Robert Menard asks you read section 38 and 39 of the Criminal Code and then read Sections 126 and 127. The first deals with operating with a claim of right and how it establishes lawful excuse. The second set deals with how we have the power to disobey courts and governments if we have a lawful excuse, such as a claim of right.
Defence of personal property
38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
Assault by trespasser
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 38.
Is this not what the VPD are guilty of when they took my rightful possessions?
Defence with claim of right
39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Defence without claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.
This is my personal Lawful Excuse, My claim of right.
Disobeying a statute
126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Attorney General of Canada may act
(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).
Disobeying order of court
127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Attorney General of Canada may act
(2) Where the order referred to in subsection (1) was made in proceedings instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government, any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene that order may be instituted and conducted in like manner.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 127; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F); 2005, c. 32, s. 1.
The involvement in the aftermath of the murder of 4 RCMP near Mayerthorpe Alberta in March 2005. I caught the government of Canada perpetrating a hate crime breaking the rule of law
14 years after doing the mounties a favor and turning in a double murderer who bragged of his deed to me, the RCMP used that good deed against me to dissuade me from holding another off duty cop, who ran into the night to after her Rottweiler mauled my dog and myself leaving me calling for help, to account
Posts
