lawmen

Offences under ss. 253 and 254 are punishable under s. 255. Section 255 articulates that the person may be prosecuted by indictment “OR” for which he is punishable on summary conviction offences. Section 253-4 are dual procedure offences. Therefore the cop cannot at anytime arrest an accused under ss. 253 or 254 because the cop is barred from arresting without a warrant any offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, as articulated under 495(2)(. The cop can only issue an appearance notice under s. 496(. Sections 255, 495 and 496 expressly state: Punishment 255. (1) “Every one” who commits an offence under section “253 or 254″ is guilty of an “indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction” and is liable, (a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely, (i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000, (ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than 30 days, and (iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than 120 days; ( where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and © if the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months. Arrest without warrant by peace officer 495. (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant (a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence; ( a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or … “Limitation” (2) A peace officer “shall not” arrest a person without warrant for … (“an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction,” or … Issue of appearance notice by peace officer 496. Where, by virtue of subsection “495(2),” a peace officer does not arrest a person, “he may issue an appearance notice to the person if the offence is” … ( “an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction;” or … Sections, 255(2), (2.1), (2.2), (3), (3.1) and (3.2), (impaired causing bodily harm or death) are single procedure indictable offences and an accused can be arrested without a warrant. There is a distinction between 253-4 and 255(2), (2.1), (2.2), (3), (3.1) and (3.2). Section 495(3) and ( provides the consequences of arresting without warrant. The cop will be deemed to be acting lawfully and in the execution of his duty for the purposes of any proceeding … “unless” … in any such proceedings it is alleged and established by the person making the allegation that the peace officer did not comply with the requirements of subsection “(2).” An accused who is arrested simply has to prove he provided proper ID, point out that s. 255 declares ss. 253 or 254 to be dual procedure offences, and he meet the test set out in s. 495(3)(. “ALL” charges will be dropped and the cop, police service board, chief of police, solicitor general, city, and province can be sued by the accused. The cop would be facing criminal charges of his own if the accused pursued them. Now his finances are at stake and so is his employment. I am aware of s. 497; however, if someone refuses to blow, the cop is not preventing the continuation or repetition of his refusal to blow by arresting him. A refusal to blow is final. Therefore, he still cannot arrest him; he can only issue him an appearance notice. If a driver blows and is charged under s. 253, the cop is not preventing the continuation or repetition of the offence by arresting him. The offence has already ended. Therefore, he cannot arrest him; he can only issue an appearance notice. The cop is not securing or preserving evidence of or relating to the offence by arresting him, thus the cop cannot arrest. The cop is not ensuring the safety and security of any victim of or witness to the offence by arresting, nor does it ensure the accused will attend court in order to be dealt with according to law. The driver must not be arrested if ID is provided. After being issued an appearance notice, the cop must inform him that if he gets back in his car or any other car and drives, he will be arrested without a warrant to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence and be charged for a second time under ss. 253 or 254. This arrest would be valid, despite ss. 253 and 254 being a dual procedure offence. Thus, if the car isn’t already parked in a safe place, or if a sober driver is not availble to drive the car, the cop must inform the driver that a tow trunk can be called at driver expense. The car would also be towed to a location of the driver choice, the cops cannot send it to an impound lot and have a third party place a lien on the driver's property, like they are doing today. That’s fraud. If the driver refused to remove the car, then, and only then, can the cop have it towed.

Can you post a law that allows cops to seize your vehicle when valid ID is produced?

Yes. The police cannot not seize your car for impaired if you've produced valid ID. Impaired operation or care and control, or refusing to blow, are dual procedure offences. A cop cannot arrest under a dual procedure offence when valid ID is produced. The cop can only issue a notice to appear. The cops arrest almost every time, though, because they haven't a clue of what they are doing. The cop can remove the car if a sober driver is not available to drive the car. In such a case, the cop can only order the driver to have the vehicle towed to a location of the driver's choice at the drives expense if the car is not in a safe spot at the time of being stopped. The cop cannot seize the car nor can he allow a third party, i.e., a towing company to place a lien on your property. That's both theft and fraud. If the driver refused to have it towed to a safe location, then, and only then can a cop order it to be towed.

"The person who represents himself has a fool for a client." You know who wrote this motto? A lawyer, he didn't want people cutting his business throat. In reality, "the only good lawyer is a dead one." You hired a lawyer but he hasn't told you the law has issues and is probably unconstitutional? He hasn't told you that s. 172 conflicts with s. 128 and all you're facing is a fine of under $600? How much is he charging you? You assume you're facing a $2,000 to $10,000 fine and a possible prison term, higher insurance rates etc. How much would you pay a lawyer to get you off this charge if it were true? A few thousands, right? How much would you pay a lawyer to get you off a $600 fine? Not more than $600, probably, right? Tell your lawyer he's a scumbag for me. Now, did you lose your licence for seven days? Yes or no? Did you have to pay licence reinstatement fees to the MTO? If yes, how much did you pay? Did you have your car impounded fo seven days? Yes or no? If yes, how much did you spend on towing and storage? Did you have to take taxi's while you lost your licence and car? If so, how much did you spend? How much have you given your lawyer so far and how much does he claim this case will cost you for his so-called professional services?

