the quick fix for civil rights
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
1/22
1
The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
[Jacket]
Using a real life example of false arrest, the author builds a case from the ground up
explaining, in clear terms, where our civil rights are being breached, by whom, what
laws we have to protect us, and the simple fix that will solidify our civil rights.
Starting with the Arresting officer, the author then describes the criminal action at the
Provincial/Territorial level, and then ultimately the short list of simple fixes at the federal
level that will protect the citizens rights as guaranteed by Law and the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
By implementing these simple recommendations, the citizens of any nation will be free
from tyranny for all time.
[/Jacket]
By Robert D. Stewart
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
2/22
2
Official Release for Public Distribution
Letter of Intent to Pursue Legal Action
Regarding the incident at the Kickin Caribou Pub
Between the RCMP detachment of Iqaluit and
Robert D. Stewart
On the evening of May 5, 2012
Iqaluit, Nunavut
A Call to Action against illegal sections in certain Acts of Law in
Canada
A Call to Action regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms
Prepared by Robert D. Stewart
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
3/22
3
Summary of Contents:
Victims Account:
Part 1: The Arresting Officer
Summary of Charges:
Wrongful Arrest, Providing false eyewitness testimony, Assault with a Weapon, Illegal
Search and Seizure, Theft, Invasion of Privacy, False Imprisonment, Uttering Threats
and Intimidation, Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy, Fraud.
Part 2: The Officers on Scene
Summary of Charges:
Negligence, Breach of Public Duty
Part 3: The Liquor Inspector
Summary of Charges:
Fraud, Conspiracy
Part 4: A Note on Corruption
Summary of Recommendations:
To appoint an independent anti-corruption commission to investigate the practices of the
RCMP, the Liquor Enforcement and Inspections Division, and other powerful entities that
are susceptible to corrupt or unfair practices.
Part 5: A Note on the Immunity Clause
Summary of stated implications:
[The officer] was not acting in accordance with the duties as described in the Nunavut
Liquor Act, and is not protected by the immunity clause.
Part 6: The Government of Nunavut
Summary of Charges:
In regards to the Nunavut Liquor Act, the Government of Nunavut are guilty of Criminal
Negligence, Defrauding the Public, and Breach of Public Duty
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
4/22
4
Part 7: A Call for Action to the Honorable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada regarding broad scope implications
Summary of Recommendations:
- That an independent review committee review all Canadian Acts of Law tohave all unclear or irresponsibly subjective terminology removed, and that the
clause related to powers of arrest must clearly define the limits of power
granted
- That all acts of law be amended to include a clear definition of reasonable
grounds for arrest and clearly state that the grounds for arrest must be based
on observed actions
- That each member of the review committee will sign a report, similar to an
audit report, that asserts a professional opinion that the act is in accordancewith the Laws of Canada, and free from obfuscation or confusing terminology
- That the Attorney General of Canada publicly announce that any government
entity that passes an act of law that does not clearly define the limits of
powers of arrest is guilty of Criminal Negligence consistent with section 219 of
the Criminal Code of Canada. That they are also guilty of Defrauding the
Public and Breach of Public Duty, and that they may be held liable for
damages in a court of law
- That theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amendedto be
the first Charter in the world to guarantee the Right to Clarity of Law.
Part 8: A Call for Action to the People of Canada
Summary
A formal request for action to the citizens of Canada in support of this document.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
5/22
5
To whom it may concern,
The purpose of this letter is to put on record the victims (Robert D. Stewart) account of crimes committed on the
evening of May the 5th
, 2012 at the Kickin Caribou Pub in Iqaluit, Nunavut. It is also the purpose of this letter to
make known to the parties involved (including but not limited to - the arresting RCMP officer, all RCMP officers
present and witness to the alleged crimes committed and/or complicit in the execution of these crimes, the liquor
inspector present at the scene, the RCMP detachment of Iqaluit, and the Government of Nunavut) the victimsallegations and the criminal and/or civil charges to be laid against the offending parties. Included in this letter is a
public call to action, and the contents of this letter are deemed public by the author, and the full reproduction and
distribution through any medium is acceptable so long as the written contents are in no way edited to affect the
meaning of the passages quoted.
In this letter names have been omitted until the offending parties have been positively identified. Until that time, the
individuals are referred to by descriptive terms such as The arresting officer.
The allegations in this letter corresponding to criminal charges should be considered my official statement and will
constitute a formal request for the RCMP to commence with a criminal investigation of the perpetrator(s) alleged
crimes.
All mentions of civil charges are preliminary and subject to reconsideration upon advice of an attorney.
