Posts
Ex-grow op home for sale by province
A former grow-op house has been put on the market by the provincial government at a bargain price.
The posh bungalow, at 31 Northport Bay in the city's Royalwood neighbourhood, was seized by the province in 2008 when police found 850 marijuana plants in the basement.
This is very clear. There were plants being grown in the house, so the government seized (aka stole) the whole damn house!
It's the second house seized under a recent law that allows the government to sell the property of criminals.
The prohibition on drugs enables the government to steal houses right out from under people and then pocket the money from it, it won't go to the previous owners like it might in a tax sale. That is a pretty nice racket they have going there.
9 comments:
The real problem here is that drug laws don't work. It would be nice if they did. That stuff is dangerous.
However, Canada can't conceivably change its drug laws unless it is in concert with America. If Canada becomes a legal haven for drugs, America would have to have a massive border presence along our absolutely massive border in order to prevent our drugs from entering the USA. Potentially, they would try covert ops to eliminate drug farmers in Canada. It would lead to an absolute breakdown of relations between the USA and Canada, causing uncontrollable damage to Canada. It is unfortunate, but Canada has to follow the American lead on drug laws.
And one more thing. Look up land ownership laws in Canada. In Canuckistan, you don't own land. You lease it from the government. This is why you have to apply for mineral rights, and also why technically seizing land isn't theft. They're just booting you off the lease.
Stupid law, if you ask me, but it is the law.
39(1) Defence with claim of right
39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession,
even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
39(2) Defence without claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but
does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a
person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from
criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person
who is entitled by law to possession of it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.
Unless you have Claimed the Right to Grow and defend your property, then yes, they can take it.
What is a Claim of Right?
That's actually a very good question, and I'm taking note of this, "claim of right", and will do some research on it, including talking to the three lawyers in my family.
Nice words, but they don't mean a thing.
If the government decides to take my home via expropriation and I try to defend it with force when the police come to kick my ass out, whjat do you think will happen? Will they respect my "right" to defend my property?
Nope, they will shoot back and kill me, simple as that.
They can legislate anything they want, that doesn't make it right.
As I've stated, you don't own your land. It is owned by the Crown, and you're renting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_ownership_in_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tenure
It may be crappy, but in Canuckistan, eminent domain doesn't trample on anyone's rights, because no one owns land. Canadians simply cannot actually own land as individuals.
I am talking about the house, not the land.
"...you don't own your land. It is owned by the Crown, and you're renting it."
Hmm, I, for one, did not know that (& I was a MB public schooled "A" student). :-( The Crown's claim is even worse than in the U.S.!
The wiki article is confusing: "Land ownership in Canada is held by governments, Native groups, corporations, and individuals" & then says, "...the holders of the land actually have land tenure (permission to hold land from the Crown) rather than absolute ownership." So even though it's called land "ownership", it doesn't actually mean "ownership"; it means land "holding". I would say that the gov't has intentionally obfuscated the meaning, so that the average person/citizen/"subject" is unaware of this legality (which is to the Crown's advantage, unfortunately).
It would be interesting to see a candidate in federal or provincial elections make a campaign issue of changing this legislation, so that land ownership actually means "ownership", & not "tenure".
Richard G.
I have more information on "claim of right". This appears to be criminal code, however, and the lawyers in my family are not criminal attorneys. However, this seems to make sense. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL LEGAL OPINION FROM A CRIMINAL ATTORNEY AND THEREFORE I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY IF YOU DECIDED TO ACT ON THIS INFORMATION, AND YOU CANNOT HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING THAT MAY OCCUR IF YOU ACT ON THIS INFORMATION, LEGAL OR OTHERWISE.
Now that that is out of the way...
"generally, there can be situations where actual ownership is not so clear, or where there may be a legal basis for entitlement other than ownership per se - for example, where there is an entitlement to possession as security for a debt. So I think that what this is suggesting is that if you have a claim to be
entitled to possession of the personal property, you are entitled to defend it, and that may be a good defense to charges against you even if you turn
out to be wrong - however, I suspect the defense would be limited. Your belief in your claim would have to be reasonable and not known to you to be
subject to a greater entitlement of the person seeking to take possession. And as noted, you'd be entitled to use only the minimal necessary force."
In the case of the person who's property was taken by the government over drugs...
"I wouldn't bet a lot on this person's chances, in this context."
And one last piece, on Canadian land ownership laws:
"In short, the language that we use sometimes speaks in terms of tenancies, but that is more because of history than accuracy. While there remain certain rights which the government can exercise by statute, such as expropriation, for example, in substance, ownership really is ownership in today's law, even against the Crown."
Our laws remain basically the same as, say, American laws on land ownership, with only a few minor differences. The issue is actually rather complex, though our system does make eminent domain easier than in the American system.
Post a Comment