Related Issues and Food for Thought

[Juballee]

.

Typically the charge would be possession of stolen property , the penalties can be more severe than the penalties for the actual thief .

It is a very easy charge for police to lay because obviously the items are in that persons possession or building or yard or whatever.

But it is also one of the easiest charges to get out of , even while the police are there .... hey officer , here is the name and receipt of where I bought the parts from ..... or that stuff belongs to my buddy and he is just storing it here.

As soon as you pass the buck you are off the hook , and that is why honest people should get a receipt , or keep track of where the stuff came from , and avoid heavily discounted items sold for cash without receipts.

True enough chop shops are the hardest to pin down , it is their very nature to disassemble everything , remove identifying marks , and have everything distributed within hours of the theft and the shop is clean and empty if the cops come by

But if the engine DM removed from the black Mustang is now in his Cobra project the serial number can be traced to see if it was from a stolen car .... or the woodchipper could be the one stolen from Oakville .... I happen to think it is.

If those charges are really so easy to lay, why haven't we seen anyone charged with it in over two years still? And if the charge is so easy to get out of, why is anyone ever charged with it? These two sentences do not make sense together to me, personally.

I know from personal experience that passing the buck does not get you off the hook for charges like this, and even showing a receipt in your own name is no protection from a trial and all it's expenses.

Again, LE has had plenty of time (over 2 years) to see if any engines or woodchippers are stolen, and yet no further theft charges have been brought forth. Even if they had a strong suspicion that DM was running a chop shop, there would have been enough evidence there to charge him, according to what we've read in the media. So I really have to say that if there wasn't enough evidence gathered in 2 years to charge him with an 'easy' charge like that, that it really wasn't a chargeable offence.

All my opinion only.

 

[Juballee]

WRT the potential for chop shop / motorcycle charges, I doubt the Crown would bother when DM is already facing life on murder charges. There is no Statute of Limitations in Canada for indictable offences, so in the event he was found NG on the 3 murder charges, the Crown could always bring forward charges in the property crimes.

But the crown bothered with the breach charges against MS when he is also facing life for murder charges, what's the difference?

Having no statue of limitations on offences like that is not very fair, 'let's just leave this criminal charge hanging over his head indefinitely, to wait and see if the other charges stick or not', that's not very constitutional, in my opinion. I had always heard that the only crimes with no statue of limitations was murder or treason, personally. I can't imagine a theft charge having no statue of limitations.

All my opinion only.

 

[Arnie M]

.

Maybe I should say it a different way .... obviously police have seized and checked many pieces of equipment in the DM operation .... anything legitimately belonging to him has to be returned to him , anything stolen would not be returned , it belongs to the insurance company or the original owner ... the Harley is a good example

What the police could not knowingly do is ignore other stolen goods and allow it to be sold to the public , can you imagine the scandal if that happened. For example the large backhoe at the farm was sold , the tools and equipment in the hangar was sold , many of the cars were sold , the aircraft were sold , all of those items would have to be cleared as legitimate and not stolen goods obtained by DM

 

[Arnie M]

<snip>I know from personal experience that passing the buck does not get you off the hook for charges like this, and even showing a receipt in your own name is no protection from a trial and all it's expenses. <snip>

.

Wrong ..... if it turns out your boat was stolen you are in possession of stolen property period. No two ways about it.

But if you bought it legitimately and can produce the receipt , you are off the hook , and the person who you bought it from is now on the hot seat , not you.

 

[Juballee]

Wrong ..... if it turns out your boat was stolen you are in possession of stolen property period. No two ways about it.

But if you bought it legitimately and can produce the receipt , you are off the hook , and the person who you bought it from is now on the hot seat , not you.

Your scenario is not my personal experience, so please do not judge me as wrong.

 

[SnooperDuper]

If those charges are really so easy to lay, why haven't we seen anyone charged with it in over two years still? And if the charge is so easy to get out of, why is anyone ever charged with it? These two sentences do not make sense together to me, personally.

I know from personal experience that passing the buck does not get you off the hook for charges like this, and even showing a receipt in your own name is no protection from a trial and all it's expenses.

Again, LE has had plenty of time (over 2 years) to see if any engines or woodchippers are stolen, and yet no further theft charges have been brought forth. Even if they had a strong suspicion that DM was running a chop shop, there would have been enough evidence there to charge him, according to what we've read in the media. So I really have to say that if there wasn't enough evidence gathered in 2 years to charge him with an 'easy' charge like that, that it really wasn't a chargeable offence.

All my opinion only.

Perhaps they tagged one of DM's buddies with the crime, and buddy has agreed to testify in the TB case in order to avoid being charged.

Perhaps the current charges are enough to keep DM in jail forever anyway: Theft, 10 years, Forcible Confinement, life, 3 charges of first degree murder, life life life.

