Attached find documentation first sent to your ministry June 29 2006, relating of an RCMP incident at Faust AB February 12 2006, and requesting that the Canada Minister of Justice direct the police that the principle of reasonable and probable grounds should always be paramount.
              You ministry denied responsibility and referred the matter to the Canada Minister of Public Safety. This minister also denied responsibility and advised to bring the matter to the attention of the Alberta Minister of Public Security. The last denied authority to so direct the police.
              Surely, the Crown has jurisdiction and authority over the national police force, and as this is clearly a justice matter i am submitting the request once again to your attention.
              To clarify: the police practice to order any and all operators of a motor vehicle to sit in the vehicle after being stopped by an officer is arbitrary and unreasonable and in violation of Statute and Charter. I do not pose a threat to any police officer. I have been made aware that this order is routinely issued as a safety practice by RCMP members. However, many such orders could be issued (a general after dark curfew, for instance) that could greatly enhance the safety of peace officers. Clearly, such powers would need to be extended by Parliament.
              I was subjected to unlawful arrest, illegal search and detention, and abuse of authority, but I do not wish to register a complaint against the constable as he was instructed by his Sergeants and his Commissioner that he held such powers.
              It is incumbent on the Ministry to uphold the law and instruct its agents likewise.
              A citizen should not need to seek a lengthy, complicated, and expensive means of redress from the courts.

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

There exist files containing my name related to an incident between 1971 and 1973 (widely reported at the time) in which three individuals critical of a Human Resources Development Authority Lesser Slave Lake Project were investigated by the RCMP at the request of the Alberta Government.

attached:
~ contemporaneous editorial cartoon and letter to the editor by the undersigned
~ RCMP response with exemptions;
~ Library and Archives response with portions withheld;
~ CSIS response with refusal to comply;
~ documents (edited by others)

The complaint is against the above agencies

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT
              Attached excerpt of proceedings in the Provincial Court of Alberta (hamlet of Faust, March 14, 2006) 'submissions by the accused' adequately describes the incident that gave rise to the complaint I am making to the Commission.
              Please note that this complaint is twofold: while the individual member clearly abused his authority, it is primarily directed against (what I have subsequently been led to believe is) a police practice this officer was instructed by his superiors is permissable (necessary, even, and lawful ~ and no doubt will be defended as such by these superiors).
              I and any other citizen (indeed, even non-citizens) are protected in law from arbitrary interference by the State and its agents. For that reason I requested (in my submission to the Provincial Court) that the police be directed "that the principle of reasonable and probable grounds should always be paramount." This court advised me it had no jurisdiction, and the attached documentation indicates that I have sought redress from those I assumed to have authority over police matters (Albert Burger letter June 29, 2006).

STATUTE AND CHARTER
              The Constitution Act 1982, sections 7 - 10, is clear in securing legal rights to life, liberty and security of person, against unreasonable search or seizure, not to be arbitrarily detained, and the right on arrest to be informed promptly of the reason thereof.
              "It cannot be that every unlawful arrest necessarily falls within the words 'arbitrarily detained'. . . . On the other hand, the entire absence of reasonable and probable grounds could support an inference that no reasonable person could have genuinely believed that such grounds existed. . . ."
              "An assessment of the constitutionality of a search and seizure, or of a statute authorizing a search or seizure, must focus on its 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' impact on the subject of the search or the seizure, and not simply on its rationality in furthering some valid government objective. . . . . . . Where the State's interest is law enforcement, reasonable and probable grounds . . . constitutes the minimum standard. . . ."
              "It has long been held that the principal purpose of s. 8 is to protect an accused's privacy interests against unreasonable intrusion by the State. Accordingly, police conduct interfering with a reasonable expectation of privacy is said to constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the provision. Such conduct may also be characterized as a 'seizure', the essence of which is the 'taking of a thing from a person by a public authority without that person's consent'."
              "The party seeking to justify a warrantless search must be required to rebut a presumption of unreasonableness."
              "A 'frisk' search incidental to a lawful arrest [italics added] reconciles the public's interest in the effective and safe enforcement of the law on the one hand, and on the other its interest in ensuring the freedom and dignity of individuals. . . . The existence of reasonable and probable grounds is not a prerequisite to the existence of a police power to search. The exercise of this power is not however unlimited. . . . The search must be for a valid objective in pursuit of the ends of criminal justice, such as the discovery of an object that may be a threat to the safety of the police . . . . The purpose of the search must not be unrelated to the objectives of the proper administration of justice, which would be the case for example if the purpose of the search was to intimidate, ridicule or pressure the accused . . . ; the search must not be conducted in an abusive fashion and in particular, the use of physical or psychological constraint should be proportionate to the objectives sought and the other circumstances of the situation. A search which does not meet these objectives could be characterized as unreasonable and unjustified at common law."
              "Three conditions must be satisfied in order for a search to be validly undertaken pursuant to the common law power of search incident to a lawful arrest. First the arrest must be lawful. No search, no matter how reasonable, may be upheld . . . where the arrest . . . was arbitrary or otherwise unlawful."
               ~ Canadian Charter of Rights Decisions Digest.

