Pot growers’ homes seized
Ambulance called to courthouse after grandmother passes out
DIANNE WOOD
KITCHENER (Jan 17, 2007)
A grandmother collapsed in a Kitchener courtroom yesterday and her daughter sobbed for almost an hour after learning they and three other relatives must give up three houses they used to grow marijuana.
An ambulance was called to Ontario Court for Nam Thi Dinh, 53, who passed out after Justice Gary Hearn delivered his ruling. By the time paramedics arrived, Dinh was sitting up and sipping water, however.
She and her daughter, Que Kim Thi Nguyen, 28, who care for children found in the homes, were obviously devastated by the decision. It isn’t clear how soon the families will have to move, but defence lawyers don’t think it will be immediate.
Brennan Smart, the lawyer for the sobbing woman’s husband, Chien Khac Nguyen, said outside court that the Canadian government will likely sell the three Kitchener homes. Officials will then have to present the families with an order to vacate, he said.
Chien Khac Nguyen and his wife and two children, aged four and 2 1/2, live in the Wyandotte Court home. His wife’s mother helps care for the children.
"They’ll go somewhere,’’ Smart said. "It’s not like they’re out today.’’
Along with forfeiting the three homes, Hearn also ordered forfeiture of the proceeds of a fourth house family members also used for a marijuana grow. That home, at 117 Oneida Place, was sold earlier.
The other three homes are at 4 Wyandotte Crt., 31 Briarfield St. and 2 Corfield Dr. All the accused are related by blood or marriage.
The four forfeitures are believed to be the largest number ever ordered at once in Waterloo Region since government legislation was changed in 2001 to make such seizures easier.
The four homes were raided on Oct. 6, 2004, after an investigation by Waterloo regional police and Kitchener RCMP begun in October 2003.
Marijuana grows were set up in the basements of the homes. Police seized 593 plants.
All five accused pleaded guilty in December 2005 to production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. Their sentencing has been held up while the issue of forfeiting the houses was argued.
The family should consider the forfeitures “one of the consequences of the cost of doing business,” the judge said.
"The various accused undertook this venture jointly and in an organized and deliberate manner. The motivation simply appears to be greed and profit.’’
Although lawyers said yesterday there are still children in several of the houses, the judge noted that no evidence about that was provided during the forfeiture hearing.
Children were found at the Oneida Place and Corfield Drive homes at the time of the raids.
The judge also said he had no evidence of the alleged roles of each accused so he must consider them equally guilty. The accused didn’t testify.
LAW ALLOWS SEIZURE
The forfeitures were made under legislation that allows such seizures unless it can be proved it would be disproportional to the crime.
Defence lawyers agreed some forfeiture was required but not all four homes. Each home had equity of over $70,000.
They argued that the poor health of some of the plants suggested the accused were not running a sophisticated commercial grow operation as suggested by the Crown. But the judge disagreed.
He based this on the equipment found in the homes and the fact that four homes were used "to allow more product to be produced or to avoid detection. . . .’’
Three of the accused will be sentenced Feb. 7. Lawyers are asking for suspended sentences or conditional sentences because their clients have paid such a high price already with the forfeiture of their homes.
None of the five has a criminal record. Two of the men have held longtime jobs.
Crown prosecutor Mike O’Malley is asking for one year in jail for all five.
Craig Parry, the lawyer for the grandmother, asked for an adjournment until he finds out where Dinh will be living.
Dinh needs to have a stable home before he can ask for a conditional sentence, he said outside court.
The other two convicted are Cuong Khac Nguyen and his wife, Huyen Le Thi Vu.
Thi Kim Nguyen came to Canada in 1998 and sponsored her husband, defence lawyer Matt Stanley said.
"She’s back at zero,’’ because of the forfeiture, he told the judge.
"There can’t be a stronger form of denunciation than forfeiture.’’
dwood@therecord.com
The moral of the story…grow it at your friends house !!!
Mic
Cute mean, but cute , Love It .
Roy Cooke
Very interesting in Oshawa TOO
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2007/18/c7119.html?view=print
Ontario Ministry of The Attorney General
[
http://www.newswire.ca/images/spacer.gif
http://www.newswire.ca/images/spacer.gif
**Attention News Editors: **
**Attorney General Shuts Down Marijuana Grow Op **
Civil Forfeiture Law Used To Forfeit Oshawa Property OSHAWA, ON, Jan. 18 /CNW/ - An Oshawa house used as a marijuana growoperation has been forfeited to the Crown under the Remedies for OrganizedCrime and Other Unlawful Activities Act (Civil Remedies Act), Attorney GeneralMichael Bryant announced today. "This marijuana grow op is now permanently out of business," said Bryant."The property, a typical house in a typical neighbourhood, was being used forunlawful activity. We have used the Civil Remedies Act to forfeit thisproperty, and we will continue to use the legislation to forfeit property usedas grow ops." On June 16, 2005, Durham Regional Police executed a search warrant at aresidence located at 208 Severn Street in Oshawa, on suspicion of theft ofelectricity, and discovered a large, active grow operation in the residence.Police seized over 500 plants and dried marijuana with a street value of morethan $540,000 along with grow operation equipment. They also found an illegalhydro bypass. On July 24, 2006, the property was initially frozen under provincialcivil asset forfeiture legislation to prevent it from being sold or mortgaged.A subsequent court order extended the preservation order pending completion ofthe civil asset forfeiture proceedings. On January 9, 2007, the court orderedthe forfeiture of the property to the Crown. "This is the first time in Durham Region a residential property used as agrow operation has been forfeited under the Civil Remedies Act," said DurhamRegional Police Chief Vern White. "We will continue to work with the attorneygeneral and the Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities office on moreforfeiture cases in the future." The Civil Remedies Act authorizes the attorney general to ask civilcourts to freeze, seize and forfeit the proceeds and instruments of unlawfulactivity to the Crown. Civil asset forfeiture focuses solely on the connectionbetween property and unlawful activity and is not dependent on any criminalcharges or convictions. The legislation allows the Crown to recover propertyacquired through unlawful activity, to prevent any type of property includinghouses, cash or cars from being used to engage in further unlawful activities,and to compensate victims. Since November 2003, the province has collected on forfeitures totalling$2.6 million in assets. The province currently has $8.7 million in assetsfrozen under this act.Roy Cooke]("http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/")Burn the evidence in the chimney. I’ll be inspecting the roof if you need me. 
I thought in this country, we were innocent until proven guilty? I know civil law differs from criminal law, but this takes thingds to extremes imo.
On another case, there was an $ 11,000.000.00 bust a mile from our place last year. 11,000 plants all in neat rows, just like a farming operation. 3 Asians were caught, arrested and convicted. Therir sentance? House arrest and conditional sentance. No forfeiture.
I do not know law but is that any different then taking the vehicle that is used to smuggle people or drugs into a country
.
If that is what it takes to make the system secure is it right or wrong?
Roy Cooke