Worst penalty ever.... you gots an F430 Scuderia and you can't even drive it!! :D

That's the key to this whole situation. If I was caught speeding, and they took my car away, I would have a lawyer on that asap. To me, this is a case where the cars were acquired through illicit means, OR, the owners wanted to "save face". In other words, don't fight the power, and you'll get *some* money back. Plus, we won't tell the public who you are.

I don't think there will be a rash of seizures coming from this in the future. It was a good story, and the law looked like heroes in the process.

Am I reading this right?

The owner can buy this car back for $47,000. The gov is only really asking for a huge fine 20% of the sale price. If the owner goes in to the dealership drops 235k to buy the car back 1 party get's 50% returned the other get's 30% the remaining 20% to Gordo. I'd buy my car back if I'm correct on how this deal is going down.

I'm can't believe the civil forfiture act can be applied this way, Sure everyone is happy to hear when a house or car is taken from a pot grower with no legit income. Were these guys charged with cc offence and convicted? A mva ticket does not make you a criminal, The car's/drivers were impounded/ticketed under a mva infraction not a cc offence but the car is being seized as proceeds of crime.

This whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. I've been up Seymour many times and it makes me wonder at what point the police witness first hand that the cars were doing 200km/h let along the question wether the BMW could keep up with the Scuderia. The only way to acheive that kind of speed is on a straightaway obviously. If memory serves me right, there is not enough space on the side of the roads for a parked police car. That photo of the Ferrari on a flat bed tow truck was taken on the top parking lot of Seymour Mountain which tells me that it was where the police pulled them over. If the police pulled them over before they reached the top, the Ferrari would ended up in one of those smaller parking lots on the way up. So the Ferrari was going 200km just right before he "entered" the top parking and the poilce happened to be there and took a reading of his speed with the BMW followed "closely" behind? The more I think about it, the more I believe the whole thing is bullshit and I suspect the two drivers were given harsh punishments based on assumptions without any hardcore evidence... The media were definately "used" by the government.

I'm not comparing the BC government to the Nazis. I'm comparing your declared apathy to an erosion of civil rights to that of German citizens during the Third Reich.

Riddle me this: If either of those individuals had the car registered 100% in someone elses name, would the govt be able to seize the asset?
If your answer is NO, you just admitted that the govt is unable to apply penalties evenly and shouldn't be in the business of seizing private assets from citizens.

They might have killed someone while racing. That's what the argument for seizure is focusing on, the fact that their actions were dangerous and might have hurt someone. Even though the truth was that no one was hurt in this situation. Other than the car owners.


So if someone takes a gun and fires off a few shots that just miss hitting and killing someone, you must apply the same reasoning. If you had done so, the crown would seize your gun, so why the different opinion about cars?

oh god is this thread still going on....

is Marco still standing up for rights that he feels cannot be contravened? which in actuality can be infringed upon if the govt so declares?


i proffered it when Marco just stuck to his fairy tales



if you keep feeding him he will come

Your whole argument that the Government will apply the "notwithstanding" clause is moot because the Canadian government has NEVER applied the nothwithstanding clause in history because unlike the provincial government, the Federal government still seems to care about civil rights. It is only there for the most egregrious circumstances.


What fairy tales?

That's what fines, driver point penalties, and license suspensions are for - they punish the offender. There is no reason to go after an asset in civil court, if the govt. cannot apply this across all cases.


I fail to see how the analogy fits since weapons are controlled by regulations and permits. Private citizens can't freely carry or discharge firearms in Canada. A more appropriate analogy would be to seize and sell the cars of anyone caught driving intoxicated - even first time offenders. Do you have a different opinion about this?

but cars are controlled by regulations and permits - you can almost say there are more laws regulating the usage of cars on the road. You need licences to drive them (which can be taken away), you must have insurance to operate them, and there are rules on how you're allowed to drive it.

The original seizure law, which was brought in to combat the HA, was rewritten in 08' to allow them to take assets that may be used in a crime. It's the equivalent of going back in time and killing Pol Pot as a baby so he couldn't massacre a generation of Cambodians. Good in theory, but horrible in practice.

The different opinion comes from the fact that a car and a gun are two completely different objects.The centralized mass of a bullet travelling at 1200fps is a lot different than a car travelling at 220fps, equal to 200kmh. Not to mention the fact that roadways are for auto use. The last time I checked, we didn't have "bulletways", and I'm sure if we did they would be dangerous places to hang out.

