Hell's Angels as constitutional defenders.

[maryjane48]

“Your comments cause me to wonder which criminal gang you represent”


“The question today isn’t whether we should be going after the glitzy homes and Maseratis of clueless criminals – that’s what the program was intended to do. Of course we should. The question is, has the government cast the civil forfeiture net too wide and scooped up innocent people in the process?

an innocent man who had his $9,200 coin collection taken from him by police had to fight the government to get it back. He finally did.

At the end of the day, is that in the public interest? Is it fair to lump people who make minor mistakes in their life in with organized gangsters who make a life out of ill-gotten gains? Personally,

Is the definition of “unlawful activity” now so broad and vague that people accused of minor offences that would have been settled under statutes such as the Motor Vehicle Act or Employment Standards Act once upon a time, face the prospect of losing their homes?”

Do not be surprised that if stand with fools people will call you a fool.

exactly right , and a fair amount of laws brought in by haper fall under your concerns , that i think should be addressed

[Donald G]

To lakevixen ...

Before concluding that the seizure of the coin collection was terribly wrong, perhaps you should find out the circumstances under which the coin collection was seized?

Among property identified as stolen?

Found at grow operation with other cash?

Found in connection with a drug seizure?

Does injustice not include finding that those enforcing the law did wrong WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ALLEGATION?

[Ranger66]

“IMO there is something less than honest about such "arrangements".”

Lawyers helping lawyers, nothing new about that but what we are talking about is a government department that is twisting the intent of a program that is designed to hurt people ( gangs ) who we must now depend on to protect us from our own government.

“Does injustice not include finding that those enforcing the law did wrong WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ALLEGATION?”

The people (and I use the term lightly) in this department are not enforcing the law and are not producing justice. At best they are government vigilantes producing cash without understanding the end does not justify the means.

[maryjane48]

To lakevixen ...

Before concluding that the seizure of the coin collection was terribly wrong, perhaps you should find out the circumstances under which the coin collection was seized?

Among property identified as stolen?

Found at grow operation with other cash?

Found in connection with a drug seizure?

Does injustice not include finding that those enforcing the law did wrong WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ALLEGATION?

all i was saying is that when laws are misused and innocent ppl end up being charged or harrased for something they never did, then a ooops sorry is to little to late. exact same when someone guilty gets off , by then its to late.

[Donald G]

To lakevixen ...

In your opinion which is worse; a known guilty man who goes free after raping and killing a child because the judge found that his rights were not completely protected by a police officer or a man found guilty of murder after being given a fair trial?

[maryjane48]

To lakevixen ...

In your opinion which is worse; a known guilty man who goes free after raping and killing a child because the judge found that his rights were not completely protected by a police officer or a man found guilty of murder after being given a fair trial?

if the man guilty is really innocent, if thats what you mean , i think is worse because a person who rapes and kills a child can be dealt with by the taxpayer as in sturgeon food, but the innocent person has their life forever ruined because of inadequate laws we allowed , shabby or near sighted policework, deals between lawyers ect ect , what do you think is worse don g?

[Donald G]

To lakevixen ...

You are rather perceptive to determine what I was actually thinking rather than what I wrote. Yes, I did mean "innocent" man.

I see the man guilty of raping and killing a child but being let off on a court determined issue completely unrelated to guilt or innocence as being a complete abdication of judicial responsibility by the court.

In the instance where the innocent person was found guilty of murder the totality of the TOTAL evidence admitted into court resulted in justice being thwarted. But all of the evidence available WAS entered into court in an effort to learn the truth.

Tragic and preventable verses tragic and not preventable. All that the judge had to do to prevent the first was to admit the eliminated evidence that enabled the guilty man to go free by finding that NOT admitting the evidence "would bring the system of justice into disrepute". But for whatever reason judges maintain that only actions by the police can bring the system of justice into disrepute. Why? What makes the lawyers and the circumstances themselves immune to such findings?

[Treblehook]

To lakevixen ...

You are rather perceptive to determine what I was actually thinking rather than what I wrote. Yes, I did mean "innocent" man.

I see the man guilty of raping and killing a child but being let off on a court determined issue completely unrelated to guilt or innocence as being a complete abdication of judicial responsibility by the court.

In the instance where the innocent person was found guilty of murder the totality of the TOTAL evidence admitted into court resulted in justice being thwarted. But all of the evidence available WAS entered into court in an effort to learn the truth.

Tragic and preventable verses tragic and not preventable. All that the judge had to do to prevent the first was to admit the eliminated evidence that enabled the guilty man to go free by finding that NOT admitting the evidence "would bring the system of justice into disrepute". But for whatever reason judges maintain that only actions by the police can bring the system of justice into disrepute. Why? What makes the lawyers and the circumstances themselves immune to such findings?