My friend, you can represent yourself in court for free. Section 128 of the highway traffic act conflicts with s. 172. You cannot and will not be convicted under s. 172. Fight it, you're only facing a $500 or so fine even if convicted. You can also file constutitional questions during your trial and get the law struck down, which is what a lawyer should've done by now, but they are all corrupt. They want the law to stand so they can continue to rip off the citizens of Ontario. You can also sue the cop who charged you in small claims court for next to nothing for all damages you have incurred if your car was impounded and you lost your licence, had to take taxis, etc. You can also have the cop criminal charged for stealing your car, since s. 172 is invalid. If you need help, I'm here to help you for free. Ask away.

The law is unconstitutional for several reasons. Section 172(5) requires an officer to have reasonable and probable grounds. This proves a hearing is required before punishment can be imposed. Reasonable and probable grounds bear a standard of proof and onus of proof. Thus, when an accused is charged, it is neither proven nor presumed that the accused has committed an offence, but there are reasonable grounds for believing that this has occurred. The laying of charges in the legal process does not involve a determination of guilt, thus, the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) as a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter still applies and sanctions cannot be imposed until a determination of guilt has been entered. The burden is on the government and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The governments burden can only be discharged by a trier of fact in a court proceeding; but no proceeding is provided violating ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. The principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 incorporate due process and natural justice. Section 172 violate both of them as no hearing is provided. As no hearing is provided s. 172 also violates s. 11(d), the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law. The Charter is part of the constitution and the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada and s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act 1982 mandates that any law inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. Section 172 is not justified or saved by s. 1 of the Charter. Moreover, s. 128(14)(d) directly conflicts with s. 172. Section 128 provides for a fine of $9.75 per km over the speed limit when the driver is doing more than 50 kms over the speed limit. There is no licence suspension, vehicle impoundment, prison term etc. By contrast, s. 172 provides for a minimum $2000 fine, maximum $10,000 fine, seven day licence suspension, up to two year suspension upon conviction, seven day vehicle impoundment, and six month prison term. It is a universal principle that when two provisions conflict the one that is most favourable to the accused must be adopted, whih is why most people are not being convicted under s. 172. Most critically, offences in Canada were classified 30 years ago. Offences are either mens rea, absolute or strict liability offences. R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299 Section 172 is an absolute liability offence. Twenty-three years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that absolute liability offences that contain terms of imprisonment are unconstitutional as they violate s. 7 of the charter. The term of imprisonment does not have to be mandatory, it may be optional, as s. 172 provides. B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486 Thus, in accordance with s. 52 of the Constitution Act 1982, s. 172 is of no force and effect. In other words, it's not a valid law. The Province might wish to claim it was unaware of B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486 but that is simple untrue. The Attorney General of Ontario intervened in R. v. Kanda, 2008 ONCA 22 and is well aware of the offence classifications and that a term of imprisonment is not permissible when attached to an absolute offence, which s. 172 is. More than 8,000 people to date have be charged under s. 172 and up to 8,000 vehicles impounded, thus up to 24,000 criminal offences of thefts, mischeif and fraud have been committed by agents of the Province. Importantly, the Attorney General argued in the case that the triggering words “no person shall,” evince a clear intention to create an absolute liability offence. The court determined otherwise stating it is a strict liability offence. The court also cited the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act case in its support. Therefore, the Attorney General has been aware since January, 2008 that s. 172 is unconstitutional and of no force or effect yet the Province continues to illegally charge citizens and unlawfully steal vehicles. This amounts to a reckless disregard and contempt for the rule of law. In order to be reasonable, seizures and impoundments must be authorized by law. Here, impoundment is not reasonable or authorized by a valid law. The reason for this requirement is clear: under both the Charter and the common law, agents of the state can only enter onto or confiscate someone’s property when the law specifically permits them to do so. Otherwise, they are constrained by the same rules regarding theft as everyone else. R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51 Therefore, the police are not operating under any valid law when they impound a vehicle and are not are not operating in the execution of any valid power or duty. What they are doing is stealing cars under s. 322 of the Criminal Code, committing mischief under s. 430, and fraud under s. 380. A person is having their vehicle stolen by the police and the police are allowing a third party to place a lien on your property. You cannot get your stolen property back unless you pay money, which is fraud. If you are subject to an impoundment you are empowered under s. 494 of the Criminal Code to arrest the police officer on the spot the second he acts to impound your vehicle. Section 19 of the Criminal Code articulates that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the police cannot blame the government for any wrong doing an officer commits as a result of the government enacting s. 172. A police officers duty and powers are articulated under s. 42 of the Police Service Act. Section 42(3) of the Police Service Act states; Powers and duties of common law constable (3) A police officer has the powers and duties ascribed to a constable at common law. At common law, these duties include “the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime, and