who is Reza Mokhtarian?

Well eh, there not called Miranda rights but there basically the same except the police can continue to question you after you've asked for a lawyer you just have to remain silent. http://www.cleo.on.ca/en/publications/polpower/what-are-my-rights-if-i-am-arrested-or-detained

 

Um, this is in the Canada section and we are discussing a Canadian and his activities in Canada. Not the United States of Merica! We sometimes call it "Miranda" because so many even Canadians assume we are Merica! The only time you can talk with a lawyer is if the police have you in legal peril. Our double jeopardy happens after you've been condemned to a sentence. So you can't be sent to jail. Come out and police go after you for the same crime. Here the government has a right to a fair trial too.......

info here: http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-terrorism-convictions-overturned-as-judge-rules-pair-were-entrapped

A peace bond can mean no trial go directly back to jail to serve out your sentence. The bar too investigate and prosecute a Bernie Madoff here is very high. It can take years of investigation. No fifth. Here witness testimony can't be used against you in future proceedings unless its perjury. So any potential witnesses need to be vetted before they hit the stand!

 

I get it. I think. Getting arrested in Canada is rare. If/when it ever happens it is akin to checking into a Holiday Inn with complimentary Timbits from the concierge.

Are you telling us that is why a despicable waste of humanity such as Reza is allowed to do his thing over and over? If that is not the point of all the Great White North arrest process procedure discussion then why is it being discussed?

 

No, not at all. Its just our police need an iron clad case too go criminal on someone. Plus the police and prosecutors need to keep their process for more dangerous real criminals. If an OJ happened here. Kardashian would have been charged with obstruction of justice.

How we deal with criminals that actions lead to death and real injury of innocent people: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/17/17/2017BCSC1784.htm

The big mistake made is viewing Canada as liberal in the American context. Its actually very libertarian in practice.

 

Agree 100%.
Nothing posted is true - WTF?!
I had to recently fight to be retained as an expert witness, vs regular witness, as to not get sued by what I was going to say (a perk of being a paid expert witness). I got dropped eventually but still - this post above is so wrong:


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

Admittances on the witness stand can be used against you in civil court. The government can't go after you for criminal admittance at a criminal proceeding. Provincial civil court is a totally different system. Criminal code is Federal in Canada. Civil law is by the provinces and not the feds.

Are you talking American court or Canadian criminal law?

A third party witness is not going to admit criminal acts on the stand. You get say Karla on the stand before she has been convicted as a witness against her husband Paul..... Now its a little more clear why they had her plead guilty before she was a witness against her husband. Constitution is not binding on people and people. Its a people and government contract.

Like the government can't make a religious test for public office. But I can vote against any politician on religious grounds. I did say perjury, well if you testimony attempts to cover for an employer. We can challenge if it is "expert" testimony. If you are not an expert and sell yourself as one. You can be liable for the damage it causes....

 

A rather abusive and uninformed post, don't you think? Jon

 

The Canadian Supreme Court stated in R. v. Oickle [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3 that we can speak with a lawyer. But we don't have a right to have one present during police questioning. An attorney tells a client over the phone how to "defeat" police tactics. That is obstruction under the Criminal Code of Canada. Same as evidence If you retain physical evidence of a crime as an attorney, you run the risk of being charged with obstruction of justice under section 139(2) Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to "willfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding", or possibly with being an accessory after the fact under section 23(1) of the Criminal Code. In the leading case on this issue, the lawyer was charged with obstruction of justice: R. v. Murray.

 

Nowhere does it say in the link that you have a right to an attorney to be present during questioning. In fact if you don't have a lawyer. They provide a 800 number. Once you've talked with the lawyer by phone. Police can resume questioning you.

 

Its not a wait for the lawyer to arrive and rescue you: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2010/10/08/no_right_to_lawyer_during_questioning_says_top_court.html

 

I'm not sure why Canadian arrest procedures are being over-discussed. It's not really the problem here.

The problem is that no arm or agency of Canada -- local, provincial, national, whether legal or regulatory -- has any teeth to bite someone who is so obviously fraudulent.

Matt

 

hmm having trouble reading? I never said you had the right to have a lawyer present fro questioning did I? Don't put words in my mouth. I know what I posted and what I didn't.

 

A little touchy? I commented on the link. Not what you vaguely wrote.

Main point. The criminal justice system is very slow. Its even slower when its an area police and prosecutors don't deal with on a regular basis. Criminal law is even over the head of most non criminal defense attorneys. Since they can face obstruction, accessory after the fact and even be compelled to testify against their clients...... Actual fact even in court you can have a lawyer, doesn't mean you hired them. Hence we have Duty Council.

Ain't Merica here..... Right to remain silent can cause admittance after the fact. The latter is the same as lying to police and carries more criminal penalties. So silence isn't always golden.

 

Yes, its true our bite is very soft. But in order for local, provincial, and national departments to act. They need iron clad proof before they do anything. Revenue Canada, our version of the IRS doesn't have police powers. Even our Customs Agents had no police powers until 2013.

If I buy your Ferrari in Ontario. Use a bogus bank draft supposedly drawn by a BC Credit Union. Since you accepted the payment and let me drive off. The police will say its a civil matter. And laugh after you leave.......

Might be fraud. Appears too be fraud. People do brunt some burden for doing "business" here without knowledge of how our casino works.

 

You clearly don't know the law as well as you think you do.

 

Of the 112 pages, this last one has been the most insightful.

Thank you both.

And thank you ding dong for starting it.

 

Have you ever been in a criminal court room in Canada? Have you been arrested in Canada? Have you been investigated by the government in Canada?

 

Main point. I stated a reason too keep the threads open. As you won't likely see justice via the Canadian legal system for a very long time. Second its also a good caution too point out Canada is not America. So when American logic and their system is used to make decisions here. Can have consequences.

 

I've been a jury Forman. You think a lawyer can be criminally charged for giving a client legal advice. Lawyers can not testify against their clients without breaching privilege no matter what you say. Remaining silent isn't the same as lying to the police. And you claim police across the country will not investigate fraud over $5000. Yeah I stand by my comments. You don't know the legal system as well as you think you do. Just stop you sound mentally unhinged

 

We do not have jury a head juror. Trials by jury can be appealed by the government. Yes, withholding information. Hiding "information" that is criminal. If uncovered after the fact. Is the same as lying to "law" enforcement. In the US as well. Ask Martha Stewart........

It could become fraud over $5000. After civil court uncovers the truth.

 

Lawyers swear an oath to uphold the laws of Canada. Not defend the constitution. As officers of the court. They are legally obligated to tell the truth. We don't have lawyers during police questioning because a lawyer can testify against you.

Or read the Canadian bar association FAQ: http://www.cba.org/Publications-Resources/Practice-Tools/Ethics-and-Professional-Responsibility-(1)/Solicitor-Client-Privilege/FAQs

So Mr. I was a Juror, so that makes me an insider on Canada's criminal court process. What was the case and what was the province?

 

The key word in your statement is legal advice. If its legal yes. If its illegal advice, they can be charged.

 

You only have client attorney privilege when you have an expectation of privacy. In a police station, you have zero expectation of privacy. Police can record and listen in. And can use that information at trial.

 

I have been in a courtroom. You asked so I answered. I never claimed to be an expert like you have. I just pointed out the many continued instances where your wrong. Thanks for the link "Your ethical duty of confidentiality extends to all the information you learn working for your client. This duty exists no matter the source of the information or its confidential status before it became part of the solicitor-client relationship."

 

Please shut up. I am a lawyer and you are making my ears bleed.