US Marijuana Party

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

The Totalitarian Drug War

The following is an article I penned for my friend LewRockwell about my visit to Colombia, South America in August of this year.

You can read the article HERE

3 Comments:

  • I read your Lew Rockwell article. Your experiences in Alabama demonstrate so clearly why drug policy in the US needs to be changed. It demonstrates how the power of the federal government has grown to dangerous proportions. I have joined the Free State Project which seeks to concentrate people who are concerned about the abuses of the federal government in one area, so that we have the strength to make needed changes such as drug policy reform. I'm glad to find out about the Marijuana Party and hope we can assist each other on the important goal of ending the drug war. Please visit us at http://freestateproject.org.

    Thanks for your amazing work ending the drug war,
    Kat Dillon
    Free State Project Volunteer Support Director

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:57 AM  

  • The following is reader correspondence from the Colombia piece at Lew RockwellReader wrote:

    Just what do you advocate?

    Do you propose that the Columbians and anyone else for that matter be allowed to grow, cultivate, or manufacture all types of mind altering and addictive drugs.

    Our prison systems are filled with folks that have committed crimes so they can feed the habit that you condone.

    Marijuana use is just the stepping off point for harder drugs and a life long habit unless the cycle is broken.

    Not only is the users life destroyed but the life of his or her family as it is a continuous cycle.

    And this does not include illness and disease that are spread by contaminated needles.

    Drug dealers like to hook kids when they are young, so they can continue to support their habit and to make money for themselves and the drug lords.

    Maybe you should just move to Columbia where you can be in a constant mind altered state from your drug use. Sounds like you have been smoking more crack than Marijuana.

    "Only a fool argues with a skunk, a mule or the cook."



    Hi Reader,

    Thank you for writing your thoughts on my article…or me as it were. I’ll answer your questions.

    I’ll start by saying that you, like most Americans who think they support prohibition, blame all the problems of prohibition on drugs. You have it all backwards. Here, I’ll show you how.

    Q. Just what do you advocate?

    A. A rational approach to US Drug Policy both at home and abroad.

    Q. Do you propose that the Columbians and anyone else for that matter be allowed to grow, cultivate, or manufacture all types of mind altering and addictive drugs?

    A. Yes. It is natural to want to alter your state of mind. It is part of being human. You have done it in your lifetime surely in some form or another. When you were a kid did you ever spin around in circles until you fell down? Why?

    Making it illegal to use any substance does not erase the need to alter your mind.Making it illegal ensures that a black market will arise, crime will rise, death and disease will rise and the prison population will rise….but drug use will not go down. Pinching supply does not and will not decrease demand. What it does is make the money so lucrative that poor impoverished nations will go to extreme lengths to produce it and sell it and drug traffickers will go to extreme lengths to distribute it and people who become addicts will go to extreme lengths to obtain it and therefore the risk is higher for everyone….not just those involved directly in the drug trade.



    The risk to society at large is that they spend billions of dollars annually for a problem that has continually gotten worse since the implementation of the “Drug War” under Richard Nixon. Your streets are more dangerous, your children have unfettered access to any drug they want…as you said some dealers will try and hook kids on hard stuff for repeat business…and prohibition is what gives them that opportunity in the first place. If drugs were regulated much like alcohol and tobacco then kids would have a harder time obtaining them. They would have to enter a well-lit establishment and face down a clerk who asks for ID and who also knows that if they sell something to someone underage that there will be a serious price to pay.



    In our current situation any kid who has money and wants to experiment with drugs can go to any dealers house on any corner in any neighborhood and get any drug. There are no controls. Is that what you really want?



    Would regulating stop all of the problems with kids and drugs? No. Just as some kids are still able to obtain access to alcohol and tobacco there will always be some who break the rules. But not as many.



    Q. Our prison systems are filled with folks that have committed crimes so they can feed the habit that you condone



    A. Yes…and yet we still have the same problems don’t we? What does that tell you Bill?

    If drugs were not illegal and controlled by the criminal, profit-driven black market then the drug addicts would not have had to steal to feed their habit. If the drugs they were addicted to, like heroin and cocaine, were legal (and by that I don’t mean you could buy them at 7-11) and available from a physician they could be obtained and administered in a safe environment for about $1 a day.



