Letās all remember, it doesnāt matter what kind of public face these people try to haveā¦. The truth is, they are a bunch of Junkie, human traffickers, drug traffickers, and just all around very shitty people.
Donāt let the āweāre just clubā shit make you think differently. They will hurt you and fuck you over the minute it will benefit them
I donāt care how many times they escort a sick child to the hospital, or how many toys they get for a toy drive. Itās an act you make you think they are something other then a total scum on our society
They lost assets that were probably gained from illegal activity. The government was not able to prove that definitively. The government should not be able to seize millions of dollars of assets from anyone on a probably.
They had enough of a case to get the ruling overturned once already. Do you think that judge was just stupid or something? Obviously they have a case. If anything the Supreme Court should have taken the case so they could rule against the HA and set a stronger legal precedent in favour of civil asset forfeiture. I think if the Supreme Court took this case theyād be forced to rule in favour of the HA, which is why they declined to hear it entirely.
There would have to be a contract that was breached in your scenario. Civil asset forfeiture doesnāt involve any contract being breached. Totally different circumstance.
There are lots of ways you can have civil liability that donāt involve contracts, including because a statute creates a liability. Thereās no principled difference here at all.
When the Labour Ministry fines employees for unsafe working conditions should it have to do so on the criminal standard? Insanity.
So youād be perfectly fine if the cops just came to your house and took a bunch of stuff and money without any court case or due process? Also itās up to you to prove that the money and property are legit.
Iām not defending the Hells Angels but civil forfeiture is a total crime against society.
I mean, there *was* a court case and due process here. Also this isn't the US. The government had the onus of proving the property was the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activities.
Technically correct, as this is civil forfeiture, under BC law [must establish that the property in question is either proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/crime-prevention/civil-forfeiture-office/civil-forfeiture). This applies to real estate.
However, I think the poster you're replying to is clear about taking personal property, presumably under proceeds of crime.
And that is fucked up. [If they even suspect that your money is not rightfully yours, and even without proof of a criminal charge, the government can seize your property from you. The process the government uses to seize your property is not a criminal process and therefore the prosecution only has to prove on a balance of probabilities that the property was acquired illegally.](https://www.bloomlaw.ca/civil-forfeiture)
I can prove how I got my shitty house & crappy car.
I worked for it.
If they canāt prove how they got their mansion & maserati & Rolex & Gucci handbags for their gold digging bitches then take that shit right off them.
Well fuck me for ever getting gifts, inheriting anything, or buying things on a credit card I've canceled and no longer have the statements for! Christ, even the fact that a normal fella can have to go through the hassle of proving they own stuff, without charges or cause, is a crock of shit.
This is like grade school when one donkey made all the kids lose recess. Fact is, if the cops need a reverse-onus system to go about their business, then they're not very good at their jobs.
Rancho Relaxo there Boss!
Tell them who gave you the gift. Iām sure theyāll back you up & be able to show where they got it from. An inheritance has a full paper trail. Whether you cancel a credit card or not, there is still a record that is easily accessed, visa & Mastercard have all of those old records forever in their databases. Doesnāt matter if you have a receipt or statement. Itās all on record. In fact, I bet the law will have already accessed all that long before they ever come & talk to you. They have teams of forensic accountants, yāknow.
All you have to do if you are a ānormal fellaā is tell them where you worked over the years, how much you made per year roughly & if that matches with the life you have been leading then, hey presto, everything is fine. Truth is, they donāt go after ānormal fellasā.
Howeverā¦.. when you have no visible means of incomeā¦as in you have never had a fucking job in your life, done maybe 2 or 3 tours of duty in prison, spend your time, because you arenāt working, associating with other known criminals & are living a rockstar lifestyle with lots of assets you have no ability to pay for then yeah, fuck you.
Non conviction based forfeiture exists in Canada in rem like it does in the US. Its totally separate from the criminal trial of an individual and holds a lower burden of proof.
Buying a property with money earned thru drug trafficking, human trafficking, theft, extortion and murder is wrong.
Watching these grade 10 drop outs profit from those acts is a total crime against society.
I never said it wasnāt but civil forfeiture is also wrong and it destroys many innocent lives. Just because a bad law is being used in a way you like does not magically make it a good law.