              The Criminal Code s. 450 reads that "a peace officer may arrest without warrant . . . where . . . he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the public interest . . . may be satisfied. . . ."              The law (its interpretation, as well as case law) makes it clear that "without such an important protection, even the most democratic society could all too easily fall prey to the abuses and excesses of a police state. In order to safeguard the liberty of citizens, the Criminal Code requires the police . . . to demonstrate that they have . . . reasonable and probable grounds upon which they base the arrest. . . . These grounds must, in addition, be justifiable from an objective point of view."
              "A police officer has no right to detain a person for questioning or for further investigation. No one is entitled to impose any physical restraint upon the citizen except as authorized by law, and this principle applies as much to police officers as to anyone else. Although a police officer may approach a person on the street and ask him questions, if the person refuses to answer the police officer must allow him to proceed on his way, unless, of course, the officer arrests him on a specific charge or arrests him pursuant to s. 450 of the Code. . . ."
              "Under section 25 of the Criminal Code, a police officer is authorized and justified in using as much force as is necessary in enforcing and upholding the law. . . . But in order for section 25 to protect a police officer's conduct, the police officer must have reasonable grounds . . . and refrain from using . . . force. . . ."
              "According to the Supreme Court of Canada, an arrest is defined as the actual 'seizure or touching of a person's body with the view to detention'. If police officers use force in the course of arresting or detaining an individual, their actions could amount to an assault which can be prosecuted in a court of law if they do not have legal justification. Furthermore, such an assault may be resisted by virtue of s. 34 of the Criminal Code. . . . In other words, citizens have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, and the right to protect themselves agaist any unlawful arrest or the unlawful use of force."

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
              While this incident may not seem of great importance given police malpractices and abuses of late, in my life at least it is a bellweather event ~ (from the MacDonald Report, through the more recent probes by government task forces, and Carleton University's Linda Duxbury's report) that signals when the police and the authorities which oversee them no longer uphold the rule of law; when the police fears the citizenry it is to serve and protect. This bodes ill for the cadre of peace officers and for society. When I indignantly related this experience to a recently (after some 35 years of RCMP service) retired member, and asked rhetorically: will it soon be as experienced by Rodney King in Los Angeles years ago and the police will beat us up for not taking up 'the position'? ~ his answer shocked me: 'hopefully,' he said, 'hopefully(!) it will not come to that'.
              At the time of the incident I was aged 65 years, stood 5'-8", at 130 pounds; I had not done anything whatsover to attract attention to myself or to the vehicle I operated; I was not subsequently charged with either a traffic offense nor an equipment violation. Though it was late of a mild, clear, wintry evening, I stopped on a street, in the urban hamlet (population 400) where I have resided since 1966, almost directly under a street light. After my arrest and detention, in the presence of another officer, the arresting officer indicated that he had stopped me because the rear license plate was obscured (common in winter in snowy northern Alberta) and that he had observed this in his rearview mirror. This was a lie, and I put him down for a liar, a cheat, a bully, and a thief (the last because he removed currency from my pockets without having provided me an opportunity to count it). Unfortunately I did not have the courage to say this to his face ~ the intimidation practiced by him bearing fruit. I wondered later that if he was not able to read the plate numbers and therefor could not radio for information regarding the registration why he did not promptly exit the police vehicle. However, as a police officer he had the right to stop me and demand the documents I had left at home.
              I have been told by officers that they couldn't know I did not carry an AK47. This is, of course, patently ridiculous but at the same time makes my point: they did not know and had no grounds to believe I did. If the police can assume that I can be treated as if I were among the worse they could meet of the general public, I may make the same assumption: police officers have been tried and convicted of murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud, and for my safety it may be best to run at the sight of anyone in uniform.
              While this particular officer's methods were clearly excessive, it is the nature of the practice of issuing (and attempting to enforce) arbitrary orders that are clearly in violation of civil rights that is at the core of my complaint. I am presenting the issue to the Commission, as the so-called "New Government" (does it stll call itself this?) of Canada denies either responsibility or authority ~ which, if true, may be a far larger problem, for who then controls the police?
              Surely my initial request to the provincial court magistrate that the police be directed to act lawfully is not excessive? The incident is now two years past. A long time during which its significance has percolated in my mind ~ such as it is, and it is negatively coloring my perception of all peace officers (a perception that is increasingly being shared by more Canadians ~ this is not good). At my sentencing hearing here in Faust court, I noted with distaste two fat guys in flak jackets and yellow striped pants 'guarding' (wasting their time and taxpayers' money) three somewhat disheveled young men who had been held in holding cells; all three later to be released by the magistrate.
              Aw well, I'm now officially an old fogy, and the world is going to hell. In a handbasket. (soon to be released on cd, by the way.)
              I am posting the details of events subsequent to 'the incident' at http://www.albertburger.com/writings.htm#court and invite you to check the website further as a method of assessing my person.