The fact that our local police representative likens a car to a gun is why I would like to limit the amount of power these individual officers have.


On a public road, yes.
But there is nothing stopping me from buying a car to drive on my property. I wouldn't need insurance, or a license. Only if I want to use the publicly owned road system, do I need to go through the gov't processes.

whats the point driving it if you cant rip it

no shifting 2000rpm is not driving a ferrari

because they feel its political suicide if its applied but it's not like it's been applied by provinces which applies to this case you're arguing about... (which has proven to be political suicide in cases when only the threat of its use was given)

what would it matter if it hasn't been applied federally? they have the power to do so if they so wish THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT

so what you're saying is you're going to keep bitching until the federal govt. shuts you up? how bout you take this law up to the supreme court yourself if you're so passionate about it?



as for you're fairy tales your acting like you've forgotten you're history in rs ;) staying relatively silent for ages doesn't change that

really?

taken from wiki...
Two cases out of a number listed where the provinces used the notwithstanding clause.

What a stupid argument.
Especially considering that Canada isn't China, nor is it Russia. In Canada, there is due process which has been thrown to the wind in these cases. That's the point that you bleeding heart paranoids just don't get.

In Canada, the onus is not on the defendant to prove their innocence. It's up to the crown to prove guilt, so why should the Canadian individuals have to put money and time out of pocket to fight what is an egregious misuse of the law?

Am i misreading something here???
So.....the driver (who is not the owner), will get 30% of the proceed from the sales
the owner, will get the remainder (70%) of the proceed?
I hope I am not reading it right.....

Either way, confiscating the vehicle WHILE the driver can still keep his license and drive on the road is just plain retarded :bullshit:

And where do they draw the line to confiscate the vehicle?
Does drinking&driving get your vehicle forfeited?
How about running a red light? or running a stop sign? or tailgating? what about speeding 120 in a 60 zone? or 80 in a school zone? (which i think is much worse than going 200 up seymour)
Technically all of the above are "illegal", so does that mean next time I got caught doing 55 in a 50km/h zone....my car COULD BE confiscated?

Criminals who manage to amass a significant amount of assets are not stupid. The result of this law is that they will register cars/boats/houses in their wife's, relative's gf's or bf's name.

Well, it's more like a car on a road, to a gun at a gun range (so, a "bulletway"). When the car is driven properly and the gun is fired downrange, everythings fine. But if you start doing 200 in a 60, or firing bullets in random directions, you can kill someone who is in what *should* be a perfectly safe area.

Guns are controlled items. You can't just go to a store and buy one. Cops can take them away because you shouldn't have one in the first place unless you have a firearm license. You can buy / own a car without a driver's license. If you operate a vehicle illegally, you are subject to the penalites in the MVA. Using the civil forfeiture act to take away cars from citizens whose actions hurt nobody is an abuse of the act.

I do, it's ridiculous and I don't want my car seized.

Then don't speed... or move to Germany!

You still need to obey speed rules in Germany, just certain sections of the Autobahn is okay.

I think if you want to move to a place without speed limits, try Hawaii or Idaho?

Hey, I'm not perfect. According to this though, I don't even have to be in or near the car. The part owner of the Ferrari was penalized without being involved whatsoever.

Funny you mention Germany.
Back in the late 1930's they also unjustly seized assets from individuals prior to attempting to take over the world.

I just thought that was an interesting reference, considering that the best performance roads in the world were built by a power hungry psychopath who wanted to move troops quickly.

Hawaii is damn near nazi with their speed limits. I spotted a couple of speed traps in Maui my last trip out there. That, and the impaired roadblocks they employ.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/3159...n?size=620x400



hypa.
making it all bipartisan since 1996.
:lol

Then don't let Lead Foot Larry borrow your car.. duh!

I've been to Idaho.. there are cops all over the place, and they do have speed limits. You're probably thinking of Montana, who until 10 years ago or so didn't have daytime speed limits on I-90. (The sign said "responsible and prudent"). Now they do have enforced limits.. though the fines are pretty low, if you manage to get caught. A friend of mine had a $5 ticket in 2001 for going 40mph over the posted limit...