Victims Account
Part 1: The Arresting Officer
a) Preface
Before the arrival of the 6-8 RCMP officers, the Liquor Inspector, and the Fire Marshal
who arrived to raid the Kickin Caribou Pub that night, I was calmly enjoying some
evening beers with my dad, watching the UFC on the television and engaged in pleasant
conversation. We noted that the manager of the bar was being extremely conscientious
(to a fault in my opinion) with refusing service to people he deemed to be getting too
drunk. He even refused service to people purely because they were talking loudly when
they arrived, and may have been drinking before arriving at the bar. The manager was
clearly very intimidated by the prospect of a liquor inspection. We remarked that it was a
shame that things had become so oppressive.
Later that evening, the RCMP arrived with a large force, what seemed to be over 6
officers, maybe 8, along with the fire marshal and liquor inspector. While appalling and
disturbing, it was also somewhat unsurprising after the effort we had seen the manager
making to refuse service to his own customers just to be safe. The way they were
unceremoniously marching the manager around, it reminded me of a mother draggingtheir child around by the ear. It was an unnecessary display that made everyone present
extremely uncomfortable.
I remarked to my father in conversational tones, It seems like a bit of overkill to bring 12
RCMP officers to raid a little bar in Iqaluit. This is when one of the officers, a shorter
young man, maybe 57, in his 20s, with black hair and a Newfoundland accent, walked
up to our table.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
6/22
6
b) Wrongful Arrest, providing false eyewitness testimony
What did you say? He asked me.
I turned to him and said Oh, I was just saying it seems like a bit of overkill to bring 12
RCMP officers to raid a little bar in Iqaluit.
Then he says to me Oh yeah, well how about I arrest you for being drunk in public?
He was obviously threatening me in retaliation for what I said, despite how mild it was. I
was under the impression that we still have free speech in Canada. I say You cant, I
am not drunk in public.
It should be mentioned that I was drinking beer in the bar of the hotel where I was
staying the night. I had drunk about the equivalent of 6 pints over a 5 hour period, which
for a 300 pound man is not going to get you criminally drunk (if there is such a thing) by
any stretch of the imagination. And it certainly isnt a crime to drink 6 pints of beer at a
bar, I was quite aware of that fact.
The officer says to me Yes, you are,
Me: No, Im not.
Officer: I am going to arrest you for being drunk in public.
At this point I look at him, and say without raising my voice, but emphasizing each word,
No, you are not.
He then says Thats it, and grabs me by the wrist, pulling it behind my back. I willingly
stand up to allow him to place me under arrest, even though I did not then, and do not
now, consider it to be a legitimate arrest but rather a wrongful arrest, and assault. He put
the handcuffs first on the hand holding my beer, so I held it upright to avoid spilling it on
the floor. I was only partially successful. I got near enough a spectating RCMP officer
and handed it to him.
Let it be known that the offending officer had no reasonable grounds for believing
that an infraction had occurred.
Justice Hamilton of the Manitoba Court of Appeal wrote:
"[F]alse arrest ... is the intentional and total confinement of a person against his will without
lawful justification. This tort is a branch of the trespass action and no actual loss is required to
establish a claim for damages. The plaintiffs must only prove that they were arrested or
detained and that the arrest or detention was caused by the defendants. Once the plaintiffs
prove the arrest occurred, the onus shifts to the defendants to justify their actions."
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
7/22
7
According to section 81 of the Nunavut Liquor Act:
Temporary custody for person found intoxicated in public place
81. (1) Where a peace officer finds a person who, in the
opinion of the peace officer, is in an intoxicated condition in
a public place and is likely to cause injury to himself or
herself or to be a danger, nuisance or disturbance to others,
the peace officer shall apprehend the person and deal with him
or her in accordance with this section.
In this case, the peace officer had no reasonable grounds to believe that I was a threat
to cause injury, or be a danger, nuisance or disturbance to others. He also informed me
only that I was being arrested for public drunkenness, and did not assert that I was also
a threat. Therefore he did not assert that both conditions necessary for the arrest had
been met.
c) Assault with a weaponAs I stated earlier, the assault began when he forcefully laid hands on me against my
will, with no provocation, evidence or reasonable assumption that a crime had been
committed. While attempting to put me in handcuffs, which was giving him trouble due to
the size and relative inflexibility of my arms, he said audibly to all present His arms are
too big for the handcuffs. He slammed me into a nearby wall to help him get leverage to
put on handcuffs that were too small, and once he had squeezed me into them I
immediately told him that they were cutting into me and I needed larger sized cuffs. He
ignored my request, and walked me out through the front entrance of the hotel past
numerous guests.
Walking past each group of people, I informed them all clearly that I was beingwrongfully arrested for being drunk in public, and that they are witness to the fact that I
am not drunk. Upon getting outside to the police vehicle I once again requested larger
handcuffs as the ones he had put on me were cutting off the circulation and painful. This
request was again ignored, and I would have to repeat my request again later on in the
night. The small handcuffs were not removed until I was released much later.