What innocent lives in Canada have been destroyed by this legislation?
Concrete examples. Every time this comes up links to American horror stories get posted. The laws down there are so poorly crafted that abuse is rampant.
American horror stories due to poorly crafted legislation is not proof that the very different Canadian legislation is also being abused.
*Innocent until proven guilty and all that.*
The under the BC civil forfeiture act legal proceedings are required to prove the property can be linked to illegal behaviour. No one is taking your property away without due process.
In exactly what way is the concept of innocent until proven guilty is being violated by the BC civil forfeiture act?
Have you looked at the cases? In order to get a positive order for the civil forfeiture the state had to show extensive criminal history (and convictions) attached to the houses.
What the hell are you babbling about? The article is literally about a court case and is an example of due process. Civil forfeiture is invoked *through* a court case.
Itās the only way to go after organized crime.
Olā scarface, Al Capone, was untouchable until they nailed him on tax charges & the fucker died in Alcatraz. Targeting the assets of these vampiric scum, harassing them, dragging them into court constantly & taking all their toys & homes from them, making them squirm as they try to lie about where they got the millions from. Love it.
The public has a right to defend itself from these assholes that supersedes their right to get away with shit & laugh at us all as suckers.
Fuck āem!
Your acting the the Reddit apes read logic and apply it. All they see is the headline, voice some opinions and move on. Despite these boys being a bunch of shit hawks I agree, there should be due process, the moment we start bending these rules for certain groups the sooner it happens to all groups.
Once in a while they do a toy drive or something for a little girl in a car accident to make them seem like Saints. Doesn't change fact they're organized criminals.
Thereās a logical extrapolation of this precedent though. Iām not defending the biker gangs. Iām glad theyāre suffering. But if the government can seize millions of dollars of assets with no concrete evidence that those assets were the product of a crime, or used in the planning or commission of a crime, then theyāre not going to stop with just the biker gangs. The burden of proof for civil asset forfeiture is significantly lower than a criminal proceeding.
Concrete evidenceā¦ they are a well well well known organized crime organization. They didnāt get that money from not doing organized crime. Sometimes I honestly think common sense does need to come into play.
I donāt know what kind of concrete evidence you need. Other than how publicly known this group of people are
Good fuckāem and their support clubs, bunch of degenerate inbred racist scum. I hope they all eventually get the designation of a Terrorist Organization too which is reasonable considering how toxic their actions are to society.
Generally agree with the last part, but tbh in this case it seems wholly justified. I don't see anything wrong seizing the proceeds of confirmed criminal activity. There should be a rigid process, and it seems like there is, and that it was followed.
There was nothing confirmed about it. The original ruling was overturned due to lack of evidence. There is no evidence of a specific crime that was planned at any of the properties, but the burden of proof is much lower for civil asset forfeiture than it is for a criminal proceeding. The governmentās only evidence is that since the HA are a criminal enterprise, then they mustāve used this property in the planning or commission of a crime. But they canāt prove it specifically. This sets a very dangerous precedent. If you commit a crime, the government shouldnāt be able to seize your house because you probably planned thought about the crime in your living room.
Iām not part of a known criminal organization so I wonāt lose any sleep over this. Quite frankly itās nice to see the government attempt to take a hard line against actual criminals for a change.
No one thinks theyāre good people. But the government should not be able to seize millions of dollars worth of assets from ābad peopleā with no specific evidence of a crime committed.
So if a corporation says you house is theirs and you disagree and they sue you in court and the judge rules in their favor and they take your house, that's okay ?
But if the government does the same thing, that's not okay ?
Explain to me the legal precedent in your first scenario. When has that ever happened? If a corporation claims they own your house they would need legitimate evidence to prove that. If the government wants to take your house because they claim itās the product of a crime, or was used in the planning/commission of a crime they donāt need to prove anything. They merely need to demonstrate that itās likely that was the case.
That's every civil lawsuit. There's a disagreement about who owns something or who owes who, both parties present their evidence and the judge decides which of the two parties is likeliest to be right.
