A recent article published in the Vancouver Sun, Hells Angel Says People are Rude to Him and a post on WhiteTrash Networks Hells Angels Celebrate The Truth Hells Angels Motorcycle Club Innocent of Criminal Organization are interesting for several reasons. Before I explain why, one has to understand the background and I will try to put the article and post into context. To do this one has to be familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario, R. v. Lindsay. I do not want to drone on at length, I would suggest that you read the judgment which contains a great deal of detail in relation to the history and nature of the Hells Angels.
Ultimately, the conclusion is that in 2002 one of the main activities of the HAMC was drug trafficking for the economic benefit of its members and that the HAMC as it existed in Canada in 2002 was a criminal organization. The decision was that the HAMC existed to facilitate the ability of its members to commit criminal offences. When you read the decision it is interesting to note that the majority of the evidence that supported this conclusion came from the minutes of the meetings of various Hells Angels clubs and the interception of the communications of some of its members.
I will start with the posting on WhiteTrash Networks. The first portion of the post deals with the petition by Vancouver Chapter President Ricky Ciarniello to the British Columbia Supreme Court. In B.C., Ciarniello’s application was refused and the court suggested that Ciarniello take his complaint to Ontario. In relation to the decision in Ontario, the article stated:
The Hells Angels have won a clear decision on this issue.
In a recent court decision prominent Hells Angel civil rights advocate Ricky Ciarniello lost his standing to petition the courts to overturn the Criminal Organization legislation because as an innocent member his life and the lives of all other innocent Hells Angels are adversely affected by the legislation when only two members have been convicted of a crime.
However the victory came in the decision by presiding Justice Ehrcke.
He rules in paragraph 67 on page 26 that:
“Justice Fuerst’s finding that the H.A.M.C. is a criminal organization is not an in rem judgment. It is simply a finding of fact that is not binding on anyone except the parties to the case that she was hearing, that is, Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Bonner. If Mr. Ciarniello or any other member of the H.A.M.C. were charged with an offence under the impugned legislation in relation to the H.A.M.C. the Crown would have to prove by admissible evidence in their trial that the H.A.M.C. is a criminal organization. The Crown could not simply rely on Justice Fuerst’s ruling.
WhiteTrash Networks went on to quote a lawyer, Alan Gold who stated:
“The judgment makes it clear that a judge’s conclusion in a particular case applies only in that case and is not binding on any other cases or people. So we do not care any more and the legislation will be tested whenever the government uses it and charges people. The police are wrong to trumpet a decision as if it says something more about any organization. The police have to try to prove it in every case”.
“First the police openly refer to the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club as a gang. Then they call it an Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. Then in a recent press conference the refer to it as an “illegal outlaw motorcycle gang.” The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is not outlawed nor is membership illegal. The obvious effort to convey to the public that the opposite is true is an inaccurate portrayal of the facts, purposely crafted to legitimize tactics that would otherwise be considered Draconian. Members of the Hells Angels deserve to be treated fairly in a court of law, like any other citizen of Canada, no matter what the police would have you think.”
A couple of observations are worth noting. First, one ought not to treat the suggestions as to the state of the law or how it may impact someone from a biker site as reliable. Second, if Justice Ehrcke is correct and
Justice Fuerst’s finding that the H.A.M.C. is a criminal organization is not an in rem judgment. It is simply a finding of fact that is not binding on anyone except the parties to the case that she was hearing
the question becomes what makes you think that Justice Ehrcke is correct? The victory being trumpeted by the Hells Angels is only binding in relation to Ciarniello and only in relation to his particular application. Other than being a precedent which may be ignored by subsequent judges, it is of little significance. To simplify, just as Justice Fuerst’s decision is not binding on anyone, neither is the decision of Justice Ehrcke. I will make it even simpler, the decision of Justice Ehrcke does not mean squat and may be wrong in law.
What is significant about the Ontario decision in R. v. Lindsay is that it will serve as a blueprint of any future prosecution and it does carry some precedental value. It will certainly be on the minds of any judge dealing with anyone alleged to be a member of the Hells Angels charged with a criminal offence.
What is it that the Hells Angels fear, I will get into that after I deal with the article Hells Angel Says People are Rude to Him published by the Vancouver Sun.
According to the article, Ricky Ciarniello who is described as a high ranking member of the Hells Angels, and who is the president of the Vancouver Chapter, claims that his feelings have been hurt as a result of people drawing the conclusion that he is a criminal when he is wearing his colors. Interestingly, people have been rude to Ciarniello in restaurants and supermarkets and he has experienced the “fear and loathing” of those he comes into contact with.
According to Ciarniello these reactions started with the decision in R. v. Lindsay that two Hells Angels in Ontario had participated in the activities of a criminal organization. The fact that Ciarniello has suffered as a result is said to be a violation of his Charter rights.
The Sun article cited portions of the affidavit filed by Ciarniello that was filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court as part of his challenge to the constitutionality of the criminal organization provisions of the Criminal Code. The Sun stated:
His affidavit recalled that after the Ontario ruling, [Ciarniello] went to a restaurant called Joey Tomatoes wearing his colours and overheard a couple asking to be moved because they didn’t want to sit next to a criminal. “Following that I was quite uncomfortable and decided to leave the restaurant,” said the affidavit. “I have noticed a marked difference in the way that people respond to me when I am wearing my colours.” “The mood has gone from friendly and casual curiosity to fear, loathing and avoidance such that I am now made to feel uncomfortable wearing the HAMC [Hells Angels Motorcycle Club] insignia.”
Ciarniello must believe that the public and the courts are gullible. First, I would have trouble believing that many people outside of law enforcement and the biker world have ever heard of or read the decision of R. v. Lindsay or understand its impact. Second, if I am to understand his assertions correctly, with the well known reputation of the Hells Angels for violence, we are to believe that regular citizens are rude to Ciarniello, openly stating that they do not wish to be seated next to a criminal. Is Ciarniello serious? I would like to meet some of these people because they must have balls of steel.
