, I think the silence of your supporters on this issue speaks volumes, you have made a big mistake with this and I'm sure you can see it now.

You allegedly became a peace officer on the 25th April this year in a swearing in ceremony in front of a few people who it would seem had no legal/lawful authourity as you have up to now failed to name them.
You have not yet fullfilled any of the promises you made when taking that oath.(thats if you took the real one)
In Canadas criminal code a peace officer must be employed as a peace officer, who is your employer Rob?
If you dont have an employer you cannot be a peace officer its that simple.
To think you have lost all credibility as a freeman spokesman by claiming you were something that you couldnt possibly have been.

I know you are itching to reply Rob, but you have tied yourself in knots with this silly "ignore" function.
I know you are reading.......and so does everyone else.

sidewinder*

[britishnick]

Nice one Rob, great to see you taking the Bull by the horns.

peace officers is exactly what we need.

people standing up for freedoms, not standing up for interference. Like it.

The way I see it is that these Peace Officers don't have "authority" over anyone, but they are (or will be) sworn to protect peoples life, liberty and property from those who wish to do them harm. pretty simple really.

It's not about authority for PEACE Officers, it's about PROTECTING.

[rob menard]

I have won unless you can show me where I have to consent to your authourity

Well Steve we can certainly see your incredibly immature mindset. A discussion, derailed by your constant childishness, and you consider it a win. I did not know we were engaged in a contest to be won or lost. Is that why you are so aggressive? Have you ever had a discussion and shared points of view where it was not something to be won? In you quest to 'win' you actually have lost a great deal, without even realizing it.

If you come to my community, and breach the peace I will deal with you. If you come to my community and start raping and murdering, as you have quoted freedom means to you, and you refuse to accept the Criminal Code or our justice system that is fine you may do so, then however you cannot run to it for protection, when we take justice into our own hands, and string you up for being an outlaw, a danger to our families and ourselves. You are free to not consent, but their are consequences and ramifications. I know you as the child you are however will think that freedom means others have to accept the consequences of your childish actions, and they have no recourse, cause you have freedom. Unfortunately so do they, and when you exercising your freedom harms others, you are required to pay. THAT IS LAW. It is right up there with gravity. You cannot escape it.

You mistake refusing to be a child of the government with refusal to abide by law.

Just because I refuse to wear the diapers others want to put on me does not mean I claim the right to shit all over the floors we all share. And those such as yourself you think they have something to win, well you will never get out of your diapers, or 'nannygood think state' because your way to prove that all should be in the diapers you wear is to go around shitting on our floors, and lower the common denominator as low as you can.

What did you win askysteve?? Exactly what do you think you won? How can one win a discussion? That mindset means it was not a discussion to begin with.

Around a table some adults are passing and discussing an object of interest.
Along comes a child named steve who takes it away, runs away thinking he has won the game of 'keep away.' All he has done is stop the adults form discussing. He has won nothing, and he was never part of the discussion. At best he is a distraction, at worst, a pile of smelly diapers. He is certainly not someone to take seriously.

Dude you are not winning when you are not even in the game and the process is mature discussion, regardless of what childish games you want to play.

[rob menard]

Originally Posted by britishnick

Nice one Rob, great to see you taking the Bull by the horns.

peace officers is exactly what we need.

people standing up for freedoms, not standing up for interference. Like it.

The way I see it is that these Peace Officers don't have "authority" over anyone, but they are (or will be) sworn to protect peoples life, liberty and property from those who wish to do them harm. pretty simple really.

It's not about authority for PEACE Officers, it's about PROTECTING.

Thanks! I just found out last night that a fair amount of financing has been pledged which will allow us to hire 20,000 peace officers in the next few months. Of course, I only pay them ONE DOLLAR and there are other expenses, so I figure I can hire two peace officers for $3.

And poor steve has no idea how many thousands of applications for 3CPO that I have received in the last year. I laugh when he tries to act all caring, when you can see he is concerned not about me losing, but about him 'winning'. How unstable do you have to be you think to consider these discussions somehting to win? How much of a loser do you have to be, to consider derailing the discussion of others to be something to celebrate and brag on? Just curious.