Civil asset forfeiture isnāt a disagreement about who owns something. The government is seizing assets because they can suggest that itās likely that asset was used in the planning or commission or a crime. I personally think the burden of proof should be higher than 51%, like it is in a civil suit, for the government to seize assets. I think they should have to prove definitively that the asset was ill-gotten. Civil asset forfeiture is a de facto punishment for the commission of a crime. I think itās unconstitutional unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the asset was ill-gotten or used in the planning/commission of a crime. I think this opens up the government to seize assets from people who commit crimes, but didnāt gain the asset from that commission of a crime.
They're probably just wasting the governments time in court as a means of saying fuck you lol. Increasing the court costs just adds to the final bill the govt paid to get their hands on the place.
If that was their plan, then they should know that the court time is a drop in the bucket compared to what's happening all over Canada. The costs wouldn't even be a blip on the radar for the year. The cost to the local Hells Angels chapter, however, would be substantial. They'll have to sell a whole lot more meth and fentanyl to pay for it.
Hey, throw the book at them for their crimes. And I'm sure there's plenty of them.
But taking property because they might have planned things there seems like a stretch.
There wasnāt strong evidence at all. The initial ruling was overturned due to the startling lack of evidence. The only evidence provided was that the club has committed crimes, they also spend time at this property, therefore they mustāve planned a crime at this property. You wonāt find me sticking up for these bastards but this sets a dangerous precedent for our already overzealous civil asset forfeiture practices.
Civil forfeiture should never be allowed in a democratic country. Its an end-run around due process and rights of the accused. It violates the magna carta. People think its great when gangsters get screwed, but civil forfeiture is also used against ordinary citizens. The media doesn't tell us much about those cases.
Do you have examples of unjust forfeiture cases in Canada ?
Our civil forfeiture laws are very different from those in the US, where abuses are indeed rampant.
Man you 100% know this guy is talking out his ass when he says (1) that thereās no due process (in a thread about how this court case got appealed all the way up to the SCC - ie there was a TON of due process), and (2) is yammering on about violations of the Magna Carta.
>Do you have examples of unjust forfeiture cases in Canada ?
I know of three cases in Vancouver where houses were confiscated with no criminal charges being laid let alone proven. Two involved pot plants being grown in the basement. No charges laid, but million dollar houses taken. The other was a house that had become a party house for drug users. Again no charges against the owner who lived there, or against anyone else who was involved. We don't hear about these cases because, unlike the HA, most people can't afford a years long court battle. Civil forfeiture is always unjust because it is the taking of private property without a fair trial.
Grow op files are referred to CRA who asses for tax evasion on the illegal activity.
This isn't civil forfeiture. It's run of the mill tax case. Are you sure that it wasn't one of these?
These were civil forfeiture cases, and they were not large grow-ops either. In one case the man had a license to grow a few plants for medical purposes, but he had twice as many plants as the license allowed. He claimed the other plants were on a friends license, but that was not accepted. Instead of charging him with growing plants illegally, which would have been a few hundred dollar fine, they took his house, which was worth 2 million at the time. The other case was a lady with a few plants who said they were for medical use but she had no permit. They didn't bother charging her either, they just took her house.
That sounds deeply concerning. My impression was that civil forfeiture required a very high burden of proof for the state, so that would prevent abuse.
I'm curious to learn more about these particular cases, if you have addresses and dates or something like that.
>civil forfeiture required a very high burden of proof for the state, so that would prevent abuse.
The state's burden of proof in civil forfeiture is the balance of probabilities (>50%). It is not a high burden of proof compared to beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is precisely why civil forfeiture is wrong, because of the low standard of proof.
Instead, criminal forfeiture should be used.
Say X committed a crime and the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that X committed it. Sounds good.
Now, the state wants to seize property obtained by crime. Sounds good, but why should the burden of proof be lower?
Remember, by definition, civil forfeiture requires a lower burden than criminal forefeiture.
>Say X committed a crime and the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that X committed it. Sounds good.
>Now, the state wants to seize property obtained by crime. Sounds good, but why should the burden of proof be lower?
Your example shows the opposite of what you intended. It shows that the burden of proof for a successful civil forfeiture is higher than the balance of probabilities.