    Q. And this does not include illness and disease that are spread by contaminated needles.



    A. See if the people who became addicted to drugs had access to clean needles then the spread of disease would drop dramatically. This has been done in the form of “Safe Injection Sites” in Canada, Holland, Germany and other European Nations with huge success. Please see this link for more on “Safe Injection Sites” http://www.vch.ca/sis/
    And how they reduce the negative things associated with drug use.

    Q. Marijuana use is just the stepping off point for harder drugs and a life long habit unless the cycle is broken.



    1. Bill that just isn’t true. Caffeine, sugar and chocolate are the first drugs most people ever come into contact with. Then there is tobacco and alcohol. In fact 99.89% of people who smoke marijuana do not go on to become heroin addicts. And that number according to the ONDCP is some 95 million Americans. Hey maybe people should smoke pot to ensure they never do heroin.





    Q. Not only is the users life destroyed but the life of his or her family as it is a continuous cycle

    A. Yes there are some negative side effects of drug use. Prohibition makes all of them worse. The cycle could more easily be broken if drug addicts weren’t treated like lepers, afraid to seek help because they are afraid of being locked in a cage.

    People who are drug addicts are also someone’s child, mother, father, brother or sister. And I’ll bet you a million dollars that not one of them said “Gee, I wanna be a drug addict when I grow up.”



    Saying that it is time we approach the problem from a different angle is not the same thing as saying you condone or advocate drug use of any kind. That is a mistake in your thinking.

    A. Maybe you should just move to Columbia where you can be in a constant mind altered state from your drug use. Sounds like you have been smoking more crack than Marijuana.

    1. Why such a harsh remark Bill? I do not smoke crack and I never have. That disproves your theory that marijuana leads to harder drugs. If you wish to have a rational discussion on this issue then attacking the opponent personally shows only that you do not have any real basis for your claims. It’s a childish tactic really. One that serves to divert attention away from the issue at hand.



    Have a nice day,
    Loretta

    By Blogger Loretta Nall, at 7:36 AM  

  • Its OK Lorretta, I love your work. Your more than welcome to move to Canada...if you can read the following completely you will see that Canada is about to be flooded with peeps from the States. The following only needs a high school education as to understand the following:


    GENERAL FACTS:
    Timeline for Marijuana Prohibitions
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.htm
    CDSA - Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
    MMAR - Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
    Aug. 14 1997
    ONTARIO MCCART J. CONVICTS CLAY'S RECREATIONAL USE
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/claymcca.htm
    Dec 10 1997
    ONTARIO JUDGE SHEPPARD STAYS PARKER CHARGES
    Judge Sheppard stays charges against Terrance Parker ruling:
    "Mr. Parker will be granted immediate protection under
    Section 24(l) of the Charter of a stay of proceeding with
    respect to count I (cultivate a narcotic, Section 6(l) N.C.A.)
    and the September 18, 1997 count (possession of a controlled
    substance, Section 4(l) of the C.D.S.A). All plant material
    (three plants) seized from him by the Metropolitan Toronto
    Police Services on September 18, 1997 is to be returned to
    him forthwith..."
    "...It is ordered pursuant to Section 52, that Section 4(1)
    and Section 7(l) of the C.D.S.A. be read down so as to
    exempt from its ambit persons possessing or cultivating
    Cannabis (a schedule II substance) for their personal
    medically approved use.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/sheppard.htm
    Jul 31, 2000
    1) ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL DECLARES CDSA S.4(1) PROHIBITION
    ON POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA INVALID; SUSPENDS THE DECISION 1
    YEAR TO PERMIT MMAR TO SAVE CDSA
    Order: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/parkero1.jpg
    The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in R. v. Parker:
    [11]..I would declare the prohibition on the possession of
    marihuana in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)
    to be of no force and effect. However, since this would
    leave a gap in the regulatory scheme until Parliament could
    amend the legislation to comply with the Charter, I would
    suspend the declaration of invalidity for a year. During
    this period, the marihuana law remains in full force and
    effect. Parker, however, cannot be deprived of his rights
    during this year and therefore he is entitled to a personal
    exemption from the possession offence under the Controlled
    Drugs and Substances Act for possessing marihuana for his
    medical needs. Since the Narcotic Control Act has already
    been repealed by Parliament, there is no need to hold it
    unconstitutional. If necessary, I would have found that
    Parker was entitled to a personal exemption from the
    cultivation offence for his medical needs."
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/parkersummary.htm
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000//july/parker.htm
    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10430.html

