The invasion begins...

[I Miss Trudeau]

what exactly would they do with it?

This seems patently absurd. Are they going to try to seize every property that Emery ever made use of in order to sell seeds next?

[mcqueen625]

That is a good idea. Some people tend to forget, just because the Government of Canada is lax on justice, and because it seems cheaper to not enforce our existing drug laws, it doesn't make it right. This asshole not only broke the laws of Canada, but he exported an illegal drug into another country, therefore he should face the laws of tha country, and if I were the Governor of that State when this idiot get's convicted, I would not allow any transfer to a Canadian prison until that sentence is complete, because once in Canada are justice system might just send him home on house-arrest so he can resume his illegal activities.

Canadian law is getting so lax that the former Mayor of Vancouver suggested that the city's Methadone clinic be also used to hand out fresh mouthpieces for crack-pipes at this facility, and to allow these poor crack addicts to smoke their Crack at the clinic. what an idiot. HIs rationale seems to be that if a law costs money to enforce, then lets just not enforce it, and then we don't need as many police personnel. Tell you what, why don't we just legalize all illegal drugs, and allow those who are addicted to consume at will. In a very short while we won't have to fund long-term medical services for these addicts, because maybe they will overdose, and kill themselves. THat way we can not only save the money it cost to enforce the laws of this land, but we can also save the healthcare budget all kinds of money. Do I feel sorry for addicts? Not in this lifetime, because nobody forced these assholes to get high in the first place, nobody forced them to continue down that path, so I could care less about these useless human beings. Maybe we should send Emery to Saudi Arabia and see how they deal with his penchant for dealing in drugs. Tell you what the trial will be real quick, and the punishment will be meted out real quick as well. There will be languishing in a cell for years before he is put to death, because the appeal process is real quick as well, and of very short duration.

[I Miss Trudeau]

That is a good idea. Some people tend to forget, just because the Government of Canada is lax on justice, and because it seems cheaper to not enforce our existing drug laws, it doesn't make it right. This asshole not only broke the laws of Canada, but he exported an illegal drug into another country, therefore he should face the laws of tha country, and if I were the Governor of that State when this idiot get's convicted, I would not allow any transfer to a Canadian prison until that sentence is complete, because once in Canada are justice system might just send him home on house-arrest so he can resume his illegal activities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've missed the point. The issue isn't whether or not the guy faces a satisfactory punishment. The US feels that it can seize a portion of Canada. I'm not sure that you've considered the implications of such a position.

[kimmy]

You've missed the point. The issue isn't whether or not the guy faces a satisfactory punishment. The US feels that it can seize a portion of Canada. I'm not sure that you've considered the implications of such a position.

You're concerned that they're attempting to annex Canadian territory? Redraw the border in the Langley area?

As much as I hate to interrupt your hyperbole, I think you're reading far too much into this. I would assume that the US government intends to try to take Mr Raj's assets, not annex Canadian territory. Just as they seize the car or the yacht or the bank-accounts of drug dealers if they believe they were purchased with the proceeds of drug trafficking, they also seize the deed to properties.

Foreigners buy property in Canada all the time, Canada's borders do not change with each transaction. The property is still Canada's territory, subject to Canadian law and jurisdiction. In this case, the foreigner holding the deed to this particular piece of Canadian territory could wind up being the government of the United States, but I don't see how that would be any different than if the property owner was a private citizen. As long as the US pays the relevant property tax to Langley city hall and doesn't hold any loud parties, everything should be just fine. I suspect that our own government owns property in other countries for a variety of purposes. I suspect that other governments own property in Canada.

I'm sure that their only intentions for the land are to auction it off anyway. I believe the relevant issue in this instance is that Langley city hall believes they have first claim on the proceeds, to reimburse them for the expense of filling in the drug tunnel.

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

Foreigners buy property in Canada all the time, Canada's borders do not change with each transaction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is analogous to foreign states seizing property?

Just as they seize the car or the yacht or the bank-accounts of drug dealers if they believe they were purchased with the proceeds of drug trafficking, they also seize the deed to properties.

Which is decidedly different than attempting to enforce their own laws in sovereign states.

[kimmy]

Foreigners buy property in Canada all the time, Canada's borders do not change with each transaction.

