Have you ever noticed...

[ilurkthereforiam]

that government agencies are really good about penalizing you for not paying your taxes on time or giving you a ticket for a parking violation, but are unable to deport convicted drug dealers or protecting women from abusive husbands?

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

That’s because if you don’t pay taxes or you get a parking ticket, you’re easy pickin’s. Of course with either one, you can defend yourself if you feel unjustly treated and take the government to court. Yeah I know, a lot of money and time. Now you know what others feel like, including the First Nations people.

A fellow I know was charged with assault. He didn’t do it and there is plenty of evidence to show he didn’t. Nonetheless it has taken so far……over 5 Grand of his money and after 7 months it’s still not over. Our system is set up so that if you want decent justice, you better be willing to dig deeeeeeep…..and even if you win……you lose.

As for deporting drug dealers well that can take time because there are laws we have to follow and those laws are to protect everyone. They can’t be made in such a way that they apply to only certain people and not others. That’s not a democratic society and the last time I looked…..that’s what we wanted.

Protecting women from abusive husbands……..in many cases very difficult to do. Restraining orders aren’t worth the paper they are written on. The men (and women) could be put in jail until the trial but we all better be willing to dig deeeeeep again for all these costs to keep every wife or husband who had a nasty fight in jail for weeks to months.

I suppose the simplest answers are…..don’t park where you will get a ticket and pay your taxes. Or, you could move to the USA where technically taxes are illegal (despite what the government says) and some people have won that case. It’s nice and warm in Texas and you can carry a gun.

[bb_cool_stuff]

Restraining orders aren't worth the paper they are written on.

In some cases yes.

While they may be a deterrent for some, one always has to be cognizant of the nutbars.

A restraining order means nothing to them, & they can still  cause a heap of damage in the small amount of time they break the order & one calls the police.

We have heard of too many murders that have taken place with a restraining order in place.

Having a nutbar fester in jail does nothing to help their situation.

Must be terrifying for some people.

[ilurkthereforiam]

What I am saying is that they are good at taking from us and will go to ends of the earth to get every penny that they can from us, but they do a piss poor job at serving or protecting us.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

After come contemplation, I would generally agree.

[stevephinn2012]

After come contemplation, I would generally agree

hmmm what's come contemplation?  never heard of it before.

maybe you were contemplating on some --

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

"Come contemplation" is an ancient Buddhist term.

[stevephinn2012]

"Come contemplation" is an ancient Buddhist term.

nice try but NOPE!

but nice to know you are now a buddhist.

[puckstopshere]

Nonetheless it has taken so far……over 5 Grand of his money and after 7 months it’s still not over.

My situation was similar.  Mine lasted 15 months - 15 months of hell not knowing what the outcome would be.  Mine cost me $8400.

In the end, the Crown got up in court and said:

"The officer violated the defendant's Charter Rights.

The officer did not have proper grounds for obtaining a search warrant - it was based on incorrect information.

The officer did not find the evidence that he expected to find.

The charge is dropped."

Some of the sweetest and most bitter words I have ever heard.  The Crown did not have to say them.

I was relieved.

I was also pissed.  Under these circumstances, I should be able to recover the money that I paid out in legal fees.  I should have been able to sue for false arrest.

According to a number of lawyers that I consulted, I could sue.  The odds of my winning were small, and if you decide to proceed, we will need a $10,000 retainer (several were lower, several higher).

The system is truly stacked against the "little guy".

[puckstopshere]

"Come contemplation"

The literal translation is "my fingers are too big for this damn keyboard"

or alternately, "I never learned to type, so give me a break".

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

but nice to know you are now a buddhist.

No I am not a buddhist. Orange isn't my colour. I have no problem taking logic and reason from any belief. An example would be "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It was adopted by the Christians, and often spouted by the Christians, but rarily lived by the Christians.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

The system is truly stacked against the "little guy".

Welcome to faux-democracy. That's why I always take care of business myself. Less expense, often quicker and much more satisfying.

[dipmicro]

My situation was similar.  Mine lasted 15 months - 15 months of hell not knowing what the outcome would be.  Mine cost me $8400.

