Police superintendents, a Congressman, Governors, and the FBI have been notified where this fugitive is since 1973, for more than 30 years. And nothing has been done. Definitely sounds like getting a pass, to me.
I wasn’t aware that the “Police superintendents, a Congressman, Governors, and the FBI,” agencies of the US governments had arrest powers in Canada.
There is no law in Ontario prohibiting living under an assumed name. (for example, my father assumed his first/given name during university, and my mother assumed my father’s surname upon their marriage), and under common law for civil matters, a person " . . . is free to adopt any name that she pleases, so long as the use of the adopted name is not calculated to deceive or to inflict pecuniary loss . . . " Thrasher v. Thrasher-Brown, [1983] 43 O.R. (2d) 795 (Ont. H.C.). Note that intent of the fellow who is being extradited was to deceive the authorities, which is not a civil matter.
A person’s name being assumed does not invalidate one’s marriage in Ontario. It is the person’s being and intent that goes to validity of the contract, not the person’s choice of name or spelling thereof. There is a penalty for making a false statement on a document under s.35 of the Marriage Act, (and also a penalty under the Vital Statistics Act for making a false registration), but there is also a saving section (s.31) to keep marriages in tact despite technical irregularities. Marriages have survived all sorts of technical irregularities, going as far as there being no marriage licence at all (Alspector v. Alspector et al., [1957] O.R. 14 (Ont. S.C.).
What it comes down to, is that if the court is satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before of the conduct underlying the request for extradition which, if it occurred in Canada, would justify a trial for a criminal offence, then off he goes. The accused’s marital status is not relevant, one way or the other. Nor is his choice of name, or his present standing in the community. What is relevant is whether or not those who are extraditing him can put forth sufficient evidence to establish who he is and that on its face there should be a trial.
I never said there was. Nor did I necessarily claim that it was criminal to live under an assumed name in Canada, I just said we probably shouldn’t doubt the particular fact that he was going under an assumed name.
I’m not quite sure I follow your post, though. You say that it’s not illegal then quote something that says it’s legal as long as the assumed name is not being used to deceive…then you say it’s not a civil matter. I’m missing something. What happens if you use an assumed name to deceive? Is that a crime?
Well, I just said it would call the veracity of his marriage into question, I wasn’t asserting it was necessarily invalid. Thanks for the information, though.
Uh… I agree. I was never saying that his using an assumed name or anything like that was relevant to the legal case at hand.
They don’t, however I vaguely recall a couple of matters in which US courts were still willing to try matters in which the defendants had been illegally scooped in Canada (in one the kidnapping was done by an American police officer, and in the other it was done by someone hired by a bail bondsman). Sorry, but I have no idea as to the case names (both kidnappings were in Ontario, and one of the trials was in Florida – that’s all I can recall).
I vaguely recall that, too, Muffin. FWICR, the court wasn’t interested in how the person appeared in its jurisdiction, merely that the person appeared in its jurisdiction.
A deception may or may not be a crime, depending on the circumstances.
For example, forgery is a type of deception that is a crime. If I take on the name Smith to cash my neighbour Smith’s cheques, then I have committed a crime.
However, sometimes deception may fall short of being a crime. If I started calling myself Mr. Smith to draw away clients from my neighbour Smith’s bookkeeping business, then I would not have committed a crime, but a court could order me to stop using that name because I exceeded my common law right when I used the name to deceive his clients.
About the only times that deception voids a marriage up here is when the decepiton goes to consent (e.g. an under age marriage) or when the deception goes to a statutory prohibition (e.g. marrying your mother). The deception in covering up a messy or even heinous past does not void a marriage.
I pity the poor wife and family. I can’t imagine what it must be like to wake up one morning to learn of such horrid secrets.
Since no one understood my sarcasm post, lets try this instead.
If this is true and I have no idea but if it is… then
Makes me wonder about a pass because as Monty says, they can’t arrest him, but I would like to see where it is illegal for them to start the extradition process. ( Have they been sitting on their bureaucratic hands?)
Why now?
Something smells real political about all this…
IMO, how ever long it was between the time they knew where he was and the time they started extradition on him, he was getting a free pass.
Now to see the rest of the story unfold.
In your opinion is taking an assumed name to avoid law enforcement not a crime? I can see how legally it wouldn’t be considered a crime, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a grey area either.
Also, in the United States it’s not illegal to use an assumed name either, except, like you said about Ontario, if you do it to take illegal action. One of the ways you can legally change your name is to just start using said name.
AFAICT, starting the extradition process begins with the requesting jurisdiction, well, requesting an arrest of the accused. Now, once that request is made, one could suppose that it remains in effect until the accused is arrested. Once arrested, then it’s to court for extradition hearings.