    CROWN'S APPELLANT'S FACTUM IN PARKER APPEAL [2000]
    Though the Crown is now arguing that the Doherty Court of
    Appeal changed the legislation on Oct. 7, in the original
    appeal to Parker's Rosenberg court, the Crown factum argued
    Judge Sheppard could not read in changes of legislation.
    http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/1299
    2) ONTARIO COURT DISMISSES CLAY RECREATIONAL USE APPEAL
    Christopher Clay's argument that the Crown right to prohibit
    does not balance the personal right to recreational use is
    dismissed and his conviction stands.
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/clay.summ.htm
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/clay.htm
    Sep 29 2000
    60-DAYS FOR CROWN TO APPEAL PARKER RULING EXPIRES
    The Crown does not appeal that prohibition has
    unconstitutionally barred Parker from his medicine.
    Dec 11 2000
    KRIEGER JUDGE ACTON IN ALBERTA DECLARES CDSA S.7(1)
    PROHIBITION ON CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA INVALID
    Judge Acton ruled in R. v. Krieger:
    "[44] I am satisfied that s. 7(1) of the CDSA deprives
    Mr.Krieger and those who are similarly situated of their
    rights under s. 7 of the Charter to the extent that it
    prohibits these individuals from producing raw cannabis
    marihuana for their own therapeutic purposes. I am also
    convinced that such deprivation is not in accordance with
    the principles of fundamental justice...
    [55] I am prepared to agree with the Applicant that s. 7(1)
    of the CDSA should be struck down to the extent that it
    deals with production of cannabis marihuana. If s. 4 were
    before me I, like the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v.
    Parker , supra , would strike down the prohibition against
    possession of marihuana because to do otherwise would be, to
    use Dr. Kalant's word, "inhumane" to Mr.Krieger under the
    circumstances."
    [56] I am troubled by the fact that the Canadian government
    has not made arrangements for a legal source of cannabis
    marihuana to be made available to persons who require it for
    therapeutic use. Since Dr. Kalant indicated that he was able
    to obtain cannabis marihuana for research purposes, it must
    be available from some legitimate source. I trust that if I
    put a stay of one year on the effect of my decision, similar
    to that done by the Ontario Court of Appeal, this problem
    will be solved within the year.
    [57] With respect to Mr. Krieger , I am satisfied on the
    evidence of the Crown's expert witness and Mr.Krieger
    himself that it would be inhumane not to grant Mr. Krieger
    an exemption from the prohibition in s. 7(1) of the CDSA
    during the period of the suspended invalidity in order that
    he may cultivate cannabis marihuana for his own medical use.
    Pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, I would stay the
    proceedings against him under s. 7(1) of the CDSA.
    www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf
    Jul 30 2001
    MMAR ISSUED BUT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH PARKER COURT RULING
    The Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) are
    promulgated by Government trying to save the CDSA
    prohibition by complying with the Parker court's ruling.
    Three Ontario Superior Court judges and the Ontario Court of
    Appeal later found that the MMAR failed to save the CDSA
    prohibition. The Parker decision was not appealed within 60
    days and applied across all Canada.
    www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/controlled_substances/pdf/regulations/marihuana_06-13-01.pdf
    Aug 1 2001:00:00am
    PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA POSSESSION IS REPEALED WHEN
    ROSENBERG SUSPENSION OF INVALIDATION EXPIRES
    The Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) failed to
    provide the required medical access to Terry Parker and the
    declaration of invalidity had taken effect and the CDSA
    prohibition of marijuana was repealed. The Crown never
    printed new legislation effecting the repeal of those
    sections which accounts for the resulting confusion.
    http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/158
    Sep 14 2001
    HEALTH CANADA SENDS PARKER TEMPORARY EXEMPTION TOO LATE
    Six weeks after the 1 year suspension protecting Terry Parker had
    expired, Health Canada issues him a 6-month temporary exemption.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/parkerhc.jpg
    Nov 28 2001
    ALBERTA JUSTICE O'LEARY EXTENDS SUSPENSION ON KRIEGER
    CULTIVATION INVALIDATION
    O'Leary J.A. (in Chambers) granted an application brought by
    the Crown prior to the hearing of the Krieger appeal
    extending the operative period of both the suspension of
    invalidity and the Respondent's constitutional exemption
    until further order of the Court of Appeal. Whether an
    Alberta judge can delay a remedy for all Canadians was not
    broached.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/oleary.pdf
    Dec 11 2001:12:00p.m.
    PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION IS REPEALED WHEN ACTON
    SUSPENSION OF DECLARATION OF INVALIDATION EXPIRES
    Despite the Crown using the O'Leary J.A. extension of the
    Acton suspension of the Krieger invalidation of Section 7(1)
    to keep busting Canadians for cultivation, since the Court
    of Appeal eventually upheld the Acton invalidation, the
    prohibition became of no force and effect when Acton J. said
    it should. Not one Alberta provincial judge has the power to
    keep the law busting people using an unconstitutional
    national statute in violation of a section 7 Charter right
    longer than Acton said they could. Both the prohibition on
    possession in s.4(1) and on cultivation in s.7(1) of a
    substance on Schedule 2 (marijuana) were of no force and
    effect though the Government did not reprint the legislation
    to reflect those facts. This accounts for the hundreds of
    thousands of improper charges brought before the courts
    since then with many such errors stayed or withdrawn since
    then. Knowing that the prohibitions on marijuana were no
    longer of force and effect didn't help if the Crown wouldn't
    admit it and the Crown lawyers were advising police to keep
    busting Canadians.
    Feb 28 2002
    PAQUETTE WINS HEALTH CANADA EXEMPTION EXTENSION
    With just 8 days until the 6 months extension in the MMAR
    for his s.56 exemption was about to expire without Marc
    Paquette having been able to get a doctor to ignore the OMA
    letter advising them not to sign the MMAR, Marc returned to
    Federal Court for the third time seeking an court extension
    of his exemption. Crown Alan Prefontaine produced a 4-page
    Health Canada application signed by only the family doctor
    for an extension of an exemption.

