The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Illicit Property? -Civil forfeiture is here

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. –Eighth Amendment, US Constitution

It has been a long time in gestation, a not uncommon characteristic of some Barbadian legislation, if we are to have regard to legislation such as the Employment Rights Act, the Safety and Health at Work Act, the Integrity in Public Life Bill, and the promised statute to facilitate the medical use of marijuana. It is now with us.

I am referring to the Bill recently debated in both Chambers of Parliament entitled the Proceeds and Instrumentalities of Crime Bill which declares its aim in the long title as one “to provide for the recovery of proceeds and instrumentalities of crime and generally reform the law relating to persons who benefit from criminal conduct.” This title. However, betrays little indication of the most notable intendment of the Bill, the institution of a regime of civil or in rem forfeiture of an individual’s assets believed, on a balance of probabilities, to have been derived from criminal activity.

According to my research, it was back in August 2013 that the Honourable Attorney General [as he then was], Mr Adriel Brathwaite, officially confirmed what had been touted by others previously; that Barbados “was looking at a model law under which assets believed to be the proceeds of crime may be forfeited”. He was nevertheless careful to concede then that there had been some concern about the constitutionality of civil forfeiture and stated further “it was important to have the right legislative framework in place…”

Since then, the current Office of the Attorney General declared through its Permanent Secretary last year that Government was considering the effect of civil forfeiture legislation and, though limited to public officials, the Integrity in Public Life Bill contains one aspect of civil forfeiture in Clause 57 – that of being in possession of unexplained wealth, though without the final consequence of its confiscation.

(1) Where a person who is or was a public official is suspected to be in possession of property or a pecuniary resource disproportionate to such person’s known sources of income, the Commission, upon a complaint or of its own motion, may summon the person to produce evidence that the property or resource was lawfully obtained.

(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) who fails to produce satisfactory evidence to prove that the possession of the property or pecuniary resource was acquired by lawful means is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine and to imprisonment for not less than 6 months or more than 3 years.

Essentially, civil forfeiture law, such as that contained in the Bill under debate allows the state to confiscate cash; cars, homes and other property suspected of being involved in or obtained through criminal activity. Unlike in the case of criminal forfeiture, the property owner doesn’t have to be charged with, let alone be convicted of, a crime to permanently lose his property.

It is also called in rem forfeiture because it is the property (the res) and not the individual that the state proceeds against. In other words, the impugned property is the proper defendant and hence we are likely to hear in future of cases intituled AG v. US$100, 000 or AG v. Two gold Rolex watches.

At first blush, as hinted by the former AG, the concept of civil forfeiture appears to run counter to the Barbadian notion of fairness, in that it resembles a governmental taking of property without fair compensation (state robbery) and that it seems to ignore the constitutionally guaranteed criminal procedure protections such as the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof. In consequence, the principle does not find ready favour with the general lay public. So that while from press reports, a number of local parliamentarians spoke firmly in support of the initiative, one unaccredited US poll found that 8% only of those questioned strongly supported civil forfeiture while 36% strongly opposed it. And, as for the practice of law enforcement agencies being permitted to keep 100% of forfeited property or to use it or to keep the proceeds from its sale for their own use, a mere 7% were in strong support while 44% strongly opposed it. No such provision exists in the local Bill.

On the other hand, civil forfeiture seeks to take away the ill-gotten gains of the criminal who is able to evade prosecution by never getting his or her hands dirty. Moreover, as argued in a Federalist Society paper of May 1987, while drug proceeds can be forfeited either civilly or criminally, firearms, gambling proceeds vehicles used to smuggle illegal aliens and counterfeiting paraphernalia may only be forfeited civilly. Barbados has covered this lacuna by providing for the civil forfeiture of the instrumentalities –property used in connection with the unlawful conduct- Clause 69 (1) (ii).

It is also argued that criminal forfeiture requires a conviction for the crime giving rise to the forfeiture and if the accused is dead or a fugitive, there can be no prosecution and therefore no criminal forfeiture. The new Bill avoids this by providing for forfeiture where the accused absconds –Clause 51 (1).

Third, and perhaps most important, the argument runs, criminal forfeiture is limited to the property of the defendant. If the defendant uses someone else’s property to commit the crime, criminal forfeiture accomplishes nothing and civil forfeiture only will reach the property. Again, Barbados has covered this loophole, as already stated, by providing for the civil forfeiture of the instrumentalities.

Nevertheless, the government has decided that Barbados will go the way of civil forfeiture, as have some other regional jurisdictions. The individual who is aggrieved by forfeiture will now face the prospect of having to retain legal counsel to recover his or her property. Of course, a constitutional challenge to the validity of the concept is still possible and some comfort might be had from the US Supreme Court ruling in February of this year in Timbs v Indiana that a civil asset forfeiture may violate the protection against excessive fines found in the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. According to the unanimous ruling –

Indiana argues that the Clause does not apply to its use of civil [in rem] forfeitures, but this Court held in Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, that such forfeitures fall within the Clause’s protection when they are at least partially punitive. Indiana cannot prevail unless the Court overrules Austin or holds that, in light of Austin, the Excessive Fines Clause is not incorporated because its application to civil in rem forfeitures is neither fundamental nor deeply rooted.

The nearest local equivalent to the Eighth Amendment is to be found in section15 (1) of our Constitution. This provides-

No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment.

It is at least doubtful, however, whether regional judges would be willing to hold that this section confers the same protection as the Eighth Amendment does. Indeed, in a 2017 decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal, their Lordships flatly rejected an argument from the appellant, Ahmed Williams, that civil forfeiture constituted inhuman treatment. In its view, it had long been established that the protection from inhuman treatment under the Constitution was…concerned with a person’s protection from bodily impairment only and was not related to property”. Nor did it “infringe protections under the Constitution concerning the presumption of innocence and double jeopardy since it was civil in nature”.

This decision clearly stands in the way of any claimant who asserts that civil forfeiture is unconstitutional on these bases

87 comments

  • Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right

    It am not so sure now.

    In fact, I wonder if You in fact have the job?

    As informatively as these are one cannot necessarily see their objective.

    On the one hand it might seem that the articles are academically explorative but then, in the spiel that follows by sheeple and people, it would seem as if it is a test of some type

    A sounding, not really to ascertain if people are understanding what is happening BUT IF THEY CARE RNOUGH TO COMMENT

    AND TO BE COUNTED AMONG THOSE WHO COMMDNT…EITHER FOR OR AGAINST!

