Winnipeg Police Headquarters | Graham Ave.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The whole thing is such a mess. The RCMP didn't file any criminal charges. So the City sued Sheegl and this comes out of it.

I would believe the RCMP had all of this information in their investigation. My non law trained brained just can not parse out how one side can file no charges, but then the other can side with the City. If the guy is guilty, he's guilty. What about suing former Caspian now, or Katz?

I'm no legal expert, but I suspect the RCMP might have weighed the chances of getting a criminal conviction and decided against it? Yes, it seems ridiculous, but superficially it seems easier to get a civil case convicted than a criminal one. I believe there are different standards for each type of case.

As for Caspian and Katz, I agree, sue them too.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The whole thing is such a mess. The RCMP didn't file any criminal charges. So the City sued Sheegl and this comes out of it.

I would believe the RCMP had all of this information in their investigation. My non law trained brained just can not parse out how one side can file no charges, but then the other can side with the City. If the guy is guilty, he's guilty. What about suing former Caspian now, or Katz?

RCMP did a 5-year investigation and handed over a truckload of evidence to the Prosecutions Branch to make a determination on what, if any, charges would be laid. The day that Prosecutions was making their decision public, word is that the investigators at the RCMP were so confident that charges would be laid that they started to do the work of getting their ducks in a row for the trial. Then Prosecutions said 'not enough evidence to convict so no charges' and the RCMP went 'WTF?!?!'

Anyone who was halfway paying attention could look at the publicly available information and tell that something was crooked, including the Mayor, Council, and CAO who, to their credit said 'fine, we'll sue your asses in civil court then'.

This case is 'only' dealing with Sheegl. He asked Joyal to separate out his case from the others, who are still being dealt with.

[bomberjet]

Unbelievable.

I'm of the belief that yes even though this may have cost the City more money then they'll get back. We always need to see this shit through. Otherwise if there's never any repercussions, it's a free for all.

[zalf]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Unbelievable.

I'm of the belief that yes even though this may have cost the City more money then they'll get back. We always need to see this shit through. Otherwise if there's never any repercussions, it's a free for all.

Yeah, I am 100% okay spending $1 million to recover $600k if it serves as the modern legal analogy of spiking heads on the walls of a medieval castle.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The whole thing is such a mess. The RCMP didn't file any criminal charges. So the City sued Sheegl and this comes out of it.

I think this is fundamentally the grey area between criminal and civil courts.

The criminal court is based on a system of "beyond a reasonable doubt" while the civil court is "which side is most likely accurate".

In other words civil court can issue a judgement at just past 50% while a criminal court is looking to more a 98% level.

[bomberjet]

Me as a layperson just doesn't get it. If they can order him to pay $700k, he's guilty. Not maybe guilty 51% guilty. Either he is or he isn't.

Criminal court is like well ya he did it, but maybe 1% he didn't do it even though we have all this evidence, so he get's off. Ridiculous.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Me as a layperson just doesn't get it. If they can order him to pay $700k, he's guilty. Not maybe guilty 51% guilty. Either he is or he isn't.

Criminal court is like well ya he did it, but maybe 1% he didn't do it even though we have all this evidence, so he get's off. Ridiculous.

Well it’s the standard of proof obviously. It’s easier to nail someone in a civil lawsuit because the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof because criminal guilt is much more serious than civil liability. He may be guilty of crimes but they may not be able to meet the burden of proof criminally, just look at OJ

[bomberjet]

My point being that is ridiculous. You're either guilty or you're not. Courts aside. You did this thing, is it a crime. Yes or no. It cant be yes and no. Seems its yes and no a lot. Which is ridiculous.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

My point being that is ridiculous. You're either guilty or you're not. Courts aside. You did this thing, is it a crime. Yes or no. It cant be yes and no. Seems its yes and no a lot. Which is ridiculous.

cmon as much as we hate sheegl and katz, i'm not ready to throw out the presumption of innocence as a legal principle just because some grifters get away with it

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Me as a layperson just doesn't get it. If they can order him to pay $700k, he's guilty. Not maybe guilty 51% guilty. Either he is or he isn't.

Criminal court is like well ya he did it, but maybe 1% he didn't do it even though we have all this evidence, so he get's off. Ridiculous.

The $350K or whatever he has to pay back is chump change compared to what was really stolen, no one thinks that some of $70M that the Post office conversion to WPS headquarters was over budget didn’t end up in a few pockets!?

What a shit show! Of course Winnipegs city clown-cil clueless to it all!

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

cmon as much as we hate sheegl and katz, i'm not ready to throw out the presumption of innocence as a legal principle just because some grifters get away with it

He was found guilty by the civil court though. If he didn't do it, then why are they making him pay the money?

So if he did it, than he did it in the criminal court too. I don't understand how they can be different. Either you did it, or you didn't do it. It can't be both. But since it never got to criminal court, I guess they never got the chance to prove that out.

I'm not for throwing out the 'presumed innocent until found guilty' part.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

The $350K or whatever he has to pay back is chump change compared to what was really stolen, no one thinks that some of $70M that the Post office conversion to WPS headquarters was over budget didn’t end up in a few pockets!?

What a shit show! Of course Winnipegs city clown-cil clueless to it all!

Totally.. I wonder if the courts can go back at all on this or if it's just done since they never pressed charges.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

He was found guilty by the civil court though. If he didn't do it, then why are they making him pay the money?

So if he did it, than he did it in the criminal court too. I don't understand how they can be different. Either you did it, or you didn't do it. It can't be both. But since it never got to criminal court, I guess they never got the chance to prove that out.

I'm not for throwing out the 'presumed innocent until found guilty' part.

