Government, RCMP use new tactic on alleged offence on Search Warrant, Bizzare!!!

[gunsmoke2]

This is a new one..

Relates to the B U L L S H I T RC ACT sections 9 & 10 and using US address for Grey market..

Its under the Canadian Criminal Code and the first time I am aware of them using it.

They are becoming more abusive and riduculas in their actions.. this dealer has been alleged to be a party to knowling committing an offense..

I guess he is a party to an offence with his grey market customers..?

Here it is..

PARTIES TO OFFENCE
... / Common intention.
21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it;
(c) abets any person in committing it.
(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi GS2,

No this is not the first time they have used this. I am in fact charged with a conspiracy with a supplier in Ontario and this is what this section means. Common purpose is otherwise known as conspiracy.

The act provides this definition <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(ii) proceedings commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government in respect of a contravention of, a conspiracy or attempt to contravene or counselling the contravention of any Act of Parliament other than this Act or any regulation made under any such Act,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you can have a conspiracy of the RC Act or under the Criminal code.

My charge relates to one charge under the RC Act and then the conspiracy to commit that act.

Naturally there was no conspiracy but rather a normal business arrangement to buy from this supplier just as any businessman does.

But that does NOT prevent them from accusing you of it,

So in this case you mention there MUST be more than one party involved. It is impossible to conspire with yourself and so the charge requires 2 or more parties.

So just as they are badly losing their cases they are stepping up the destruction.

This in fact may indicate a conspiracy by THEM which is a serious CRIMINAL CHARGE.

That section says the following and I would ask people to THINK about this in view of the fact that BOTH Mr. Justice Haliburton and Mr. Justice Klebuc found that there was NO CRIME that could justify the charges in BOTH Leblanc and Ereiser.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>465. (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged
offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable
to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life or for a term not
exceeding fourteen years, or

(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the
alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be
liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;

(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable
offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which
an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be
liable; and
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have top tell anyone that I will endeavor to prove THIS conspiracy on the part of the RCMP. I believe there is AMPLE evidence that if there is no offence it is impossible NOT TO KNOW the following "to knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable..."

If two judges have stated this in their ruling (that there was NO OFFENCE under the identical charge CC sec 327 that I am charged with) and the RCMP officer in charge ADMITTED IN COURT (as he did in my case) that he WAS aware of those rulings, what does THAT say of his knowledge as per THIS law. He HAD to know that there was NO CRIME that could justify the charges in the EXACT SAME MATTER. Both justices ruled that the mere creation of "pirate cards" (for an American signal) was NOT SUFFICIENT to be a crime or support charges (even if that was admitted).

Judge Haliburton also said "the chances of conviction were remote at BEST." (emphasis added by me and paraphrased). So a judge sees it too.

They are now on VERY DANGEROUS grounds and they may not even know it. The more of a rampage they go on with their search and seizure the more these ACTUAL COPS are in danger of being convicted of this crime.
Remember what the 'nurenburg trials' said about people committing crimes and trying to blame them on "orders from their superiors".

It is widely accepted in LAW that blaming it on a superior is NO DEFENCE. This, in my opinion, goes for these LEAD police (the ones leading these raids). And that also goes for anyone involved in the decision to PROCEED with these persecutions such as crown prosecuters or government lawyers who were consulted, the people SIGNING the information to obtain but probably does NOT include those RCMP officers ordered to attend the raids but who did not know of the rulings. Just those making or involved in the making of the decision to RAID. That MAY lead to a CONSPIRACY right up to the top people in Industry Canada who have incited these actions. They have a DUTY to know of these two criminal rulings by Justices Klebuc and Haliburton.

This issue CERTAINLY will NOT be ignored :)

Interesting!!!

Thanks

To the REAL King!!
------------------
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif VOTE REFORM!! http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/lrbanner.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal!

[gunsmoke2]

Hi TTRK,

This person is not charged.. only alleged on the search warrant..

This person has been charged with conspiracy before under section 465..

This section or chapter 21 is new for him atleast.. has never seen it before..

Again he has been charged with conpiracy before with other parties like yourself under the sections you quoted..

But never has seen this on a search warrant before.. did your search warrants quote section 21 ?



[This message has been edited by gunsmoke2 (edited 01-29-2000).]

[North Sat]

Gee wouldn't that sort of lead to the conclusion that if Customs KNOWINGLY clears this systems into Canada, and knowing that they can only be used for purposes which the Government says is illegal, isn't the Customs officers, and indeed the Customs and Revenue Department, aiding and abetting you ? Furthermore, are those profits that they collect on importation, proceeds of crime????

In my case, the Customs Office (Alvin Radtke) told me that he knew that the these systems could be construed as illegal, but that he would still clear them if I chose to continute with the importation. So I did. And he did (clear them). And they got paid around $1500 duties and taxes, and within 60 seconds the RCMP seized them.

Then just two weeks ago, we recalled Mr Radtke to the stand, and his testimony was that it was customs policy to allow any systems in so long as it was obvious they were for personal use, and were not going to be resold. Huh? How does that make any sense, when the RC does not seperate commerciality in any offence.

And all of this so that we can preserve Canadian culture. I had to laugh when I was reading some of the reports of one of our experts in the Charter issue. He was talking about how the CRTC definition of 'canadian' programming had little to do with the cultural content, and everything to do with the commercial production of the programming. There was one point where he said something to the effect that, a group of non-canadians who produced a film on the life and political career of William Lyon Mckenzie King would not qualify as a Canadian production, but a film produced by Canadians about life and political career of President Kennedy would.

