It's David Millar Time...

Charter and Law Argument, David W. Millar

1) My illegal arrest & detention by the RCM Police 05/01/30 was denial of Guaranteed Right under, Charter s.7, 8, 9, 10c, 11d & e, 12, 15, 24.1, 28.

A) The 911 police phone service failed to identify itself as "RCMP" when specifically asked what ‘kind’ of police the operator represented. The question is legitimate. The land in which I dwell, and upon which the Fitness World facility resides, is part of the Capilano Band Indian Reserve (IR5), which was the first survey on the North Shore of the Burrard Inlet in 1862 by a British naval officer. The land is part of West Vancouver since that jurisdiction’s creation, which has its own police force, as does the reserve in its Native Police As it is nominally North Vancouver as far as the Post office is concerned, and the street designation, it is subject to RCMP as well. The 911 operator betrayed a biased attitude and an astonishing credulity towards the 911 caller, and a perverse refusal to comprehend that the incongruities of the caller lent credibility to myself as the falsely accused. After hearing the truthful account of all that had transpired from myself, the 911 operator gave me reason to doubt the authenticity of the so-called police, to believe that I was unlawfully condemned by the police, and that further statements by me were pointless.

B) The attending officer was not in proper uniform. I believe that, not to specifically say that I recall the absence of a hat per se, but because I could not easily identify the officer. I presume the hat would have provided easy identity were it there, but I was instead forced to try to peer around her shoulder to see the shoulder badge, which perhaps said Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I couldn’t read that specifically, but I was at least somewhat reassured to see a distinctive shoulder badge The female officer scoffed at my presumption the 911 phone operator was her ‘boss’, which left me further doubtful as to the authenticity of my situation at law.

C) The arresting officer did not do a sufficient investigation to warrant an arrest. She had me alone before a large party of females who had already displayed a hostile attitude towards me. The officer bid me make statement of information that I had reason to believe was contrary to my security and safety, as the aggressive female employee had threatened me maliciously with the charge of Assault, which so far appeared to be working, and had threatened to ‘follow me home’,.

D) Within the hearing of that same group, the officer asked me for a statement of events, which I declined to do in the hearing of the complainants except to say I had assaulted no one and there was no proof of harm. I had even less reason to speak in front of false complainant because of prior experience in the very incident mentioned in the police background report on this very file #, which cited a report of domestic violence in year 2000. The fact of that case was that my wife was led up behind me while I explained to the officer attending her 911 call that I wasn’t violent, angry or even excited, but was merely in great concern and worry for her post partum psychological integrity. I reported to that officer in what I presumed was confidence that my wife had suffered four transient psychotic incidents since our son’s recent birth; that I had been deeply concerned and worried for her psychiatric health. That fact was used perversely against me by my wife at subsequent hearings in that proceeding, making me reluctant to repeat that same mistake in this.

E) Reasonable and probable grounds did not exist for my arrest. The officers were now fully aware of the fact that the two females had, without authority, entered the men’s change room, and further, that they had attempted to take (steal) my property (gym bag backpack). The allegation of Assault where no proof of harm exists, my outright denial of the commission of a transparently specious crime, and that there is absolutely no mens rea on my part, makes the arrest unlawful. This is a violation of my Charter s. 7 right to ‘liberty and the security of (my) person", and my s.9 right to be protected from "unreasonable arrest and arbitrary detention".

F) Excessive force and too little competence was used in effecting the arrest. The reaction of the RCM Police to my conduct was far more violent than was necessary or reasonable, and in fact did me grave injury. I would be justified in resisting arrest, but that was not my intention. I gave Constable Shannon Kitchen my left arm when she demanded to handcuff it, but refused when she proposed to handcuff my arms behind my back, as I am arthritic and this would be extremely painful to be placed in a car in that position which would have occurred. When Constable Kitchen started repeatedly screaming "He’s resisting!", I merely assumed the boxer’s ‘cover up’ position, closing my eyes with my face tucked into my fists, and my forearms before me. Two adult RCMP officers then proceeded to attack the manacled and defenseless me. Despite the fact that I am a skinny 160 lbs, and one of my arms was handcuffed, giving Constable Kitchen a painful lever on my left arm, they could not pull my arms apart to force them into the position most painful to me.

Their ineptitude continued when, hapless, I was dropped to the floor by the attacking RCMP, and stupidly on top of the very arms they had failed to part when they were standing up. They then proceeded with a dismayingly inept series of strategies which included trying to twist my head, twisting my right ear in particular (another practice indicative of delusional RCMP belief), and actually gouging my flesh which by later observed inky evidence proved to be writing pen. Four months later, I still bear the scar across the skin covering the veins and tendons of my right wrist from the wound inflicted by Constable Jonk

Still frustrated by their inability to do the simple task of separating my arms, It seemed to have dawned on one of the that they might have better success by turning me face up. Unfortunately, they were uncoordinated, so one held my body down while the other attempted to twist my legs around. This unexpected and patently stupid technique dislocated my vertebrae at L5, which caused me unspeakable pain.