Perhaps all the theft charges have been rolled into the investigation of TB's murder and the evidence will stand but no additional charges will be filed because of the Theft over $5K charge that exists.

 

[SnooperDuper]

But the crown bothered with the breach charges against MS when he is also facing life for murder charges, what's the difference?

Having no statue of limitations on offences like that is not very fair, 'let's just leave this criminal charge hanging over his head indefinitely, to wait and see if the other charges stick or not', that's not very constitutional, in my opinion. I had always heard that the only crimes with no statue of limitations was murder or treason, personally. I can't imagine a theft charge having no statue of limitations.

All my opinion only.

Oh, because criminals should never live in fear of the law?

If you didn't get caught in two years you should be able to get away with it, like DM in the case of LB and WM's murders (and the associates that helped him then, too)?

Oh bother, no criminal should live in fear of the law!!!

 

[matou]

I just can't get over that he is accused of killing his dad and brings the victim's ex-wife and his ex-fiancee into the home. WHY??? I can see him wanting to have his mother as "support" but why his ex? Wasn't she already involved with someone else? Was he trying to get back together with her? I know he likely wanted an alibi and he could have called any of his close friends to be supportive so why her? JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

But the crown bothered with the breach charges against MS when he is also facing life for murder charges, what's the difference?

<rsbm>

I don't recall the specifics of what MS was originally convicted and sentenced on or when the breach occurred, but the Statute of Limitations on a summary breach would be the same as it was for the original summary charge. IOW, if the original charge/conviction was summary with a 6 month SOL, the Crown only had 6 months from the date of the breach to charge him. In DM's case, they have however long they need to investigate and lay a charge for an indictable offence.

The breach charges against MS have nothing to do with what he is currently charged with.

 

[cansleuther]

I don't recall the specifics of what MS was originally convicted and sentenced on or when the breach occurred, but the Statute of Limitations on a summary breach would be the same as it was for the original summary charge. IOW, if the original charge/conviction was summary with a 6 month SOL, the Crown only had 6 months from the date of the breach to charge him. In DM's case, they have however long they need to investigate and lay a charge for an indictable offence.

The breach charges against MS have nothing to do with what he is currently charged with.

That might not be true. MS was charged with breaching a court order not to have contact with his girlfriend on January 12, 2015. She has been on MS's "do not contact" list since he was arrested for TB's murder.

Mark Smich was charged Monday by Det. Mark Carbone of the Toronto police homicide unit. Documents filed with the courthouse in Etobicoke say the alleged breach of recognizance happened between April 10 and July 31 of last year while Smich was in custody at the Toronto West Detention Centre.

There is a court order banning the publication of the girlfriend's name.

Usually, those on an accused's "do not contact list" are victims, co-accused or potential witnesses.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5262706-co-accused-in-bosma-murder-case-faces-new-charge/


His past charges include drug possession in 2005 and 2006, failing to comply twice in 2006 and impaired driving in 2009.

http://globalnews.ca/news/585372/who-is-mark-smich/

 

[swedie]

If those charges are really so easy to lay, why haven't we seen anyone charged with it in over two years still? And if the charge is so easy to get out of, why is anyone ever charged with it? These two sentences do not make sense together to me, personally.

I know from personal experience that passing the buck does not get you off the hook for charges like this, and even showing a receipt in your own name is no protection from a trial and all it's expenses.

Again, LE has had plenty of time (over 2 years) to see if any engines or woodchippers are stolen, and yet no further theft charges have been brought forth. Even if they had a strong suspicion that DM was running a chop shop, there would have been enough evidence there to charge him, according to what we've read in the media. So I really have to say that if there wasn't enough evidence gathered in 2 years to charge him with an 'easy' charge like that, that it really wasn't a chargeable offence.

All my opinion only.

:sigh: Just in case you missed it in a couple of my posts from way back, MR was charged with abduction and murder of Tori in May 2009. June 2010, MR had the addition charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm added to his list. The additional charge was not released to the public until January 2012, during MR's pretrial hearing. HTH. IMO it should not be assumed DM won't faces for the chop shop. We will have to just wait and see.

Rafferty also faces an additional charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm, reported Delaney. The charge, which is listed on Rafferty's indictment, was laid in June 2010.

Has it ever occurred to anyone, perhaps DM admitted and came clean about the stolen goods in the hangar long ago, before LE could add those charges to his list? Was he wanting to keep his criminal charges list to a minimum? Did DM think by admitting early on to having a chop shop, he can, during the murder trials, convince jurors he's an honest and truthful person, who financially settled up with his chop shop victims? DM is hoping the jurors will be naive enough to believe his not guilty plea on the murders of LB, WM and TB.

