Tag Archives: Bruce Montague
June 19, 2014

Phil Hewkin’s Artwork Nails It to Loony Left

Phil-Hewkin-The-Inconsistencies-of-the-Left-PFTR
Dennis Florian liked this post

Phil Hewkin is an artist and a gun owner.  He believes, as I do, that owning private property should not land you in prison, nor should it cost you your life savings or your family home.  All three of those things happened to Ontario gunsmith Bruce Montague.  Well, to be precise, the last of the three, the theft of the Montague family home using Ontario’s Proceeds of Crime Act, is not yet completed.

Now that the federal government is done stripping Bruce Montague and his wife of their life savings in the form of a firearm and ammunition collection, the Ontario government will now proceed with their absurd claim that the Montague family somehow benefited financially from Bruce Montague’s act of civil disobedience.

We in the west will tolerate any amount of insanity from radical muslims, yet when a single Canadian gun owner uses civil disobedience to protest an atrocious law he is branded a terrorist, tossed in prison and stripped of his worldly possessions.

Does that sound reasonable and rational?

Only if you’re a loony lefty who despises the Rights and Freedoms we are born with…

Inconsistencies-Of-The-Left

Image Courtesy of Phil Hewkin. Used with permission.

 

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 18, 2014

Donna Montague Speaks Out on Criminal Case Against Her Husband

Bruce-Montague-Court-Ruling
Robert Bailey liked this post

Bruce-Montague-Court-Ruling

My name is Donna Montague. I am married to former Ontario gunsmith Bruce Montague.

I have had Enough!

I am thoroughly disgusted!

It is bad enough that the news media reports inflammatory positions  about Bruce without verifying their data ….. but the “JUDICIARY” is  doing it too.

Now that the trial is over I can speak.

The search of our home:

  • First off, there was no search warrant for the September 11, 2004 raid  on my home. To this day I have not seen a search warrant for this raid.
  • The dynamite we had in the freezer was legal and all charges related  to it were dropped. The police reported the dynamite to prejudice the  public.
  • There were NO sawed off shotguns.
  • Next, 20,000 rounds is not a lot. Police officers testified that they  and target shooters shoot 5,000-10,000 rounds a year. One order from a  local police department is for 11,000 rounds for one event. A retailer  has to supply to their customers.
  • Next, the full auto firearms: Most don’t realize that they are legal  in Canada. Bruce’s license for these was burned in protest.
  • Serial Numbers: Bruce did remove serial numbers and was harshly  sentenced for it. Bruce served his sentence.

Bruce’s character:

The charge against Bruce of being a danger to society was found NOT  GUILTY by the jury.

Character witnesses, a crown contracted background check, and even OPP  officers who knew him, when cross-examined testified and stated that  Bruce is an upstanding citizen. Bruce worked on a lot of OPP and local  police firearms and serviced police departments as far away as New  Jersey. At the time of the raid he had a handgun form a Kenora Crown  Attorney and an OPP rifle. Yet Bruce is continually slandered.

I, his wife would not remain by his side for over 35 years, and  through all this, if Bruce was of the character the judiciary is  insinuating. Bruce is a help-your-neighbour kind of guy. I can’t  imagine anyone who knows him saying otherwise.

You know we ran a gunsmithing shop and retailed firearms. We didn’t  have as many firearms as most firearms stores do. Now the government  wish to take what was our small store’s inventory It was not an  arsenal! – it is our life’s savings!

Now, after the criminal portion of our case is over, the Crown wants  to seize our home – paid for with inherited money from my father and  built by our family. This is extreme, overboard and unreasonable!

This game of media defamation is disgusting. You jury members and  those who attended the trial, you know the whole story. You can share  what you learned in the trial. This is spinning out of control – It is  like politicians with their smear campaigns at election time.

Please! Stand Up! Speak! Don’t be silent and let this atrocity continue.