Why? Because many of these judges are narcissistic, egotistical people, impressed with their grandiosity and who seem to have lost touch with reality. They never seem to care at all about the concerns of the unwashed masses for whom the dispense justice [or what they deem justice].

[LongHaul]

The interesting article below from the Vancouver Sun raises concerns about how Civil Forfeiture is being applied in British Columbia. I agree with the concept of Civil Forfeiture but how it is being applied should be of concern for the average citizen IMHO after reading several articles on this.

Reading the Vancouver Sun article and others published by the Globe and Mail one could question if the basic principles of Canadian law has been changed in BC. My understanding under our legal system “One is innocent until proven guilty”. Under BC's Civil Forfeiture the principle seems to be “One is guilty until one can prove themselves innocent”.

Concern about how the BC Civil Forfeiture Office is operating has been raised by three B.C. Liberal caucus members, the province's Official Opposition and a former Liberal attorney-general.

The B.C. Ombudsperson is asking members of the public to come forward with concerns, noting she has the power to conduct a review.

B.C.’s former solicitor-general says the province’s Civil Forfeiture Office was started with the best of intentions but has cast too wide a net and become a cash cow tasked with funding crime-prevention programs the government doesn’t want to pay for through other means.

It would seem if innocent citizens get caught in the net this is acceptable collateral damage in exchange for the revenue it brings in for the government.

IMO the process for an innocent citizen to appeal a wrongful seizure needs work. It appears from a recent court decision if one hasn't been charged with a crime and has the money to contest the Forfeiture in court it's almost certain the seizure order will be overturned. See

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-court-dismisses-forfeiture-appeal/article17050374/

If one is innocent but doesn't have the money to dispute the forfeiture in court say goodbye to your property.

Going to the BC Civil Forfeiture Web Pages at

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/civilforfeiture/

the following paragraphs provide information on Forfeiture process and how to appeal via a Notice of Dispute an Administrative Forfeiture for property worth less than $75,000 that is not Real Estate.

“Since 2006, B.C.'s Civil Forfeiture Office has operated under the authority of the Civil Forfeiture Act. The Civil Forfeiture Act and Regulation allows the Director of Civil Forfeiture to initiate civil court proceedings against property believed to be the instruments or proceeds of unlawful activity.

In 2011, amendments were made to the Civil Forfeiture Act. These amendments allow the Director of Civil Forfeiture to commence administrative proceedings against property valued at $75,000 or less that is not real estate (see Part 3.1 of Civil Forfeiture Act, Administrative Forfeiture of Subject Property). These proceedings are not commenced in court, they are an administrative process.

Whether proceedings are initiated in court or administratively, they are not reliant on criminal charges or convictions arising from the alleged unlawful activity. “

“What Happens after a Notice of Dispute is Filed

If the Dispute meets the requirement of section 14.07 of the Civil Forfeiture Act and is post marked within the time allowed for a dispute, the Director has 30 days to either:
start a law suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court seeking the forfeiture of the property; or
to withdraw from the proceedings. “

If I understand this in effect what the Notice of Dispute does is allow one to fight An Administrative Forfeiture for non Real Estate Property in court if one can afford to do so. Otherwise the seizure goes ahead.

Another option could be appealing to one's local MLA. A property seizure in Prince George was stopped after the owner appealed to his local MLA as per one of the Globe and Mail Articles.

Even if one has the funds to go to court it may not make sense comparing the court costs to the value of the property being seized. The owner may just give up on contesting the forfeiture. For the Forfeiture Office probably most of these less than $75,000 seizures will be low hanging fruit.

In contrast seizing property worth much more than $75,000 can be difficult and costly as probably most of these owners have the money to contest the forfeiture in court. An example is the H.A contesting their forfeiture.

Reading between the lines it would seem the Civil Forfeiture Office has found it is easier to generate revenue by going after the smaller fish who are less likely to be able to fight back.

The article from the Vancouver Sun and link follows:

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/Mulgrew+Civil+forfeiture+laws+sledgehammer+approach/9527356/story.html

“Ian Mulgrew: Civil forfeiture laws use the sledgehammer approach to fighting crime

B.C.’s highest bench is finally mulling concerns about the province’s civil forfeiture law, which is being blamed for causing significant injustice because of alleged constitutional flaws.

It has taken several years for the scheme’s apparent deficiencies to draw attention because of the prohibitive costs and glacial pace of the legal system.

The individuals subjected to this legislation have been forced to bear sizable burdens to fight through the courts and engage the judicial check on bad law-making.

This week, the Court of Appeal heard one of the first cases involving a forfeiture, which dates back to October 2007, shortly after the law was enacted, and an attempt to seize the home of disabled electrician who hadn’t been convicted of a crime.