I am now convinced that one element of Canadian culture that this Government of ours is very intent on preserving, is treating its citizens very unfairly, and denying any responsibility for it in the end.

[gunsmoke2]

It already has been concluded that Canada customs clears and allows the equipement to enter KNOWLINGLY that the Government says its illegal.

In fact they have sent out documents pretty much SAYING so recently.

However the documents differ to the testmony of Mr Radtke. The documents say it is LEGALLY allowed to enter Canada and NOT prohibited by the RC ACT but the USE of it is ILLEGAL.

In other words you are alloed to import it.. pocess it?.. but NOT allowed to USE it. It seems that this interpretation puts the responsibility on the end user from USING it.. somewhat the opposite of the testimony of Mr Radtke.

This is quite new.. just saw it this past week.. spoke to Ian who has it.. suggest you give him a call.. its rather interesting!

Have a Poor quality of the memo and the letter which I would be glad to fax you if you want.. just need your fax number. :)

[North Sat]

I have always been of the view that it is the end users responsibility, not the seller, unless the seller expresses otherwise.

For that reason, we make each and every customer sign a waiver form, that indicates the terms and conditions of the sale and that:
1. their legal identity is the one they give us.
2. they understand that they are purchasing equipment solely for the purpose of decoding signals for which no lawful distributor exists in canada
3. they will not use the equipment to decode programming of Canadian distributors without payment
4. it is their responsibility to determine those things
5. they hold us harmless in the event they use it for an illegal purpose
6. They are of the opinion that the CRTC may regulate Broadcasting, but cannot regulate reception.
and we have lost the occasional sale because the guy didnt want to sign it (they were probably undercover buyers for Mceknzie anyways). The RCMP officer who purchased the equipment signed the same waiver, and in fact at that time we had a couple extra things:
i) they werent a member agent or informant of the RCMP or any other police or governmental agency with an interest in satellite tv
ii) they agreed to be bound by the document by affixing any signature to it, even if they have misrepresented their true identity
iii) if they did misrepresent themselves, or they are a member agent or informant etc., they agreed that any testimony or evidence will be inadmissable in court.
and they guy signed it, with no problems. In fact, we even have it on videotape.


I'm glad to see that you have picked up on my 'conspiracy to prosecute' angle. This was something I came across as I was investigating the basis in law for the charges alleged during the Battery card raids. (I wasn't a victim of that, but of course it hit pretty close to home, to say the least...) I think the victims of those raids decided they were lucky to just walk away, and didn't bother pursuing that angle, although it certainly could have been helpful in letting the RCMP know where the line in the sand ought to be.

[This message has been edited by North Sat (edited 01-29-2000).]

[To The Real King!!]

Hi NorthSat,

I think they are on pretty dangerous grounds with that issue (conspiricy as mentioned above) and I certainly wont hesitate to take a court action to charge RCMP officers and even crown lawyers if thats required. It will take that to institute a charge against them for sure.

That law was meant to stop JUST THIS TYPE of prosecution of innocent people by making it a crime to do so KNOWINGLY or to conspire with another to do it. There HAS to be a price to be paid for what they are doing using the law to commercialy restrain competition and assist their friends!! I have been onto it for quite some time now although not THAT far back.

I also believe that the 'LEGAL TO IMPORT' receiver at customs is the same 'LEGAL receiver' when it sits in a dealer/distributors warehouse in a box, who DOES NOT use it. Its status can only change by USAGE and so why do the RCMP seize these legal products. I want their ASSES and some SKIN off their NOSE in court.

Soon it will be shown that they are ALSO LEGAL to use to RECEIVE International signals as the RC Act says and THEN these turds will be up a creek without a paddle. THEN we must hit them MERCILESSLY with ALL WE COLLECTIVLY have, jointly and severally and including the INDIVIDUALS who made these decisions. Right down to those signing the "information to obtain". In my case the RCMP in charge said he knew about Ereiser and Leblanc before he signed the information but didnt think it pertinant to tell the Justice of the peace.

Those rulings say NO LAW is broken and he thinks it unimportant. But in making that admission HE KNEW that it was ruled in 2 courts to NOT be an offence, yet still he seized based on the same EXACT ISSUES as those cases. I think that cooks him, well done.

Just an ASIDE is that the person conspired with in 465 above CAN BE with a colleague, the crown lawyer who advised him OR PERSONS UNKNOWN. If you can prove that ONE OF THEM KNEW then its unnecessary to KNOW the identity of the other person. For instance the cop may say that they got orders from above but cannot remember exactly WHO. All that will do is get the other person off but HE IS STILL GUILTY.

Thanks

To the REAL King!!
------------------
Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif VOTE REFORM!! http://www.legal-rights.org/pulsar.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/lrbanner.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal!



[This message has been edited by To The Real King!! (edited 01-29-2000).]

[gunsmoke2]

If its the end user's responsibility then there are 500,000 to a million Canadians violating the RC ACT..

Maybe they should turn their efforts to all end users.. call in the Canadian army.. united nations peace troops..

I think it is pretty stupid for Canada Customs to write its USE is illegal.. but suits me just fine if that is the new position..

The fact is they changed their mind.. first it is illegal to process.. sell.. then its legal to process.. not its USE is illegal.

It only shows what a FARCE it is on what they do.. it also shows the B U L L S H I T RC ACT is full of Kaka..

Its time to file a KAKA suit against them. :)

[gunsmoke2]

Just read the posts..

A conpiracy KAKA suit.. thats better.. :)