Blogger leaked order to raid Hells Angels

[fuji]

Innocence until proven guilty has never, ever been a factor in trials about seizing property (ie: tort law / civil law). Trials about who is the rightful owner of a property always operate on a balance of probabilities basis, not an innocent until proven guilty basis.

If they were declaring their income and paying taxes on it, but the income was sourced by criminal activity, how is it an illegal seizure? It's only an illegal seizure if they bought the property with non-criminal income.

Whether or not they pay tax on their criminal income is a separate question--if they do, they can't also be charged with tax evasion, which is different.

What's unfair here is that they are be treated the same as drug dealers and extortionists because our criminal code makes so many acts around prostitution illegal. That's unfortunate and should change.

 

[fuji]

A little analogy will probably help sort out what's going on here. Let's say Joe steals Steven's car, and gets caught by the police. The crown charge Joe with theft, and return the car to Steven. Subsequently the theft charge against Joe is thrown out of court because the police can't meet the standard of innocent until proven guilty.

What happens to the car?

Steven still gets to keep the car because on the balance of probabilities that is his car. Joe may be innocent until proven guilty on the criminal matter, but on the matter of property, it's the balance of probabilities--and there's enough evidence available to demonstrate that it very likely really is Steven's car. So the car is seized from Joe without any finding of criminal guilt and returned to its rightful owner.

Now how about when it's not clear who the victim is? We catch a guy dealing drugs, and there is strong evidence that his $100,000 car was paid for with drug money. That money is very much like the stolen car in the previous example, except that it's harder to figure out who to return the money to. Really, it's all of society that the money has been "stolen" from, and so it's society that the money is returned to.

There are two different standards here: To make the drug charge stick in criminal court you need a finding of guilt, with a presumption of innocense. On the other hand, to take the ill gotten gains away, you just need to show that, on the balance of probabilities, the $100k was extracted from someone via a crime.

 

[fuji]

Fuji,

What do you do when all of your legally obtained assets including your bank account are seized or frozen preventing you from hiring a lawyer to get your assets back and prove your innocence?

You're fear mongering.

 

[Esco!]

Guys.......give it a rest, please!!!!


Its 17 Pages now FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




I'm getting a headache

 

[bestillmehard]

25 Years ago a friend of mine was charged with having some bootlegged music. The RCMP siezed his 500,000 house, his 100 acres of farm land, his cars, wife's car etc. After about a year of fighting it was discovered by his lawyer that there were no federal laws against having the music. It was a provincial charge at the time. Which carried a $35.00 fine. The RCMP had to bring all his stuff back,( musta been a slap in the face) 2 years after that, Penguin books released a book with the case stated in it. It had my friends name published in it with false information about the arrest. His lawyer contacted penguin books and the book was pulled from the shelf in Canada, US, Germany and Europe. This friend was almost ruined in the music world and his carreer due to the RCMP not even knowing their own laws at the time. Please note...it is now a federal offense to possess, share or sell bootlegged music.

 

[fuji]

Do you have a problem with returning stolen property to its rightful owner even when there is no conviction for theft? How is this different? The standard for removing someones freedoms are stricter than the standard for removing property that does not belong to them. This is as it should be, no?

You do get your day in court. You only lose the property if a judge rules that on the balance of probabilities you acquired the property criminally. It can be seized and held before that, just as you can be arrested and held in jail upon charge but before conviction.

Complaining it was seized before you had a chance to appear in front of a judge is similar to complaining that the police arrested you before you had a chance to appear. In either case you do get your day in court. In the case of seized goods, they are held pending the judge's ruling and returned to you if it turns out that, on the balance of probabilities, you didn't acquire them criminally.

The courts have ALWAYS resolved disputes about property on a balance of probability basis. Beyond a reasonable doubt is reserved for the more serious issue of criminal guilt because criminal guilt results in jail time, not just loss of property.

As for being unable to use stolen property to pay for your criminal defense, why should you be allowed to use stolen property to pay for your defense anyway? If someone stole your money, do you think that they should be able to use the money they stole from you to hire a lawyer and prevent you from getting it back? Criminally acquired property is not yours to spend!

 

[C Dick]

The principle of seizing assets made from crime makes sense, and the balance of probabilities method makes sense, but it is so open to abuse. Whether it is from overreacting, as in taking an MPA's car, or in taking houses from people with illegal music. It seems to be an area where the police have too much power, and not enough oversight. Though I am not really clear how much supervision there is of asset-seizing.

 

[fuji]

The police have to obtain a special warrant authorizing the seizure. The assets are then seized and essentially held pending the outcome of a trial with a judge. The judge will rule, based on the balance of probabilities, whether the assets were the proceeds of crime or not.

Judges can also rule to have you put in jail for life, so, a key element of this system is that we have capable, competent judges that do not put up with abuses. If we don't have such judges, then having your property seized is the least of your worries.

If you'd like to live in a country without such judges, by the way, try for one where OC groups and militias call the shots, and essentially have the justice system in their back pocket (see post #1 on this thread for how the bikers are trying to do this in Canada.)

 

[Serpent]

You know fuji, people tell you of examples and you still cant get it thru your thick skull.