Donna Montague

 

P.S. I have had a lot of response to my letter in the newspaper. People are  asking me how they can help with letter writing. We would appreciate your letters to be cc’d to:

Court of Appeal for Ontario
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N5

The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay  (no postage necessary)
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8

Canadian Constitutional Foundation
1830 – 52 Street SE
Suite 240
Calgary, Alberta T2B 1N1

Some points to consider in these letters may be:

  • Taking someone’s life savings for a victimless paper crime when a  1 ½ year prison sentence already seams excessive, is a cruel and  excessively brutal punishment.
  • In light of the lenient sentences that real criminals get, the  courts appear to have an obvious bias against firearms owners.
  • Bruce Montague was a protester!  He was a conscientious objector to Canada firearms legislation. (see an excellent explanation of what this means at PostcardsFromTheRight.com)  He didn’t threaten or hurt anyone.  This  isn’t how we treat protesters!
  • The civil forfeiture legislation was presented as stopping drug  lords from getting rich. The we made no profit from our protest and our house is not an instrument or proceed of crime.  Bruce made nothing, but the government stands to make hundreds of thousands of  dollars.

The Canadian Constitutional Foundation is representing us. You can support their efforts by donating through the Canadian Constitution Foundation website http://theccf.ca/donate/

Thanks,

Donna Montague

http://theccf.ca/articles/excessively-punitive-ruling-make-canadians-nervous/

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 5, 2014

Bruce Montague’s Response to Forfeiture Order

Bruce-Montague-Statement-on-Court-of-Appeal-Forfeiture-Order-PFTR
Mike Ackermann liked this post

By now you must all be aware of the ruling we received from the appeal court of Ontario a couple of days ago. I am not really surprised that we lost but I am surprised that they decided to increase my punishment by also stealing my ammunition.

As bad as this ruling is, our lawyers at the CCF (Canadian Constitution Foundation) found some encouraging aspects to it. There are a couple of legal principles we put forward and the court affirmed them. This not only should help if we appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but it will also help others that get caught up in the snare of laws designed to persecute firearms owners. This is the first defeat we’ve taken that has some tangible pluses that will help gun owners in general.

My short explanation of one small legal victory is that the confiscation of my firearms and ammunition was indeed a punishment. Up until now it has never been considered a punishment, although to most people it seems obvious that losing your valuable property is indeed very punishing. This precedent should be helpful for others who are facing sentencing because now the value of the property should now be considered as part of the sentence. This may be a small plus, but you take what you can get.

Also on our side was a very strong bias shown by the court against firearms owners. This has been spotted in past rulings as many of you have commented on. Up until now we didn’t have any idea of how to address this. Things will change in future court hearings as a result. – – “Live and learn.”

I am quite surprised at how much media attention this ruling has gotten. Whatever the reason, I’m glad that this story is getting out. More people need to be aware of how easily the government and court system can take away your rights and your property. I’m hopeful that by the time we are in court fighting for our house, even non-gun owners will wake up to this travesty of justice.

The way in which the law is written in regards to taking our house (civil forfeiture laws), I don’t see any legal argument to stop them from taking it. We will be at the mercy of the courts, and so far I haven’t seen any mercy from them. The only chance I see us having is if the common people of this country speak up and say enough is enough!

I wish I had more promising news than this to report. I am reminded of what our past lawyer Doug Christie told me before he died. He told me that even if we don’t win in the courts we are still doing a positive thing for firearms owners and even the general population by standing up and fighting as long as possible. The people need to see these important issues argued because regardless of the courts ruling, each individual will have his own perception of whether justice was served. Sometimes losing in court will give you the best outcome in the long run. (It’s kind of like the Martyr effect.)

If you think this fight is worth fighting I would encourage you to visit the CCF website (http://www.theccf.ca) and make a donation. Now that the CCF has offered to represent us we now defer all donations to them. They are sincere and dedicated to doing a great job defending all our rights. Please let your non-gun owning friends see what can happen when you fall out of favour with our justice system.

Yours in Liberty,

Bruce Montague

P.S. I was in a discussion with my son who is a Lutheran pastor and this famous quote came up. It seemed quite applicable in this case because most people, if they are not gun owners don’t realize the threat this law is for everyone.