Which is analogous to foreign states seizing property?

Question: if they were seeking to confiscate Mr Raj's BMW (or his Chevette, or whatever he drives) rather than his drug farm, would you be as riled up about this?

Is it the fact that it's land that you're concerned about? Or is it that a Canadian is being punished by the US for committing cross-border crime?

In response to the former, I don't see an issue. A deed to a property is just an asset, no different from a car or a stack of cash.

In response to the latter, I have little sympathy. If Mr Raj did not wish to face American punishment for his crimes, he should have confined his activities to this side of the border. And it is not to our benefit to shield Canadian citizens from the consequences of breaking the law in the United States. The Indo-Canadian gangs are a source of considerable violent crime in the Lower Mainland. And they are exchanging "BC Bud" for harder and more dangerous drugs to sell in Canada. Giving them protection from harsher consequences would be like giving them an invitation to set up shop. Heck, might as well give them tax breaks while we're at it.

If the encroachment of the US "war on drugs" on Canada's sovereignty is what you meant by "The invasion begins..." then the invasion began earlier, with the more problematic and troubling extradition request for Marc Emery.

-k

[PocketRocket]

I don't think the USA should be able to make any searches or seizures on Canadian soil.

They are more than welcome to play nice, ie; request extradition.

In the case of Emery, they did so (sort of), and got what they asked for.

This, however, is too much.

"The Law Of The Land" as it is written in the USA is not necessarily the law in other countries, and as true lovers of freedom, they should respect that fact.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Question: if they were seeking to confiscate Mr Raj's BMW (or his Chevette, or whatever he drives) rather than his drug farm, would you be as riled up about this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't get it. The issue is not what the US intends to seize, but rather the assumption that American law extends to Canada. This isn't like a case of extradition in which both nations have laws for it. This is the US claiming that their laws are, or ought to be, enforceable on Canadian soil.

If the encroachment of the US "war on drugs" on Canada's sovereignty is what you meant by "The invasion begins..." then the invasion began earlier, with the more problematic and troubling extradition request for Marc Emery.

I disagree. While I don't believe that Emery should be extradited (life in prison for selling seeds is clearly cruel and unusual punishment), Canada has laws for extradition. The US requested Canada enforce those laws with Emery. This is the US attempting to enfore its own laws on Canadians in Canada, laws which don't exist here.

[kimmy]

According to Cohen, the U.S. has been successful in seizing Canadian revenue, in collecting the proceeds of crime. However, seizing land from Canada as a result of an arrest in the U.S., may be a precedent - at least in the Pacific North West.

Your article seems to indicate that the only new wrinkle in this story is that it's land that's under discussion as opposed to other assets. The fact that it's happened before with other types of assets suggests that there's some sort of process which has been follwed in the past and will presumably be used again.

To make that seizure, Cohen admitted that there would have to be an international agreement with Canada, and ultimately a conviction against Raj, who has already agreed not to sell, or transfer the property while the U.S. case is pending.

From the sound of your article, the Americans are seeking cooperation and agreement with Canada in punishing a criminal who are carried out cross-border activities. They concede that they can't proceed on this without Canada's cooperation.

Is there anything to be gained from not cooperating?

-k

[Argus]

Question: if they were seeking to confiscate Mr Raj's BMW (or his Chevette, or whatever he drives) rather than his drug farm, would you be as riled up about this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't get it. The issue is not what the US intends to seize, but rather the assumption that American law extends to Canada. This isn't like a case of extradition in which both nations have laws for it. This is the US claiming that their laws are, or ought to be, enforceable on Canadian soil.

Do you even read your own cites before launching hysterical threads?

The following would seem perintent:

To make that seizure, Cohen admitted that there would have to be an international agreement with Canada,... "We have to request assistance of foreign jurisdiction, in order to enforce that order (to seize the property)," he said. "We would do that, if we had a conviction."

There you go. Open admission that they don't have jurisdiction and would have to have Canada's agreement. Happy now?