A number of constitutional concerns have been raised about this process, including questions about the legislative ambit of the federal and provincial governments, the separation of powers, and the use of civil tools to deal with criminal concerns.
Should the state, for example, be able to take evidence that doesn’t meet criminal code standards of permissibility and slip it into the less-stringent civil system to persecute those it chooses?

In this particular case, a B.C. Supreme Court justice ruled those issues should be parsed first in a trial to protect civil liberties and maintain the reputation of the legal system.

The Civil Forfeiture Office appealed, saying that should happen at the end of the trial.

Why? Because waiting until the end of a trial to decide such issues gives the office bullying power to leverage a settlement and let questions of police abuses go unaddressed:

If you have to pay for and endure all the proceedings before arguing that the state’s case is fatally tainted, that puts pressure on you to settle because of the huge expense and emotional effects of mounting such seemingly interminable struggles.
Most of the 200 cases concluded so far (out of more than 300 in total) have been settled out of court, and this appears to be a key legal strategy for the Civil Forfeiture Office.

It is the only explanation to explain, for instance, forcing an innocent pensioner to fight to recover his coin and currency collection.

It’s embarrassing that we have senior civil servants like the director of civil forfeiture, an ex-RCMP officer, who don’t recognize what’s wrong with that picture.

But that is to be expected: This American-style regime is the product of another ex-Mountie and law-and-order enthusiast, Rich Coleman — the former solicitor general and minister of public safety.

Here’s his explanation for this law, taken from Hansard back in 2005:
“My father was in charge of the special I section for Revenue Canada back in the 1970s. The special I section used to work very closely with the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies. … Anyone that’s ever had the experience and the joy of seeing that expressionless person come to your business and want to do an audit, who comes from Revenue Canada, will know exactly what I’m speaking about today.

“What happened three, four years ago was this. Justice ministers in this country met, and they said to the federal government: ‘We would like you to start using those powers again to help us fight organized crime.’ The gauntlet was thrown down to the federal government as an opportunity. It wasn’t picked up. So we, as justice ministers of the time, talked about bringing in civil forfeiture legislation in our particular jurisdictions so that we could move forward and try to either put pressure on or find a piece of legislation that would give us success when it comes to civil forfeiture of crime.”

I’m not sure schadenfreude is a good foundation for public policy, but Coleman claimed the government spent more than two years writing the legislation to ensure it would survive a Charter challenge.

Colour me skeptical.

Both this law and the initial Immediate Roadside Prohibition legislation, which has been hammered by the courts, seem to have been badly drafted and the product of sloppy legislating.

Since the NDP supported both, I suspect they indicate we have a structural problem, not a partisan one.

The absence of a robust committee system and the scant number of sitting days that has become the norm mean limited stakeholder-public input and a lack of parliamentary scrutiny in law-making.

I believe these laws are a signal that the way we are doing business in Victoria needs to be fixed.

Moreover, if this legislation really was intended to capture the profits of major criminals, organized crime and gangs, why is the Civil Forfeiture Office chasing a pensioner for his much-loved coins, a former volunteer firemen for his pickup truck, and a crippled electrician for his hours?

There is little doubt this law is being broadly applied in a cash grab from people who can’t afford to fight back — Victoria has reaped more than $40 million so far of this low-hanging fruit.

As a result, a lot of ordinary people are suffering unnecessarily.”

Link to an article in the Globe and Mail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/civil-forfeiture-can-harm-innocent-people/article16646032/

[Donald G]

To Longhaul ...

Definitely a lawyers view. Truckloads of theory that would be just fine in a theoretical world. Meanwhile in the real world ...

[Donald G]

"Hells Angels as constitutional defenders" remains one of the most misleading and inaccurate comments on this or any other string. Written by criminals for criminals.

[cutter7]

"Hells Angels as constitutional defenders" remains one of the most misleading and inaccurate comments on this or any other string. Written by criminals for criminals.

Its the name of an article in mcleans,, are you calling the reporter a criminal? not sure where you are coming from

[Ranger66]

"Hells Angels as constitutional defenders" What’s sad here is that we need a group of bikers to protect us from a system gone wrong. The people who lived their lives as part of the same system lack the depth to see what is wrong. Justice is not abusing the system to raise funds, justice is not convincing yourself the end justifies the means and justice is not being a bully.

[Woodenhead]

To Longhaul ...

Definitely a lawyers view. Truckloads of theory that would be just fine in a theoretical world. Meanwhile in the real world ...

I find this post ironic.

[LongHaul]

Really dislike the heading " Hells Angels as constitutional defenders" for this thread however....

The following article in the Globe and Mail has the conclusion of an attempt by the BC Civil Forfeiture Office to seize the home of an individual who had not been charged with a crime. It shows if one has not been charged it is possible to fight back and win. Assuming of course one can pay the costs required to access our Justice System. In this case the person (D.L.) was only able to take them to court after he found a lawyer who was willing to reduce his rate to what D.L. could afford.
Notice the time to resolve this case took roughly 7 years!