    If I did not know better I would swear that you have attained the job he heheheheh but that would mean that they are achieving optimal settings

    Means that more work has to be done AND THE FIGHT HAS TO INTENSIFY

    Like

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    Ya see Enuff in LaLa Land…that is a fraud legislation, 20 year statute of limitations indeed…lol

    ……just like the fraud integrity committee…ha, ha, ha..

    Liked by 1 person

  • great..hopefully they will seize my wife cause I havent been able to figure out how I have been able to afford her all these years.

    Like

  • Jeff

    It would be of interest to ascertain which of the agencies in government will carrying out the audit to enforce the forfeiture? Or somebody is going to get one day and say( Piece the aspiring politician has a $400, 000 house, $100, 000 Mercedes, and only make $100, 000 a year, so let us investigate him …?

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbacth

    It would be of interest to ascertain which of the agencies in government will carrying out the audit to enforce the forfeiture? Or somebody is going to get one day and say( Piece the aspiring politician has a $400, 000 house, $100, 000 Mercedes, and only make $100, 000 a year, so let us investigate him …?

    @Lexicon,

    69.(1) (a)
    (b)
    This Part has effect for the purposes of enabling
    the Recovery Authority to recover in civil proceedings before the Court, property which is, or represents
    (i) property obtained through unlawful conduct;
    (ii) property used in, or in connection with, or intended to be used in, or in connection with, unlawful conduct; and
    property which is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct, or which is intended to be used in unlawful conduct, to be forfeited in civil proceedings.
    The powers conferred by this Part are exercisable in relation to any property, including cash, whether or not proceedings have been brought for an offence in connection with the property.

    “Recovery Authority” means the Attorney-General;

    Like

  • @Jeff
    Civil forfeiture is part of the legal/judicial process in many jurisdictions; Is it abused? Most certainly yes and will it be abused in Barbados? Most certainly “Affirmative” to that also.

    Here is a Court ruling supporting seizure of funds in New Brunswick

    https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/2017/2017nbqb18/2017nbqb18.html

    Like

  • @Sargeant

    What are you suggesting- we do nothing when there is clear evidence criminal proceeds is the reason some are living high on the hog in jobs that do not support. Should we not support the government if it strengthens the laws to help with uprooting corruption?

    Like

  • the moral of the story is you can get into a whole lot of trouble if you are the wrong tint…agreed

    Like

  • @David

    Pls read what I wrote again, I am stating that it is part of the legal process and is often abused I am not proposing that we do nothing.

    Like

  • Is the abuse addressed when exposed from your experience?

    What is the cost benefit to use a term of having a law that supports forfeiture.

    Like

  • Thanks Jeff

    Like

  • that was a reasonable explanation of proceeds of crime law. nothing new about Bim’s laws. they follow well established regimes already in existence. this is long overdue and was one of the reasons Bim was so roundly criticised by CFAT when it reviewed Bim’s regulatory process some years ago.

    Jeff mentioned issues wrt the USA and rightly pointed out that the leeway granted to Law Enforcement in the US re retaining the proceeds of criminal activity is not present in our legislation. in addition decisions in US courts whilst noteworthy are not legally persuasive or binding upon our courts.

    the civil part of the proceeds of crime pertain to the property seized or in question and the burden of proof as to whether it is proceeds of criminal activity (which is what the layperson usually refer to as money laundering). the judge adjudicates the matter on the balance of probability which means that it is more likely than not to have occurred (civil standard) and not beyond a reasonable doubt as obtains in criminal offences.

    sometimes the layperson believe that police officers could just place persons in court and asked them to prove how they obtain some particular property. in some jurisdictions there are laws that could do just that although it is not as simplistic as that example but in our proposed legislation there must be a predicate or underlying criminal offence which is the criminal activity portion of the criminal property.

    this legislation is long overdue and necessary to capture those criminal activities not named in the previous legislation which mostly surrounded drug activity and not even then did Bim seized much criminal property.

    but this is only part of the whole. the practical application of the law is daunting and those whose duty it is to carry out this function will need training. that includes the police, lawyers and especially the judiciary. for every crime that attracts this legislation and there is criminal proceeds a charge of ML should be attached by the police. lawyers should know that this will happen and the judiciary must be prepared to apply the penalties described in law.

    then there is the issue of disposable of the property when the court rules in favour of the state. i suspect that author will want to deal with this at some later stage so i will not go into it any further.

    Like

  • Sergeant

    The defendant was in the world of trouble … but officer was wrong to seizured the defendant cash without a warrant … however, the defendant has right the to be secure in his person, papers, house and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but upon probable cause supported by and oath or affirmation particularly describing the place, person or thing to be seized..

    Like

  • @David
    This isn’t about me, I made a statement and there are plenty of examples to go around however when one is battling “City Hall” it is an uphill battle.

    Sometimes the abuse is addressed if it is publicized and the property is seized from a sympathetic group or person (like the example below) and they are able to publicise the issue

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/why-oklahoma-cops-are-returning-53000-to-a-christian-band-an-orphanage-and-a-church/?utm_term=.4db58bca7a5a

    Like

  • @Sargeant

    Not making it about you. Just want to confront the popular argument against this kind of legislation.

    Like

  • We have to do something about corruption because it is killing us. We also have to protect against an over zealous state. The law has to find balance. It is a normal tension. There will be abuses. There should be a mechanism for speedy resolution through the courts.

    That is what a healthy justice system does. The problem here is that we move way too slowly.

    I am not going to attempt to comment on this law because I think that is always going to be complex and beyond me at present. Instead I will explore ways in which it would be difficult to prove that one gained substantial wealth through legal means.

    If it was bequeathed in a will there are records. If given by deed of gift there are records. If won in a lottery there are records. If earned through legitimate business activity there should be records.

    I will think some more or maybe somebody else can help me.

    Still thinking… a suitcase of cash as a gift?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Donna

    You mentions important word/ slowly.

    Why has this law taken almost a decade to reach this point at a time both parties have included corruption as a priority issue?

    Like

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    “Recovery Authority” means the Attorney-General;”

    My translation…more properties getting tief…more abuse and misuse of the UK Crown….to tief and keep what dont belong to government ministers, lawyers and minorities..

    They are still to lock up anyone from DLP for theftmof public funds…. which is already legislated as criminal with the accompanying powers of arrestl….or fraud….already also legislated as a criminal act which can attract criminal arrest….but these tricksters Mia, Dale Whistleblower et al….are trying to sidestep that to bamboozle the voters…still and shamelessly….

    But…..ticktock

    Like

  • Well if blp gonna lock up anyone they have to look amongst them own
    Reason why they dont have the guts to pursue any illegalties against individuals or entities

    Like

  • Sergeant

    How was it abuse if the cop did what he thought was right, and Christian organization exercised its due process under law and regained what was rightfully theirs … It is no more different than a cop who tickets you for a moving infraction, and you exercise your due process, but going to court, and proving to a judge that the moving infraction was illegal.