[I Miss Trudeau]

The following would seem perintent:

To make that seizure, Cohen admitted that there would have to be an international agreement with Canada,...  "We have to request assistance of foreign jurisdiction, in order to enforce that order (to seize the property)," he said. "We would do that, if we had a conviction."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a monumental difference between requiring assistance to enforce an order, and creating the order in the first place. The claim that the US is making is that, if convicted, the mans property is theirs to do with what they like, regardless of cooperation with the jurisdiction the property is in. That is quite seperate to whether or not that claim is recognized.

There you go. Open admission that they don't have jurisdiction and would have to have Canada's agreement. Happy now?

I'll be happy as soon as you grasp the point, but I'm not holding my breath.

[err]

There is a monumental difference between requiring assistance to enforce an order, and  creating the order in the first place. The claim that the US is making is that, if convicted, the mans property is theirs to do with what they like, regardless of cooperation with the jurisdiction the property is in. That is quite seperate to whether or not that claim is recognized.

There you go. Open admission that they don't have jurisdiction and would have to have Canada's agreement. Happy now?

I'll be happy as soon as you grasp the point, but I'm not holding my breath.

I have to agree with Miss Trudeau and PocketRocket on this one.... The USA should practice their own kind of make-believe freedom on their own soil... and remember that Canada is a sovereign nation.... And Paul Martin needs to make that clear.... but will he...

[cybercoma]

uh...guys.

We have to request assistance of foreign jurisdiction, in order to enforce that order

Hello?

Again??

We have to request assistance of foreign jurisdiction, in order to enforce that order

Yup...still doesn't change the fact that they "HAVE TO REQUEST ASSISTANCE" FROM CANADA.

Just in case the first 7 times weren't enough...

We have to request assistance of foreign jurisdiction, in order to enforce that order

[kimmy]

I have to agree with Miss Trudeau

Miss Trudeau

:lol:

I have to agree with Miss Trudeau and PocketRocket on this one.... The USA should practice their own kind of make-believe freedom on their own soil... and remember that Canada is a sovereign nation....  And Paul Martin needs to make that clear.... but will he...

Yes, it is imperative for Paul Martin to stand firm to make sure that Canadians who break laws in the United States are protected from the consequences of their actions!!

There is a monumental difference between requiring assistance to enforce an order, and  creating the order in the first place. The claim that the US is making is that, if convicted, the mans property is theirs to do with what they like, regardless of cooperation with the jurisdiction the property is in. That is quite seperate to whether or not that claim is recognized.

You guys did read the part about this guy being a drug smuggler, right? About him being involved in illegal activity on both sides of the border? I mean, possessing a few grams of tree might now be decriminalized in Canada, but trafficking in it is not. And I'm quite sure that building your own "border crossing" is against the law as well; even if they were just transporting computer parts or fresh fruit across the border they've still skirted Canada Customs.

Raj and his 2 friends were arrested when they emerged from the tunnel on the US side of the border (yes, I looked it up). They're in US custody and facing US charges. They were caught in Washington state in violation of American law, probably state and federal, and they're subject to the legal consequences in that jurisdiction. We've all heard news items about Canadians facing the death penalty when convicted of murder in Texas and Florida, or facing lifetimes in jail when caught with drugs in Islamic countries, so the notion that you face the consequences of the local law when you commit crimes abroad is not new to any of us. In the US, it is standard practice to seize assets of drug smugglers; what they've done in this case is standard practice. That they are asking for seizure of assets in Canada is not unprecidented, as your own article indicated. Only that in this case they wish to seize land is this case unique.

Of course, when Canadians face the death penalty abroad, or lifetimes in jail for minor crimes, our government advocates on their behalf. Should they in this case? I don't believe they should. Drug smuggling is a major offense on this side of the border as well, and seizure of assets is not a cruel or unusual punishment.

Should our government cooperate with the US request for seizure, if Mr Raj is convicted? I think so. I think we ought to auction the property, use the proceeds to pay off the expenses Langley incurred in filling in this tunnel, and hand over the remainder, if there is any, to the US. To me, that seems logical and fair.

-k

[GostHacked]

That they are asking for seizure of assets in Canada is not unprecidented, as your own article indicated. Only that in this case they wish to seize land is this case unique.

It is Canadian soil they are seizing. Which overall regardles of who had the deed, it's only rightful owner is Canada.

Now look at it this way. Turn those tables. If we even mentioned it to the US that we want to seize the criminals land property, they would laugh us right out of the place. So we should treat them with the respect they would give us.