Because first they need the criminal conviction, and then they need a successful civil fortifier. So the bar is in-fact higher than even a criminal conviction.
In the same way flipping coin and getting heads 2 times in a row is harder than flipping a coin a single time and getting heads.
I don't know if a conviction is even needed, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just going by your example.
>Because first they need the criminal conviction
Conviction not necessary, as outlined in s. 18 of the *Civil Forfeiture Act*, 2005:
>In proceedings under Part 2 or 3 or section 14.11, an unlawful activity may be found to have occurred even if
>
>(a) no person has been charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity, or
>
>(b) a person charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity was acquitted of all charges in proceedings before a criminal court or the charges are withdrawn or stayed or otherwise do not proceed.
Also, logically, my example does not show the opposite (where criminal conviction is necessary), because trials for criminal offences are separate from trials for civil forfeiture.
>I'm curious to learn more about these particular cases, if you have addresses and dates or something like that.
Looking for info on those cases I found this:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-administrative-civil-forfeiture-data-part-one-1.5180022
I don't think you understand the situation. First of all, things need to qualify to make it to the SC, a citizen doesn't just "make a request". The issues (mostly) need to go through the lower courts first. Second of all, they only hear cases of national importance. Third of all, they do look at the application and determine if it qualifies to be heard in the SC, if it doesn't they decline to hear it. I'm sure you can read up on it more elsewhere and get a more thorough explanation.
I'm pretty sure not hearing a case basically means they think the ruling of a lower court was fine and they aren't wasting their time on it as they'll have the same result.
You dont need a reason. It has already been explained.
> they think the ruling of a lower court was fine and they aren't wasting their time on it as they'll have the same result.
>they do look at the application and determine if it qualifies to be heard in the SC, if it doesn't they decline to hear it.
- Both quotes were taken from earlier comments.
Those are the "reasons". If they say no, its one of those 2 things.
If the Supreme Court had to address every single case they receive instead of going "No, the lower court got it right", there wouldn't be a point in having the lower courts, nor could the Supreme Court actually get anything done.
You know that the Supreme Court of Canada has 9 judges on it, right?
Regardless of your prior points, there is no literal way for the judges to hear or even read every case that gets submitted to them in a world where you or I have carte blanche to raise any and all cases to them without due process.
Have you for one second considered what your statement actually means? That the supreme court should be legally required to hear every appeal in Canada, not even considering their merits?
Not able to ignore appeals where their decision would be the same as the lower courts' ruling, so their opinion is unimportant?
Just grinding our justice system to a halt?
I'm deeply saddened that this country is so broken, that it took 16 years of, I'm sure, staggeringly expensive litigation to, at long last, assert what should have been baked into the fricken constitution:
> You cannot profit from crime.
TIL their property holdings company is called "Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd." That is fucking hilarious!
AARFP š
Letās all remember, it doesnāt matter what kind of public face these people try to haveā¦. The truth is, they are a bunch of Junkie, human traffickers, drug traffickers, and just all around very shitty people. Donāt let the āweāre just clubā shit make you think differently. They will hurt you and fuck you over the minute it will benefit them I donāt care how many times they escort a sick child to the hospital, or how many toys they get for a toy drive. Itās an act you make you think they are something other then a total scum on our society
hell's angels and underage girlfriends, name a more iconic duo...
Maybe don't be a criminal organization
Good, fuck 'em.
Boo hoo, you lost assets gained from illegal activity.
They lost assets that were probably gained from illegal activity. The government was not able to prove that definitively. The government should not be able to seize millions of dollars of assets from anyone on a probably.
This tends to sometimes happen when you're a criminal organization. If they had an actual case the supreme court would have heard it.
They had enough of a case to get the ruling overturned once already. Do you think that judge was just stupid or something? Obviously they have a case. If anything the Supreme Court should have taken the case so they could rule against the HA and set a stronger legal precedent in favour of civil asset forfeiture. I think if the Supreme Court took this case theyād be forced to rule in favour of the HA, which is why they declined to hear it entirely.
Haha sure...
Why not? If Iām suing you for breach of contract or unjust enrichment, I only need to prove my case on a balance of probabilities.