        until this story revealed it, this was a well-kept secret within the police service
it is not likely this is the only place in the country where such a police lounge, bar or wet mess, exists
        alcohol syndrome produces mental symptoms like anxiety, increased irritability and disturbance of sleep
        there is an emerging (anti-social) police sub-culture ~ that includes all of the proliferating security agencies (municipal constables, airport and transit 'police', etc etc etc), that is fuelled by this condition

              my complaint to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission did not go well
              received a phone call from a person there about the material submitted [all correspondence as above, dear reader] whom i asked to respond in writing after some questions irked me
              within two weeks of the complaint i did indeed receive a letter which i did not open
              a month later, i wrote the commission's chairman:

however, after receiving a telephone call from your office i have not yet opened the envelope (i am a slow thinker)

i am writing to you as i believe your position will allow you to answer my question

in my experience, any government agency operates by virtue of legislative authority and is responsible to parliament through a ministry

so when in my perception the national police agency acted outside its legislative authority, i sought to draw this to the attention of the minister holding the relevant portfolio

though the incident that gave rise to the complaint ocurred march 2006, i have to date been unable to determine who has responsibility for this matter

in my complaint to cpc i included perhaps some seemingly irrelevant material

however, i wanted the commission to be aware of the steps i had previously taken for redress

my question to you is that if the federal ministers of justice, public security, and the provincial solicitor general all deny either responsibility or authority, can you please explain to me the line of command under which the rcmp operates

i thank you in advance

              another telephone conversation resulted in which i expressed surprise that the letter would not be forwarded to the chair, had the impression the complaint was to be filed and forwarded to the rcmp, informed i had no interest in speaking about this matter to the police, and was told that the matter was to go to a manager
              this was the response:

              some weeks later, i mailed a copy of the original letter for the cpc chair to which i added in a scribble: 'this was intercepted by your staff', and placed it in an envelope with word processor address and "personal and confidential' on the outside, omitting a return address
              just this month, i mailed the cpc (again addressed to the chair ~ though this time handwritten envelope with return address) [terror], which was prefaced with:

Dear Reader, If your name is not kennedy, consider this: you are part of the problem i have complained about the police but you are blocking access to the commission now i'm complaining about that attached my conclusion

 Jan 5 2010
______________________________________________

why do i do this?
this issue is not about me
it is about the rule of law in our country

!the complaint is in the public interest!

______________________________________________

as for the information requests: by and by, by and by
February 20 2009 ~ below

---

                        2009 ~ Dossier: reasonable and probable grounds [statement]

            i made my stated request to the court to which i had been summoned ~
            the provincial court of alberta with a provincial magistrate on the bench ~
            at the historical occasion of the final sitting of faust court
            the lowest court in the country
            but that was my forum
            that this principle must always be paramount
             ~ conclusion:

The State is not prepared to defend the charter of rights guarantees that I hold.
That all Canadians hold.

I infer this from the regime's failure to enforce these rights within its enforcement agencies.

[ it's a simple thing

as citizens

we are not be interfered with as we go abroad on the queen's roads
nor in our domiciles
without reasonable and probable grounds
this is the law

of the state

'Too bad, guy, you're on your own, here.' ]

also check [statement] [security] [terror] [polity]

---

Web Stats