    Like

  • Sergeant

    If a cop stops me for moving infraction on my way to the bank with $100, 000 in cash on the back seat of my car, and I fail to give him a reasonable explanation as to why I have so much cash in possession … then he has all right to seize my cash until I can convince him further that the cash is legitimately mine.

    Like

  • Abigail

    Just like your initial comment on the other blog, you are still confused.

    Like

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    Sure…am confused, but in my confused state…ya gotta love how the british DOCUMENTS EVERYTHING…

    ah heard yall tried to get original docs from the brits re the land and properties YALL STOLE ON THE ISLAND……..and the Brits said hell no…lol

    This is may be the one and only time i stand with them…

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/estate/view/830

    Like

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    lol….yall thought ya can bamboozle the brits…get the original docs for the properties on the island…rewrite the whole thing with ya fraudulent selves and cover all ya crimes where ya stole properties from 3 generations of bajans…from the 1940s to present…..

    but…no cigar…ha, ha, ha..

    Give me a P
    Give me an R
    Give me an I
    Give me an S
    Give me an O
    Give me an N

    yep…

    Like

  • Unable to contribute as some of this stuff is above my weight class but I will not let that stop me (I gun punch above my weight).

    I will not be distracted by ‘good’ or ‘bad’ laws or the ‘inequity’ of punishment for crimes, but will state…
    “You can have all the laws in the world and make up a few to add to them, but if no one enforces these laws then they are just fancy words on paper. The paper could be best used for other purposes,”

    Wasn’t it just a few months ago, they were inventing flawed integrity legislation?
    ——————-XX YY XX———————-

    I noticed that Jeff is using the phrases “civil forfeiture” and “criminal forfeiture”. It seem as if at times in the US there is a blurring of the two.

    I am strongly opposed to “civil forfeiture” as I know it in the US. It has become just another way for police departments to fund themselves (legally or illegally).
    https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/taken/2019/01/29/civil-forfeiture-vehicle-seizures-south-carolina-drug-transport-mistakes-occur/2457679002/

    In highly partisan political environment such as we are, civil forfeiture in the hands of a weak/corrupt police department could ruin (perceived) ‘political’ opponents. Note that anybody can be a political opponent. Let’s FIRST go after corrupt politician……

    Voting above my weight class… I say no to civil forfeiture….

    Like

  • David March 17, 2019 9:27 AM

    @Donna

    Why has this law taken almost a decade to reach this point at a time both parties have included corruption as a priority issue?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Easy! It has taken this long because the beneficiaries were benefiting.

    The real question is – why has it finally appeared?

    I would hazard a guess that the corruption has reached the point where it has killed the golden goose.

    The public was always aware of the corruption but were not as agitated because they were still getting basic services at a level that they could accept. This is no longer so. Almost everyone except the beneficiaries is feeling the strain. And even that cannot last. They will feel it in some way. We are too small for it not to be so.

    It has reached a critical point where veiled threats of “cracking some heads” were seen as necessary. One should not trust the quiet man who just smiles when taken advantage of I always heard because one day he just erupts like a riot in 1937.

    Here we are in a time when the DLP has been obliterated by the electorate. We don’t want to see them resurrected. We don’t want to hear one RH from them.

    What are we left with? A leader who has no opposition. We cannot even fool ourselves that we have a voice anymore.

    We are backed into a corner. If things don’t improve we have nowhere to go.

    Cornered rats are known to be dangerous.

    Liked by 1 person

  • TheO,

    Quite true. it is just on paper. No guarantee it will be enforced any time soon. But at least they understand that we are watching. They know they have to do a little more to keep us fooled. It is the first step that we have made them take. I am sure we will have to drag them kicking and screaming into taking the second step.

    Like

  • The perpetrators of corruption are aware of increasing scrutiny brought by social media. It is very important influencers of non traditional media nurture and protect the credibility quotient. By its freewheeling nature a difficult undertaking but we must try.

    Liked by 1 person

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    “I would hazard a guess that the corruption has reached the point where it has killed the golden goose”

    lol…wuhloss!!!!…and then some..

    Like

  • “Well if blp gonna lock up anyone they have to look amongst them own”
    One of the two worst arguments I have seen to explain action/inaction
    (1) The DLP did the same
    (2) The BLP did the same
    Result: The good ship Barbados is unable to change course.

    Like

  • It baffles me that hundreds of people who owe millions in income tax are let off the hook but we are now going after those who cannot prove how they got a house , car etc.
    If not paying taxes is illegal we should have gone after thier houses and cars as well.
    Seems we have two legal systems.
    We can’t go after one set of criminals and turn a blind eye to those who amass fortunes by refusing to pay the state its due.
    Crime is crime!

    Liked by 1 person

  • It lies in the fact that it is hard for the pot to call the kettle black.Not gonna happen
    In that fact lies the core of the rotten apple

    Like

  • Why are you baffled? You know why these things are done. To benefit the beneficiaries.

    We only have one legal system. The mock mock one that pretends crimes are only perpetrated by the lower class.

    Like

  • Wuhlaus! Mariposa is right, It is not an excuse. It is a reason. Fact.

    Wuhlaus!

    Like

  • I laughed out loud when people call or expect Mottley to launch or prosecute any one suspected of illegalities
    Fools you all are
    Listen to the many voices who have been showing and giving evidence as to the many illegalties surrounding some of her minister s .Not a peeping word comes from Mottley word to adress the matters
    Issues that are attached to transparency and accountability
    B.C.or D actions that are called upon (for)and by this present govt to address

    Like

  • @William

    This is not an issue for us to go political. We must attack crime on all fronts. Tax collection is the usual issue and enforcement. This is why some of us are concerned the same culture will prevail. We will implement the legislation but…

    Like

  • Continue to make all our problems about Mottley. The problems as a result of corruption existed before Mottley.

    Like

  • Where is the Barbados gets blacklisted again article? I want to know if there will be any type of blame this time around.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Mottley is head of govt
    Then it is to her and her Ministers these questions should be directed
    No!!!!

    Like

  • SirFuzzy (Former Sheep)

    I will just say one thing about this. Barbados has a good record of passing progressive or modern looking/sounding legislation etc, however we have been regressing as it comes to the “enforcement” in a fair manner of the many laws on the books Added to that the “eternal” wait that the Courts take before justice is weighed or handed out/down. This bajan thinking “that god must be a bajan” seems to reside in the legal system as an eternity in court processing is par of the course?