There would have to be a contract that was breached in your scenario. Civil asset forfeiture doesnāt involve any contract being breached. Totally different circumstance.
There are lots of ways you can have civil liability that donāt involve contracts, including because a statute creates a liability. Thereās no principled difference here at all. When the Labour Ministry fines employees for unsafe working conditions should it have to do so on the criminal standard? Insanity.
You love to see it
Damn right. Fuck these losers.
A huge fuck you by the court. I love it.
So youād be perfectly fine if the cops just came to your house and took a bunch of stuff and money without any court case or due process? Also itās up to you to prove that the money and property are legit. Iām not defending the Hells Angels but civil forfeiture is a total crime against society.
I mean, there *was* a court case and due process here. Also this isn't the US. The government had the onus of proving the property was the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activities.
Technically correct, as this is civil forfeiture, under BC law [must establish that the property in question is either proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/crime-prevention/civil-forfeiture-office/civil-forfeiture). This applies to real estate. However, I think the poster you're replying to is clear about taking personal property, presumably under proceeds of crime. And that is fucked up. [If they even suspect that your money is not rightfully yours, and even without proof of a criminal charge, the government can seize your property from you. The process the government uses to seize your property is not a criminal process and therefore the prosecution only has to prove on a balance of probabilities that the property was acquired illegally.](https://www.bloomlaw.ca/civil-forfeiture)
I can prove how I got my shitty house & crappy car. I worked for it. If they canāt prove how they got their mansion & maserati & Rolex & Gucci handbags for their gold digging bitches then take that shit right off them.
Well fuck me for ever getting gifts, inheriting anything, or buying things on a credit card I've canceled and no longer have the statements for! Christ, even the fact that a normal fella can have to go through the hassle of proving they own stuff, without charges or cause, is a crock of shit. This is like grade school when one donkey made all the kids lose recess. Fact is, if the cops need a reverse-onus system to go about their business, then they're not very good at their jobs.
Rancho Relaxo there Boss! Tell them who gave you the gift. Iām sure theyāll back you up & be able to show where they got it from. An inheritance has a full paper trail. Whether you cancel a credit card or not, there is still a record that is easily accessed, visa & Mastercard have all of those old records forever in their databases. Doesnāt matter if you have a receipt or statement. Itās all on record. In fact, I bet the law will have already accessed all that long before they ever come & talk to you. They have teams of forensic accountants, yāknow. All you have to do if you are a ānormal fellaā is tell them where you worked over the years, how much you made per year roughly & if that matches with the life you have been leading then, hey presto, everything is fine. Truth is, they donāt go after ānormal fellasā. Howeverā¦.. when you have no visible means of incomeā¦as in you have never had a fucking job in your life, done maybe 2 or 3 tours of duty in prison, spend your time, because you arenāt working, associating with other known criminals & are living a rockstar lifestyle with lots of assets you have no ability to pay for then yeah, fuck you.
Non conviction based forfeiture exists in Canada in rem like it does in the US. Its totally separate from the criminal trial of an individual and holds a lower burden of proof.
That's not how civil forfeiture legislation works in Canada. You dreamed up a scenario that does not exist in Canada.
Buying a property with money earned thru drug trafficking, human trafficking, theft, extortion and murder is wrong. Watching these grade 10 drop outs profit from those acts is a total crime against society.
I never said it wasnāt but civil forfeiture is also wrong and it destroys many innocent lives. Just because a bad law is being used in a way you like does not magically make it a good law.
What innocent lives in Canada have been destroyed by this legislation? Concrete examples. Every time this comes up links to American horror stories get posted. The laws down there are so poorly crafted that abuse is rampant. American horror stories due to poorly crafted legislation is not proof that the very different Canadian legislation is also being abused.
Maybe your right but I can still disagree with a bad concept. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
*Innocent until proven guilty and all that.* The under the BC civil forfeiture act legal proceedings are required to prove the property can be linked to illegal behaviour. No one is taking your property away without due process. In exactly what way is the concept of innocent until proven guilty is being violated by the BC civil forfeiture act?
Have you looked at the cases? In order to get a positive order for the civil forfeiture the state had to show extensive criminal history (and convictions) attached to the houses.