Cops have been known to lie from the bottom all the way up to the top. Look at the RCMP today.... pension fund scandal....top cops have been caught lying. Whats to stop them from lying to the justice or the crown to get what they want? Just recently the police complaints was taken away from the police and put into where it should've been all along, in the hands of the public.

Jack Ackroyd, the deceased former police chief of Toronto told me years ago that there was corruption in the force and try as they might, its next to impossible to weed out all the bad elements from the force. It doesnt matter which force you are talking about you will find bad cops and corruption everywhere.

Now IMHO, the cops have the justice system in their pocket, they have too much power in their hands and its wrong. The time is ripe now to start taking control back from the cops and putting it into the justice system. Do you remember last year that a justice got fed up with cops walking around with guns in his courtroom and he asked them to check the guns and keep them out of the courthouse? Remember the threats from the cops? I thought the courts had their own security but here were the cops threatening not to respond.

Years ago, people were'nt tied up in court all the time, cops used their discretion and adjusted tickets or gave warnings. Now anyone that gets a ticket usually goes to court to fight it and guess who is making a killing in the courts now? Thats right, "former" or rather off duty traffic cops. It's double dipping. They get paid overtime for appearing in court and they would be stupid to turn down extra money.

I'm not the only one who is bitching about the police and their underhanded tactics. I'm not the only one who has been subjected to abuse from the cops and despite all of this crap, I still respect the police force and I'm trying to make a point to you which is just going right over your freaking head.

Long story short, how does any point you make about the cops exonerate the HAs? (the original topic of this thread)

 

[fuji]

Sheik, you and Imanha have already essentially admitted on this thread to the things that the rest of us find so distasteful. What's left to debate?

The merits of the proceeds of crime law and its implementation perhaps.. but the HA? Seems to me it's a settled question. The only reason why YOU don't think so is that unlike the rest of us you think it's OK to utter threats in order to settle business disputes.

 

[ImanHa]

Fugi - You just dont get it.
If somebody owed you 25,000 , moved, closed his shop and changed his number... Then called YOU and said drive to Orillia and pick up your money, then when you got there he told you to suck shit... i suppose youd lick his ass for getting you out for a nice ride.

You're a joke. The whole thing was planned by the police to illicit a threat. It was a sure fire plan that worked perfectly because ANYBODY with something between their legs would react poorly to that kind of planned incitement.

I suppose you woulda said, "thanks for the call. Go back into hiding and please, spend my money wisely."

You are a joke.

 

[fuji]

Imanha: Q.E.D.

 

[Esco!]

Sheik, you and Imanha have already essentially admitted on this thread to the things that the rest of us find so distasteful

Uhm... you dont speak for the rest of us, and you certainly dont speak for me!!!

 

[fuji]

I am speaking for those of us who do not believe in resolving civil/business disputes with violence or threats of it.

That doesn't include you?

It certainly does include the vast majority of Canadians, and, apparently the majority around here too.

 

[Esco!]

I am speaking for those of us who do not believe in resolving civil/business disputes with violence or threats of it.
That doesn't include you?

No it doesnt!

It certainly does include the vast majority of Canadians, and, apparently the majority around here too.

Again no it doesnt, if someone were not to pay a small claims settlement and laugh in my face I'd be very tempted to resort to some sort of threat and/or violence to get my money. I suspect most Canadians would do the same.

 

[fuji]

No it doesnt!

Again no it doesnt, if someone were not to pay a small claims settlement and laugh in my face I'd be very tempted to resort to some sort of threat and/or violence to get my money. I suspect most Canadians would do the same.

You are wrong in your suspicion.

Read the thread. Some of the most vocal posters, like you, take this uncivilized line. The majority of posters though have rejected it--some just dropping one message into the debate. Most Canadians would NOT resort to physical violence or threats of violence to resolve disputes.

You've just voted yourself into the thuggish, uncivilized minority.

p.s. / edit -- Dude, save yourself the humiliation and don't get into a debate where you are arguing in favour of extortion. It'll be like shooting fish in a barrel for me, and you'll just wind up losing your credibility around here.

 

[Esco!]

p.s. / edit -- Dude, save yourself the humiliation and don't get into a debate where you are arguing in favour of extortion. It'll be like shooting fish in a barrel for me, and you'll just wind up losing your credibility around here.

First of all I could care less whether or not I seem credible with you or anyone else.

Second of all, if I was owed $1,000 or 2,000 I would probably let it slide and chalk up my losses.

But if the amount was $50K or 100K I'd be very tempted to resort to "unorthodox methods" to claim my money, indeed I would be!!

Especially if its from some criminal who doesnt play by the rules himself.

 

[BuffNaked]

Another injustice commited by siezure laws. I remember reading about this when it first happened. Sorry it took so long to jog my memory on this one.

 

[fuji]

But if the amount was $50K or 100K I'd be very tempted to resort to "unorthodox methods" to claim my money, indeed I would be!!

So you'd commit extortion. Q.E.D.

 

[LancsLad]

I'm amazed this thread is still going.


Thing is , if I post in it, the chances are it may get deleted.



Note to self: Don't say anything controversial.



THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY GBFB



Gay Bears For Bikers.








.