[infidelyork]

Originally Posted by rob menard

And poor steve has no idea how many thousands of applications for 3CPO that I have received in the last year.

Bwa ha ha ha!!!!

[steven1]

Rob wrote

I did not know we were engaged in a contest to be won or lost.

Rob previously wrote

Your inability and refusal to even look at the most basic of things, and refusal to distinguish between concepts is your loss. Your belief that you have won due only to your continued ignorance is laughable.

Didnt you? it was you who first mentioned something to win or lose.

If you come to my community,

Shouldnt that be our community? ego,ego,ego.

You are free to not consent, but their are consequences and ramifications.

Now we are getting somewhere, totally agree.

At best he is a distraction, at worst, a pile of smelly diapers.

Insults right on cue, well done Rob perfect timing.

Dude you are not winning when you are not even in the game and the process is mature discussion, regardless of what childish games you want to play.

Lets discuss then Rob, you seem to do nothing but post, insult, then run away.
Lets discuss your role of a peace officer, and its legitimacy.

PS you do see how many viewings this thread has got and how many appear to agree with what your doing.

Police/peace officer its all the same to some Rob, its someone limiting their freedoms.

jobloggs*

[anath]

I am confused...

Why would someone who is against the enforcement of laws on other people want to set up a corp to enforce their vision of the law on people?

Are you not just becoming what you dislike in doing so?

[steven1]

Rob wrote

I only pay them ONE DOLLAR and there are other expenses, so I figure I can hire two peace officers for $3.

"One for you, one for you, aaaannnnd... one for me.

cynicalsid*

[lord bob haulk]

Originally Posted by britishnick

Nice one Rob, great to see you taking the Bull by the horns.

peace officers is exactly what we need.

people standing up for freedoms, not standing up for interference. Like it.

The way I see it is that these Peace Officers don't have "authority" over anyone, but they are (or will be) sworn to protect peoples life, liberty and property from those who wish to do them harm. pretty simple really.

It's not about authority for PEACE Officers, it's about PROTECTING.

i look forward tae it as well. My only slight concern with your point is, what happens when one of these peace officers happens upon some scoundrel,some mischievous scamp who wishes to do harm to someones property or life and they don't consent to being stopped from what they are doing? and if it's not about authority who decides when the said scamp is up to something he considers acceptable but his neighbour thinks otherwise?
Maybe we should just hae the polis deal with it, anyway who's gonna want tae work in the evening when you go tae the pub maste nights,and drink,say five beers on average, nothing to severe but still enough for a good buzz. Oh i just thought, yet get tae wear nice hat when your a polis and if you're lucky you might catch a burglar stealing a dvd player and you'd then be able to play any dvd's you might have just lying around unsold er.... unwatched i mean.

[britishnick]

Originally Posted by steven1

Police/peace officer its all the same to some Rob, its someone limiting their freedoms.

Wow, that's a serious admition of ignorance right there. It's this kind of thinking that turns people in to slaves.

A PEACE Officer has no busines issuing speeding fines, or stopping people from peacefully protesting, or stopping people from taking photographs in public places, or stopping people smoking because there's been no breach of the peace: no harm has been done.

The only freedoms that both peace officers and police officers both stop are freedoms to cause harm or loss to another... like murder and theft (from a quick search in my brain)

I hope you can get some help with your education in this matter.

Good luck to you.

It's a shame you feel the need to spend you time dicouraging and (verbally) attacking those seeking peace and freedom. If you have suffered from a lack of freedom yourself, there are people to talk to privately - http://www.samaritans.org/

As you enjoy derailing fmotl, perhaps you would enjoy finding a forum for priests and spend you days telling them about their errors too?

I know that Super Nanny would say I shouldn't give you attention for being naughty, but I live in hope that one day you may understand.

[britishnick]

Originally Posted by anath

I am confused...

Why would someone who is against the enforcement of laws on other people want to set up a corp to enforce their vision of the law on people?

Are you not just becoming what you dislike in doing so?

I'm not putting words in to Robs keyboard here, but I think the key here is PEACE.

They are not supposed to ENFORCE law, but PROTECT people and property from harm.