    Yip Yip ohray for the new proposed legislation. let see how well we do in the enforcement arena. In another blog dealing with “civil matters” it was reported that “child mothers” and “child fathers” routinely defy protection orders handed down by the courts. Now them ppls are the “small ups” or “non-big shots” in the society. Imagine what can be the outcome if this proposed laws intersects with the “big ups” in a negative manner. At this point that movie(crimal proceeding etc) stops being an “action adventure or thriller” movie and becomes a ” “musical/comedy”, cause nuff nuff jokes and laugher will be in the rum shoppe; sorry court house etc. In other words nothing will likely come of it. Integrity FC (0) vs corruption FC (1) will be the score, another away win for the corruption FC.

    Just my thoughts.

    Like

  • Again this is not a political issue.

    Say we agree the BLPites politicized it.

    Now the DLPites politicizes it.

    Does it solve the problem the country is facing at this time?

    If the current state of the country has not been able to encourage a national focus to problem solving away from the adversarial approach nothing well.

    Like

  • Again this is not a political issue.
    Say we agree the BLPites politicized it.
    Now the DLPites is politicalizing it.
    Does it solve the problem the country is facing at this time?
    If the current state of the country has not been able to encourage a national focus to problem solves away from the adversarial approach nothing well.(Quote)

    This is a good example of why I get angry with the chairman. If he is playing Devil’s Advocate, I do not agree with that approach. The man just does not understand the role of government. IT IS A POLITICAL ISSUE.

    Like

  • @ David
    Where are you standing?My comment was just that. Nothing political. There are citizens of all political persuasions, who were given a break for breaking the law and not paying :taxes, VAT, national insurance deductions they took out of the employees’ pay packs etc.
    These are illegal acts and they should have also paid the penalties or have their property taken over by the state. Robbery is robbery!
    It is you who always jump in and accuse people of being political.
    You better than most know I have no political axe to grind.
    Kindly act with maturity and leave your infantile gutter sniping out of what I have to say on BU.
    Thanks.

    Like

  • The word ‘politicalization’ of the health issue is used in a cultural context. If you are unable to deduce the nuance in the comment say so and it can be explained. If you do not agree you are free to do so to state the office. Now carry on smartly.

    Like

  • This govt roles out a table on matters of Transparency and accountability
    Iis it not the right and duty of citizen to expect govt to lead by example
    Shouldnt judgement not start in the house of Parliament This

    Like

  • @Willian

    Why don’t you reread the comment posted. Debt forgiveness is done by all government. People become delinquent for many reasons. That said we all agree there is a lack of enforcement and inefficient tax collection. Again if you want a further explanation ask a question instead of exposing your drawers.

    Liked by 1 person

  • The word ‘politicalization’ of the health issue is used in a cultural context.(Quote)

    ???????????? How can people on BU tolerate this level of intelligence without saying a word? The man is obviously a Barbados Scholar.

    Like

  • David,

    not all Govts forgive debts. i believe you are referring to Bim’s Govt and income taxes is quite a different animal than VAT.

    VAT is paid by the customers to be passed onto Govt for the benefit of the population at large. VAT is not a profit to the various businesses from items customers purchased.

    if VAT is not passed on it should be viewed as theft and the onus should not be on BRA to collect such taxes but on the various businesses to pass it on.

    if we forgive VAT now businesses will do it again and again

    they should be no debt forgiveness for VAT. none whatsoever and any Govt so doing should be voted out forthwith

    Liked by 2 people

  • In other words to break it down is ABC language- we are all in this TOGETHER. We ALL have to play our part. The political partisans blaming B and D will got move the matter forward.

    We look forward to your apology to Dr. St, John the survey has been fully explained.

    You may have the last Rh word.

    Like

  • Part 1
    ‘On 12 March, the Council of the 28-nations European Union (EU) placed 15 small territories on a list of what it calls “non-cooperative jurisdictions”. What the EC considers these territories to be “non-cooperative” about reveals the raw exercise of power by the strong over the weak. In this case, the firm intention of the EU is to impose its tax policies upon other nations through strong-arming’, including Barbados.

    The EU is an UN-elected Bureaucratic Body dictating to the Sovereign States within the EU their World View. The EU is in danger of being broken up and with the Advent of BREXIT they are looking for ways to get more money. They are Jealous that by the International Rules that were created by the Big Countries that some small States have Out Maneuvered these Big State Blocks in getting Revenue that the EU does Not Control.

    Even the US has Low Tax Areas doing the same things that we in Barbados are doing but they wouldn’t say anything about that. To give a practical Example of how money flows, Texas and Florida are no Income Tax States and they are gaining Population Growth by People moving from the Higher Tax States to Lower Tax States. This means that people move their money to Lower Tax Areas. Why should you work to give Government more money than they already get? Their Appetite for what is not theirs is Insatiable. They will take anything under the Guise of Law and not what is Right or Morally Right but what they want using the Heavy hand of the Law.

    Remember when they passed money laundering laws in Barbados? It was under the Guise of going after the Bad Boys the Drug Men! That has now been expanded that even if a Vendor has a Bank account and used to save a hundred dollars a week and her son came to visit from overseas and gives her a thousand dollars that she puts on the Bank, notwithstanding (the Ten Thousand Dollar Guide lines) the Bank Tellers have been trained to report the Thousand Dollar Deposit because it was unusual activity, that the Vendor is now a suspect of being a money launderer. That same Law had Asset Forfeiture attached to it.

    Like

  • Part 2

    Fast Forward to Today…New Laws are about to be introduced concerning Civil Asset Forfeiture that will require no proof to make the accusation to take a man’s property, under the penalty of law this cannot be right…You must prove a man guilty before he is guilty and what they have not told you is that they may take under the law all your family’s Properties and Assets all by mere accusations.

    They have turned our Juris Prudence upside Down making the accused guilty before he is found guilty. They are Three laws that I know of so far that makes you Guilty by Accusation and the Burden of Proof is not on the Prosecutor but on the Accused. The first one is Sexual Assault. The Second was the Law pertaining to VAT and now this Law being Asset Forfeiture, that the Government is under no Obligation to prove you Guilty to take everything that you and your family own. That is like Saying, “We know Stuartie Tief so let’s lock him up, teck everything he and he family got and tell him prove that we wrong”, with no money to hire a Lawyer.
    This is not the Rule of Law this is the Rule of Dictators. If you Know that Stuartie Tief prove it in a court of law and then lock him up if he is guilty and if you do not have the proof SHUT UP and leave your innuendo for when you are on the Campaign Trail !