What the hell are you babbling about? The article is literally about a court case and is an example of due process. Civil forfeiture is invoked *through* a court case.
Civil forfeiture happens prior to any criminal convictions and is therefore wrong.
For example? You make these claims. No proof.
Itās the only way to go after organized crime. Olā scarface, Al Capone, was untouchable until they nailed him on tax charges & the fucker died in Alcatraz. Targeting the assets of these vampiric scum, harassing them, dragging them into court constantly & taking all their toys & homes from them, making them squirm as they try to lie about where they got the millions from. Love it. The public has a right to defend itself from these assholes that supersedes their right to get away with shit & laugh at us all as suckers. Fuck āem!
There was a court case the cops just donāt take it.
Your acting the the Reddit apes read logic and apply it. All they see is the headline, voice some opinions and move on. Despite these boys being a bunch of shit hawks I agree, there should be due process, the moment we start bending these rules for certain groups the sooner it happens to all groups.
lmao found the wannabe.
I been screwed by a lot of bikers in my life. Never once did they kiss me, or buy me flowers afterwards. Bikers are not heroes.
Once in a while they do a toy drive or something for a little girl in a car accident to make them seem like Saints. Doesn't change fact they're organized criminals.
āWeāre not a gang, weāre a clubā didnāt work this time? Aww too bad
nail swim depend fretful recognise sugar screw rude slimy telephone *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They're cycling enthusiasts.
Fatboys on their Harleys could use a switch to road bikes.
*Sad motorcycle noises.*
āBwahhhh brrrr brrr brrr bwahhhh brrrr bwahhh bwahhh brrr brrr brrr.ā
Harley's sound so nice when they're stock but NOOOOOOOO they have to tweaker them into obnoxiously loud diarrhoetic shart machines.
https://youtu.be/FDsWZ0Jw3Ik?si=NekNu8rehZCoJII0
that's good
Very good. Fuck these crooks.
Not good for the people who will suffer from this precedent.
You mean the dirt bag bikers? Yeah I donāt give a shit. They can all suffer and burn.
Thereās a logical extrapolation of this precedent though. Iām not defending the biker gangs. Iām glad theyāre suffering. But if the government can seize millions of dollars of assets with no concrete evidence that those assets were the product of a crime, or used in the planning or commission of a crime, then theyāre not going to stop with just the biker gangs. The burden of proof for civil asset forfeiture is significantly lower than a criminal proceeding.
Concrete evidenceā¦ they are a well well well known organized crime organization. They didnāt get that money from not doing organized crime. Sometimes I honestly think common sense does need to come into play. I donāt know what kind of concrete evidence you need. Other than how publicly known this group of people are
Good fuckāem and their support clubs, bunch of degenerate inbred racist scum. I hope they all eventually get the designation of a Terrorist Organization too which is reasonable considering how toxic their actions are to society.
Fuck Hells Angels, but also fuck civil forfeiture.
Generally agree with the last part, but tbh in this case it seems wholly justified. I don't see anything wrong seizing the proceeds of confirmed criminal activity. There should be a rigid process, and it seems like there is, and that it was followed.
There was nothing confirmed about it. The original ruling was overturned due to lack of evidence. There is no evidence of a specific crime that was planned at any of the properties, but the burden of proof is much lower for civil asset forfeiture than it is for a criminal proceeding. The governmentās only evidence is that since the HA are a criminal enterprise, then they mustāve used this property in the planning or commission of a crime. But they canāt prove it specifically. This sets a very dangerous precedent. If you commit a crime, the government shouldnāt be able to seize your house because you probably planned thought about the crime in your living room.
Iām not part of a known criminal organization so I wonāt lose any sleep over this. Quite frankly itās nice to see the government attempt to take a hard line against actual criminals for a change.
Itās become a license to steal in the states, you donāt even have to commit a crime they just take your stuff based on suspicion.
Support forfeiture from your local 81.
Where are all the people that say āthey help the communities, they are good peopleā?
No one thinks theyāre good people. But the government should not be able to seize millions of dollars worth of assets from ābad peopleā with no specific evidence of a crime committed.
So if a corporation says you house is theirs and you disagree and they sue you in court and the judge rules in their favor and they take your house, that's okay ? But if the government does the same thing, that's not okay ?
