Marijuana seed store raided

Marijuana seed store raided
Last updated Jul 29 2005 12:42 PM PDT
CBC News

Police in Vancouver have raided a pot seed business run by the head of the B.C. Marijuana Party – and it appears as though it was ordered by the American government.

An employee of the store says police arrived with a warrant around 11 a.m Friday. The charges outlined in the warrant indicated it was on behalf of the U.S. government.

B.C. Marijuana Party leader Marc Emery was not in the store at the time of the raid.

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_pot-seed-20050729

Funny world.

Does NAFTA have drug war provisions that allow us to combat the drug trade in Canada and Mexico or something?

The police in Vancouver now answer to the U.S. Government?

When are they going to raid the pharmaceutical company that makes Rush's drugs?

but not those warrant details.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1122667113835_118076313/?hub=TopStories

Police say he has been arrested in Halifax.

Emery and two other people are accused of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, conspiracy to distribute seed, and money laundering.

"Manufacture marijuana"? If that's what he was conspiring to do, and he's had any success, he'll be a richer man.

He's actually an old friend of my brother's (London Ontario and all that) and a rather, er, unsympathetic character at times, I think.

Marc may have overspoken himself recently:

http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost/news/story.html?id=19c108dc-74e2-4c54-800e-bd99471d264b

Monday, July 25, 2005

... Marijuana activist Marc Emery, dubbed the Prince of Pot by American media, said the sophisticated tunnel will only inflate Vancouver's reputation for weed.

"It will remind Americans that we're producing pot and we're trying to get it to them in any way possible," he said.

Guess something happened to change some minds:

A few minutes later, the two <US tourists> head next door to the New Amsterdam Cafe, where neon signs advertising marijuana seeds jump out at passersby and where Frank enjoys a joint with seven strangers getting high in the Smoke Room.

... Insp. Paul Nadeau, of the RCMP's Co-Ordinated Marijuana Enforcement Team, said police are well aware of the activities at three businesses in the gritty part of Vancouver that borders on the city's Downtown Eastside, where cocaine and heroin are kings among the junkies.

Anyone smoking marijuana can be charged with possession while those selling it can be on the hook for trafficking, Nadeau said.

But police are concentrating their limited resources on bigger problems -- the explosion of grow-ops.

Us, we just wandered down to a shop on the main street of our burg and got our seeds from a much more modest and retiring chap with rather less flashy premises.

Mostly because we could, I have to say. ;)

Wonder what that money-laundering is all about. Emery may be a bit of a megalomaniac, but I don't really think he's stupid.

Very funny.

Conspiracy. Well yea, like there was more than one person.

Selling seed. Yep.

Selling the marijuana? Don't know. Maybe they were.

Money laundering? Well that could be dicey. Would buying his supplies be laundering? Perhaps trading.

But I have other questions? If he/they was/were breaking the law then why wasn't the whole thing a Canadian operation? Does it perhaps mean that he is breaking a US law and that he will have less sympathy down there? (It could be a sting operation.)If so, then me thinks that the Libs will be seen as getting a little too friendly with the neighbours, with all that is suddenly appearing.
Guess one has to wait and see.

http://www.bourque.org/

News site...possible extradition and all

:-(

CTV now says:

The warrant cited a request from U.S. officials.

... "I can express a pretty significant disappointment that
police would choose to go this route to go after Marc and
others who have been operating there for years with no harm
to anyone," Tousaw told CTV.ca News.

*If* this was in response to a request from the US govt, the police didn't have a lot to do with it.

"Request" has a rather tecnical meaning here. It's a request for mutual legal assistance. It's made under a bilateral agreement between the two countries involved. It's how we went after Karlheinz Schreiber and the boys in Switzerland, remember?

1997 Justice press release

"This signing is yet another step in helping us to create an international network of mutual legal assistance," said Minister McLellan. " I would like to thank Minister Parkanova and the government of the Czech Republic for taking this step with us."

This is the second such treaty Canada has recently signed with another state. In early September, Canada signed a mutual legal assistance treaty with Trinidad and Tobago. Canada currently has 16 of these treaties in effect, including those with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and France.

It's international cooperation and the rule of law and all that jazz. It's what we do.

Here's the actual treaty itself; I apologize in advance on behalf of all bilingual Canadians for the horrorshow that is English at the LexUM site -- "Canado-american Treaties", fer fuck's sake. Cana-d'oh. The text of the treaty is official, though -- the weirdoid language in it "Requested State" is of European derivation.