    Here our Government is Guilty of wanting to extract money from someone who has not been proven Guilty in a Similar Vein to what the EU is doing to the Caribbean Countries. We must Resist all efforts to make our Citizens Guilty of anything without the Burden of Proof and the Guilty Judgement firs, that is our Heritage that is our Constitution that is our Culture and that is our Jurist Prudence. The Subversion of that is a MONSTROUS CRIME that will Subvert the Very Rule of Law by the IMPOSITION of an UNJUST LAW.

    Dean Cumberbatch as a man who teaches the Law Do you See the Grave Threats contained in these Proposed Laws and if you do is your Column a Sounding Board for the Government or do you just want to know the views of the Barbadian Public and what are you going to do about it?

    Like

  • @ Greene,

    You are obviously right. It is theft. What is not clear is the companies that got an amnesty and for how much; if they are up to date with their current payments; and, if they are members or associates of the so-called Social Partnership; and f they have ever made any donations to the ruling party?
    By the way, plse make allowance for the supreme level of thought of the chairman.

    Like

  • @ Freedom Crier, 1.25pm

    You are right. The rule of law and due process have been side lined. To be accused now is to be guilty of certain offences. On BU, if you support the wrong political party you are also guilty re Clico.

    Like

  • Stop being an intelluctual snob
    What might be some abc,s to one individual might differ to another
    But what is simple is govt attempt to cherry pick the issue of corruption using a scatchel by which to leave themselves unscathed

    Like

  • listen people this new legislation is not aimed at putting persons in court to prove how they got property of money. they are attached conditions that the property in question must be proceeds of criminal conduct. so the police just cant ruck up to you one day and say, “Sir you have a big house please prove to us that you got this legitimately. it does not work like that.”

    many of you are getting confused because of the civil forfeiture part of the Act and because it has been stated that you do not have to be convicted of a crime. whilst that is true there must be the underlying criminal conduct which must form the basis of the person being placed before the court. whereupon the Court would adjudicate the matter to the civil standard – a balance of probabilities- whether the evidence led in the case shows that the crime (criminal conduct) was more likely than not to have occurred.

    and from an investigative standpoint the same process would obtain as in a criminal investigation. in fact, in practice, most of these matters will stem from criminal investigations and the proceeds of crime portion will be an additional charge where there is property deemed to have come from the criminal conduct (ML). it is just that for the proceeds of crime bit you dont have to be convicted or the crime does have to be proved in the first instance.

    for instance Innis- the US didnt have to prove that Innis committed or was convicted of corruption. only that the sums in question or the bribe (the proceeds of criminal conduct or ML) came from a corrupt act (criminal conduct) in which Inniss was a participant and benefited therefrom- in possession of the proceeds.

    so there are various offences of possession, concealing, disguising, removing, etc of proceeds of criminal conduct

    Like

  • @ Greene March 17, 2019 2:02 PM

    You are trying to justify that its not this or its not that but you are ending up proving that you can get Locked up and everything taken from you on an Accusation. This is Rife for Political Interference that you can take away a mans Assets by an Accusation…If you want to do so prove it in a Court of Law and then take it away but not before… The Process is more important than the Outcome because the Process Protects the Innocent. If you cannot see this then all who believe like you if in the Majority we are doomed.

    Even Robespierre Loss his head by his own Revolution.

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    Dean Cumberbatch as a man who teaches the Law Do you See the Grave Threats contained in these Proposed Laws and if you do is your Column a Sounding Board for the Government or do you just want to know the views of the Barbadian Public and what are you going to do about it?

    @ FC, I cannot unmake a law that has been passed! I have sought to explain in the article the hurdles that have to be overcome if the law is too be struck down to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution. If you read to the end, you will see that the attempt by Mr Williams to do so failed in court. Do you want me to try against the odds to get our judges strike down our statute for you?There will be a cost involved…

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jefferson Cumberbatch

    They (sic) are Three laws that I know of so far that makes you Guilty by Accusation and the Burden of Proof is not on the Prosecutor but on the Accused. The first one is Sexual Assault.

    This is not correct…the prosecution must prove criminal guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of sexual assault. The presumption of innocence requires no less!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Jeff Cumberbatch March 17, 2019 2:34 PM

    “Do you want me to try against the odds to get our judges strike down our statute for you?There will be a cost involved”…

    For me? Is it okay with you that the Government uses their Strong Arm against its Citizens Unconstitutionally?

    We Need To Learn From History Otherwise We Are Doomed to Repeat It!

    Here are examples to which I am referring…

    Oversized Government with its Ideology that is rooted Socialism, has been such a stealthy culprit, that we have come to accept it without questioning. We need to understand that it’s all about Control, Control, Control with Endless Rules and Regulation that are incumbent upon the people.

    The American Constitution is 15 pages long compared to what they have now!

    The more laws and restrictions there are,
    The poorer people become.
    The sharper men’s weapons,
    The more trouble in the land.
    The more ingenious and clever men are,
    The more strange things happen.
    The more rules and regulations,
    The more thieves and robbers.

    Does the above by Tao Te Ching lead you to believe that what we are witnessing now with the intrusion of Big Government in our lives is in any way well meaning?

    Dean Cumberbatch I can only encourage you to Continue to Speak out about it…As far as hiring you or any other Lawyer is Concerned with the Broken Court System in Barbados I would probably be Dead Broke or Deceased Period before the Case is heard.

    Like

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    Dirty, demon lawyers of Barbados.

    Like

  • There has been a shift, both in the courts and in policy. Historic allegations when the accused is dead, ie Michael Jackson, Edward Heath, Cyril Smith, the Catholic Church, and compensations claims? Or those still alive who are treated as guilty before due process, ie R. Kelly, and the banning of his music. The presumption in favour of mothers in Family Courts, etc. The politics of so-called hate crime, in particular the continuing battle between feminists and militant transgender activists.
    Liberal democratic jurisprudence has shifted away from innocent until proven guilty to innocent if accused. This has always been the threat some white women held over black men – the threat of crying rape and being believed..
    It is now an offence in England and Wales to say you only believe in two genders – male and female; remember the recent row with Martina Navratilova?
    People in England and Wales can now claim they were under the influence of alcohol when they had sexual intercourse and therefore were not in a sound enough mind to give consent. That is now a legitimate defence. The situation is even tougher in HR cases wth work-place allegations. .
    Look at the row in athletics and the failure of the courts to resolve the matter. As medical science progresses there will be more questions.

    Like

  • What is the Purpose of Law?

    The Law, a work written by the French political philosopher and economist Frederic Bastiat in 1850, investigates what happens in a society when the law becomes a weapon used by those in power to control and enslave the population?

    Laws should be set to Prevent certain actions which Harm Individuals and their Property. It should not be used to Compel or Force people to act in a certain way.