Note: On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 I obtained a doctors eyewitness testimony that
bruising occurred as a result of the handcuffs.
d) Illegal search and seizureOnce the officer had taken me out to his police vehicle, his partner dug through my
pockets, removing my wallet, cell phone and papers such as plane tickets, receipts and
other notes. I was somewhat shocked, as I had given them no permission to search me,
and I said to them Are you taking my cell phone and wallet? The arresting officer just
replied yes. As I had committed no crime, they had no legal right to search my person
or confiscate any items found on me.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
8/22
8
e) Theft
Immediately after his partner had removed my cell phone and wallet from my pockets,
the arresting officer put me into the vehicle, warning me that I have the right to call a
lawyer. I informed him that I have no lawyer. Once I was inside the vehicle, the officers
had access to my wallet and cell phone without being in sight of me. They had not
counted my cash before placing me in the vehicle and walking away with my wallet, andonly after I was released and they gave the wallet back did they count the cash in front
of me. The co-owner of my house pays me $688 in cash monthly for mortgage
payments, and I routinely have amounts above $500-700 in my wallet, mostly in $100
and $50 bills. When the officers returned my wallet, they counted $365 but I could not be
sure if any was missing. Therefore, with no surety in how much cash was stolen, if any, I
consider that after the assault, they stole my wallet with an undisclosed amount of cash
inside, and decided to return it with $365. It is my assertion that whether money was
missing or not, which I cannot know, my wallet being taken by force constitutes a theft
whether it was returned later or not.
f) Invasion of privacy
Due to the nature of the items wrongfully confiscated by the officers in question, and
their possession of those items outside of my sight, I can have no assurance that
sensitive and private information was not taken, copied, photographed or otherwise
tampered with. My phone contains photos, text messages and phone numbers all of
which can be easily transposed into another medium. Similarly, my wallet contains
sensitive information that I am so concerned about keeping private that I keep it on my
person at all times. Social insurance number, birth certificate, credit cards, passwords.
When the arresting officer took the wallet out of my sight, he compromised the security
of that information. This constitutes an invasion of privacy, and still to this day poses a
significant threat to my personal security.
g) False Imprisonment
Section 6, article 56.1 of the Criminal code, False imprisonment.
False imprisonment is the detention by the state or registered body of men and women against
their will, without lawful excuse, in which a man or woman involved in the process of detention
is in possession of evidence and/or knowledge that such action is based on false claims and/or
false evidence.
Penalty conditions: (Level 3 Crime)ns (Level-4 Crime)
Type Condition(s)
1-3 a) if a witness knowingly make false testimony;
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
9/22
9
During the incident, I was illegally confined to the back seat of the police vehicle. As I
hadnt broken any laws, which the arresting officer was well aware, I have protection
from unlawful confinement as stated in the Canadian Criminal Code.
I was forced into the back of the vehicle, and threatened with further incarceration if I did
not co-operate with the arresting officer. Co-operating could be described as admitting to
wrong-doing and absolving him of blame. He tried to get me to agree to being drunk, and
his basis for the accusation was that he could smell beer on me. Well, I was drinking a
beer and he spilled it on me when the incident began, so obviously I fell short of
agreeing that this was evidence that I had committed a crime. But I did state that I could
see his point of view that I could see how he might think he had to make a show of
force if he felt like his power was being undermined. At this point I was in significant
pain, and just trying to give him an out so that I would be released. Multiple times the
arresting officer threatened to hold me overnight, and I had a plane to catch early the
next morning, heading to Rankin Inlet for work.
One comment that he made, and it sticks with me because of the irony of it, is that We
(the RCMP) are out there protectingpeople like you, and you should show us respect.
(Not a direct quote, but as I remember it). I reply to him, Respect goes both ways. In
my entire life, he is the first person I have ever needed protection from, and an entire
squad of RCMP watched the assault but would not protect me.
During my period of confinement to the back seat of the car, my wrists were forced into a
further uncomfortable position and I feared that if the handcuffs were not removed, my
wrists could be broken or dislocated. This is the third time that I requested that the cuffs
be replaced by bigger ones, and soon after the officer decided to release me.
h) Uttering threats and intimidation
Throughout the night, the arresting officer made the repeated threat that he could have
me put in jail for the night. He further threatened to arrest me if I go anywhere back near
the bar again. Throughout the night, the arresting officer was consistently engaging in
threatening and intimidating behavior in an attempt to make me, a mere civilian,
supplicate myself to his superior power.
i) Obstruction of Justice
Section 13, article 103 of the Canada Criminal Code:Obstruction of Justice is any attempt or action to interfere with the administration of the
courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including (but not limited to) threatening
and/or bribing witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, injuring a witness or juror, hiding
evidence or interfering with an arrest.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
10/22
10
Once released from the vehicle, my personal belongings were returned and I was told to
go to my hotel room, and nowhere near the bar; that the liquor inspector was there and if
I went back the liquor inspector would have me arrested. The Arresting Officer explained
to me that according to the liquor inspector I had been cut off before the incident, and
was going to be asked to leave by the manager. This was a pure fabrication, but I do not
know who fabricated the lie, either the liquor inspector or the Arresting Officer, or themanager. Witnesses will attest that I was not drunk, had not been a problem, nor had I
been cut off. There was no issue until the Arresting Officer initiated the attack.
