• Gang Receives Succor From Federal Judge In Gang-Haven Vancouver

Canada’s Federal Court brings new meaning to coddling criminality. A Federal Judge has handed down a decision that will heretofore ensure that Canadian authorities will address criminal gangs with proper decorum and “quiet” respect.

Federal Court Judge The Honourable Mr. Justice Michael L. Phelan has, in one simple judgment, backhanded Revenue Canada, and the Gang Task Force. Justice Phelan has stymied and impeded any future approach government officers and officials might make on gangs and their members.

Here is the heart of his decision on behalf of all Canadians (Docket: T-555-08, Citation: 2110 FC 448): “THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicants are awarded fees of $200,000 plus disbursements of $13,986.92. The Applicants are to have their costs of this motion of $3,000 plus disbursements of $500.”

The applicants are Ryan Murphy et al, . . . et al being his UN gang member associates, and the respondent is the Minister of National Revenue, which is in effect the Canadian taxpayer. Canadian taxpayers, . . . the gang thanks you.

Why would a judge of the Federal Court hand down such an astounding decision? Why would the Court in one bang of the gavel render ineffective any future investigations into the countless billions of dollars that are being made illegally and purchasing businesses and estates from Victoria to Halifax? Why would the Federal Court have a problem with Revenue Canada digging into the non-existent sources of income which materialize so readily into so much material and visible wealth? Why would a Federal Judge decree that the Revenue Canada Agency (CRA) should in effect care little about its own personal safety when serving Requests for Information on very well known and dangerous criminals? Why would a Federal Judge have a problem with the CRA investigators teaming up with Gang Task Force members to deliver request letters to gang members?

Justice Phelan’s stated reasoning was that “Police presence was clear and visible and highly obtrusive. The service of the documents was generally carried out late at night, with multiple police cruisers present, lights on and with all the paraphernalia of a police raid.”

So? Are all Canadians now suddenly in fear of being similarly served? Is this what this judge thinks is, . . . protecting Canadians from overt and visible harassment from the police?

Shouldn’t the authorities have some room for common sense? Shouldn’t Revenue Canada be used to launch investigations into illicit earnings? Don’t most Canadians know that the neighbor just down the road with NO visible income, but with the mansion and fleet of cars in the driveway, might be, just might be, in the drug business, for example?

If the authorities have evidence of such, let them have at it, and if they break the law in the process, then charge them, or fire them, or both. It flies in the face of common sense to think that if what occurred in this case is allowed by the judicial system, then we would all see multiple police cars at our doors delivering requests for itemized income sources. Canadians should beware of those pretending to defend them against the beginnings of “slippery slopes.” Canadians should beware of this judge.

A judge pandering to an ephemeral notion that his decision, right off the scale of common sense, protects the public, is a twisted percept rooted in self importance. The police admits that the gang problem in Canada, particularly Vancouver, is out-of-control. Isn’t the Canadian public getting tired of witnessing its police force stifled by the courts?

This judge’s sanctimonious decision panders to some righteous percept that the judiciary grasps elements pertaining to the social order that society at large cannot possibly comprehend. For too many years, the Canadian courts have been ensconced in the belief that they have unique abilities to perceive realities that their broader community is incapable of considering. These former lawyers are wrong.

Their many incomprehensible decisions are not so difficult to fathom. It is not the nature and complexity of the cases that society cannot understand. Canadian society cannot and should not accede to decisions which negatively affect the social setting. Decisions such as the one handed down by Justice Phelan add to the government’s failure to accomplish its most critical purpose – preserving the safety of citizens and their property. When our public schools have pushers selling drugs to 7 and 10 year olds, the system is broken. The courts have much blame to shoulder for this calamity, along with Canada's Parliament.

This court order was not about the prevention of entry onto slippery slopes, but was the result of incompetence on the Federal bench. The decision should be reversed.