All the money MB incurred from selling DM's properties and possessions, she could have paid off the chop shop victims. Therefore there wouldn't be any need for the Crown to lay those charges against DM. Nor would it have been made public in the MSM. All that information would be kept underground for now, until trial. PB, PB, PB...nothing is being leaked. Of course other then the accused physical appearances and future court date.

ALL MOO.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/pre-trial-hearing-in-tori-stafford-murder-to-resume-tuesday-1.754448

 

[SnooperDuper]

:sigh: Just in case you missed it in a couple of my posts from way back, MR was charged with abduction and murder of Tori in May 2009. June 2010, MR had the addition charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm added to his list. The additional charge was not released to the public until January 2012, during MR's pretrial hearing. HTH. IMO it should not be assumed DM won't faces for the chop shop. We will have to just wait and see.

Rafferty also faces an additional charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm, reported Delaney. The charge, which is listed on Rafferty's indictment, was laid in June 2010.

Has it ever occurred to anyone, perhaps DM admitted and came clean about the stolen goods in the hangar long ago, before LE could add those charges to his list? Was he wanting to keep his criminal charges list to a minimum? Did DM think by admitting early on to having a chop shop, he can, during the murder trials, convince jurors he's an honest and truthful person, who financially settled up with his chop shop victims? DM is hoping the jurors will be naive enough to believe his not guilty plea on the murders of LB, WM and TB.

All the money MB incurred from selling DM's properties and possessions, she could have paid off the chop shop victims. Therefore there wouldn't be any need for the Crown to lay those charges against DM. Nor would it have been made public in the MSM. All that information would be kept underground for now, until trial. PB, PB, PB...nothing is being leaked. Of course other then the accused physical appearances and future court date.

ALL MOO.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/pre-trial-hearing-in-tori-stafford-murder-to-resume-tuesday-1.754448

Thanks for an excellent post Swedie.

There is still plenty of time for a boatload of charges to come down. Perhaps it would impair the investigation to lay charges before the investigation is closed (e.g., the 11 month delay to CN's charges). Maybe LE wanted to see what happened to all the stolen goods and owned goods and see if they were sold off in the same direction.

<modsnip>

 

[Alethea Dice]

I can't believe that LE would agree to not laying theft charges if an accused offered to pay back the original owners. If he admitted it, he would still be charged, plead guilty, and be sentenced. Perhaps part of the sentencing could be restitution to those owners though. Additional theft charges or possession of stolen property would not be part of the murder case(s) and would, therefore, not be subject to the publication ban currently in effect. Regardless, it would seem that LE already knows who stole or was in possession of the Harley and trailer since the trailer had already been registered to someone else. Whether or not charges have been laid, even for the Harley, and who has or has not yet been charged with it is unknown. I just find it unusual that, if it were DM and he was charged, it wouldn't have made MSM.

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

I can't believe that LE would agree to not laying theft charges if an accused offered to pay back the original owners. If he admitted it, he would still be charged, plead guilty, and be sentenced. Perhaps part of the sentencing could be restitution to those owners though. Additional theft charges or possession of stolen property would not be part of the murder case(s) and would, therefore, not be subject to the publication ban currently in effect. Regardless, it would seem that LE already knows who stole or was in possession of the Harley and trailer since the trailer had already been registered to someone else. Whether or not charges have been laid, even for the Harley, and who has or has not yet been charged with it is unknown. I just find it unusual that, if it were DM and he was charged, it wouldn't have made MSM.

JMO

If DM were charged for the chop shop and those charges were made public, wouldn't it be hugely prejudicial to release that information in the face of the TB case? (Seeing as it looked as if TB's truck was going to be chopped...I mean more than just taking the seats out.)

 

[Alethea Dice]

Maybe LE wanted to see what happened to all the stolen goods and owned goods and see if they were sold off in the same direction.

<snip>

You think LE allows stolen goods to still be resold, just to see where they go?

 

[SnooperDuper]

No I meant legitimate buyers may be the same people that stolen goods were sold to (pre-existing relationship)

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.therecord.com/news-story...aster-inside-the-secret-millard-negotiations/

Before he was accused of murdering his father and two others, Dellen Millard was a young executive trying to swing a deal with regional government.

In the summer of 2010, Millard, then 24, attended a business meeting at the local airport, east of Kitchener. There he represented his father Wayne and their family aviation business Millardair, founded by his grandfather Carl.

Eight others joined Dellen Millard in the boardroom on the second floor of the passenger terminal, according to an account of the meeting obtained by The Record.

Airport manager Chris Wood was negotiating with Millardair at the time. Both parties had reason to strike a deal.


Today, secrecy surrounds the negotiations that led to the hangar. Regional government would not release documents. While Dellen Millard waits in jail for trial, his family firm has blocked the release of government-held documents.