    Mar 15 2002
    ONTARIO JUSTICE PITT FINDS MMAR DID NOT COMPLY WITH COURT
    RULING IN PARKER FOR FAILURE OF DOCTORS TO PARTICIPATE
    Terry Parker filed an application to declare that the
    invalidity Order had taken effect on Aug. 1 2001 and the
    possession prohibition was no longer known to law based on
    1) the expiry of Parker's exemption protection and 2)
    failure of the MMAR to protect Parker when the Ontario
    Medical Association refused to participate.
    http://www.oma.org/pcomm/omr/dec/01marijuana.htm
    Ontario Superior Court Justice Pitt. J. granted the short
    notice ex parte alternative remedy sought with an:
    "Order extending the constitutional exemption
    granted to the applicant by the Ontario Court of
    Appeal until the Government has complied with the
    court's ruling."
    This is the first Superior Court judge to find that the MMAR
    permission system for the sick had not complied to save the
    CDSA prohibition system for all. Crown Lara Speirs did not
    inform the police that Pitt J. had found that the MMAR had
    failed to save the CDSA which permitted the improper busting
    of another hundred thousand Canadians over the next two
    years.
    Order: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pittorde.jpg
    Jul 25 2002
    MCWATT J. CONSOLIDATES PARKER (CDSA) WITH HITZIG (MMAR)
    Justice McWatt grants the Crown motion to have John The
    Engineer's "Parker application to declare the CDSA
    prohibition no longer known to law" consolidated with
    Osgoode Hall Law School Medpot champion Professor Alan
    Young's "Hitzig application the declare the no-longer-needed
    MMAR unconstitutional for those who refused to believe that
    the prohibition monster was no longer alive. If there is no
    longer any prohibition, there was no reason to seek to fix
    the no-longer-needed MMAR permission system.
    Aug 21 2002
    3600 DEAD EPILEPTICS YEARLY EPILEPSY.CA
    http://www.epilepsy.ca/eng/mainSet.html is Exhibit A in the
    affidavit of John Turmel dated in Aug 21, 2002 in the
    application to declare the prohibition repealed as of Terry
    Parker Day which is the fact sheet of Epilepsy Canada, (1470
    Peel St.#745, Montreal, H3A1T1, Tel: (514) 845-7855 Fax:
    (514) 845-7866 Toll free: 1-877-SEIZURE (734-0873) E-mail:
    epilepsy@epilepsy.ca which says that:
    "Epilepsy still can be a very serious condition and
    individuals do die of it. Experts estimate that prolonged
    seizures (status epilepticus) are the cause of 2,400 to
    4,600 deaths in Canada each year. In a major study of status
    epilepticus, 42% of deaths occurred in individuals with a
    history of epilepsy... Some people experience a sensation
    called an aura, or warning, before a seizure starts. The
    aura may occur far enough in advance to give time to lie
    down and prevent injury from falling..."
    Of those 10 daily fatalities are 4 who had already had
    seizures and could have been saved by possessing some
    marijuana. The fact sheet is now gone and can be viewed at
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/epil3600.jpg