“In Germany they first came for the communists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist.
They came for the Jews
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade Unionists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

– -Pastor Martin Niemoller (Lutheran Pastor)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 4, 2014

Gunsmith Bruce Montague, Dr. Henry Morgentaler and Abortion Law

Bruce-Montague-Court-Ruling
Keltie Zubko, Mike Ackermann liked this post

That may seem an odd title but it will make sense shortly.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in R. v. Montague, 2014 ONCA 439, in which the government’s desire to seize Bruce Montague’s complete firearms and ammunition collection came to its unjust conclusion.

Ontario’s Court of Appeal heard arguments for and against the forfeiture of over $100,000 of firearms and ammunition on November 15, 2013. At that time they reserved judgment to give justices Feldman, Gillese and Tulloch time to rationalize the State’s cash grab.

Justice Feldman, writing the appeal court’s unanimous decision, took 32 pages to explain seizing Montague’s entire firearm collection and ammunition was not only constitutional, it was also rational and proportional to the “crime” Bruce and Donna Montague committed.

For those unfamiliar with this case, Bruce Montague traveled across Canada for 18 months seeking arrest for violating Canada’s Firearms Act. Being a man of principle he believed, as I do, that Canada’s Firearms Act violates the rights of those mere citizens who dare own firearms.

Montague believed a constitutional challenge of the Firearms Act would result in the court declaring it unconstitutional, forcing the government to write a more sensible and rational law, one that does not violate our constitutional rights.

So why did Bruce Montague allow both his business firearms license for his gunsmithing business and his personal firearms license expire?

To answer question that I need to step away from Bruce Montague’s case and go to Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the abortion issue and the legal term “standing”.

Prior to this ruling, section 251.9 of the Criminal Code,allowed for abortions to be performed at only accredited hospitals with the proper certification of approval from the hospital’s Therapeutic Abortion Committee.

Three doctors, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Dr. Leslie Frank Smoling and Dr. Robert Scott, set up an abortion clinic in Toronto for the purpose of performing abortions on women who had not received certification from the Therapeutic Abortion Committee, as required under subsection 287(4) of the Criminal Code. In doing so they were attempting to bring public attention to their cause, claiming that a woman should have complete control over the decision on whether to have an abortion.

Abortion was illegal when Morgentaler first opened his Toronto abortion clinic, except in very specific cases and with very specific permissions required. Morgentaler disliked that, and wanted to challenge the constitutionality of Canada’s abortion statute but an individual cannot challenge a law, any law, unless they have what in legal terms is called “standing”.

This means unless the law will adversely affect you personally you have no right, or “standing”, to challenge the legislation. In other words, unless you are charged with breaking the law you have no standing to challenge the law in court.

So Henry Morgentaler broke the law. Repeatedly and across the country. He opened an abortion clinic, performed illegal abortions until police arrested him and charged him with a crime. He then posted bail and repeated the process in another process until his case eventually landed before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion law, leaving Canada with no law on abortion at all to this day.

Henry Morgentaler is hailed a hero for his fight for “abortion rights”. He was awarded the Order of Canada “for his commitment to increased health care options for women, his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy and his leadership in humanist and civil liberties organizations.

In other words, for daring to violate Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada in order to make his point in court.

Without violating that law Henry Morgentaler did not have “standing” to challenge its constitutionality, which brings me back to Bruce Montague.

The issue the courts consistently refused to acknowledge is Bruce Montague specifically and deliberately broke the law in order to challenge the constitutionality of Canada’s Firearms Act, just as Henry Morgentaler did with Canada’s abortion law.

At every level of our justice system, from the Ontario Provincial Police (who used Bruce Montague’s gunsmithing services themselves) and Crown prosecutors to the trial judge, superior court judges and Court of Appeal judges, every single one attempted to paint Bruce Montague as a danger to society; a threat to the nation and a potential terrorist.

Not a single person in the entire justice system ever acknowledged Bruce Montague’s very public protests across the nation or his repeated and public statements against the Firearms Act.

Montague_PlacardThey simply branded him as a terrorist, a threat to public safety, and mainstream media outlets did what they do best; they parroted the party line on Bruce Montague even while running photographs of his public protests alongside their “articles”.