At least, that’s my layman’s simple understanding of the situation. Perhaps one of the numerous legal types on the board could offer a succint description of the process?
You are correct.
“Requesting jurisdiction” is done by way of the foreign state bringing an information or laying a complaint before a judge. (This is the regular process used to obtain an arrest warrant in Canada, regardless of whether it is a extradition matter or simply a home grown crime). In order to get an arrest warrant, the foreign state must convince the judge that the foreign crime would still have been a crime if it had been committed in Canada.
Once an arrest warrant is issued, the accused can be arrested and hauled into court for an extradition hearing. At the hearing, if it turns out that the foreign crime would also have been a crime in Canada, that the evidence is sufficient that were it a Canadian crime the matter would be sent to trial, that the foreign crime was not of a political nature, and that the death penalty will not be sought, then the accused is extradited back to the foreign state.
With respect to the BP fellow being extradited, he tried to get released on bail, but he lost. He appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and lost again. Here are the Court of Appeal’s reasons (worth reading if you want background on the matter):
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/OntarioCourtsSearch_VOpenFile.cfm?serverFilePath=d%3A\users\ontario%20courts\www\decisions\2005\january\M32021.htm
(sorry, but I am not able to link the Superior Court’s reasons that were appealed: United States of America v. Pannell, [2004] O.J. No. 5715 (Ont. S.C.).)
A couple of interesting points: first, it appears that prior to his marriage he told his wife about his being a fugitive (this surprised me, but I suppose it should not have). Second, the Court of Appeal noted:
The Court of Appeal’s findings are not relevant to the pending extradition appeal, but they clearly lay out what the court thought of the fellow.
Curiously enough, there is nothing in our criminal code concerning a fugitive using an alias. There are quite a few offences under the criminal code relating to giving a false statement, or misleading justice, or causing mischief (and I wouldn’t be surprised if the BP fugitive could be dinged on one of these), but there is nothing to prohibit a fugitive from simply assuming another name so as to avoid being picked up. Similarly, there are provincial offences concerning the filing of misleading information, but nothing concerning a fugitive taking an alias.
Something worth remembering concerning the fellow being extradited is that when he entered Canada, he was not in violation of any Canadian laws (although when he exceeded his stay he would have triggered some Immigration Act offences). Therefore, despite whatever he may have done in the USA, and despite his being a fugitive from American Justice, for legal purposes, he was clean as the driven snow in Canada. He only became a fugitive in Canada once a Canadian warrant for provisional arrest was issued under the Extradition Act. Since at the outset within Canada he was clean, then his use of an alias was not avoiding Canadian law enforcement until the warrant was issued.
That having been noted, however, Pannell did a good job at pissing off the Court of Appeal last year due to his “profound deception and deceit in Canada.” (See the Court of Appeal decision link above). For example, he is alleged to have had numerous aliases. Here is part of the style of cause in his bail review hearing:
In short, his living in Canada under an alias to avoid American justice was not a criminal act in Canada, but once extradition began, such prior deception went hard against him when he tried for bail a couple of times.
…Waits for the whooshing sound…
It’s never gonna come is it?
Look, this “man” stands accused of a heinous crime. A crime for which he must answer. He isn’t accused of stealing a car, or breaking into an empty home. He’s accused of trying to kill a Police Officer. It doesn’t matter if he’s 95 and eats through a tube, he must answer the allegations.
FWIW I don’t give a damn how “strained” the relations between the Panthers and Police were, 99.9998% of the time, there is no solid reason to shoot a cop who is in the performance of his duties.
I say, if the proof is solid that this guy did it, then sorry about his luck, it doesn’t matter who he mentors, or what he does for a living, in the pokey he goes, and for the rest of his days.
Muffin:
Thanks for the description. I’ve one question, though, regarding the bit about the death penalty not being sought. Isn’t that on a case-by-case basis? I was under the impression that Canadian law did not actually prohibit extradition if the requesting jurisdiction is seeking the DP.
I don’t think the death penalty is discussed unless it’s a fugitive wanted on charges of murder since obviously shooting a police officer isn’t a capital crime in the United States unless said officer dies as a result of the shooting.
Typically the Canadians won’t extradite someone to the United States if they’re accused of a capital crime unless we promise not to execute them. But (and this is a complete “maybe I remember this” type of thing) I do vaguely remember a situation where the United States was able to circumvent that without actually violating any treaties we signed with Canada.
Are you referring to this case?
The court had this to say about extraditing in capital cases.
The Justice Dept. link is here
and puts it quite succinctly.
Better quote
You are correct. deevee has it nailed.
There are some things that stop extradition in its tracks:
Stopping extradition due to the death penalty, however, is discretionary rather than mandated:
Cites: Extradition Act: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-23.01/57313.html#rid-57357