Canadian Police Officer Accused of Series of Assaults On Citizens

In Canada, Const. Geoff Mantler has racked up quite a record of assaulting citizens. The officer now stands accused of three separate assaults on citizens, including one assault caught on camera. The government, however, has decided not to press charges in the third case.

In January, Mantler was caught on camera kicking a man in the face during an arrest. This latest alleged assault occurred on Aug. 10, 2010 when Jeremy Packer, 30, said he was ordered at gunpoint to get out of his car after being pulled over by Mantler and another officer. He said that his seatbelt became stuck and he was trying to unbuckle it when punched repeatedly in the face. The officers suspected him of stealing a boat that he was towing when he was actually repossessing the boat.

What is curious is that the prosecutor decided not to charge Mantler in the Packer matter because, according to one article, it was not convinced that the use of force was excessive because Packer failed to notify the police of the repossession. Yet, that is the basis of the suspicion for the stop. It does not excuse the degree of force used by the officer. Packer was not only innocent but unarmed. The government, however, insisted “Const. Mantler’s recollection is that he struck the complainant several times, possibly two or three times, on the back right side of the head because the complainant was resisting [arrest] but did not strike him again after he presented his hands.”

That is a pretty odd standard. You are allowed to beat a citizen for failure to show his hands?

Source: CBC

69 thoughts on “Canadian Police Officer Accused of Series of Assaults On Citizens”

  1. kay,

    Civil contempt applies to everyone and anyone attached to a case, from bailiffs to litigants to lawyers to mere observers in the courtroom to the person whose only contact is photocopying records. Sanctions are at the discretion of the judge as a matter of permissible Federal common law. You read § 401 incorrectly just as you read case law incorrectly. Just because you don’t think you’re guilty doesn’t mean you are not guilty.

    This line here from In re Troutt: “that failure to act would leave the contempt unpunished”?

    Covers what the judge did in holding you in contempt.

    You lost your initial case. As it was a loss in Federal court, instead of doing the proper thing (or maybe you did and were turned down) of filing for certiorari with SCOTUS? You refiled your dismissed case in other jurisdictions and started forum shopping looking to get a favorable judgement. You were subsequently held in contempt until you withdrew the other litigation. You were sanctioned for violating court orders to do so. Not only is forbidding you to litigate the matter before the bar an appropriate sanction in your case, its the only sanction that wouldn’t have failed to punish your contempt.

    You’d have known that was the likely outcome of your forum shopping in an attempt to circumvent a circuit court’s ruling if you knew squat about practicing law. But you don’t. And this is borne out in the results of your efforts at pro se litigation. If a real attorney had done what you did? They wouldn’t have just gotten held in contempt. They’d have likely been disbarred.

    This is one of the few times I ever disagree with Mike S. about anything.

    Placating you with (false) sympathy will not make you go away or shut your pie hole about your manifestly personal problem and self-inflicted injury.

    Placating your delusion that your a legal expert only feeds it.

    You’re incompetent to represent yourself, kay, and your incompetent to make legal pronouncements of any sort as demonstrated by the repeated self-serving threadjacking legal gibberish you spew here. You do not know what you are talking about. The perpetual insistence that you do in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a sign of mental illness.

    Seek professional mental heath assistance.

  2. Kay, you were involved in a civil matter. True, child custody and the like are also civil matters, but my dear, YOU WERE IN A CIVIL MATTER IN FEDERAL COURT.

    Same difference and as my dear friend Seneca Doane pointed out in response to you four years ago, you were digging yourself a massive hole. That is the same thing BIL, AY and others have been trying to tell you here. They write under usernames, but that does not make them less credible. Kay, you are beyond help, but once again, may I respectfully suggest you get some mental health counseling from a competent psychologist and/or psychiatrist. This has gone on far enough. By your own statements, you have ruined your family finances and Heaven only knows what it has done to your interpersonal relationships. Get help. Please. And stop trying to lecture lawyers on what the law is. They do this stuff for a living and unlike you, went to law school.

    Back when Clarence Darrow was involved in a personal lawsuit, he hired an attorney. An acquaintance exclaimed, “Mr. Darrow, you are the greatest lawyer in the country! Why are you hiring a lawyer?”

    Darrow famously replied, “The lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.” Nuff said.