For example, the Court of Appeal in 2010 made this ludicrous statement, as though Bruce Montague actually intended to violently overthrow the government.

In September 2004, acting on the authority of two search warrants, the police seized more than 200 firearms and related devices, together with in excess of 20,000 rounds of ammunition and boxes of military­ related books and associated paraphernalia from the Montagues’ home. Many of these weapons were discovered in a hidden storage room in the basement of the house. It is fair to say that the quantity and nature of the seized arsenal of weapons and associated items may have been sufficient for a small-scale insurrection.

No, it is not.

Bruce Montague’s sole desire, as he stated repeatedly and publicly across the nation, was to challenge the constitutionality of a law he felt violated his Charter Rights and Freedoms. He was not preparing to mount a “small-scale insurrection“.

At no point would any level of our justice system acknowledge, just as the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to acknowledge in Monday’s ruling, that Bruce Montague could not challenge the constitutionality of a law without “standing”; without breaking the very law he disagreed with and be charged with a crime.

Henry Morgentaler did so and we rewarded him with the Order of Canada, citing “his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy”.

Bruce Montague’s “determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy” earned him 18 months in prison.

He also forfeits his life savings in firearms and ammunition (valued at over $100,000) and that still isn’t enough punishment as far as the government is concerned.

The Government of Ontario, under Ontario’s civil forfeiture law, will now steal the Montague’s family home and acreage valued at roughly $250,000.

By the time our government is done with Bruce and Donna Montague they will be penniless, homeless and jobless, and Canadian judges dare call this “justice“?

Only to fascist thugs who refuse to face the most fundamental fact of this entire case: Bruce Montague used civil disobedience in order to challenge the constitutionality of a bad law.

Anyone who believes Bruce Montague deserved to spend 18 months in prison, forfeit his entire life savings and now forfeit his home and acreage on top of it all clearly checked their humanity at the door.

Yes, I mean you, James McKeachie.

It is in no way “proportional” to the victimless paper crime committed by Bruce Montague. He refused to renew his firearms license. He refused to obtain registration certificates for his firearms. For this he will lose everything he worked his entire life for, including the beautiful log home he literally built with his own two hands.

[50] Some Canadian case-law has held that forfeiture will not be cruel and unusual punishment for someone who deliberately chooses to commit an offence that puts the particular property at risk, regardless of the value of the forfeited property in comparison to the gravity of the offence: see Turner v. Manitoba, 2001 MBCA 207, 160 Man. R. (2d) 256; R. v. Spence, 2004 NLSCTD 113, 238 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 259.

[51] In this case, it is most unfortunate for the appellants that they chose to challenge the firearms licensing laws by putting all their firearms at risk. However, in my view, the fact that it was their deliberate action that put so much property at risk is not the full reason why its forfeiture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. It is because the forfeiture consequences cannot be viewed as grossly disproportionate or even disproportionate at all.

As I said earlier, there is no way to challenge the constitutionality of a law in Canada without breaking that law so you have “standing”.

That is not a choice to put your entire life savings, home and property “at risk”. It’s a decision to challenge an unjust law that unfairly penalizes Canada’s most law-abiding citizens: legal gun owners.

Seriously… who else must pass repeated police background checks and notify the government within 30 days of moving residences or face 2 years in prison?

Certainly not rapists and child molesters.

Forcing them to register is a violation of their civil rights.

Gun owners however, as evidenced by Bruce Montague’s case, have no civil rights. Rendering him penniless and homeless is a rational and proportional punishment for the crime of refusing to obtain a firearms license.

[59]Considering all the factors as they apply to the facts in this case, it cannot be said that the cumulative forfeiture of these weapons would outrage community standards of decency so as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

So says the Ontario Court of Appeals, who clearly don’t listen to the Montague’s community members or anyone in Canada’s vast firearms community. Every one of us are outraged at this cruel and unusual punishment that rendered the Bruce and Donna Montague penniless and will soon render them homeless as well.

But once again I forget; we’re gun owners. We are not part of the “community standards of decency“.