My entire body then locked up rigid in a typical male gesture to prevent screaming, and it seemed that Constable Jonk then fell on the notion of pepper spraying me. Although it was intensely painful to have my face saturated at very close range by Constable Jonk (the juice was dripping off my face), it provided welcome relief from the pain of my dislocate vertebrae. It seemed like a bright and happy pain from my face compared to the overwhelming darkness of feeling literally cut in half, and about a minute later, by sheer force of will, I managed to relax my body entirely, as a learned technique of reducing chronic back pain. However, my legs were completely paralyzed for about an hour, and I still couldn’t walk properly for weeks after. But of course, the buffoonery of these arresting RCMP officers raged on, for they were choking on the pepper spray they had just inflicted on me, and Constable Jonk broke his glasses. In their report, they blamed this on my ‘resisting arrest’, despite the fact that I hadn’t moved since they dropped me face down on the floor.

G) I made no real resistance to my arrest in this case, but even if I had:

H) illegal search of my gym bag to get my gym card and ID there from, which was presumably given to the staff to get my address and age particulars, regardless of the risk engendered thereby to my personal security.

2) The conduct of the Crown in proceeding with this case was ill advised. In the this instance: The law does nor bother with trifling things.

3) Secondly, the fact that the Crown nevertheless proceeded in this case appears driven by an attempt to endorse, and to practice, unconstitutional State actions. (against s. 7 security of the person / principles of fundamental justice; and s. 11(d) presumption of innocence. It is evident tat the Crown is a driving force, or the nexus, in this presumed manifestation of the so-called "Violence Against Women" policy, in this practice of implementing the Assault policy as conducted by the RCM Police as in this instance. It is a policy which says, "Arrest the Man" an the mere allegation of a woman, and in tins instance it was evident that the two female gym employees pressing this charge against me knew all too well that they could do so with impunity, as has they have thus far succeeded.

4) This Violates s.15, Charter equality before and under the law, without discrimination based on sex; and likewise violates s.28 Charter equality of gender notwithstanding anything else in the Charter.

5) Such a policy of ‘arrest the man’ to heal ‘violence against women’ is guaranteed to produce abuse because it is the very meaning of ‘prejudicial’. The policy of imposing a restraining order on the person who is merely charged with the offense is also prejudicial. Indeed, how could a penalty be imposed upon one party in a dispute and not the other without that order being anything other than prejudicial? Consider further, that such a charged person is likely to have been taken unawares and unprepared for a legal battle, or for dealing with imprisonment. Putting all citizens, but in practice MALE citizens, in this position as a matter of policy is unconscionable actions by the State against the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens by s.l1, and a. 15 & 28. For the crown to make that a precondition of’ release of the charged citizen from continued and indefinite imprisonment is essentially blackmailing the charged person to make concessions of guilt and pledges of ‘good’ behavior, or be haplessly imprisoned. This is the action of a Star Chanter Court, and an affront to Rights.

6) A) The presumption of innocence is lost by this VAW policy the right to a fair and impartial hearing is also lost, because the judges must also be effectively working as fist in glove with the Crown to make this a practicable working policy. Security of the Person, barter Rights of Equality at Law, and the Principles of Fundamental Justice must necessarily be trespassed by this action. To subject a person to immediate arrest and imprisonment on such scanty evidence other than the mere allegation could be nothing other than a destruction of personal security, since it purports the Police State can arbitrarily haul a citizen off to jail on a moment’s notice.

B) Over breadth analysis considers the means chosen by the State in relation to its purpose. The court must consider whether the means used by the State are necessary to achieve the objective. The principles of fundamental justice are violated where the state, pursuing a legitimate objective uses means that are broader than necessary to achieve that objective The effect of over breadth is that in some applications, the law is arbitrary and disproportionate, as in this instance.

7) Reference re Section 94 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1985.48 C.R. (3d) 289, 23 CCC (289 SCC)

"A law that has the potential to convict a person who has really not done anything ‘wrong offends the principles of fundamental justice and, if imprisonment is available as a penalty, let alone mandatory, such a law then violates a persons right to liberty under s.7"

8) Terms of release "unreasonable bail" contrary to s. 11(e):

R. v. Pearson (1992), 17C.R. (4th) 1, 77 C.C.C. (3d)124 (SCC)

"S. 11(e) guarantees to any person charged with an offense the right ‘not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause’, Bail refers to all terms of judicial interim release. Reasonable bail refers to the terms of the bail and requires that the quantum of bail and the restrictions imposed on D’s liberty whilst on bail be reasonable. ‘just cause’ refers to the right to obtain bail and imposes constitutional standards on the grounds under which bail is granted or refused’

This Defendant obviously believes the terms of his release so unconscionable he’d rather spend his time in prison then consent to an inequitable restraining order. It is restraining ONLY on him, and he clearly believes it is the other party that is the only one lacking restraint. The terms of the Restraining Order are the very meaning of prejudicial. It is a GUILTY verdict determined NOT by the judge after hearing all the evidence, but by the RCM Police officers vastly exceeding their own jurisdiction, a Crown in dereliction of its DUTY to the Constitution of Canada, and a court that. is necessarily FAR from impartial to accede to this policy of the State rather than to defend the Chatter Rights and Freedoms of "Everyone", "Every person", or "Every citizen"’ as the case maybe, as is the DUTY of the Court in the preliminary hearing as well as at fiat It is also a violation of audi alteram partem, and otherwise the principles of fundamental justice, again contrary to Charter s. 7.

A)) ‘Reasonable grounds’ (s. 495 CCC) Martin’s Criminal Code 2005 ccc/902~