the protection of life and property.” Dedman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2. Section 428 of the Criminal Code defines property as real and personal property of every description and deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the title or right to property, or giving a right to recover or receive money or goods. Ownership of property is defined in s. 588, which states; Ownership 588. The real and personal property of which a person has, by law, the management, control or custody shall, for the purposes of an indictment or proceeding against any other person for an offence committed on or in respect of the property, be deemed to be the property of the person who has the management, control or custody of it. The common law is no more immune from Charter scrutiny than is statute law, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held. RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; R. v. Daviault, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, and R. v. Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290. Common law is made up of decisions of the court. Police officers are required to be aware of all decisons, as they are governed by them. Thus, as the court determined 23 years ago that absolute liability offences that contain terms of imprisonment are unconstitutional, which the police are aware of, the police officer who steals a car commits 3 criminal offences per incident. You can also sue the officer for breach of duty of care for all damages you incur, i.e., towing, storage, taxis, fines, lawyer fees, economic loss, etc. Hill v. Hamilton Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41 Moreover, Section 50(1) of the Police Service Act expressly states; Liability for torts 50(1) The board or the Crown in right of Ontario, as the case may be, is liable in respect of torts committed by members of the police force in the course of their employment. The failure of a public officer to perform a statutory duty also constitutes misfeasance in a public office. Police Services Act s. 41(1) imposes on all Chiefs and Commissioners a freestanding statutory obligation to ensure that the members of the force carry out their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Police Services Act and the needs of the community. This includes an obligation to ensure that members of the police force do not injure members of the public through misconduct in the exercise of police functions. The public complaints process allows the public to complain in respect of the conduct of a police officer. What an accused seeks, though, is not the opportunity to file a complaint that might result in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, but, rather, compensation for the damage they have suffered as a consequence of the Chief and/or Commissioners inadequate supervision and misfeasance in office. The public complaint process is no alternative to liability in negligence. A plaintiff cannot sue government for a policy decision; however, enforcement of that policy is an operational decision which gives rise to a duty of care. Odhauji Estate v. Yoodhouse [2003] 3 S.C.R, 263. Section 1 of the Police Service Act articulates the principles Police are to respect and follow. The drivers whose vehicles are stolen by the police are victims of crime. These victims of crime are being dumped at the side of the road when their vehicle is stolen by the police and they are being smeared in the media when the police release their names and/or allow video of their car or the person themselves to be aired. Section 1 states; Declaration of principles 1. Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles: 1. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario. 2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code. ... 4. The importance of respect for victims of crime and understanding of their needs. The Police core services are articulated under s. 4 and indicate they are to prevent crime, not commit it, and they are to assist victims of crime, yet, in stead, they dump them off at the side of the road after stealing their vehicles. Core police services 4(2) Adequate and effective police services must include, at a minimum, all of the following police services: 1. Crime prevention. 2. Law enforcement. 3. Assistance to victims of crime. 4. Public order maintenance. 5. Emergency response. The Province and the police operate under colour of law, but the law is not colour blind and no one is exempt from the law, including police officers or the Premier. R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R.59, 2004 SCC 52. One of the most fundamental responsibilities of a government is to ensure the security of its citizens. In a constitutional democracy, governments must act accountably and in conformity with the Constitution and the rights and liberties it guarantees. It is one of the proud accomplishments of the common law that everybody is subject to the ordinary law of the land regardless of public prominence or governmental status. As was explained in Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, at p. 240, the rule of law is one of the “fundamental and organizing principles of the Constitution”, and at p. 258, it was further emphasized that a crucial element of the rule of law is that “[t]here is ... one law for all.” Thus, a provincial Premier is held to have no immunity against a claim in damages when he caused injury to a private citizen. It is the Premier who is responsible for allowing this law to be enacted. Section 21 of the Criminal Code articulates who is a party to an offence. Dunlop and Sylvester v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881 Therefore, the Premier is a party to every criminal offence that has occured by police officers so far, and that number is over 24,000 criminal offences in just one year. The following sections of the Highway Traffic Act are also unconstitutional as they are absolute liability offences that unlawfully contain terms of imprisonment. Section 107(1), (2), (3), (4), (11) and (13). Section 107(15) states; …”or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.” Section 112 (3). …“or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both” Section 171(4). …”or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.” Section 172.1(3). …”or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.” Section 175(17). …”or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.” Section 177(4). …”or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.” Section 190(8). …”or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.” Section 200(2). …”or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.”