We’re lower than rapists and child molesters.

 

 

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 2, 2012

The ongoing abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws

Civil Forfeiture in America

When policing devolves from solving crimes to seeing how much private property police can seize from citizens there is something very wrong with the focus of our nation, yet under civil forfeiture laws this is precisely what’s happening across Canada and the United States.

Like most laws, civil asset forfeiture has, at its heart, good intentions.  As the saying goes, however, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Civil asset forfeiture is nothing more than a paving machine on the road to Hell.

The original idea behind the concept was to take the profit out of crime by seizing the assets of criminals.  Unfortunately for citizens, police departments quickly realized there was a loophole in civil forfeiture laws that they could use to profit from, and profit they have.

The way civil asset forfeiture laws are written in most jurisdictions the agency that seizes the assets gets to keep all or most of what they seize.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this system is ripe for abuse.

The only way to get assets returned once they have been seized is to go to court and prove you obtained them legally.  In other words, you must prove you did not commit a crime.

As you can imagine, proving that you did NOT do something is not exactly simple.

The Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org) is an American organization dedicated to ridding the United States of the scourge of civil asset forfeiture.  They continually highlight the most heinous abuses of civil asset forfeiture laws across America and have written a report titled “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture.”  This report can be downloaded for free from The Institute for Justice website.

They have also created videos that highlight what’s in their report, one of which is below.   I have also included a link to a news video that shows how police in Tennessee police have blatantly abused civil forfeiture laws in order to pad their budgets.

The Tennessee case is one of the most disgusting abuses of these laws, but Tennessee is hardly alone in this.  Practically every police department in Canada and the United States use these laws to benefit themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens.

For example, in Ontario civil asset forfeiture is being used to take away the home of Bruce and Donna Montague.

Why?

To send a message to Canadian gun owners.  That message?

Don’t challenge Canada’s gun laws or we will crush you too.

Bruce Montague’s “crime” was to challenge the constitutionality of Canada’s Firearms Act.  What most people don’t comprehend is that in Canada, unlike in America, you cannot challenge the constitutionality of a law unless you have “standing.”

What this means is that unless you are directly affected by the law you cannot challenge it.

(more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 5, 2012

Geert Wilders and Bruce Montague: Sometimes the Cost Paid for our Rights and Freedoms is too high

Montague_Placard

As you no doubt recall, Katey Montague decided to take a step back from political activism because she felt the cost was simply too high for her to continue.

After watching her father endure 7 years of trials that ended in a prison sentence and the impending seizure of the Montague family home by the Ontario government who can blame her for not wanting the same fate for herself?

Bruce Montague stood on principle against an atrocious law that turns law-abiding firearm owners into criminals.  He paid an extremely high price for that stand, and is still paying that price as the Ontario government seeks to extort $50,000 from him in exchange for “allowing” him to keep the home he built with his own bare hands.

I’ll be writing more about this disgusting abuse of government power in the weeks ahead, but suffice it to say that the Montague family will never agree to pay off government extortionists.

The reason I bring up the Montague family’s ongoing persecution and Katey’s decision to step back from exercising her Right to Freedom of Speech is highlighted by the experience of Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

As you may recall, Wilders is an outspoken critic of radical Islam and the failed multiculturalism experiment that has left his nation torn in two.

Wilders has just published his autobiography in which he highlights the incredible cost he and his family has paid because of his very public stand against radical Islam.

Because Geert Wilders dared exercised his Right to Freedom of Speech he must now live under 24-hour police protection.

Why?

Because proponents of Islam, the so-called “Religion of Peace”, have repeatedly threatened his life and have attempted to kill him at least once that we know of.

“I live in a government safe house, heavily protected and bulletproof. Since November 2004, when a Muslim murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for the crime of offending Islam, I have been surrounded by police guards and stripped of nearly all personal privacy. I am driven every day from the safe house to my office in the Dutch Parliament building in armoured police cars with sirens and flashing blue lights. I wear a bulletproof jacket when I speak in public.”

Freedom and Liberty never come cheap, yet so few pay the actual cost of defending them.