By threatening me and ordering me to stay away from the bar, and particularly the liquor
inspector, the Arresting Officer deprived me of the opportunity to prove my innocence to
the liquor inspector (a law enforcement officer). I would later find out, from the General
Manager of the pub, that the liquor inspector had used my arrest as de-facto proof of
over serving, and informed the General Manager of the bar that he would be ordered to
have a weeklong shut-down.
j) Conspiracy
Conspiracy is described by the Canadian Online Legal Dictionary as An agreement by
two or more persons to carry out legal acts, the predominant purpose of which is to
injure the plaintiff, or an agreement by two or more persons to injure another by illegal
acts.
On May the 5th, 2012, The Arresting Officer used his position as an RCMP officer to
knowingly provide false eyewitness testimony to the liquor inspector, with the intention of
aiding him to find an otherwise compliant establishment to be found non-compliant in
regards to the liquor inspection. This false testimony was used in collusion with the liquor
inspector, who knowingly used the false eyewitness testimony to affect his findings -thereby damaging my personal reputation, and causing harm to the Kickin Caribou Pub.
k) Fraud
Fraud is described by the Canadian Online Legal Dictionary as An untrue statement of
fact that the speaker either knows to be untrue or is consciously indifferent as to whether
it be true or false. A statement made without an honest belief in its truth.
The arresting officer is guilty of fraud upon asserting that I committed the crime of public
drunkenness. Even though he knowingly fabricated the untrue accusation, it was still
used to affect an investigation and legal assertion by the Liquor Inspector.
l) Conclusion of the incident with the Arresting Officer
Once I was released from the handcuffs I immediately left without a word to the officer,
and walked back into the hotel where many witnesses were waiting to talk to me. I was
greeted with much praise, and the patrons of the bar expressed shock at what had
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
11/22
11
happened. A full fledged false arrest with no provocation; witnessed by many present
RCMP officers who stood by and watched without intervening.
One pair of men from England, a father and son team that was flying their small airplane
from England to Alaska, had been sitting at the table next to me and my dad. They
expressed extreme outrage and disbelief at what they had just witnessed. You know, itseems like something maybe you would see in America, or Europe, but I cant believe I
just witnessed this in Canada! The older man told me, while we stood in a group in the
hotel lobby. The RCMP have such a good reputation internationally, especially in
England! I mean this is the RCMP! That man will go home to England, and this is the
story he will tell.
His shock was somewhat more extreme than the rest of us, who have seen the RCMPs
reputational slide over the years. But it brings to light a very basic, but important
consideration. This type of behavior has far reaching implications, beyond just protecting
the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. It is also about who we are as a people,
and what it means to the Canadian psyche as we are abused day after day by the very
people who are meant to protect us. Numerous officers of the law stood by and watched
as a citizen of Canada was stripped of his rights and freedoms right in front of their face,
while they did nothing. A bar full of people watched on, in disbelief, knowing that it could
have been them. Is this the new Canada? Or will we make an example of this, and stand
up for our citizens? We, the people of Canada, have a right to live our lives without fear.
Civil lawsuit implications:
Let it be known that Robert D. Stewart, the victim of these crimes, intends
to hold the Arresting Officer and the RCMP liable for damages related todefamation of character, legal fees and pain and suffering. The damages
sought will be in line with a similar legal precedent.
Part 2: The officers at the scene of the crime (besides the Arresting Officer)
a) Preface
I (Robert Stewart) the victim of the crimes of the Arresting Officer discussed in part 1,
was sitting at a 4 person table near the entrance to the pub with my dad. During the
course of the incident described in part 1, the crowd of RCMP officers was no more
than 10 feet from my table. I was facing in their direction, so our faces were clearlyvisible to each other. They were close enough to see the abuse that was unfolding
before them. They were in fact closer than most of the patrons of the bar who
witnessed the crime, and also standing with their backs to the wall, facing my table
directly during the incident. Each one of them was in a position to make the
assessment that I was not guilty of any crime, and was a victim of harassment from
their fellow officer.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
12/22
12
b) Negligence, Breach of Public Duty
It is the duty of RCMP officers to protect citizens from violent crimes, including those
caused by their fellow officers. The negligence of the officers on hand who looked
the other way while one of their own committed the aforementioned crimes, resulted
in undue harm to an innocent civilian. This harm was in the form of the multiple
crimes committed against him described in part 1 of this letter. More seriously, theseofficers were knowingly complicit in allowing these crimes to occur, and therefore
willfully negligent in their duty to stop it.