Lets have a look at the convictions of high ranking members of the Hells Angels cited in R. v. Lindsay. Keep in mind both that this list only relates to members in Quebec, and that this is not an exhaustive list of the criminal and drug convictions racked up by the Angels and their associates throughout Canada.
➢ Maurice Boucher (Nomads), convicted in 2002 of two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted murder committed in June and September 1997;
➢ Salvatore Brunetti (Nomads), convicted in 2002 of drug trafficking and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed between May 1997 and March 2001;
➢ René Charlebois (Nomads), convicted in 2003 of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of drug trafficking, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various periods between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ André Chouinard (Nomads), convicted in 2004 of two counts of drug trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various periods between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Denis Houle (Nomads), convicted in 2003 of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of drug trafficking, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various periods between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Gilles Mathieu (Nomads), convicted in 2003 of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of drug trafficking, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various periods between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Richard Mayrand (Nomads), convicted in 2004 of conspiracy to commit murder, drug trafficking, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various intervals between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Normand Robitaille (Nomads), convicted in 2003 of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of drug trafficking, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various intervals between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Michel Rose (Nomads), convicted in 2004 of two counts of drug trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization at various intervals between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Walter Stadnick (Nomads), convicted in 2004 of conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to traffic drugs, drug trafficking, and two counts of participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various intervals between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Donald Stockford (Nomads), convicted in 2004 of conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to traffic drugs, drug trafficking, and two counts of participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various intervals between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Luc Bordeleau (Nomads), convicted in 2004 of conspiracy to commit murder, drug trafficking, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various intervals between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Pierre Laurin (Nomads), convicted in 2004 of second degree murder committed in May 2000;
➢ Bruno Lefebvre (Nomads Prospect), convicted in 2004 of conspiracy to commit murder, drug trafficking, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various intervals between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Guillame Serra (Nomads Prospect), convicted in 2003 of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of drug trafficking, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various intervals between January 1995 and March 2001;
➢ Jacques Emond (Sherbrooke), convicted in 2004 of loan-sharking and participation in the activities of a criminal organization;
➢ Paul Brisebois (Nomads Prospect), convicted in 2004 of second degree murder committed in May 2000;
➢ Jean-Richard Larivière (Nomads Prospect), convicted in 2004 of conspiracy to commit murder, drug trafficking, and participation in the activities of a criminal organization committed at various intervals between January 1995 and March 2001.
So that is 17 members of the Hells Angels convicted of criminal organization offences. To be fair to the Angels there was a change in the Criminal Code and the 15 members noted above convicted of criminal organization offences were convicted under the legislation enacted by Bill C-95. Bonner and Lindsay, both convicted in the decision of R. v. Lindsay were convicted of the criminal organization offence as it was defined under Bill C-24.
I know you may be thinking that Quebec and Ontario are along way from British Columbia and maybe the Angels in Ciarniello’s back yard have been improperly tarnished. There is no doubt that there is a direct connection between all of the HA clubs throughout Canada and the rest of the World but if you need something more direct try Project E-Pandora, a 23-month investigation initially launched by the RCMP in August 2003. In the RCMP Gazette, the nature and results of the operation were described as an:
intensive covert investigation was agent- and intelligence-driven, alleging that members of the Hells Angels’ East End chapter were involved in drug trafficking, methamphetamine production, extortion, and possessing explosives in association with a criminal organization. During the course of E-Pandora, 22 separate searches were conducted for methamphetamine laboratories, cocaine, marijuana, firearms, prohibited weapons and explosives.
Federal and provincial prosecutors granted direct indictments for individuals, including a total of 60 criminal charges. On July 15, 2005 the operational plan resulted in the arrest of 18 members and associates in connection with the investigation. Fifteen individuals were arrested in the Vancouver area and three in Kelowna, B.C. Among those arrested were seven “full-patch” members. The arrests were considered to be the most significant made to date in relation to a criminal organization in B.C. On November 8, 2005, two of those charged, including the highest-ranking member of the Hells Angels ever charged in B.C., pled guilty and were sentenced to four years in prison for drug trafficking.
Here is a thought, the problem is not the provisions of the Criminal Code, it is the company kept by Ciarniello. When you look at the Hells Angels it is not a case of, in the words of Ciarniello quoted in the Sun, “of the criminal acts that have, at times, been committed by some of its members.” The problem is both the widespread commission of criminal offences and the Angels themselves who, as was proved in R. v. Lindsay:
deliberately established and maintain a reputation for violence. That reputation facilitates illegal transactions, and so provides pecuniary benefit to the organization’s members who use it to their advantage, particularly within the criminal milieu.
So you ask, of what are the Hells Angels afraid. Judicial notice. To state it simply, it is possible for a fact to become so well known that a court will take judicial notice of the fact, without requiring further evidence on the issue. If the Hells Angels are proven time and time again to be a criminal organization the recognition of this fact in the courts will not be far off. Theoretically, this would allow a court to hold in any case that the Hells Angels is a criminal organization. This would leave any member one step from conviction. The only evidence required would be that the person charged participated in the activities of the organization.
This is the problem with the structure of the Angels, their power and influence comes from the fact that its members are easily identifiable as such. Unlike the Mafia, it is difficult to deny that the organization exists or claim that you are not a member when you are continually wearing the colors of the organization. By wearing the colors, participating in the club meetings, or through a variety of other activities a member is participating in the activities of the Hells Angels. I have often thought of the Hells Angels as the Kaiser Soze of organized crime. The difference is that everybody knows their face. This is their weakness.