Canada-US mutual legal assistance treaty

THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DESIRING to improve the effectiveness of both countries in the investigation, prosecution and suppression of crime through cooperation and mutual assistance in law enforcement matters,

HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

... Article II
Scope of Application

1. The Parties shall provide, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, mutual legal assistance in all matters relating to the investigation, prosecution and suppression of offences.

2. Assistance shall include:

a) examining objects and sites;

b) exchanging information and objects;

c) locating or identifying persons;

d) serving documents;

e) taking the evidence of persons;

f) providing documents and records;

g) transferring persons in custody;

h) executing requests for searches and seizures.

3. Assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct under investigation or prosecution in the Requesting State constitutes an offence or may be prosecuted by the Requested State.

4. This Treaty is intended solely for mutual legal assistance between the Parties. The provisions of this Treaty shall not give rise to a right on the part of a private party to obtain, suppress or exclude any evidence or to impede the execution of a request.

... Article V
Limitations on Compliance

1. The Requested State may deny assistance to the extent that

a) the request is not made in conformity with the provisions of this Treaty; or

b) execution of the request is contrary to its public interest, as determined by its Central Authority. ...

Article XVI
Search and Seizure

1. A request for search and seizure shall be executed in accordance with the requirements of the law of the Requested State. ...

DONE in duplicate, in the English and French languages, each language version being equally authentic, at Quebec City, this 18th day of March, 1985.

BRIAN MULRONEY
For the Government of Canada

RONALD REAGAN
For the Government of the United States of America

Haha, just threw that last bit in for fun.

What appears to have happened is that the US has requested the extradition of Emery, and made a request for mutual legal assistance so that it can acquire the evidence that it believes is located in Canada, that it needs in order to make out its case against Emery.

We have an extradition treaty with the US as well, of course.

Canada-US extradition treaty

Article 1

Each Contracting Party agrees to extradite to the other, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions described in this Treaty, persons found in its territory who have been charged with, or convicted of, any of the offenses covered by Article 2 of this Treaty committed within the territory of the other, or outside thereof under the conditions specified in Article 3(3) of this Treaty.

Schedule

... 26. Offenses against the laws relating to the traffic in, production, manufacture, or importation of narcotic drugs, Cannabis sativa L., hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine and its derivatives.

<I'm not seeing money laundering in there, or in the 1974 protocol, but I'm no expert>

... Article 4

(1) Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

... (iii) When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall decide. ...

What we can now expect to see, if I've sussed out what's going on accurately, is protracted proceedings in which Emery maybe claims that he is exempt from extradition under (1)(iii) just above there -- political prosecution, heh -- but certainly makes various Charter arguments against extraditing him. Recall that the Supreme Court did refuse to allow extradition to the US in the fairly recent case of the two men charged with murder in a northwestern US state and liable to the death penalty.

The arguments will be very interesting. In the death-penalty extradition case, the decision was essentially based on procedure -- the inability of the US state to guarantee procedural fairness in applying the death penalty, not the unconstitutionality in Canada of the death penalty or of extraditing someone to be executed. We haven't gone quite as far as, say, France, which has formally announced its refusal to deport in death penalty cases.

But Emery will have substantive Charter arguments as well, about the nature of the charges that relate to cannabis. He wouldn't have much of a Charter argument against money-laundering charges, for instance.

Karlheinz Schreiber had argued that the search in Switzerland did not meet Charter standards. The fed govt here wondered how the hell they were supposed to ensure that a search in another country met Charter standards. The Supreme Court disposed of the question in the govt's favour: Schreiber v. Canada

Per L'Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.:

By virtue of s. 32 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Charter is applicable to all matters within the authority of Parliament and the government of Canada. The specific actions undertaken by Canadian officials must be assessed to determine if they infringe a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter.

Section 8 of the Charter protects S from intrusions upon his privacy by the government of Canada through unreasonable use of the power of search or seizure.

By itself, the sending of the letter of request does not engage s. 8 of the Charter. All of those actions that rely on state compulsion in order to interfere with S's privacy interests were undertaken in Switzerland by Swiss authorities and are not subject to Charter scrutiny. Drawing a line between those Canadian actions that did not implicate the Charter, and the actions by Swiss authorities that would have implicated the Charter had they been undertaken by Canadian authorities, is consistent with this Court's jurisprudence on matters involving Canada's international co-operation in criminal investigations and prosecutions. ...

This might actually go in Emery's favour in his case -- according to the SCC, Canada's standards apply when the search is carried out in Canada. So if he has a successful Charter argument of some sort against the search, the US would be shit out of luck in that regard.