There is no guilty in a civil proceeding. Civil liability and moral blameworthiness/ criminal guilt are separate legal concepts.

[The Unknown Poster]

I was shocked when they announced no charges. People go to trial on far less evidence. Sure feels like prosecution branch gave the benefit of the doubt to the former Mayor and his pals. When in reality, they should have been tougher on him as a former Mayor. Corruption should be rooted out and the case was worth trying to show that corruption won't be permitted.

[bomberjet]

One more time on the Sheegl thing. I understand there are differences from criminal to civil courts.

What I do not get, and have never understood, from a person outside the legal profession. How someone can lose a case in civil court and win a case in criminal court.

IF YOU DID IT, YOU DID IT. That's it. That's the bottom line. Sheegl did it according to civil court. If he didn't do it, then why are they making him pay?

Just like the OJ reference. Ridiculous. He did it but also didn't do it.

It's like "meeehhhhhh he did it just enough to get sued and pay, but not enough for jail time. That's how much he did it." Makes zero sense.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

One more time on the Sheegl thing. I understand there are differences from criminal to civil courts.

What I do not get, and have never understood, from a person outside the legal profession. How someone can lose a case in civil court and win a case in criminal court.

IF YOU DID IT, YOU DID IT. That's it. That's the bottom line. Sheegl did it according to civil court. If he didn't do it, then why are they making him pay?

Just like the OJ reference. Ridiculous. He did it but also didn't do it.

It's like "meeehhhhhh he did it just enough to get sued and pay, but not enough for jail time. That's how much he did it." Makes zero sense.

It makes perfect sense. Our legal philosophy requires us to prove everything to a much higher standard in criminal court. We are much more concerned with accidentally jailing innocents than with letting some guilty people go free. So civil liability which requires 50% +1 probability of the defendant actually being liable is very different from beyond a reasonable doubt which essentially means in excess of 99% certainty that not only did the accused do it, but we are satisfied that there is no alternate explanation other than a crime was committed. I know this is kind of unsatisfying for the lay person, but a person can for sure have done a thing, and we can all be satisfied that this person did a thing, and still they might not be criminally guilty even though they may have breached their duty of care in negligence or attract some other civil liability.

Anyways, hope that’s somewhat helpful. It’s a relatively difficult concept to explain properly but it does make sense, even though it can lead to absurd outcomes, such as this case. And don’t forget that prosecutors still have to have a claim that has a reasonable chance of succeeding in obtaining a conviction to proceed. The amount of evidence required to prove criminal guilt can be exceptional in some cases. Not to mention each element of the crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Its rather quite involved.

Last note, there’s always a chance the prosecution is up to no good, but if that’s the case then we need to deal with far broader corruption than mere (LOL) bribery. Turns out prosecutorial misconduct is frowned upon so if they’ve actually done something wrong I wish them swift justice.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

One more time on the Sheegl thing. I understand there are differences from criminal to civil courts.

What I do not get, and have never understood, from a person outside the legal profession. How someone can lose a case in civil court and win a case in criminal court.

IF YOU DID IT, YOU DID IT. That's it. That's the bottom line. Sheegl did it according to civil court. If he didn't do it, then why are they making him pay?

Just like the OJ reference. Ridiculous. He did it but also didn't do it.

It's like "meeehhhhhh he did it just enough to get sued and pay, but not enough for jail time. That's how much he did it." Makes zero sense.

Criminal = "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" proof of Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Basically you committed the act and intended to commit the act.

Civil = proof of liability. Example, I don't deice my sidewalk, you come to deliver something, slip and break your ankle. I'm liable but it's not criminal, can't prove that I intended to cause the harm.


My read of this situation: I think they should have prosecuted Sheegl but likely hard to prove the criminal case given the lack of participation from other players and you'd want to bring down everyone at the same time. It's such a tangled web. What's the benefit to the long prosecution? They won't put him in jail. Prosecutions has a budget and limited resources like anyone else. Can see how it's not worth the cost in this case. TBH the penalty from civil court will be more impactful and it's a much simpler procedure.

Now, why isn't Katz being sued by the COW? That one I really don't get. Just from this case we know that he received at least half the money from deals Sheegl made and deposited it into accounts and numbered companies in AZ.

[bomberjet]

Maybe some of you are in the profession and I don't mean this as disrespect. But I find law in general to be slimey.

I've dealt with lawyers who knowingly are going outside the law. But they know nothing will really happen to them because of the things that are mentioned here. All these guys are lawyers we're talking about.

In this case the civil court seemed to prove that Sheegl took a bribe. So he did the crime. Should do the time. Which is likely nothing anyways. But we need to root out corruption to whatever extent possible.

Didn't Caspian rename their company to something else? and is carrying on with what they do.

[DavefromSt.Vital]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I've dealt with lawyers who knowingly are going outside the law. But they know nothing will really happen to them because of the things that are mentioned here. All these guys are lawyers we're talking about.

Unless I have missed something, Katz, Sheegl and Babakhanians are not lawyers.

If you are aware of a lawyer committing some form of impropriety, why not complain to the governing body, the Law Society of Manitoba?

https://lawsociety.mb.ca/for-the-public/complaints/

[bomberjet]

Sorry. They're real estate type guys mostly. "Businessmen". What I meant was they act likes lawyers, deal with lawyers, know what to do to skirt the laws.

The couple lawyers that I've dealt with on a few construction type projects, do things like not paying their bills. It's not worth the hassle for us to go through the courts to re-coup the costs. They know it. We don't deal with those companies and/or lawyers anymore.

Anyways.. I'll stop thumping this topic for now.