>On June 9, the telecoms got an Anton Piller order, a civil search warrant that gives a plaintiff access to a defendant's home, without notice, to search for and seize relevant evidence before it can be destroyed.
>Besides seizing personal items such as his computer and phone, Lackman says the plaintiffs' lawyer and independent counsel forced him to hand over passwords for his email and social media accounts.
>Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers.
>"Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman.
Canadian court gives a corporation the right to go full gestapo on someone who makes apps they don't like
I would have drawn down my 12 gauge on the cunts and implored them to reconsider.
Nathan Long
>a civil search warrant that gives a plaintiff access to a defendant's home my guns disagree. i would literally murder and go to prison before i let some min-wage faggot rummage through my shit
Jayden Parker
Canada is nogunz They had a bailiff with them. Thats the ludicrous thing though, that the company were the ones doing the search and questioning
Jaxon Clark
>Canada is nogunz then why do i know canadians that have arsenals?
Austin Morgan
>gives a plaintiff access to a defendant's home, without notice, to search for and seize relevant evidence You fucking what? In what third-world country is that legal?
Leo Price
>In what third-world country is that legal?
Isaac Jenkins
Canuckistan
Samuel Morales
Canada isn't nogunz. You're thinking of your shitty country, mate.
Isaiah Robinson
>forced him
How exactly? They would have to torture me.
Michael Sullivan
Fuck off you libertarian faggot, I support the government 100% in this as long as it makes ancucks mad.
Kayden Campbell
Crony capitalism and euro socialism is a wonderfull mix, isnt it?
Fucking kill us.
Matthew Nguyen
Cyberpunk future here we come!
Charles Miller
Telcos didn't even follow court orders. I hope he sues them for this.
Evan Perez
and you wonder why human rights organizations are being arrested and deported from canada and being barred access.
Juan Kelly
no. i know multiple canadians who own multiple guns. maybe illegally, i never bothered to ask.
Benjamin Sanders
Cuck of the Day
Joseph Mitchell
Reads as if they intimidated him with legal bullshit into giving up his right to keep his mouth shut
Also says he HAD a lawyer there for him who was too beta to put a stop to the bullshit
William Edwards
What right does a COMPANY have to do this ?
Isaiah Turner
We are ranked 12th in the world in terms of legal gun ownership.
The long-gun registry from the 1990's made lots of legal gun owners go underground with their rifles and shotguns. So the number could actually be much higher.
Basically, only fags in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver are afraid of guns. Consequentially, these are the same people who run our government and media.
Jackson Martin
Fun fact. All they obtained through this was thrown out as evidence. What a waste of my taxes.
Adam Richardson
I don't know where that meme is coming from, everyone I know has guns..legally
Ryder Russell
WTF, I'd expect this in the US.
Jaxon Sanders
No wonder. There's an obvious conflict of interest in having the plaintiff seize evidence and interview the defendant.
Anthony Lee
>Thats the ludicrous thing though, that the company were the ones doing the search and questioning
That's how anton piller orders work. You get one where you can demonstrate a real likelihood that a party to litigation will destroy evidence relevant to the litigation.
The order provides for intrusion into the person's place of work or residence for the purpose of preservation of evidence relevant to proceedings.
Hardly uncommon. I've had to deal with these before and it is a pain, but if you don't get one when you need to the other party will destroy evidence.
Luke Nguyen
...
Grayson Phillips
We'll city folks don't hunt much and there are no polar bears to come and eat you while you sleep.
Zachary Anderson
>where you can demonstrate a real likelihood that a party to litigation will destroy evidence relevant to the litigation
Then have law enforcement handle it.
Nicholas Gutierrez
>Then have law enforcement handle it.
This is civil litigation. Law enforcement is for criminal litigation. The cops have their hands full dealing with crime, they do not have the resources to fuck about dealing with enforcement of orders and the like.
Levi Watson
An Anton Pillar Order does give the right to seize assets and intrude unilaterally, but this is only after a long evidentiary trail as been established that both proves that the evidence is likely to be at the place being entered as well as the fact that the evidence is likely to be destroyed if such action isn't taken immediately.
I haven't seen the proceedings leading up to the anton pillar being accepted, but if they got this far its likely this guy was going to be in big trouble sooner rather than later as anton pillar orders are extremely rare due to the severity of the powers granted.
Now legally, I'm not sure if you would be forced to hand over your passwords (although im sure you would be if the judge ordered it) but the "being forced to answer questions" part is a bit more suspect. If the questions were likely to lead to an admission of guilt, there is no way you would be forced to answer them. If the questions were "where are you hiding this password that the judge ordered you to give us" or "where is the server farm" than that is evidentiary and would be covered in the AP order.
As a final reference, , the US has similar powers in their court enforcement acts, although im sure it varies state by state.
Yes they do, allthough it takes more prodding than the average party to an action
false
pretty much this, although some things he would have to divulge as listed above
they dont have the right, the courts gave it to them
"The judge also said the defendant was treated unfairly during the interrogation and wasn't offered "any of the protections normally afforded to litigants in such circumstances."