  3. The pseudo names made claims about civil contempt. Civil contempt is often used in family law related to failure to pay alimony. That did not apply to me. I was not in state court and am not divorced.

    I would not claim to know everything that has ever happened in every state court. I was in federal court.

    In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in YOUNG V. U.S. EX REL. VUITTON ET FILS, 481 U. S. 787 (1987)

    In an agreement settling a suit in which they had been named as defendants, two of the petitioners consented to the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting them from infringing the trademark of respondent leather goods manufacturer (hereinafter respondent). Subsequently, upon submission of an affidavit by respondent’s attorneys, the District Court found probable cause to believe that petitioners were engaged in conduct violative of the injunction. The court therefore granted the request of respondent’s attorneys for appointment as special counsel to represent the Government in the investigation and prosecution of a criminal contempt action against petitioners. Ultimately, a jury convicted petitioners of either criminal contempt or of aiding and abetting that contempt. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners’ contention that the appointment of respondent’s attorneys as special counsel violated their right to be prosecuted by an impartial prosecutor. The court stated, inter alia, that the judge’s supervision of a contempt prosecution is generally sufficient to prevent the danger that the special prosecutor will use the threat of prosecution as a bargaining chip in civil negotiations.


    The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure were amended in 1993. The Congressional notes, which I copied from the Cornell Legal Institute web site, say:

    “The revised rule is intended to more clearly set out the procedures for conducting a criminal contempt proceeding. The current rule implicitly recognizes that an attorney for the government may be involved in the prosecution of such cases. Revised Rule 42(a)(2) now explicitly addresses the appointment of a “prosecutor” and adopts language to reflect the holding in Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton , 481 U.S. 787 (1987). In that case the Supreme Court indicated that ordinarily the court should request that an attorney for the government prosecute the contempt; only if that request is denied, should the court appoint a private prosecutor. The rule envisions that a disinterested counsel should be appointed to prosecute the contempt.

    Rule 42(b) has been amended to make it clear that a court may summarily punish a person for committing contempt in the court’s presence”

    In re Troutt, 460 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 08/21/2006)
    The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wood, Circuit Judge.

    It is worth underscoring, in this regard, that criminal contempt is a crime, like all other crimes. See Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968). It is for that reason
    that the Supreme Court has held that a person accused of criminal contempt enjoys the normal range of procedural rights.

    Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure implements these principles. Rule 42(a), in effect, addresses indirect contempts, while Rule 42(b) recognizes the power of the court to take summary action against “a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies.”

    ….the judge should err on the side of providing the procedural safeguards assured by Rule 42(a). Only if he concluded that time was of the essence, or that failure to act would leave the contempt unpunished, or that some other equally powerful reason compelled the use of Rule 42(b) summary procedures, should he act summarily…

    We read § 401 to permit either a fine, or imprisonment, or both, as a penalty for criminal contempt, but not to permit any other penalty.

  4. Kay, you are an incredible piece of work. Back in August 2008, you posted some comments in Daily Kos that are very close in content and style to the comments you are still posting here. Four years and it is the same song and dance. Two attorneys responded to you: KentuckyKat and Seneca Doane, which are usernames, not real names. You go off on a tangent worrying about who these two guys are, rather than taking a second look and see they were making the same observations that BIL, AY and other attorneys are making here on this blog four years later. Instead of listening to some smart attorneys, you denigrate them with speculation, I might add, that you pull out of your ass. You worry they might be divorce lawyers, or, Heavens to Murgatroid, retired as if that might somehow invalidate their observations you were (and still are) digging yourself into even more legal trouble. Do we see a pattern here? To refresh your memory, lets revisit that little exchange on Daily Kos back on August 16, 2008.

  5. Why so hostile?

    I was not “verifed as a liar” whatever that is supposed to mean. And I was not discussing myself.

    I think that in some communities people see the police as “bad” and are sympathetic to the accused. In white middle class older communities, i.e. Republicans, there is an assumption that they will not be arrested and that anyone who is arrested “deserves” bad stuff.

    I read that most of the time the accused end up really beaten down and just crawl away even if they are innocent and that that is one reason that the accused are often mistreated and assumed guilty.

    Plus there are so many worthwhile causes that no one is out there trying to help the “accused” except as criminal defense lawyers.