When courageous men like Geert Wilders and Bruce Montague give up everything to defend our Rights and Freedoms, the very least we can do is say “Thank You.”

Yours in Liberty,

Christopher di Armani

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 23, 2011

Maurice Corriveau: Gun Owner Licensing and Firearm Registration System a proven failure. Again.

GunFreeZone

A case coming out of Noelville, Ontario, is once again proving the utter uselessness of Canada’s entire “gun control” system.

On March 18, 2011 Maurice Corriveau was arrested and charged with three counts of unauthorized possession of a firearm after police searched his home.  By his own admittance he had tried to apply for a firearms license but when his application was returned to him for more information he just let it drop.

That in and of itself is no big deal, and  I’m sure this happens all the time.  People, frustrated with the bureaucratic red tape involved with legally owning firearms in Canada, simply give up on the system.

Unfortunately for the likes of Windy Wendy Cukier and Lying Heidi Rathjen, Maurice Corriveau unintentionally went on to become the poster-boy for everything that is useless about Canada’s firearms laws.

You see, despite the news reports spouting off to the contrary, everything Maurice Corriveau did only proves that the system does not work, and that mere possession of a firearm does not make one a danger to society.

For example, the Sudbury Star article starts off like this:

A Noelville man learned a $6,000 lesson about the importance of being a properly licenced owner of firearms.

That’s a nice lead-in line, but it leaves out the most important aspects of this case, namely that a man without a firearms license was able to purchase a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, all without any government-mandated paperwork.

(more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

July 2, 2011

Toronto cops beat the crap out of a guy, lie in court and get sentenced to house arrest?

Toronto Police Services constables Edward Ing and John Cru

Beat the crap out of a guy, lie about your actions in court, and because you’re a cop, you get nothing but house arrest?

[Sarcasm Mode ON]
Thank God there’s no double-standard in sentencing police versus us ordinary folks!

Toronto Police Service constable Edward Ing and Toronto Police Service constable John Cruz beat the crap out of Richard Moore because he heckled them one night.

Apparently these two convicted thugs took offense at being called “the rich man’s army“, and they took their hurt feelings out on Moore’s face and body and then lied about it, saying he was drunk.

Richard Moore’s physical damage at the hands of these two thugs (with badges and guns) included fractured ribs, a broken finger, dislocated shoulder, a gash to his scalp and abrasions to his abdomen, hip and shoulder.

That’s a pretty big list of injuries, all for calling someone “rich man’s army“.  Can you  imagine what would have happened to Mr. Moore if he’d actually said something offensive to these two?  Like “pig“, perhaps?  How about “goons with guns“?

(more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 18, 2011

Police are treated differently than the rest of us when they break the law

To those who say the law is applied equally to citizens and police, I’ve only got one word:

Bullshit.

I’ll cite the case of Chilliwack RCMP constable Matt Wright this time to make my point.

RCMP Constable Wright, according to the Ottawa Citizen article on his case, is a former military man.   Generally speaking, military men comprehend honour, integrity and right from wrong.  Clearly Constable Wright missed out on those character traits.

He was found to have breached the RCMP Code of Conduct twice… here’s the lowdown on the first case, which is minor in comparison to the one I’ll address in a moment.

Const. Matt Wright’s police work was anything but textbook the day he made an arrest in a street-level drugs and money bust.

The RCMP constable, a former military man, never fully documented the bag of pills and wad of cash he seized.

Then two months later, after working late at the Chilliwack, B.C. detachment, Wright, left with a box containing files, his notebooks, RCMP identification card, and the seized money and drugs.

He loaded the box into his personal vehicle and later that same night reported it had been stolen from his car. Everything was recovered, except the drugs and money. It is impossible to know what kind or the exact amount of drugs because they were never fully documented, nor was the cash. Wright says it was a bag of about 50 blue pills and a “thin wad” of cash, that contained at least one $20 note on the outside.

In an internal disciplinary ruling in Ottawa dated March 28, Wright, who admitted the allegations, was docked two days pay for neglect of duty.

(more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?


Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player