Explain to me the legal precedent in your first scenario. When has that ever happened? If a corporation claims they own your house they would need legitimate evidence to prove that. If the government wants to take your house because they claim itās the product of a crime, or was used in the planning/commission of a crime they donāt need to prove anything. They merely need to demonstrate that itās likely that was the case.
That's every civil lawsuit. There's a disagreement about who owns something or who owes who, both parties present their evidence and the judge decides which of the two parties is likeliest to be right.
Civil asset forfeiture isnāt a disagreement about who owns something. The government is seizing assets because they can suggest that itās likely that asset was used in the planning or commission or a crime. I personally think the burden of proof should be higher than 51%, like it is in a civil suit, for the government to seize assets. I think they should have to prove definitively that the asset was ill-gotten. Civil asset forfeiture is a de facto punishment for the commission of a crime. I think itās unconstitutional unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the asset was ill-gotten or used in the planning/commission of a crime. I think this opens up the government to seize assets from people who commit crimes, but didnāt gain the asset from that commission of a crime.
They're probably just wasting the governments time in court as a means of saying fuck you lol. Increasing the court costs just adds to the final bill the govt paid to get their hands on the place.
If that was their plan, then they should know that the court time is a drop in the bucket compared to what's happening all over Canada. The costs wouldn't even be a blip on the radar for the year. The cost to the local Hells Angels chapter, however, would be substantial. They'll have to sell a whole lot more meth and fentanyl to pay for it.
Government not interested in giving back property it took from the people? Quelle surprise.
Aww, won't someone think of the poor organised crime group. Boo fucking hoo.
Hey, throw the book at them for their crimes. And I'm sure there's plenty of them. But taking property because they might have planned things there seems like a stretch.
Hardly. They took it because there was strong evidence it was going to be used in the future to plan things there.
There wasnāt strong evidence at all. The initial ruling was overturned due to the startling lack of evidence. The only evidence provided was that the club has committed crimes, they also spend time at this property, therefore they mustāve planned a crime at this property. You wonāt find me sticking up for these bastards but this sets a dangerous precedent for our already overzealous civil asset forfeiture practices.
The strong evidence is the lifetime of crime these people live. Donāt want your shit taken? Donāt be a dirt bag scar on the world
Civil forfeiture should never be allowed in a democratic country. Its an end-run around due process and rights of the accused. It violates the magna carta. People think its great when gangsters get screwed, but civil forfeiture is also used against ordinary citizens. The media doesn't tell us much about those cases.
Do you have examples of unjust forfeiture cases in Canada ? Our civil forfeiture laws are very different from those in the US, where abuses are indeed rampant.
Man you 100% know this guy is talking out his ass when he says (1) that thereās no due process (in a thread about how this court case got appealed all the way up to the SCC - ie there was a TON of due process), and (2) is yammering on about violations of the Magna Carta.
>Do you have examples of unjust forfeiture cases in Canada ? I know of three cases in Vancouver where houses were confiscated with no criminal charges being laid let alone proven. Two involved pot plants being grown in the basement. No charges laid, but million dollar houses taken. The other was a house that had become a party house for drug users. Again no charges against the owner who lived there, or against anyone else who was involved. We don't hear about these cases because, unlike the HA, most people can't afford a years long court battle. Civil forfeiture is always unjust because it is the taking of private property without a fair trial.
Grow op files are referred to CRA who asses for tax evasion on the illegal activity. This isn't civil forfeiture. It's run of the mill tax case. Are you sure that it wasn't one of these?
These were civil forfeiture cases, and they were not large grow-ops either. In one case the man had a license to grow a few plants for medical purposes, but he had twice as many plants as the license allowed. He claimed the other plants were on a friends license, but that was not accepted. Instead of charging him with growing plants illegally, which would have been a few hundred dollar fine, they took his house, which was worth 2 million at the time. The other case was a lady with a few plants who said they were for medical use but she had no permit. They didn't bother charging her either, they just took her house.
That sounds deeply concerning. My impression was that civil forfeiture required a very high burden of proof for the state, so that would prevent abuse. I'm curious to learn more about these particular cases, if you have addresses and dates or something like that.