He will probably also challenge Canada's entitlement to extradite him at all, arguing that the provision of the treaty relating to cannabis is unconstitutional.

Like I say, it should be long and interesting.

But let's keep in mind -- Canada was, at least as far as I can tell from the scant facts -- NOT acting as a puppet of the US, it was acting under and in accordance with the international obligations that it had voluntarily assumed:

- to provide mutual legal assistance by conducting searches that would be legal if the Cdn police authorities were conducting them;

- to provisionally arrest a person for extradition where the other party to the treaty has requested extradition.

Emery *is* entitled to a hearing on the extradition request, under the Extradition Act:

11. (1) A request by an extradition partner for the provisional arrest or extradition of a person shall be made to the Minister.

(2) A request by an extradition partner for the provisional arrest of a person may also be made to the Minister through Interpol.

... 12. The Minister may, after receiving a request by an extradition partner for the provisional arrest of a person, authorize the Attorney General to apply for a provisional arrest warrant, if the Minister is satisfied that

(a) the offence in respect of which the provisional arrest is requested is punishable in accordance with paragraph 3(1)(a); and

(b) the extradition partner will make a request for the extradition of the person.

... 15. (1) The Minister may, after receiving a request for extradition and being satisfied that the conditions set out in paragraph 3(1)(a) and subsection 3(3) are met in respect of one or more offences mentioned in the request, issue an authority to proceed that authorizes the Attorney General to seek, on behalf of the extradition partner, an order of a court for the committal of the person under section 29.

... 24. (1) The judge shall, on receipt of an authority to proceed from the Attorney General, hold an extradition hearing.

I mean, we could just send him to, oh, the Netherlands so he could be tortured or something until he confessed, of course.

Of the legal framework.

26. Offenses against the laws relating to the traffic in, production, manufacture, or importation of narcotic drugs, Cannabis sativa L., hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine and its derivatives.

One would think that the crime would have to have been committed outside of here. If not then why aren't the locals prosecuting.
If the crime was committed outside then one must assume that sufficient supporting evidence was presented to justify an arrest and seizure.

Seems pretty sketchy to me. It seems that they are on a fishing trip looking for evidence, which they may very well have but are unable to produce it due to the method of capturing the information.

What I am seeing, that the US will be able to bring actions against any business they wish if the business doesn't follow their rules. The cost of fighting it would become too high so the towel is thrown in.

Or maybe it is the Canadian form of rendition for cases where the Canadian court won't agree with the police?

Thanks for the facts again.

One would think that the crime would have to have been committed outside of here. If not then why aren't the locals prosecuting.

That's exactly where it would have had to be committed, and why the locals aren't prosecuting.

The jurisdiction requesting extradition has to have jurisdiction over the crime that is to be charged.

So this means that the US is alleging the commission of a crime in the US (or which it claims jurisdiction over some other way, although I can't think of one offhand).

Since one of the crimes is conspiracy, that might appear to be the hook it's hung on. The conspiracy took place in the US, even if Emery was in Canada?

Note that the treaty says that Canada can't refuse to extradite simply because it would have jurisdiction *too*.

Seems pretty sketchy to me. It seems that they are on a fishing trip looking for evidence, which they may very well have but are unable to produce it due to the method of capturing the information.

Now this *is* the interesting part. Looking at it again, it seems that the Minister may authorize commencement of the extradition proceedings, and issue an arrest warrant ex parte -- but not issue a search warrant. That would have to be obtained from a court, just as in any other case.

And that procedure will have to stand up to Charter scrutiny -- including the reasonable grounds and all that jazz. Fishing expeditions very definitely are not allowed. The judge has to have information on oath establishing reasonable and probable grounds to believe that evidence of the commission of a crime will be found on the searched premises. Presumably, the US supplied the information to comprise those grounds -- but there may have been a great deal of cross-border cooperation before the operation was initiated, and I would very much expect there was in fact.

What I am seeing, that the US will be able to bring actions against any business they wish if the business doesn't follow their rules.

Okay, well this isn't "bringing action". This is seeking extradition for prosecution, and it's against an individual. It's a criminal matter, and the process is subject to Canadian constitutional rules, and the person subject to extradition has all the Canadian constitutional safeguards available, regardless of what the US wants or the Liberals would like to give it. And the rules that the US is alleging have been violated have to be included in the schedule to the treaty, as extraditable offences.

Or maybe it is the Canadian form of rendition for cases where the Canadian court won't agree with the police?