    Since individuals are not allowed to force individuals to behave in certain ways, groups of individuals (governments, organizations, corporations) also should not be allowed by law to force individuals to act in certain ways.

    “Since no Individual acting separately can lawfully use Force to Destroy the Rights of others, does it not Logically follow that the same Principle also applies to the Common Force that is nothing more than the Organized Combination of the Individual Forces?” (The Law, Frederick Bastiat)

    How has the Law Changed from its Original Intent Dean Cumberbatch in the Case of the Government Seizing Prosperity as in Civil Asset Forfeiture that will require no proof just to make the Accusation to take a man’s Property? Is this Unconcerned with you Law Professor? Are You Comfortable Teaching your Students that Plunder is Acceptable as long as the Government does it?

    Like

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    Peope are happy to hear another one bites the dust, while waiting for the injured to die so that CGI wont have to pay compensation..

    No great loss…

    Have not heard a fella say they are in mourning……not for a scum lawyer…who had no interest in recognizing or upholding the laws of the land…

    You would think they would learn something and stop waiting for other people to die to benefit them….cause am sure that whomever they were waiting for to die of a stroke or heartt attack last week, or whenever, because of the stress thosee demons created for them….is still very much alive today…lol…but the lowlife lawyer…is not.

    Like

  • Hal Austin …very good piece of writing which is so true …

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    People in England and Wales can now claim they were under the influence of alcohol when they had sexual intercourse and therefore were not in a sound enough mind to give consent. That is now a legitimate defense.

    @Hal, Of course, the victim in rape is the one who refuses to give consent to the sexual intercourse. She requires no defense. It is the rapist who will use his drunkenness to argue that, because of it, he was not aware that the victim was not consenting and thus had no intention of raping her…

    Like

  • @Greene
    if we forgive VAT now businesses will do it again and again
    +++++++++++++

    The collection of VAT or any sales tax should be very simple, the Gov’t should mandate that all companies with x number of employees or annual sales of y open a separate account for all sales accounts and the taxes related to the sale of goods and services be credited on a daily basis for immediate transfer to the Gov’t (there are banking applications that can facilitate this). All other businesses should be required to pay taxes by say 15th of the following month, if the businesses fail to do this they should face heavy penalties or risk closure of the business and asset seizure.

    When taxes collected is mixed with other sales revenue, businesses treat the funds as its own and that is the genesis of the issue, the lawyers in Barbados also operate accounts with mixed funds and that is why so many clients are left with horror stories.

    Like

  • What we fail to understand is that societies decline rapidly when the legal systems appears to favour a select few. In today’s Sunday Sun, a widow is informing, that after four years, the death of her husband by police fire has not been fully investigated and she has not been contacted in recent times regarding the unfortunate incident.
    There is a considerable feeling of mistrust brewing in several areas. Although it is not a legal matter, spending millions on consultants, while laying off workers, can again be seen as looking after those who can readily fend for themselves. All of these decisions have a cumulative effect on the society.
    When Stuart purchased a new mercedes, that was seen as being opulent while others were feeling the pinch. The word on the ground is that the “big boys” and well connected can get away with anything. We have ordinary tax payers, who paid their taxes waiting for years to get returns due them , while we give those who have excessive tax breaks.
    When Hal talks about a failed state this is exactly what he means-that we are allowing nepotism and political angled favoritism to destroy the basic tenets of our evolving democracy. When Pacha speaks about the imminent collapse of the system, he is saying the same thing.
    So if we are going to seize assets gained by criminal activity let us do so with everybody. Those who earn hundreds of thousands and knowingly commit a crime by refusing to pay the state its due while enjoying all the benefits of the state should not be allowed to escape. Let us show them that we want their assets , in the same way we want them from others.
    Otherwise we could as well shut shop.
    in 1966 The Mighty Sparrow had a calypso called Honesty. Pull it up on Youtube. Look at where Trinidad is fifty three years later. Once the legal system is seen as protecting the rich and punishing the poor, we would certainly be on our way to a failed state.

    Like

  • @ Jeff,

    I am talking about when a person agrees to have sex then, after the event, regrets it and claims rape, using as a defence that s/he was too drunk to give consent. @Jeff, you are implying that it is the accused who must prove his/her innocence..

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    I am talking about when a person agrees to have sex then, after the event, regrets it and claims rape, using as a defence that s/he was too drunk to give consent. @Jeff, you are implying that it is the accused who must prove his/her innocence..

    Hal, I am implying no such thing. I sought only to remind you that the rape victim does not have to provide a DEFENCE to anything. Rather it is the rapist, if anyone, who will use a defence, such as that he reasonably believed that the victim was consenting, to assist in his acquittal.

    Like

  • OH LORD!
    MUSCLE BRAIN HAL AUSTIN TRY TO CONTRADICT THE DOCTOR
    NOW MUSCLE BRAIN HAL AUSTIN TRYING TO TEACH THE LUMEN- ARY
    MURDER!
    HAL AUSTIN’ MUSCLE BRAIN HAS BEEN TRAINED TO BE A MUSCLE COGNITAVELY SO THAT HE EFFLUXES FROM HIS SHELVES OF HOUSTON (THAT IS ANATOMY BY THE WAY HAL) THAT WHICH EFFLUXES THEREFROM

    Like

  • @ Jeff,

    I think there is a misunderstanding and nothing to argue about. If I am right, you are saying that in a prosecution only the accused has to defend him/herself, which is right.
    In the context in which I use ‘defend’, I am saying that the alleged victim can DENY ( in other words, defend his/her actions were rational) having given consent to sexual intercourse because s/he was drunk/under the influence of alcohol and therefore was not fit to give consent. That is all, and it is the law in England and Wales. The accused person has to put in a defence, but the victim can DENY giving consent.

    Like

  • HAL AUSTIN, AKA MUSCLE BRAIN
    YOU ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT the law in England and Wales
    MAN DAT SOON AINT GOING TO MATTER NO MORE CAUSE SHARIA LAW TEKKING OVA IN THE UK!
    England and Wales IS OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE ANY MORE
    England and Wales HAS PASSED ITS SELL BY DATE
    I AM GOING TO RUN YOU AND YOUR MUSCLE BRAIN RAGGED!

    Like

  • Dean Cumberbatch, Freedom Crier has reread your statement in lieu of my question,” Do you See the Grave Threats contained in these Laws?” Dean I have mentioned my concerns as to the Grave Treats by these Laws to our Nation….

    ‘Laws should be set to Prevent certain actions which Harm Individuals and their Property. It should not be used to Compel or Force people to act in a certain way.