Part 3: The Liquor Inspector
a) Preface
Let it be known that at no time did I have contact or discussion with the Liquor
Inspector. With no evidence of wrongdoing, nor did he have any basis for judging my
state of mind, I have been informed by the General Manager of the Kickin Caribou
Pub (both in person and confirmed by phone) that the Liquor Inspector ordered a 7
day shut-down of the bar on account of my alleged state of inebriation. Let it be
known that at the time of the inspection, there was a bar full of eyewitnesses from
the night in question who knew perfectly well that the accusations were false.
Furthermore, the liquor inspector himself was present for the false arrest, and should
have seen the state I was in when I was escorted out of the bar, which was coherent,
upright, and in no way dangerously inebriated.
I have recorded evidence, in the form of the bill from that night, that I consumed 9
cans of beer on the night of May 5 th, 2012. I had just opened my 10 th can, which was
interrupted by the Arresting Officer, and not consumed. Because people are moreconscious of how much beer is in a pint, rather than a can, I would like to convert the
actual amount of alcohol consumed into pints. As there are 20oz of beer in a pint,
and 12oz of beer in a can, I consumed 9x12=108oz of beer on the night in question.
Divide that by 20, and the total pints I consumed was 5.4. This was also over an
approximately 5 hour period, as I was in the bar from 5pm until the time of the
incident. I can produce a number of reputable professionals as character witnesses
that will attest to the fact that in no way would 5.4 pints of beer over a 5 hour period,
make me dangerously inebriated, and therefore could not possibly constitute a case
of over serving.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
13/22
13
b) Fraud
Fraud is described by the Canadian Online Legal Dictionary as An untrue statement
of fact that the speaker either knows to be untrue or is consciously indifferent as to
whether it be true or false. A statement made without an honest belief in its truth.
The fraud perpetrated by the liquor inspector was his statement describing mycondition (as having been over served, and therefore portraying me as a drunk) and
using his fraudulent assertion to achieve his own ends. The statement is one made
by a supposedly reputable official, the statement is damaging to my reputation, and
therefore criminal.
c) Conspiracy
Conspiracy is described by the Canadian Online Legal Dictionary as An agreement
by two or more persons to carry out legal acts, the predominant purpose of which is
to injure the plaintiff, or an agreement by two or more persons to injure another by
illegal acts.
On the night of May 5th, 2012 the Liquor Inspector knowingly used false eyewitness
testimony from the Arresting Officer as a basis to find the Kickin Caribou Pub non-
compliant in his liquor inspection. Furthermore, he performed no due diligence before
making his assertion that a violation had been committed. For the reasons explained
above, no reasonable person would be under the impression that I was legitimately
over served. He willfully ignored the evidence that he himself witnessed, along with
many other people in the bar at the time, and instead used the false testimony
provided by the Arresting Officer to arrive at his assertion that the Kickin Caribou
had committed an infraction.
Therefore, this liquor inspector was clearly predisposed to ordering the bar closed
and was willing to work in collusion with the Arresting Officer to achieve his goal. He
is therefore guilty of conspiracy, and used his position of authority as an officer of the
law to knowingly abuse, intimidate, threaten, and cause economic harm to a
compliant and law abiding establishment. He was also knowingly working in collusion
with the Arresting Officer in order to undermine and cause direct damage to my
reputation and credibility.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
14/22
14
Part 4: A Note on Corruption
The large number of RCMP officers present at the scene of the above mentioned
crimes, who bore witness and showed no desire to defend the law abiding citizens
who were targeted by the Arresting Officer and the Liquor Inspector, paint a
disturbing picture. How do we know that the RCMP and the Liquor Inspector arentengaging in corrupt practices in more cases across the North?
In fact, the sudden sharp increase in bar closures in Northern Canada brings to light
a significant issue that needs to be addressed. Who is protecting these
establishments from those who would aggressively wield their power with impunity?
In the case of Nunavut and the NWT, I would suggest that it is necessary to appoint
an independent anti-corruption commission to investigate the practices of the RCMP,
the Liquor Enforcement and Inspections Division, and other powerful entities that are
susceptible to corrupt or unfair practices.
Part 5: A Note on the Immunity Clause
The immunity clause in section 130 of the Nunavut Liquor Act reads:
Immunity
130. Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, where the person
charged with an offence under this Act was acting as a peace
officer whose duty it was to enforce this Act, or was acting under the
instructions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Criminal
Investigation Branch, for the purpose of enforcing any provision of
this Act and obtaining evidence on which any person might be broughtto justice, the accused shall not be convicted.
