The Quick Fix for Civil Rights

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


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


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


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.


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.


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."


7/22

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.


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;


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.

Documents

The Quick Fix for Civil Rights