It's the Canadian courts that will determine whether the procedure leading up to extradition has complied with the Charter rules, and whether extradition is permitted by the Charter in this case. There's no end run possible, and the case will run its course all the way to the SCC if necessary. The SCC refused to allow the extradition of two very obviously guilty, quite cold-blooded murderers because their Charter rights could not be protected if they were extradited. The courts would not be expected to make this a slam dunk for the govt.

Maybe we should not leap to hasty conclusions, too. None of us actually knows what Emery has done or not done. The grounds for the search warrant may have been adequate -- they may also still have been lies or incomplete disclosures or whatever, of course, or the court may have found them adequate when they weren't. But my bet is that there were affidavits hundreds of pages long, based on wiretaps and witness statements and concurrent investigations of a number of other people on both sides of the border. I've seen 'em, but if I told you any more I'd have to ... well, you know. I hasten to add, I haven't seen them in any involved capacity, simply from the outside; I have no dog in the race. I did once assist my principal on an extradition case, when I was articling, a long time ago. It's not something many lawyers get to do much, and I'm sure Emery will have his pick.

I don't have any reason to think that Emery has done anything I'd disapprove of or regard as justifiably illegal, but I really just don't know nuttin. And nobody will know much for some time, is my bet. Those warrants are sealed.


Speaking of sealed warrants -- were the Basi et al. warrants ever unsealed yet?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/29/pot-raid050729.html

Gun Producers in the US Get Legal Protection

Pot Seed seller in Canada get arrested at the US's request.

:banghead:

U.S. seeks extradition of Canadian pot crusader
Last Updated Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:28:06 EDT

Vancouver police armed with a search warrant have raided a pot-seed store run by Marc Emery, the head of the B.C. Marijuana Party.

The document alleges a conspiracy to produce marijuana and distribute seeds as well as alleging money laundering.

"Their activities resulted in the growing of tens of thousands of marijuana plants in America. He was involved, allegedly, in an illegal distribution of marijuana in this country . He is a drug dealer," assistant U.S. attorney Jeff Sullivan told CBC News.

U.S. officials allege that Emery has sold as much as $3 million in seeds.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/29/pot-raid050729.html

At this point it seems that the seeds are at the core of it.
As for personal/corporate responsibility it comes out to the same thing if one is a small business.
He may be in a better financial position to contest the charges but there are many who could not.
Anyway, looks like an interesting time ahead.

Selling seeds over the internet from Canada becomes a crime in the US so I must presume that it is not a crime in Canada as we have not taken any action.(Watch out you poppy seed sellers.)

I can just see the headlines "Canadian charter prevents US from successfully fighting the war on drugs!"

because I think it's important that Canadians not be the only ones who know about what the US govt gets up to.

I think it belongs in LBN, myself. Perhaps in the morning when a few more facts and details are known?

I hate the fucking DEA guy who held the news conference here in Seattle. Last week, he was talking about the tunnel in Lynden as a way for "those people" to traffic their "poison" in the US. And extended it to terrorist smuggling too. Hyperbolic asshole.

The DEA wants to extradite Emery and 2 other CANADIAN citizens to the US and indict them on multiple federal felony charges. Don't be surprised if they will be sentenced to enough time in the US Federal prison system to never return home.

Please encourage your parliamentarians not to be the USA's bitch on this one. It's beyond utterly fascist of our government to do this to Canada.

This from Marc's Magazine, Cannabis Culture.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4466.html

The police also took all of their records, computers, hard drive, etc.

Good thing we are using our police powers to keep Americans safe from... Marijuana seeds?

What a waste of time.

rid themselves of incrimidating evidence. My bet is the feds will follow through and pay 'visits' to some of his customers.

I wonder if names/addresses is what they were really looking for. Hopefully most of them didn't use their home address.

in his office and formally protest this.

This is the most egregious example of ignoring another country's sovereignty since...well, Iraq,

The arrogance of the Bush administration never ceases to disgust me.

Marc Emery should be subject to the laws of his own country...not the demands of another.

BTW: I'm an American, interested in Canada. I have a Canadian boyfriend whom I dearly love and I want to move to your country. I hope you don't mind hanging out in this forum from time to time. :-)

Look forward to your input.

Hope we don't tee you off. Gets pretty hot sometimes.

This is the most egregious example of ignoring another country's sovereignty since...well, Iraq

Except it isn't.

The raids were carried out, and the extradition requested, under treaties that Canada signed.

Marc Emery should be subject to the laws of his own country...not the demands of another.

*IF* Marc Emery committed offences in the US, then he *is* subject to US laws (and jurisdiction, if the extradition request is successful).