IMHO I think seizing the property of an individual who has not been convicted of a crime or as in this case not even charged is terribly wrong. It goes against one of our fundamental principles of justice that states one is innocent until proven guilty. Without having to adhere to this principle there is enormous risk of injustices being done to innocent people by the B.C. Civil Forfeiture Office.

For instance a landlord could have a model tenant renting his revenue house. After a couple of years the tenant is arrested and convicted of criminal activities. This comes as a total surprise to the landlord. The Civil Forfeiture Office could form the opinion the landlord may have known about these criminal activities and proceed to seize his revenue house and property without having to prove their theory.

However IMO if the person has been convicted don't have any problem with seizing assets obtained by criminal activity. It's one way to recover some of the costs to society.

Taking a pessimistic view don't think the precedent set by this case is going to change much.

What could change if the owner of a possible target asset has not been convicted of a crime the Civil Forfeiture Office may do a discreet check on the owner's financial resources. Am assuming this is not already being done. If they find the person probably does not have the money to fight them in court it's low hanging fruit and the asset seizure goes ahead.

The article and link follow.

CIVIL FORFEITURE
B.C. ends bid to seize house.
Faced with a possible constitutional challenge, office opts to cease its years-long pursuit of man’s home.

SUNNY DHILLON, VANCOUVER
................................................................
British Columbia’s Civil Forfeiture office has ended its most high-pro-file case after a stinging defeat at
the province’s top court this year, choosing to abandon the proceedings rather than continue down a
path that appeared likely to raise constitutional questions about the legislation under which it operates.

The office, which was created in 2006 to fight organized crime but has come to have a far broader
reach, filed its notice of discontinuance in the case of D.L. on Monday, ending its
years-long pursuit of his home. The office has faced questions about the cases it takes on and the
fairness of the process after a recent Globe and Mail investigation.

“I’m trying to wrap my head around all this,” Mr. L, whose story was told in the Globe series, said in an interview. “... In
my heart of hearts, I was hoping and praying for it. I didn’t know.”

Mr. L, a former electrician on partial disability in the Fraser Valley community of Mission,
opened the front door of his residence on Oct. 15, 2007, after a knock from an RCMP officer.
The Mountie told Mr. L he was investigating a 911 call and asked to search the
home. Mr. L refused and was arrested.

The officer found marijuana plants growing in the basement but charges were never laid and
the officer would write in a report that the offence was “minor.” A judge would later deem the police
search “unreasonable” and rule it violated Mr. L Charter rights.

But the Civil Forfeiture Office which does not need a conviction or even charges to pursue a file,
and has been far more aggressive in seizing property than its counterparts in other provinces continued to pursue the house. In February, it took one aspect of Mr. L's case to the province’s highest court, where it lost.

The Court of Appeal’s decision meant the Charter violations in Mr. L’s case would have
to be dealt with before a full trial. The Court of Appeal also said the system has an imbalance of power that can put ordinary citizens at the office’s mercy. The office’s director last year told The Globe
that 99 per cent of the people the office targets settle on terms in its favour.

The office could have continued fighting the case in the lower-level B.C. Supreme Court, but instead
chose to discontinue the proceedings. An exact reason was not provided.

Bibhas Vaze, Mr. L’s lawyer, said both he and his client are relieved the case is over.
He said he hopes Mr. L can move on with his life and retire in the modest home,
though the process has taken an emotional toll.

Mr. Vaze said he hopes the case will help other defendants and that this outcome shows defendants can sometimes win if they fight back. Many can’t afford to do so; Mr. Vaze was working the case
at a drastically reduced rate.

When asked why he thought the office gave up now, Mr. Vaze, citing the earlier rulings, said:
“They’ve been dealt enough blows in the process.”

B.C. Justice Minister Suzanne Anton has repeatedly defended the civil forfeiture program, saying it’s working as it should. There have been calls from three B.C. Liberal caucus members, the Official Opposition, and both a former solicitor-general and a former attorney-general for a review.

Phil Tawtel, the Civil Forfeiture Office’s director, in an e-mail Monday confirmed the notice of
discontinuance. Neither he nor Ms. Anton was immediately available for further comment.

The Globe investigation found the Civil Forfeiture Office has rapidly increased the number of files
it accepts in recent years, and the amount of money it brings in. It has seized more property than
Ontario’s office, despite opening three years later. Critics have said the penalties handed out in civil forfeiture cases can be wildly disproportionate to the offence.

Kash Heed, the province’s former solicitor-general, has said the office was started with the best of
intentions but has become a cash cow tasked with funding crime prevention programs the government doesn’t want to pay for through other means.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... e18320375/