This clause only grants immunity to an officer charged with an offence under the
Liquor Act. My charges are for offences under Canadian Tort Law, and the Criminal
Code of Canada, from which the offending officer is not granted immunity by the
Nunavut Liquor Act. Furthermore, the arresting officer cannot use his duty to uphold
the Nunavut Liquor Act as a defense for his actions, because the Act does not grant
powers to arrest citizens without reasonable grounds for belief that they are
dangerous to themselves, others, property, or otherwise being a nuisance (as stated
in section 81 of the Nunavut Liquor Act). Therefore he was not acting in accordance
with the duties as described in the Nunavut Liquor Act, and is not protected by theimmunity clause.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
15/22
15
Part 6: The Government of Nunavut
a) Preface
In the case of the Nunavut Liquor Act, there is an obfuscation whereby the powers
accorded to an officer enforcing the liquor act are not limited by a clear definition
within section 81 subsection (1).Temporary custody for person found intoxicated in public place
81. (1) Where a peace officer finds a person who, in the opinion of the
peace officer, is in an intoxicated condition in a public place and is likely
to cause injury to himself or herself or to be a danger, nuisance or
disturbance to others, the peace officer shall apprehend the person and deal
with him or her in accordance with this section.
The obfuscation occurs by using the terms in the opinion of the peace officer, and
omitting that the opinion must be based on reasonable grounds. The omission
implies that the officers grounds will not be questioned, and they can use an opinion
that is not based on observed facts. There is also no mention that the officer must
act in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Tort
Laws, and the Criminal Code of Canada. This omission implies that the Nunavut
Liquor Act takes precedent.
The assumption of the nearly unlimited power afforded to RCMP officers in the
North, in regards to their conduct towards inebriated citizens, stems from this
obfuscation. If citizens believe that when they are inebriated in public, an officer can
arrest them (and assert all of the procedures associated with arresting an offender)
based solely on their stated opinion, the citizens are deliberately misled into
believing there is no recourse against an arresting officer.
On the grounds that an officers opinion may be based on discriminatory beliefs, and
that he may truthfully claim that in his opinion, all people of a certain race, size,
religion, reputation or appearance are a potential threat or nuisance, common sense
dictates that reasonable grounds must be formed based on observed actions at the
time of the incident. Otherwise, a discriminatory officer would only have to wait for a
person who he fears by his discriminatory beliefs to get inebriated, and he would
claim the right to arrest them. This is in direct opposition to the Equality Rights
guaranteedby the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit
of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
16/22
16
Furthermore, the Immunity Clause in section 130 of the Liquor Act, (as discussed in
Part 5) was designed in such a way that it appeared on the surface to grant blanket
immunity to any officer who was engaged in enforcing the Liquor Act at the time of
an incident. However, this is not the case. The unclear wording, and the omission of
any clearly understandable limit to the immunity granted to the officer, constitute
another obfuscation.
b) Criminal Negligence and Breach of Public Duty
Section 219 of The Criminal Code of Canada states:
219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent whoo (a) in doing anything, oro (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Definition ofduty
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.
In allowing this obfuscation to pervade the beliefs of northerners in regards to an
officers powers granted by the Liquor Act, the Government of Nunavut has caused
untold harm to the people arrested under its statutes. For years, they have allowed
the RCMP to wield power that was not legal, but implied through obfuscation. The
result was the systematic abuse of human rights in untold cases across Northern
Canada, against people who did not have the wherewithal to know the limit of thepower accorded to officers of the law in the name of the Liquor Act.
Therefore, the Government of Nunavut is guilty of criminal negligence. Through the
omission of vital wording in the most important clause included in the Liquor Act, that
which gives the officer the right to arrest a suspect, the Government of Nunavut has
shown a criminal disregard for the lives and safety of law abiding citizens. It is the
legal duty of the Government of Nunavut to protect the rights and freedoms of their
people, and they have done the opposite.
c) Defrauding the Public and Breach of Public Duty
The Government of Nunavut and the RCMP are guilty of defrauding the public ofNunavut, in misleading them to believe that an officers power became absolute once
alcohol was involved. Thanks to the Tort of False Arrest, no provincial or territorial
authority has the right to legitimize the arrest of a citizen without reasonable grounds.
But in the drafting of the Liquor Act, the Government of Nunavut has used wording
that implies that they can.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
17/22
17
The RCMP have been wielding power based on the obfuscated appearance of the
clause, rather than the actual power that it granted. As I described in Part 1,
subsection b), according to the Canadian Tort law regarding False Arrest, an officer
of the law is always required to justify his arrest. The wording in the Nunavut Liquor
Act implies that the officer does not, an omission that is grossly irresponsible, and
ultimately criminal - causing untold harm to Canadian Citizens who have suffered aviolation of their rights as a result of the omission.
Therefore, both the RCMP and the Government of Nunavut are guilty of defrauding
the public, and breach of duty. I hereby request, in the interest of the people of
Nunavut, that the Liquor Act in its current form be repealed by the Government of
Nunavut, and re-drafted in a way that is clear, concise, easily understood by all
interested citizens of Nunavut, and, most importantly, clearly defines the limits of the
powers granted to the law enforcement officers of Nunavut. The document should
not in any way imply that it limits the rights and freedoms of the people of Canada as
protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code of
Canada, Canadian Torts, or any other legal precedents.