That's not to say that what the US authorities are doing is *right*. Or that Canada's agreement (in treaties) to assist in investigating alleged offences in the US relating to marijuana, or to extradite people who commit offences in the US relating to marijuana is constitutional in Canada.

I'm an active New Democrat and a member of my riding executive, but I may not be for very much longer...

It was bad enough when Smiling Jack refused to expel that worthless bitch of a bigot Bev Desjarlais from caucus for voting against equal marriange -- in violation of the democratically-produced party platform and undeniably a broken promise on the part of the party.

And now he's said nothing about marijuana legalisation and has not yet come out to bat for Emery in spite of coming out in favour of marijuana legalisation at the 2003 NDP Convention and promising Marc Emery that he would do so on PotTV.

We have worked hard to strengthen the party locally, and to a great extent we have succeeded...

But if it turns out that we have built a ruin, come next election I will run as an independent and I will focus my entire campaiging on discrediting what appears to be the Lieberal Party with different financial backers...My comrades deserve to be stabbed in the back should they not stand up with me and do what is right.

I will have no part in a reactionary organisation that cannot keep its promises, fight for civil liberties, and protect Canadian sovereignty.

Dear Honourable Members:

During the January 2003 leadership campaign, Jack Layton spoke out in favour of the legalisation of cannabis, a promise that Liberal governments have consistently made and broken in the wake of the Canadian Senate’s 1972 Le Dain Report, which recommended that cannabis be legalised and appropriately regulated. Le Dain’s recommendations were reiterated (but not subsequently acted upon) in a 2002 report from the Senate’s Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. Subsequently, Mr. Layton would appear with Marc Emery in the fall of 2003 (coincidentally the same time that I joined the party), garnering considerable public support for the NDP by again expressing support for the liberalisation of our cannabis laws. Mr. Layton, however, has since back-pedalled, remaining silent when Saskatchewan arrested Mr. Emery for passing a joint in the summer of 2004.

Lamentably, the silence has since grown all the more deafening, with neither Mr. Layton nor the party making a statement regarding Mr. Emery’s recent arrest and potential extradition to the United States of America for selling cannabis seeds to Americans, even though he has never violated the law while on American soil, even though he has sold enough seeds to face life in prison in a jurisdiction where capital punishment is prescribed for the cultivation of over 60,000 cannabis plants, even though a majority of Canadians do not view his behaviour as criminal, even though Canada’s laws prohibiting the distribution of viable cannabis seats have not been enforced in over 35 years, even though the seeds that Emery sold may not even meet the definition of “viable” that exists under our current cannabis laws, and even though Washington and Beijing-led prohibitionist policies have proven to be a miserable failure, both in Canada and abroad. To be fair however, NDP MP Libby Davies did release statements on both the recent situation and the 2004 prison sentence, although the party failed to amplify her words and take any official position.

This disenchanting show of weakness represents a direct contradiction to the strong core of ideals that has led me and millions of progressive-minded Canadians to join or support the New Democratic Party. These ideals include an unwavering commitment to the protection and the expansion of our civil liberties, a desire for a strong and sovereign Canada governed by and for Canadians, a willingness to work for social justice, for economic fairness, and for sustainable development within the framework of a vibrant mixed economy comprising a strong labour movement, and an ethos that strives for social change when the status quo is simply not acceptable.

The NDP now stands at a crossroads, in a position to do one of two things: First, the party can take a strong, uncompromising stance in support of our civil liberties and of Canadian sovereignty, proving beyond doubt’s ever-looming shadow that it truly is the movement that we and millions of our predecessors have strived and struggled to build. Alternatively, we can waver and lay down when strength remains the only option, a road that -- as Bob Rae proved to us -- is paved only in ruin. For it was not the timid that unveiled Quebec’s great cloak of darkness, it was not the meek that allowed Tommy Douglas to corral Saskatchewan’s Liberal and Conservative robber bandits, and it was not the cowards that kicked Maggie out of 10 Downing Street.

In liberty, equality, and democracy,

Running Free

I was gladdened when the NDP finally earned some seats in Parliament because of the positive words on marijuana policy by Jack Layton. I may not have a mainline on news in Canada, but it seems that Layton and the NDP have been suspiciously silent on the issue of Marc Emery and are content to let him twist in the wind and possibly let him be extradited.

Its shameful that my US government feels that they can run roughshod over the sovereign govt of Canada to punish a mere seed purveyor. All the while the methamphetamine problem in this country is reaching epidemic proportions, and ruining countless lives.

Stay strong Canada.