I have no experience with criminal courts, what happens if someone simply claims "Not Guilty" without trying to prove any point ? According to theory, if there is no zero-doubt evidence, there should be no guilty ruling. Also would not criminal cases have right to free public defender ? Seriously, I am only asking, because it boggles my mind how injust the system is set-up.

I am afraid if there was possibility of a payoff on unproven criminal cases, that would increase taxpayer's cost of prosecution of real criminals so high, police would stop bothering pressing any criminal charges of fear they would end up losing money.

But IMO in fair system criminal defense should be free exactly for cases like yours. TO go even further, I think all defense should be automatically free to the defendant unless proven guilty. In US-based democracies, legal profession is "industry" of it's own, which is ridiculous if you think about it. If every legal case had unlimited legal defense power (of the state) at defender's side, all frivolous "bring competitor to knees by legal paperwork" would simply stop and system would become more fair for little guy.

[dipmicro]

that government agencies are really good about penalizing you for not paying your taxes on time or giving you a ticket for a parking violation, but are unable to deport convicted drug dealers or protecting women from abusive husbands?

Regardless of any naive tree hugging ideas about democracy, it's always business. Pharaoh, feudal government, oligarchic government, dictatorship, democratic elected government, it's always a biz.

Now that we established this, it gets very simple. Accounting 101: cost / revenue ratio.

When you get that parking ticket of $25, opt-in for court option. They will try their hardest to convince you it's a bad idea, they will show you all kinds of photos, but if you are assertive enough and persist, you will not hear from the city again in 99% of cases. It costs them more to sue you for those $25 plus your $7 parking ticket court cost, than they can gain for the city budget.

When prosecuting crimes, it's innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Vvery high level proof requirement. Police advice victims of vandalism to press civil charges because they have much better chance of recovering their money back than going through criminal case. (Plus, all the legal charges are then paid for by the plaintiff and not the government, but that's another story).

It's about cost / revenue ratio. If there is high cost to be spent and little revenue to be gained, they will be stalling. Little scared guy is easy money. Next time CRA knocks on your door, refer them to your lawyer. It will cost you a bit but in the end you come-up ahead.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

I have no experience with criminal courts, what happens if someone simply claims "Not Guilty" without trying to prove any point ?

Well then you go to trial, either judge or jury you take your chances. As a lawyer once said to me...."you can go to court to seek justice....that doesn't mean you'll find it"

According to theory, if there is no zero-doubt evidence, there should be no guilty ruling.

That’s a very grey area. People can be convicted on circumstantial evidence, it happens all the time. That’s why the best bet in a court case (many of them) is have a jury. To elect trial by judge is putting your future in the hands of one person who is not infallible and who also has his or her own prejudices and biases.(take my word on that one)

Also would not criminal cases have right to free public defender ?

In some cases yes, but it’s a toss of the dice who you get. It is not like in the US where there are specific public defenders, in Canada we do not have public defenders. If you can prove you cannot afford a lawyer you get a  lawyer appointed by the court.

A lot of people feel that our system is similar to the US. It is not. In Canada you do not even have a right to a lawyer during questioning….or more precisely interrogation.

But IMO in fair system criminal defense should be free exactly for cases like yours.

If my memory is correct in the UK if you bring a case to court against another individual and you lose……you pay the other person's costs. This cuts down on frivilous cases and revenge cases. I’m not sure if that applies to cases by the Crown….I’ll have to look that up.

[dipmicro]

I come from a country which did not have jury system, so it's based on one man decision. Jury based justice may work better. But it still not objective enough, sometimes people just want to go home after a long trial, so I would not be surprised if there was a rock-paper-scissor during deliberations behind closed doors. But it's been shown that police are also corrupt and evidence can be manufactured or poisoned, so until policing and judging is done by robots loaded with open-source software, jury is probably best and fairest system invented so far.

That Brittish rule of plaintiff liable for defendant costs seems fair. Perhaps Canada should implement it.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

sometimes people just want to go home after a long trial

That might happen but I have known two people who served on juries (two different cases) and I was surprised at how seriously they took the job laid before them. Neither of the trials were long, one was a week and a day and the other two days.

Always get a good lawyer.....they're worth their weight in gold. (unfortunately, they also know that)