You claim the charges against these two fine outstanding citizens range from 'trespassing,' to 'mischief,' 'resisting arrest,' 'assault,' and 'vandalism.'

Please tell us if these are the exact charges. Please tell us in detail what they are alleged to have done to be charged with each count.

So far we know they were in a public place doing nothing wrong. No drugs or booze was involved. They were simply asked to leave and rightly refused the offer. If this is all true than consider this.

Tresspassing fall under section IV of the criminal code.

The Grotto is privately owned and their website states;

"The site is open day and night, year round and lit up daily. There is no admission charge to visit the site. Come as often as you wish and stay as long as you desire."

http://www.infocomcanada.com/thegrottosudbury

The criminal code defines day and night as;

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/266995.html#rid-266998

“day” means the period between six o’clock in the forenoon and nine o’clock in the afternoon of the same day;

“night” means the period between nine o’clock in the afternoon and six o’clock in the forenoon of the following day;

Section IV of the criminal code states;

“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

Therefore it is a public place with 24 / 7 access; so this tresspassing charge against these two fine outstanding citizens is bogus.

Tresspaasing by night is defines in section 177 of the crinimal code.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267294.html

177. Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, loiters or prowls at night on the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

You cannot be loitering at a religious site that you were invited to. There is also no dwelling-house situated on that property. Case dismissed.

According to the Groto's webiste the Grotto is a reglious place of worship.

http://www.infocomcanada.com/thegrottosudbury

The Grotto of Lourdes Shrine and Stations of the Cross Sanctuary is a unique tourist attraction in downtown Sudbury. It has been a captivating, spectacular, intriguing, scenic marvel since 1907 when it was first established by Frederick Romanet de Caillaud of France. It has been a holy panoramic landmark, blessed by the Church, dedicated to Jesus and His Blessed Mother, Mary, attracting thousands of visitors for almost 100 years.

The Grotto of Lourdes Shrine, on the mountain, is accessed from Van Horne street. It has become a place of worship, prayer & reflection in the secluded tranquility of individuals, or for the many who come in groups to pray the rosary, chaplet of divine mercy and stations of the cross. Like many other world-famous shrines and sanctuaries, Sudbury's Grotto helps people experience a deep satisfaction and inner peace, inspiring so many to change their lives for the better after they unload their burdens in prayer. This heritage attraction is not only a purely religious one, but is also an alluring, artistic, environmental & economic amenity with numerous statues of striking bronze and marble, with meandering walkways and adjoining gardens everywhere.

Section 176. (2) of the criminal code states;

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267294.html

Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The word 'Everyone' includes police officers. The police officers involved have violated section 176 of the criminal code.

Therefore, as a citizen, the victim has the right to make a citizens arrest and to bring as many people with him or her to make the arrest. You have the right to use as much force as neccessary in order to make the arrest up to and including killing them while making the arrest, should they resist.

Section 25 of the criminal code states;

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

(2) Where a person is required or authorized by law to execute a process or to carry out a sentence, that person or any person who assists him is, if that person acts in good faith, justified in executing the process or in carrying out the sentence notwithstanding that the process or sentence is defective or that it was issued or imposed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.

When not protected

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

You are dealing with kidnappers here who have guns and who have already assaulted two people and fabricated charges. You are dealing with very dangerous people that should not be loose on our street, nevermind be police officers with guns.

You would be acting as a private person, under section 25. (1) (a) to make the arrest. Section 25. (2) allows you to bring all the help you need in making the arrest and to do what is required; i.e take criminals off the street. Section 25 (3) refers to the private person in 25. (1), and states you cannot kill them "unless" the person (you) believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm. Should these cops resist arrest there is a good chance they will get violent, since we know how violent they already are. These are dangerous people and excessive force up to and including death would be justified in taking them off the streets in a Just Society.

These fine outstanding citizens had every right to resist arrest because they were being unlawfully arrested. They were kidnapped and forcibly confined. They had every right to protect their person from the kidnappers by resisting. These fine outstanding citizens were also assaulted and the assault caused bodily harm.

The criminal code defines bodily harm.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/266995.html#rid-266998

“bodily harm” means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature;

Thus, you have the right to arrest the officers involved for aggravated assault under section 268. (1) of the criminal code.

Section 268. (1) states;

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267426.html

268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Excision
(3) For greater certainty, in this section, “wounds” or “maims” includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person, except where

(a) a surgical procedure is performed, by a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine, for the benefit of the physical health of the person or for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function; or

(b) the person is at least eighteen years of age and there is no resulting bodily harm.

Consent
(4) For the purposes of this section and section 265, no consent to the excision, infibulation or mutilation, in whole or in part, of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person is valid, except in the cases described in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b).

Section 246 states;

246. Every one who, with intent to enable or assist himself or another person to commit an indictable offence,

(a) attempts, by any means, to choke, suffocate or strangle another person, or by any means calculated to choke, suffocate or strangle, attempts to render another person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance, or

(b) administers or causes to be administered to any person, or attempts to administer to any person, or causes or attempts to cause any person to take a stupefying or overpowering drug, matter or thing,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

This young man had wounds to his head,thus clearly these officers were trying to attempt to render another person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance.

Section 279 of the criminal code defines kidnapping and forcible confinement.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267462.html

279. (1) Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent

(a) to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;

(b) to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or

(c) to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will.

Punishment
(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Forcible confinement
(2) Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Non-resistance
(3) In proceedings under this section, the fact that the person in relation to whom the offence is alleged to have been committed did not resist is not a defence unless the accused proves that the failure to resist was not caused by threats, duress, force or exhibition of force.

Section 19 of the crinimal code CLEARLY articulates that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Section 19 states;

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267001.html#rid-267002

19. Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence.

It's not citizens fault that these loose dangerous cannons were employed and have no clue what the the visiting hours to the Grotto are. They don't even know its a site of worship and they cannot remove anyone at anytime.

So, we have kidnappers running around in our city dressed as police officers, carrying guns, fabricating evidence, and misleading justice, and the Chief of police has done nothing about it.

Interesting, isn't it?

This fine young man is well known in this city for the good work he does. He has never been charged before as far as I am aware. Filing criminal charges when criminal acts happen is not an option. They must be filed, even if it's a police officer who is the criminal.

By refusing to file the charges the Chief of police has breached section 126. (1) of the criminal code.

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.

The mayor is a peace officer by virtue of office under the criminal code. Send him a letter requesting he lay charges against the cops involved. If he fails to do so sue him, too.

Please post the names of the officers involved.