He added that "the most egregious part of the questioning" was when the plaintiffs' lawyer asked Lackman to spill information about other people running operations similar to TVAddons."
all of this is to say that the order was still value, just that some mistakes were made.
Gavin Cruz
In that case it's obviously not important enough to give the plaintiffs the right to play at being cop.
Bentley Fisher
...
James Baker
>In that case it's obviously not important enough to give the plaintiffs the right to play at being cop.
You just do not have a proper appreciation of how this system works. Think of it in this sense: it is the responsibility of a party to proceeding wishing to produce witnesses to speak to the witnesses and gain their co-operation for attendence.
This would be true for a motor vehicle accident: you, in person, or through your representative, seek out witnesses and get them to appear.
The police do not do this on your behalf for a civil proceeding: they are concerned with criminal proceedings, not the concurrent civil one relating to damage.
So, in this case, if you want to preserve evidence for a civil proceeding, you get an order from the court to allow you to enter a premise and secure evidence. The police have no interest because its not related to criminal proceedings. They are simply not responsible (and it would be insane to require them to involve themselves).
Gavin Bell
>but the "being forced to answer questions" part is a bit more suspect.
This part is pure fishing on the part of the applicant. Hopefully the respondent is stupid enough to answer those inquiries, but inevitably the judge is going to be less than pleased that an advocate has pretended that he/she has authority to compel testimony in the circumstances.
Bentley Gonzalez
There's a clear difference between simply being responsible for producing witnesses and evidence for a civil suit, and being given the legal right to enter the home of a private individual without notice to seize evidence and interrogate them.
Asher Barnes
Yes, and the difference is that the latter requires a court order.
The point I was making is that in either situation you are responsible for doing the thing. You get the witness to appear, you get the documents that the court orders the respondent to allow you to get.
Easton Martinez
>the government can barge into your home seize your assets and interrogate you >normalfags still believe they live in a democracy Would have been hilarious if they tried to do it to a gun owner in america.
Julian Thomas
As to the 'interrogate' point, an Anton Piller order is simply to retrieve documents where a real possibility has been demonstrated that the opponent will destroy said documents.
You don't actually have any concurrent right pursuant to the order to interrogate the opponent.
You walk in, point to the order, and you take the shit that the order says you can take. It's not yours, it is now an item of evidence and belongs to the court for the duration of the proceeding.
You get that sort of order so that the court can have the item before the opponent burns it or whatever. The point is to stop the opponent destroying evidence that would otherwise lead to the correct result in the proceeding.
Juan Kelly
>the latter requires a court order
Which are not infallible, and as such making it even at all possible allows very wealthy private interests to freely harass and intimidate private individuals in their own homes. Which is exactly what has happened here.
Charles Wood
OP is being hysterical and cherry picking details.
There are roughly 1-3 Anton Piller orders issued every 2-3 years. It is not a regular occurrence. The defendant in this case qualified because he created an app that steals basically every pay per view media in existence. The plaintiffs had a qualifying argument.
Anton Piller orders are fucking rare. Like people who program apps that steal literally every pay per view media in existence are rare.
Defendants have rights and Anton Piller orders are veeeery limited in scope.
The plaintiffs violated the defendants rights in this example. They've been ordered to return property and they're likely going to be sued for some kind of assault related charge.
Stop painting this like it's an every day occurrence or that this example is the default to how Anton Piller orders are executed. This board is full of hysteric, super ignorant bullshit. It's an embarrassment. Be fucking better. Stop posting exaggerated bullshit. Research posts to see if you're being bullshitted and call bullshit out when you see it.
You guys are great at calling someone a shill or a Jew if you see a dissenting opinion but you suuuuuck at actually spotting the genuine shills.
OP is a right wing shill. I'd call him a fag if I was old school but the truth is, he's just a fucking liar.
Eli Jenkins
so what fuck this sandnigger and all his friends kill canada
Sebastian Jenkins
You don't have an appreciation for the fact that anyone unaffiliated with law enforcement trying to come into my home is getting domed
Andrew Allen
Anton Pillar IDF plz
Cooper Reyes
> Pillar
At least spell it right. At least do that.
Jonathan Bailey
No. Firstly, getting that sort of order requires a massive hurdle (judges hate giving orders that trespass on private rights - they really, really bend toward the libertarian 'don't tread on me' mindset).
Secondly, all you get is the security of the items for evidentiary purposes. When the proceeding is done with, the rightful owner gets his shit back.
Thirdly, if you secure such an order through the presentation of dubious evidence which leads a judge into error in granting the order, you are in the very deepest of shit imaginable.
You only get this order when you can basically prove, point blank, to a judge that the respondent is going to burn evidence to ashes.
The POINT of litigation is to settle rights between individuals. If one party is burning evidence that makes them look bad, the court will step in to restrain them. That is why we have Anton Piller orders.
FYI I have been super patient with you and given you the 101 on why these orders are issued and the reasoning behind their issuance (because it's worth knowing and because I feel like I am duty bound to inform). Normally I would charge you for this advice, so don't be a cunt and continue this shit.
Asher Cruz
>Heh.you made a typo. Tough luck pal. I can't wait for the summer to be over.