Regardless of me being a supporter of legalizing pot, Emery messed up large and is subject to all he has comming to him. I guess most possesions can be seized ect, and I know it happend all the time.

And regarldess of Emery messing up and getting caught, Canadian soil is still Canadian soil.

[BHS]

That they are asking for seizure of assets in Canada is not unprecidented, as your own article indicated. Only that in this case they wish to seize land is this case unique.

It is Canadian soil they are seizing. Which overall regardles of who had the deed, it's only rightful owner is Canada.

Now look at it this way. Turn those tables. If we even mentioned it to the US that we want to seize the criminals land property, they would laugh us right out of the place. So we should treat them with the respect they would give us.

Regardless of me being a supporter of legalizing pot, Emery messed up large and is subject to all he has comming to him. I guess most possesions can be seized ect, and I know it happend all the time.

And regarldess of Emery messing up and getting caught, Canadian soil is still Canadian soil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you even read the rest of the thread? They aren't seizing Canadian soil. They're attempting to seize privately held title. It's not the same thing at all.

[GostHacked]

That they are asking for seizure of assets in Canada is not unprecidented, as your own article indicated. Only that in this case they wish to seize land is this case unique.

It is Canadian soil they are seizing. Which overall regardles of who had the deed, it's only rightful owner is Canada.

Now look at it this way. Turn those tables. If we even mentioned it to the US that we want to seize the criminals land property, they would laugh us right out of the place. So we should treat them with the respect they would give us.

Regardless of me being a supporter of legalizing pot, Emery messed up large and is subject to all he has comming to him. I guess most possesions can be seized ect, and I know it happend all the time.

And regarldess of Emery messing up and getting caught, Canadian soil is still Canadian soil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you even read the rest of the thread? They aren't seizing Canadian soil. They're attempting to seize privately held title. It's not the same thing at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A privately held title on Canadian soil. They want to seize the property and land. That means soil. Canadian soil, it is even stated in the artlce they wanted to seize the dead to the property. This is not clear? I don't see a difference really.

If there is a difference, please show me.

[Toro]

If they take all our soil, how are we going to grow anything?

[Black Dog]

If they take all our soil, how are we going to grow anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe they figure that's the easiest way to stop the drug trade. Seize all the soil so we can't grow any weed.

[kimmy]

That they are asking for seizure of assets in Canada is not unprecidented, as your own article indicated. Only that in this case they wish to seize land is this case unique.

It is Canadian soil they are seizing. Which overall regardles of who had the deed, it's only rightful owner is Canada.

Did you even read the rest of the thread? They aren't seizing Canadian soil. They're attempting to seize privately held title. It's not the same thing at all.

A privately held title on Canadian soil. They want to seize the property and land. That means soil. Canadian soil, it is even stated in the artlce they wanted to seize the dead to the property. This is not clear? I don't see a difference really.

If there is a difference, please show me.

Big deal, who gives a crap? Whether the deed is held by IndoCanadian drug smugglers or the US Government, it's still Canadian territory. What do you imagine is going to happen?

They're going to annex this land into their own country?

Redraw the border around the new property?

Build a military base?

I'll tell you what'll happen. They'll auction the deed and apply the money raised to legal expenses in prosecuting the drug smugglers they have in custody.

Foreigners buy and sell Canadian land all the time. That in this instance you're wetting your pants in terror because the prospective owner might be the US government rather than a businessman or corporation is quite funny.

-k

[Guest eureka]

It seems that we are overlooking that the Americans will attempt to seize land as the result of a conviction under American Law in an American court.

They are claiming a prior right to this Canadian property regardless of the claims of Canadian interests as a product of their laws. They are not content to join the queue under Canadian practise.

This is an invasion of Canadian sovereignty and cannot be tolerated.

[kimmy]

It seems that we are overlooking that the Americans will attempt to seize land as the result of a conviction under American Law in an American court.

No, we're fully aware of that.

They are claiming a prior right to this Canadian property regardless of the claims of Canadian interests as a product of their laws. They are not content to join the queue under Canadian practise.

What Canadian interests exist at this point?

First off, does Canada even have a seizure law comparable to the one in the US?