The grounds for calling for a repeal of the document (rather than amendment) are
that it has been used for years in its current form to commit crimes against the
people of Nunavut. The document was drafted criminally, irresponsibly, in bad faith,
and without the best interests of the people of Nunavut in mind. Therefore, no part of
the Liquor Act should be held up as legitimate, and a new Liquor Act, one that will be
drafted in good faith towards the people of Nunavut, will be required.
I also request that the public officials responsible for presiding over the creation and
implementation of the Liquor Act be tried in a court of law for Defrauding the Publicand Breach of Duty. The officials responsible for the enforcement of the Liquor Act
should be removed for gross incompetence, on the grounds that they have made no
attempt to enforce this act within the legal limits as defined by the laws of Canada.
Civil lawsuit implications:
Let it be known that Robert D. Stewart, the victim of these crimes, intends
to hold the Liquor Inspector, the Liquor Enforcement and Inspections
Division, and the Government of Nunavut liable for damages related todefamation of character, legal fees and pain and suffering related to the
fraudulent attack on my reputation and character in order to achieve the
closure of an establishment that was operating in compliance with the
Nunavut Liquor Act.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
18/22
18
The damages sought will be in line with a similar legal precedent, taking
into account that Robert D. Stewart is an audit accountant, and student of
the Chartered Accountancy program; a profession strongly dependant on
reputation. Furthermore, given the realities of Northern small populations,
reputation is an important consideration in landing a percentage of a small
number of contracts.
Request for access to evidence
I would like to make a formal request for access to all video, audio, and written recorded
evidence related to the investigation of the aforementioned incidence of wrongful arrest and all
other crimes described on the night of May 5 th, 2012. I also request access to any and all
correspondence by letter, fax or e-mail between the RCMP and the Liquor Inspector in
preparation for the raid on the Kickin Caribou Pub on that night, on the basis that it is pertinent
to my civil case against the perpetrators of the crimes detailed herein.
Request for a clean criminal record
In light of my assertions in this letter, I request to be given full assurance that no record of
wrongdoing by me will be mentioned on my personal record. The only record that will be kept
will portray me as the victim of crimes perpetrated by a police officer. The word arrested must
be preceded by the word wrongfully, in any and all official correspondence related to the
incident, and I request that terminology be used that is sensitive to maintaining my goodreputation. Any accounts from the night in question will be kept as evidence against the
offending officers from the night of May 5th, but may not be used as testimony against me, on
pain of litigation.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
19/22
19
Part 7: A Call for Action to the Honorable Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada regarding broad scope implications
On the grounds that the Nunavut Liquor Act contains obfuscations that have allowed
incidents of miscarriage of justice, that they cause direct harm to the people of Nunavut,
that it facilitates an environment resulting in the violation of rights and freedoms of theCanadian people, and that the obfuscations are consistent with Criminal Negligence as
defined by section 219 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I hereby request, on behalf of
the Canadian people, that the Government of Canada execute the following actions
in accordance with their legal duty to protect the rights of the Canadian People :
- That an independent review committee of no less than 5 judges in good
standing be appointed to review all Canadian acts of law that grant powers of
arrest, in order to recommend to the legal authority responsible for the act to
have all unclear or irresponsibly subjective terminology removed, such as
Opinion, and that the clause related to powers of arrest must clearly define,in terms understandable to a common person of limited education, that the limits
of power granted are subject to the Tort Law of False Arrest. Obfuscations
related to powers of arrest, immunity from prosecution, and any other legal
powers that will affect a citizens rights, must be removed and replaced with clear
terms that are in accordance with Canadian Law. For example, When the officer
has reasonable grounds, rather than if in the opinion of the officer.
- On the grounds that an officers opinion may be based on discriminatory beliefs,
and that he may truthfully claim that in his opinion, all people of a certain race,
size, religion, reputation or appearance are a potential threat or nuisance,
common sense dictates that reasonable grounds must be formed based on
observed actions at the time of the incident. Therefore, I formally request that all
acts of law be amended to include a clear definition of reasonable grounds for
arrest in accordance with Canadian Tort Law, and one example of reasonable
grounds. This definition must clearly state that the grounds for arrest must be
based on observed actions and that these actions constitute reasonable
grounds to any reasonable person, notsolely in the mind of the officer.
- That this review committee submit a public message for each act of law thathas been amended in accordance with this call for action, announcing that the
laws have been re-written in good faith to the people of Canada, and that all
obfuscation has been removed in order to clearly define the legal powers granted
by the act. Each member of the review committee will sign a report, similar to
an audit report, that asserts a professional opinion that the act is in
accordance with the Laws of Canada, and free from obfuscation or
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
20/22
20
confusing terminology. If any members of the committee find that an act does
not meet these standards, all members in agreement that changes should be
made will provide recommendations to the government authority responsible for
the act. All members of the committee who find the agreement compliant in
accordance with Canadian Law will sign a letter similar to a clean audit opinion,
and accept professional responsibility for their assertion.