However, the outline of deal-making emerges in documents obtained by The Record under freedom-of-information legislation.

By 2009, ..............


To repeat the thing with CEO/just a title/no competence at all.

At the early age of 24 DM was already negotiating with major donors and important negotiating partners. If he had been zero interested and incompetent, he wouldn't/couldn't have done this, I think. - What about the secrecy, I wonder?

 

[Juballee]

http://www.therecord.com/news-story...aster-inside-the-secret-millard-negotiations/

Before he was accused of murdering his father and two others, Dellen Millard was a young executive trying to swing a deal with regional government.

In the summer of 2010, Millard, then 24, attended a business meeting at the local airport, east of Kitchener. There he represented his father Wayne and their family aviation business Millardair, founded by his grandfather Carl.

Eight others joined Dellen Millard in the boardroom on the second floor of the passenger terminal, according to an account of the meeting obtained by The Record.

Airport manager Chris Wood was negotiating with Millardair at the time. Both parties had reason to strike a deal.


Today, secrecy surrounds the negotiations that led to the hangar. Regional government would not release documents. While Dellen Millard waits in jail for trial, his family firm has blocked the release of government-held documents.

However, the outline of deal-making emerges in documents obtained by The Record under freedom-of-information legislation.

By 2009, ..............


To repeat the thing with CEO/just a title/no competence at all.

At the early age of 24 DM was already negotiating with major donors and important negotiating partners. If he had been zero interested and incompetent, he wouldn't/couldn't have done this, I think. - What about the secrecy, I wonder?

I have never doubted that CEO was a real job, but this may be good to point out to others who may think it was a title he killed for, in my opinion.

I believe the secrecy was pretty standard in that when you are looking to sell something, it doesn't help to have potential buyers know what you paid for it, it tends to hurt negotiations when the buyers try to calculate how much the sellers might be profiting.

 

[Tamarind]

http://www.therecord.com/news-story...aster-inside-the-secret-millard-negotiations/

Before he was accused of murdering his father and two others, Dellen Millard was a young executive trying to swing a deal with regional government.

In the summer of 2010, Millard, then 24, attended a business meeting at the local airport, east of Kitchener. There he represented his father Wayne and their family aviation business Millardair, founded by his grandfather Carl.

Eight others joined Dellen Millard in the boardroom on the second floor of the passenger terminal, according to an account of the meeting obtained by The Record.

Airport manager Chris Wood was negotiating with Millardair at the time. Both parties had reason to strike a deal.


Today, secrecy surrounds the negotiations that led to the hangar. Regional government would not release documents. While Dellen Millard waits in jail for trial, his family firm has blocked the release of government-held documents.

However, the outline of deal-making emerges in documents obtained by The Record under freedom-of-information legislation.

By 2009, ..............


To repeat the thing with CEO/just a title/no competence at all.

At the early age of 24 DM was already negotiating with major donors and important negotiating partners. If he had been zero interested and incompetent, he wouldn't/couldn't have done this, I think. - What about the secrecy, I wonder?

Seems to be a lot of secrecy involving prospects for that hangar ;-)

 

[SnooperDuper]

I have never doubted that CEO was a real job, but this may be good to point out to others who may think it was a title he killed for, in my opinion.

Well if CEO was a real job, DM was a real failure.

A chief executive officer (CEO in American English) or managing director (MD in British English[1]) describes the position of the most senior corporate officer (executive) or administrator in charge of managing a for-profit organization. The CEO of a corporation or company typically reports to the board of directors and is charged with maximizing the value of the entity.[2] Titles also often given to the holder of the CEO position include president and chief executive (CE).[3]

The responsibilities of an organization's CEO are set by the organization's board of directors or other authority, depending on the organization's legal structure. They can be far-reaching or quite limited and are typically enshrined in a formal delegation of authority.

Typically, the CEO/MD has responsibilities as a director, decision maker, leader, manager and executor. The communicator role can involve the press and the rest of the outside world, as well as the organization's management and employees; the decision-making role involves high-level decisions about policy and strategy. As a leader of the company, the CEO/MD advises the board of directors, motivates employees, and drives change within the organization. As a manager, the CEO/MD presides over the organization's day-to-day operations.[4][5][6] The term refers to the person who takes all the decisions regarding the upliftment of the company, which includes all sectors and fields of the business like operations, marketing, business Development, finance, Human resources, etc. The CEO of a company is not necessarily the owner of the company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer

Basically DM directed MA into the toilet. Way to go!

I believe the secrecy was pretty standard in that when you are looking to sell something, it doesn't help to have potential buyers know what you paid for it, it tends to hurt negotiations when the buyers try to calculate how much the sellers might be profiting.

Yes, you are right here, the Region would not make the process public.