Secondly, assuming we do, we would still have to conduct our own trial of Mr Raj in order to do so. The legal costs for a trial could easily exceed the procedes from the land sale.

And thirdly, to conduct such a trial of our own, we would have to ask for the US to send him back here. With Mr Raj and his associates having been caught red-handed, it seems very likely that he will be convicted there and receive a lengthy sentence.

Right now (or, technically, right after Mr Raj is convicted, as seems most likely given the 360-foot long piece of physical evidence and the circumstances of his arrest...) the Americans are in the position of requesting our assistance in enforcing the terms of his conviction. But if we wanted them to send him back here so that we could conduct our own trial so we could seize his property ourselves, then we are the ones placed in the position of making a request. In other words, one way or another, international cooperation will be required to bring a satisfactory resolution of this case. Using the American request for the seizure of his land as a starting point for arriving at such an agreement seems like the far more logical thing to do.

What goals are we trying to accomplish here?

1. Mr Raj and his associates should be incarcerated, so as to not be able to commit crime on either side of the border.

2. Langley city hall should get their $35,000 in expenses back.

It is of benefit to both Canada and the United States that Mr Raj has been captured. It is likewise of benefit to us as well as to the Americans that Mr Raj be put on trial. And incarcerated, once he is convicted. As it stands, the Americans will be paying the costs of the trial and the cost of his incarceration, so their request for the proceeds of the sale of his land is entirely fair. We need only take $35,000 from that money to pay Langley's expenses.

This is an invasion of Canadian sovereignty and cannot be tolerated.

Nonsense. This is a simple issue of cross-border cooperation. Only in the fact that it is land rather than other sorts of assets under discussion is this remotely interesting or unusual. But since it's land, it's an opportunity for alarmists and flag-waving rah-rah types to run around shouting waving their arms. The title of this thread is ample evidence of the mentality at work.

-k

[Riverwind]

Secondly, assuming we do,  we would still have to conduct our own trial of Mr Raj in order to do so. The legal costs for a trial could easily exceed the proceeds from the land sale.

The US courts have no jurisdiction in Canada which means that seizing assets must follow procedures defined by Canadian law. If Canadian law allows the US to request seizure then Canadian law would also allow the Canadian gov't to do the same. Therefore, any monies from the sale of the property should go to the Canadian authorities. I see no reason to hand the money over to the Americans.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Yes, it is imperative for Paul Martin  to stand firm to make sure that Canadians who break laws in the United States are protected from the consequences of their actions!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, its imperative for people to conduct straw men in a constant, feeble attempt to appear witty.

You guys did read the part about this guy being a drug smuggler, right?

Yeah, and?

They were caught in Washington state in violation of American law, probably state and federal, and they're subject to the legal consequences in that jurisdiction.

All well and good. Note, though, that Langley (and all of the property in it) are not in Washington's jurisdiction.

We've all heard news items about Canadians facing the death penalty when convicted of murder in Texas and Florida, or facing lifetimes in jail when caught with drugs in Islamic countries, so the notion that you face the consequences of the local law when you commit crimes abroad is not new to any of us. 

Your examples have nothing in common with this case, given that executing murderers in Florida does not require the application of a law beyond its jurisdiction.

Should our government cooperate with the US request for seizure, if Mr Raj is convicted?  I think so. I think we ought to auction the property, use the proceeds to pay off the expenses Langley incurred in filling in this tunnel, and hand over the remainder, if there is any, to the US. To me, that seems logical and fair.

And if the seizure of the property ends up costing more in terms of legal costs than it nets at auction, do we submit a bill to the US for the difference? You seem to believe that Canada ought to incur a cost, just so we can hand over money to the US.

[August1991]

Oh boy, is this thread ever dumb.

Imagine the following: You go to New York City, pay for a night at the Pierre Hotel with your American Express credit card and in the morning return to Canada. Then, you refuse to pay the bill because you are in Canada and argue that an American cannot sue you here.

I don't know this case so I don't know if it is a civil or criminal forfeiture. If it were a strictly criminal case, the US government would be asking for extradition. Since for us this amounts to a civil case, the US government will presumably ask for standing before a Canadian court and a judgment against this guy - just as any other plaintiff could or would.