- That the Attorney General of Canada publicly announce that any
government entity that passes an act of law that does not clearly define that
the limits of powers of arrest must be defensible on reasonable grounds, in
accordance with the Tort of False Arrest, is guilty of Criminal Negligence
consistent with section 219 of the Criminal Code of Canada. That they arealso guilty of Defrauding the Public and Breach of Public Duty, and that
they may be held liable for damages in a court of law. That those members
of the aforementioned government authority who vote Yea to pass an act not
in accordance with the standards described above may be found guilty of
Breach of Public Duty by the citizens who are subject to the laws defined
within the act. For this reason, an act should be reviewed by the committee
and recommendations made before a new act is passed.
- That the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amended to be the
first Charter in the world to guarantee theRight to Clarity of Law. For thereasons detailed in this letter, and on behalf of the people of Canada, I hereby
formally request that in order to prevent further instances of Defrauding the
Public and Criminal Negligence by any legal entity within the borders of
Canada, the people of Canada have a right to clearly defined laws
understandable to the common citizen, free from obfuscation and implied
meaning, so that they can be reasonably expected to understand what is legal
and not legal under Federal, Provincial/Territorial or Municipal authority.
Let this letter, which will be publicly distributed, serve as fair warning to all legalauthorities within the borders of Canada. If, within a fair and reasonable period of time,
acts are not amended to be compliant in regards to the legal standards as mentioned
in this letter, legal action will be sought against the individuals, including public
officials and law enforcement officers, who preside over and claim legal right to
wield power by these damaging and Criminally Negligent Acts of Law.
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
21/22
21
Part 8: A Call for Action to the People of Canada
The contents included in this document are intended in the highest interest of justice,
due process, and respect for the rights and freedoms of the people of Canada.
To all citizens of our free and democratic society, I grant you the gift of this letter, and allof the contents within. To those who have felt confusion or fear regarding their rights,
allow me to address you in plain language.
For the reasons described in earlier sections of this document, I am of the belief that the
citizens of Canada have been supplicating themselves to an illusion of power caused by
the obfuscations of legal acts. This is very similar to the allegory of the All Powerful Oz,
who through his mighty appearance ruled by fear and intimidation.
It is with great pleasure that, by way of this document and all of the assertions within, I
play the role of Toto and expose to you, the people of Canada, the man behind the
curtain; a creature who is ultimately weak, in comparison to the power of the free anddemocratic people of this nation. And this creature is deathly afraid of his secret being
revealed.
However, I only have the power to pull back the curtain. It is up to you, the people of
Canada, to remove the smoke and mirrors. And so, it is my humble request that each of
you do everything in your power to support the changes recommended by this
document. Distribute this information, contact your governments, Councillors, Members
of Parliament, and all other interested parties in order to show your official support.
Consider the contents of this document carefully, and ask yourself if it agrees with yourown sense of morality and justice. Sometimes it is as simple as knowing what is right. If
we, the Canadian people, implement the recommendations contained in this document,
it may solidify the protection of our rights and freedoms for all time.
I would like to leave you with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. who said:
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we
must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.
Whether you are a citizen, a business, a community, or a political representative, please
consider an official letter of support for this document and the recommendations within.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Stewart
-
7/31/2019 The Quick Fix for Civil Rights
22/22
22
Appendix: Who, or what exactly is the Man Behind the Curtain?
The Man Behind the Curtain is the Great Con. The Act of Law itself is a fraud. It goes like
this:
A government authority wishes to grant powers that it cant legally grant, due to rights to Liberty,
Equality, Torts of False Arrest, and other protections already guaranteed by law.
So, instead they pass an Act that appearsto grant those powers, and then they advertise it as
though it granted them. People accept it implicitly. This is a clear case of Defrauding the Public,
and illegal.
So the public bellows and blusters that they cant believe the government passed an Act that
grants such unlimited powers to officers of the law. They are enraged at the government, but the
public believes that the powers to arbitrarily arrest have been legitimately granted by this
seemingly powerful Act of Law (Such as the Canadian Liquor Acts, or the Patriot Act in the
USA). But those powers were never actually granted.The Acts have been designed so
that you would never think you have the grounds to charge an officer with False Arrest.
However, now that you have read this book, you will know on what grounds you can charge that
officer, and also charge the government who passed and presides over the Act.
In a society where the right to liberty is guaranteed by a Charter of Rights, and there are tort
laws against false arrest, no Act of Law can grant powers to arrest arbitrarily, and without
reasonable grounds based on observed actions.
Because of this Great Con, all nations, in order to protect the rights and freedoms of their
citizens from instances of Fraud, must implement The Quick Fix. This includes amending
the Charter of Rights to include The Right to Clarity of Law as described in part 7.
It is great moments that define the history of a nation, and one of those moments will be the day
that they adopted The Quick Fix.