    Since individuals are not allowed to force individuals to behave in certain ways, groups of individuals (governments, organizations, corporations) also should not be allowed by law to force individuals to act in certain ways.’

    Here our Government is Guilty of wanting to extract money from someone who has not been proven Guilty in a Similar Vein to what the EU is doing to the Caribbean Countries. We must Resist all efforts to make our Citizens Guilty of anything without the Burden of Proof and the Guilty Judgement first, that is our Heritage that is our Constitution that is our Culture and that is our Jurist Prudence. The Subversion of that is a MONSTROUS CRIME that will Subvert the Very Rule of Law by the IMPOSITION of an UNJUST LAW.

    Dean Cumberbatch would you consider that Twisting the Law from Innocent until Proven Guilty to Guilty until Proven Innocent as a Grave Threat to the Sovereignty of our Nation Barbados?

    This has nothing to do with what Mr. Williams claimed and you responded ‘that No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment’ as pertaining to what was cited in your article.

    The New Law of Civil Asset Forfeiture that will require no proof to make the accusation to take a man’s property, under the penalty of law that the Government uses their Strong Arm against its Citizens Unconstitutionally…So what would you do in the case of Unjust Laws that have been Passed…according to you if one wants to waste money you will represent a person against the odds to get our judges strike down our statute as long as they understand they will lose! So as Far as Authority is Concerned are they Unaccountable for Injustice they Unveil on their Citizens?

    What about the Recent law banning Petroleum Based Products of? -The New Prohibition? The Legalized Law of the Banning of Petroleum Products is to Aid and Promote the Enslavement of Barbados by paying more money for Non-Petroleum Products thereby Perpetuating our Enslavement under the loans that we receive. The Longer that we are in this Enslavement we will have to do what they say while our Sovereignty Diminishes.

    A Man’s own decisions, the consequences of that will fall at him. By Government pushing for this PV electricity means the cost will be borne by every household whither it works or not. I do not want to pay for a Failure and it will be a Failure and it has proven to be a Failure many times over, and one that we Bajan’s cannot afford.

    Dean Cumberbatch we have seen you talk about Laws that have been passed that we are now at the mercy of Laws that are Belligerent to our Freedom…but we want hear you speak about Coming Laws e.g. making it mandate by Government insisting that Bajan’s pay for PV.

    So Dean instead of throwing up your Arms by saying… “Do you want me to try against the odds to get our judges strike down our statute for you? There will be a cost involved”

    Is there such a thing as Genuine Concern as a man responsible for teaching the Law before the Noose is tied around the Necks of Bajan’s to Protest such laws by being Pro Active? Or are you for Absolute Government using the Law to hold its Citizens Hostage to such Grievous and Unjust laws?

    How about the Free Speech Area where Bajan’s can assemble and make their Concerns known like Hyde Park that I asked you to Spear Head long ago? Or will we have to pay for that Too?

    I have one view point and I see through the prism of Freedom to Choose and Individual Freedom to act without infringing on another same rights. They are only Two Ideologies in the world, one of Freedom the other of Tyranny and its Variances and it is up to us in this world to Choose.

    Like

  • Dame Kelly Holmes, Paula Radcliffe and Sharron Davies all want more research on transgender athletes
    Dame Kelly Holmes, Paula Radcliffe and Sharron Davies say they are going to write to the International Olympic Committee asking for more research on the “residual benefits” of being a transgender athlete.
    Under IOC guidelines, athletes who have transitioned from male to female are required to have kept their levels of testosterone – a hormone that increases muscle mass – below a certain level for at least 12 months.
    Former swimmer Davies said: “We all need a safe and fair place to compete.”
    The 1980 Olympic silver medallist said the private letter had gained support from “loads” of elite athletes and asked for more to back her, marathon world record holder Radcliffe and ex-athlete Holmes, who won 800m and 1500m gold at the 2004 Olympics.
    Radcliffe has said elite sport could be “manipulated” and also questioned whether it was “fair for a biological man to compete alongside women”.
    There has been widespread debate recently about the fairness of transgender women competing in female sport. Transgender cyclist Rachel McKinnon, an age-group world champion, accused tennis’ 18-time Grand Slam singles champion Martina Navratilova of being a “transphobe” for suggesting that the participation of transgender women in women’s sport could be equivalent to “cheating”.
    Navratilova later apologised for the use of the word “cheat”.
    Radcliffe told BBC Sport earlier this month that more research is needed to establish an appropriate level of testosterone in transgender women in order to create fair competition.
    She also called for a halt to the “attacking and bullying” which she believes has existed between groups and individuals with contrasting views.
    According to IOC guidelines, set in 2015, the current level of testosterone allowed for athletes is at 10 nanomoles per litre.
    Athletes who have transitioned from female to male can compete without restrictions.
    The IOC said it expected to publish updated guidelines after a lengthy consultation with various stakeholders. They include the IOC medical and scientific commission, medical, scientific, human rights and legal experts, plus international federations and national governing bodies.
    It added: “It is the international federations’ remit to decide eligibility rules on a sport, both for hyperandrogenism and transgender.” (Quote)

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    How about the Free Speech Area where Bajan’s can assemble and make their Concerns known like Hyde Park that I asked you to Spear Head long ago? Or will we have to pay for that Too?

    @ FC, you have much more freedom of expression than you might think. Just as long as you defame no one, do not incite violence or preach hatred of another race, religion, gender or creed, you do not need me.

    As for what I teach, I can only point my students to analyze what the relevant law says….I am not there to proselytize or condition the students to any particular political (in the broad sense) view.

    Like

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    Wuhloss..they are starting to confess the lies and fraud the demon church propogated on the earth’s people for over a thousand years, imagine that, over 1,000 years of lies and fraud from the demon church…..every knee shall bow and every tongue confess to the sins of the evil church…

    And if GP was hoping to mèet me in hell…he is shit outta luck…lol

    ‘Retired priest: ‘Hell’ was invented by the church to control people with fear

    By Koba | 2 July 2015
    Urban Intellectuals
    the sins of the church.

    This video is of an interview retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong did with Keith Morrison of Dateline NBC back in August of 2006.

    A partial transcript of the interview can be found beneath the video link:

    Spong: I don’t think Hell exists. I happen to believe in life after death, but I don’t think it’s got a thing to do with reward and punishment. Religion is always in the control business, and that’s something people don’t really u

    By Koba | 2 July 2015
    Urban Intellectuals

    This video is of an interview retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong did with Keith Morrison of Dateline NBC back in August of 2006.

