Hell's Angels as constitutional defenders.

[Donald G]

Off the record simply means that the police will not use what you tell them in charges against YOU. In no way does it apply to not using it as investigational background in charges against any number of others.

I suppose you also wonder why most criminal and criminal drug gangs are completely against the informant system? For the same reason that you are. It makes committing "joint" crimes a bit tenuous since there is little honour between criminals ... especially when they are in a bind that only the police can help them with.

[cutter7]

Off the record simply means that the police will not use what you tell them in charges against YOU. In no way does it apply to not using it as investigational background in charges against any number of others.

I suppose you also wonder why most criminal and criminal drug gangs are completely against the informant system? For the same reason that you are. It makes committing "joint" crimes a bit tenuous since there is little honour between criminals ... especially when they are in a bind that only the police can help them with.

Well duh , donald. Its called getting help from the police now? lol truth is , the police are letting the scum go to get a higher profile arrest while letting the scum walk. All this does is create a circle of rinse and repeat… yet you blame the judges.

*removed*

[Donald G]

*removed*

[Donald G]

The Surrey Six murder trial, which is going on at the moment, is a classic example of why the police have to deal with criminals in order to convict criminals of serious offences. A few people in society might not like it by 50,000 average citizens can not give the sworn evidence required. Without that evidence the police would never been able to bring charges against those responsible for the cold blooded murder of six people, two of whom just happened to be there at the tie.

The gang murders in Kelowna paint a similar picture, one more of hundreds that have taken place over the years.

[Donald G]

*removed*

[Donald G]

Saying Hells Angels is like saying Dead Cow Ranch. Neither one conveys the true meaning of what they stand for.

[LongHaul]

The court cases involving BC Civil Forfeiture Office continue on.

This one recently reported by the Globe & Mail sounds like something that would only happen in a dictatorship. In this case the BC Civil Forfeiture Office attempting to seize a house before the owner's trial had concluded. The owner was forced to pay sizable legal fees ($159,331) to fend off the Civil Forfeiture Office as well as the legal fees for the trial that was in progress.

The trial concluded with the owner being acquitted at which point the Civil Forfeiture Office dropped their attempt to seize the house. However they refuse to pay the owner's legal fees incurred defending against their seizure attempt.

Wonder where this would have went had the Civil Forfeiture Office been able to seize the house and sold it before the trial concluded with the owner being acquitted? Perhaps the owner could have then charged the Civil Forfeiture Office with fraud and theft??

The Civil Forfeiture Office appears to be operating under a legal principle of “Guilty until innocence is proved beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Anyway the owner has now filed a lawsuit against the Provincial Government for the attempt to seize the house. The Globe & Mail was unable to obtain the Civil Forfeiture Office's side of the story due to the lawsuit.

Although I agree with the original mandate of the Civil Forfeiture Office they seem to be straying from it. Critics are claiming it's purpose has evolved to being a cash cow for the Provincial Government. One could wonder about the competence of this office. Hope they have made enough money from the seizures that worked to pay the settlements for the ones they bungled. If not the difference will covered by the tax payers.

The link to the Globe and Mail article and some excerpts from it follow.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/woman-sues-bc-feds-over-civil-forfeiture-offices-injustice/article23152108/

B.C. government faces suit over civil forfeiture
SUNNY DHILLON
VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail

A B.C. woman says in a lawsuit that the province’s Civil Forfeiture Office relentlessly attempted to seize her multimillion-dollar home, cost her more than $150,000 in legal fees, and made an inaccurate statement that caused her daughter to lose her job.

And, like others who have been aggressively targeted by the government agency that seizes property believed to be linked to crime, M.L. says evidence that went in her favour was played down and the agency acted solely out of financial interest.

The forfeiture office began its attempt to seize her property before the outcome of her case had been determined, the lawsuit says, with the office pursuing Ms. L.'s house just a few months after charges were laid and preventing her from using her home to raise the money for her defence on the charges.

The office dropped its case after Ms. L was acquitted, but declined to pick up her costs. Ms. L said she sold the home last year to cover her legal fees and other expenses.

[Donald G]

To Longhaul ...

The only part that you left out of your comment is the whole string of facts that went to identify why the houses were seized in the first place.

And the specific reason that the forfeiture was abandoned.

Mighty convenient.

[steven lloyd]

To Donny ...

The only part that you left out of your comment is ... anything of substance to support any sort of point.

Mighty convenient.

[Donald G]

I take it that you had difficulty understanding what I had written ?

[steven lloyd]

I'm sure that's what you'd like to think ;o)

[Donald G]

To steven ...

I am not sure what, if anything, your comment has to do with the completely false allegation that the HA are in any way constitutional defenders but will leave it for others to decide.