    I have the general impression that criminal defense lawyers are not simultaneously asking people if they might want to sue the police even though the criminally accused would disproportionately have potential claims for mistreatment by police.

    For instance, the 14 year old girl discussed in another recent Turley blog who had the police officer stick his hands in her underwear was criminally accused.

    A jury awarded $6.1 million Friday to a woman who was forced to strip for a search in a McDonald’s back office after someone called the restaurant posing as a police officer reporting a theft.

    Another big issue for the accused is newspaper coverage that can really affect their employment, child custody etc. and which may be based on facts that don’t involve them actually committing any crimes at all.

    I heard that a lot of divorce lawyers try to fabricate reports of criminal behavior in order to get better alimony and property division settlements.

  6. Who has been accused…. You were verified as a liar. Accused means that a statement/charge has been levied against you and proof to follow…. Your own record created in my mind not a shadow of doubt….You even admitted to being a sockpuppeting and got blocked from WIKI….That took talent…it really did….

    So Kay, you were accused and it was proven that you are a liar…. so how is that being accused….it was not by default…

  7. Ok, Internet back…

    Kay, I am surprised you are still here…You are welcome to post…Just stay topically inclined…

  8. Try being the operative word.

    Fail being the inevitable result.

  9. Or I found it

    Seneca Doane – Seneca Doane is a radical lawyer who was one of Babbitt’s college classmates. He supports the labor rights movement and unsuccessfully runs against Prout in the Zenith mayoral election. He protests the standardized opinions and values of the middle class. When Babbitt engages in a brief rebellion against those values, he voices support for Doane’s political opinions, much to the horror and dismay of his friends.

    from Babbitt the Novel by Sinclair Lewis first published in 1922.

    So Senaca Doane is another anonymous blogger, right? Who may not be a lawyer at all or more likely is a retired lawyer who learned about contempt before 1993.

    That’s actually pretty funny. I think. Oh that’s right I don’t think. or is it OK if I try?

  10. I saw a law firm that claimed to specialize in cases of people who were wrongly convicted. It looked like they had many 4 or 5 cases per year, mostly people who had long long sentences.

    The website said that they take very few cases because the discovery costs were extremely high. Part of that might be because they look for ex prisoners who served long long sentences so the evidence is all many years old.

    It’s like the litigation is being managed for the needs of the law firm based on big cases with big billings as opposed to the needs of people who need redress for their grievances.

  11. Kay,

    It is unfortunate that you have yet to take anyones advice… I rarely give it….But today…I figured I’d give it to you and I did…

  12. Kay, I cannot imagine an attorney willing to take your case. You are virtually impossible to deal with. You do not listen, not even to your husband, according to news reports. You did not listen to Seneca Doane on Daily Kos four years ago and you ignore the legal heavy hitters on this blawg. There is no way in hell I would be willing to consult on your case for any amount of money. I value my sanity and my reputation, and those are not for sale.

    I will say this. If you manage to get a lawyer and he or she strangles you, I will take their defense case pro bono. I doubt that I need to explain my reasoning to the lawyers and non-lawyers on this blog.

  13. Then take it up with an attorney you hire to represent you because we do not give a shit, kay.

  14. Advantages like even editing

    I appreciate that there are many advantages of having a lawyer, even for other lawyers.

    How much do you think it would cost to get a lawyer to do my Privacy Act / 42 USC 1985(2)claims and how could I reduce costs while still accomplishing my goals?

    I have lots of evidence.

  15. I appreciate that there ares many advantages a having a lawyer, even for other lawyers.

    How much do you think it would cost to get a lawyer to do my Privacy Act / 42 USC 1985(2) and how could I reduce costs while still accomplishing my goals?

    I have lots of evidence.

  16. Kay, Rodney King won his case because HE HAD A LAWYER! Also, the whole thing was caught on tape.

    In the Ruby Ridge shooting, the Randy Weaver family was awarded $3.1 million dollars. HE HAD A LAWYER! Again, there was massive forensic evidence.

    Now, let me guess. What do these and a number of other cases have in common. Hmmmmm…..I wonder. Could it have been because in each case they had a lawyer and did not try to represent themselves pro se? Ya reckon?

Comments are closed.