    A partial transcript of the interview can be found beneath the video link:

    Spong: I don’t think Hell exists. I happen to believe in life after death, but I don’t think it’s got a thing to do with reward and punishment. Religion is always in the control business, and that’s something people don’t really understand. It’s in a guilt-producing control business. And if you have Heaven as a place where you’re rewarded for you goodness, and Hell is a place where you’re punished for your evil, then you sort of have control of the population. And so they create this fiery place which has quite literally scared the Hell out of a lot of people, throughout Christian history. And it’s part of a control tactic.

    Morrison: But wait a minute. You’re saying that Hell, the idea of a place under the earth or somewhere you’re tormented for an eternity – is actually an invention of the church?

    Spong: I think the church fired its furnaces hotter than anybody else. But I think there’s a sense in most religious life of reward and punishment in some form. The church doesn’t like for people to grow up, because you can’t control grown-ups. That’s why we talk about being born again. When you’re born again, you’re still a child. People don’t need to be born again. They need to grow up. They need to accept their responsibility for themselves and the world.

    Morrison: What do you make of the theology which is pretty quite prominent these days in America, which is there is one guaranteed way not to go to hell; and that is to accept Jesus as your personal savior.”

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    You ought to know that if you are accused of crime that you are presumed guilty until you can prove that you are innocent…

    Why do you think that there are so many innocent people behind bars today …?:some are there for poor legal representation … others are there for a corrupted judicial system … and mistaken identity etc … the reality is you have to prove you that you are Innocent when you are accused of a crime our find someone who can for you …

    In 1987 an African American male was accused of raping a white because of mistaken identity, and he served 20 years in prison because DNA testing was still in its infancy in 1987 … But with the advancement of DNA testing in the 90s … He was cleared and was subsequently awarded $5 million for wrongfully conviction by the state…

    Like

  • @ Lexicon,

    I have been interested in socio-legal issues for over 50 years and know about the miscarriage of justice (I was even invited to apply for a teaching position on a post-graduate course on the subject. I declined). It is one reason why I get angry when angry, bitter magistrates in Barbados send poor working class boys to prison for petty offences.
    We have one man who spent ten years in prison on remand. This is what happens in fascist countries. Yet our attorneys general (BLP and DLP) have so far refused to settle the man’s claim. Just look at the per capita rate of imprisonment n Barbados.

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch
    March 18, 2019 8:12 PM

    FC “As for what I teach, I can only point my students to analyze what the relevant law says….I am not there to proselytize or condition the students to any particular political (in the broad sense) view.”

    Thanks Dean, so what you are saying is that you Get Along to Go Along, you do not Advocate you Abdicate! I would like to read your Passion and not you Resignation.

    Those that walk in the middle of the road usually get knocked down by Traffic coming both ways.

    As a teacher you understand that students/everyone learn by asking questions and you have avoided answering several that I have proposed above either by deflecting, twisting the intent of my question or simply remaining silent.

    QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED OF YOU LAW PROFESSOR ….

    In lieu of my questions, Do you See the Grave Threats contained in these Laws?

    Is there such a thing as Genuine Concern as a man responsible for teaching the Law before the Noose is tied around the Necks of Bajan’s to Protest such laws by being Pro Active?

    Or are you for Absolute Government using the Law to hold its Citizens Hostage to such Grevious and Unjust laws?

    How has the Law Changed from its Original Intent Dean Cumberbatch in the Case of the Government Seizing Prosperity as in Civil Asset Forfeiture that will require no proof just to make the Accusation to take a man’s Property?

    Dean Cumberbatch would you consider that Twisting the Law from Innocent until Proven Guilty to Guilty until Proven Innocent as a Grave Threat to the Sovereignty of our Nation Barbados?

    Is this Unconcerned with you Law Professor?

    Are You Comfortable Teaching your Students that Plunder is Acceptable as long as the Government does it?

    Dean I have been a Teacher of the Law that is the Rod by which we use to measure all things presented before us that we may make Righteousness Judgments as to what is Right and what is Wrong.

    The Law was never meant to be a Tool of Force… Laws should be set to Prevent certain actions which Harm Individuals and their Property. It should not be used to Compel or Force people to act in a certain way.

    We need to understand that it’s all about Control, Control, Control with Endless Rules and Regulation that are incumbent upon the people. By your Lack of Commitment and your Deflection I am lead to believe that your Column is a Sounding Board for the Government as you turn a Blind Eye to key questions that will help Barbadians to Understand the Graveness of these Unjust Laws that threaten their Freedom.

    Here Rest my Case…

    Like

  • It is one reason why I get angry when angry, bitter magistrates in Barbados send poor working class boys to prison for petty offences.

    @ Hal

    It is amazing that with all the so-called legal minds in Bim that there is not a massive outcry over this. It has been going on for ages.

    In terms of imprisoning poor people for the pettiest offences Barbados is up there with the most diabolical of regimes, globally.

    @Mr Cumberbatch
    Any views on the extremely arbitrary sentences handed out to poor black people (never rich, never white/ indian/syrian) in Barbados over things like stealing a cake of soap or a tin of sardines?

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    @Mr Cumberbatch
    Any views on the extremely arbitrary sentences handed out to poor black people (never rich, never white/ indian/syrian) in Barbados over things like stealing a cake of soap or a tin of sardines?

    Regrettable and sad, but within the constitutional discretion accorded to the Magistrate…

    Like

  • David have you gone to reserve your place in Parliament for Tomorrows Budget?

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    As the saying goes:” When celebrity and cash walks through the front door of the court …justice walks out the black door.

    Like

  • Back …not Black

    Like

  • THIS IS FOR YOU WARU AND THOSE OF YOUR ILK
    [audio src="http://www.blessedassurancepromisebox.com/MP3D/2068gt%20-%20Bill%20Archbold%20-%20Are%20Heaven%20And%20Hell%20For%20Real%20-%20Pt3%20-%2016.19-31%201%20John%205.11%20-%20Holland%20Park%20Gospel%20%20Chapel%202-10-89-%204.45Mb%20-%2037m23s.mp3" /]

    Like

  • To confiscate proceeds from illegal criminal activity (tier 1), then to benefit from the said proceeds legally (tier 2) is it not at root still proceeds of illegal activity?

    Then how deep will this rabbit hole go? Property, Banking accounts, businesses, giftings, mistresses.and concubines..

    Like

  • Essentially, civil forfeiture law, such as that contained in the Bill under debate allows the state to confiscate cash; cars, homes and other property suspected of being involved in or obtained through criminal activity. Unlike in the case of criminal forfeiture, the property owner doesn’t have to be charged with, let alone be convicted of, a crime to permanently lose his property.
    +++++++++++++++
    Is this law on the books yet? Looking forward to the seizure of the car alleged to have taken the accused from the scene of the recent mall shooting.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s