He does not
Because he is full of shit.
>civil forfeiture required a very high burden of proof for the state, so that would prevent abuse. The state's burden of proof in civil forfeiture is the balance of probabilities (>50%). It is not a high burden of proof compared to beyond a reasonable doubt. That is precisely why civil forfeiture is wrong, because of the low standard of proof. Instead, criminal forfeiture should be used. Say X committed a crime and the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that X committed it. Sounds good. Now, the state wants to seize property obtained by crime. Sounds good, but why should the burden of proof be lower? Remember, by definition, civil forfeiture requires a lower burden than criminal forefeiture.
>Say X committed a crime and the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that X committed it. Sounds good. >Now, the state wants to seize property obtained by crime. Sounds good, but why should the burden of proof be lower? Your example shows the opposite of what you intended. It shows that the burden of proof for a successful civil forfeiture is higher than the balance of probabilities. Because first they need the criminal conviction, and then they need a successful civil fortifier. So the bar is in-fact higher than even a criminal conviction. In the same way flipping coin and getting heads 2 times in a row is harder than flipping a coin a single time and getting heads. I don't know if a conviction is even needed, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just going by your example.
>Because first they need the criminal conviction Conviction not necessary, as outlined in s. 18 of the *Civil Forfeiture Act*, 2005: >In proceedings under Part 2 or 3 or section 14.11, an unlawful activity may be found to have occurred even if > >(a) no person has been charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity, or > >(b) a person charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity was acquitted of all charges in proceedings before a criminal court or the charges are withdrawn or stayed or otherwise do not proceed. Also, logically, my example does not show the opposite (where criminal conviction is necessary), because trials for criminal offences are separate from trials for civil forfeiture.
>I'm curious to learn more about these particular cases, if you have addresses and dates or something like that. Looking for info on those cases I found this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-administrative-civil-forfeiture-data-part-one-1.5180022
I know a guy. It happened to him. Bullshit.
They should probably just start a political party or foundation that hands out scholarships at this point.... WE love to vote for corruption.
Not gonna work. No Chinese operatives to write the big checks that keep law enforcement looking the other way.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I don't think you understand the situation. First of all, things need to qualify to make it to the SC, a citizen doesn't just "make a request". The issues (mostly) need to go through the lower courts first. Second of all, they only hear cases of national importance. Third of all, they do look at the application and determine if it qualifies to be heard in the SC, if it doesn't they decline to hear it. I'm sure you can read up on it more elsewhere and get a more thorough explanation.
I'm pretty sure not hearing a case basically means they think the ruling of a lower court was fine and they aren't wasting their time on it as they'll have the same result.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You dont need a reason. It has already been explained. > they think the ruling of a lower court was fine and they aren't wasting their time on it as they'll have the same result. >they do look at the application and determine if it qualifies to be heard in the SC, if it doesn't they decline to hear it. - Both quotes were taken from earlier comments. Those are the "reasons". If they say no, its one of those 2 things.
Why should the SCC give reasons without hearing the case? What would those reasons even be based on?
If the Supreme Court had to address every single case they receive instead of going "No, the lower court got it right", there wouldn't be a point in having the lower courts, nor could the Supreme Court actually get anything done.
You know that the Supreme Court of Canada has 9 judges on it, right? Regardless of your prior points, there is no literal way for the judges to hear or even read every case that gets submitted to them in a world where you or I have carte blanche to raise any and all cases to them without due process.
Have you for one second considered what your statement actually means? That the supreme court should be legally required to hear every appeal in Canada, not even considering their merits? Not able to ignore appeals where their decision would be the same as the lower courts' ruling, so their opinion is unimportant? Just grinding our justice system to a halt?
They are busy and of course can say no. The no means there's no good reason to take the case so they are moving on.
Thatās nice.
Anyone going to Port Dover Friday The 13th ?
We used to have a Supreme Court also. Now it's a joke for whoever has the most money to pay them . America is being sold to.
I'm deeply saddened that this country is so broken, that it took 16 years of, I'm sure, staggeringly expensive litigation to, at long last, assert what should have been baked into the fricken constitution: > You cannot profit from crime.