    Aug 25 2002
    CHARBONNEAU J. ADDS TURMEL-PAQUETTE TO PARKER & HITZIG
    Justice Charbonneau grants the Crown motion to have John The
    Engineer's and Marc Paquette's application in L'Orignal to
    declare the CDSA prohibition no longer known to law"
    consolidated with Parker's CDSA challenge and Young's MMAR
    challenge in Toronto before Lederman.
    Sep 19 & 20, Oct 18, 2002
    LEDERMAN TRIAL OF CDSA & MMAR CHALLENGES
    Parker and Turmel-Paquette applications to declare the CDSA
    prohibition unknown to law and the Young's Hitzig
    application to declare the MMAR unconstitutional were heard.
    Sep 27 2002
    JUDGE ISABELLE CONVICTS TURMEL ON 94 DORMANT CORPSES
    John Turmel was convicted of contempt of court for
    publishing details of Health Canada stalling 94 "dormant"
    Section 56 Marijuana Exemption applicants to death.
    "[9]..he admits certain facts:
    3. On November 7th, 2001, the defendant admitted in the
    presence of many witnesses including Stéphane Lamoureux, «I
    got excited this is bigger than Walkerton»...
    [23] On the 6th November 2001, Mrs. Cripps-Prawak testified
    for the first time on the number of persons who applied
    under the law. At that time, she mentioned that Health
    Canada has 94 + dormant ; files [i.e.] meaning inactive.
    [24] John C. Turmel testifies that he concluded from that
    information that these 94 applicants were deceased. He then
    believed that this situation created an urgency to act
    rapidly in order to avoid more deaths. He therefore
    published the information for different groups even though
    he knew the existence of the publication ban."
    http://www.canlii.org/qc/cas/qccs/2002/2002qccs14830.html

    She also testified that 15 of the 94 dormants had been found
    deceased before Health Canada pharmacists would grant their
    doctors' prescriptions.

    Dec 19 2002
    CADIEUX J. ACQUITS ST-MAURICE OF MONTREAL COMPASSION CLUB
    Quebec Judge Cadieux acquits members of the Montreal
    Compassion club of possession for the purpose of
    trafficking:
    [2] They are jointly charged with having had in their
    possession for the purpose of trafficking a substance
    inscribed in annexes II and VII of the Controlled Drugs and
    Substances Act (CDSA)...
    [5] Nevertheless, the principal question to be litigated is
    whether the use of marihuana for therapeutic purposes and
    the interdiction in section 5 of the Controlled Drugs and
    Substances Act against distributing marihuana to sick and
    suffering people while there is no legal source from which
    these persons may procure the substance.
    [238] In the Krieger case, Judge Acton invalidated the
    section prohibiting the production of marihuana for personal
    therapeutic uses and accorded an exemption during the period
    of suspension of the declaration of invalidity. As to the
    section prohibiting the traffic and possession for the
    purpose of trafficking, the judge refused to invalidate
    because Krieger took it upon himself to distribute cannabis
    without insisting on a medical recommendation.
    [246] Like Judge Acton in the Krieger case, we can ask
    ourselves as to the reasonableness of the character of a
    system of exemptions permitting possession and cultivation
    of marihuana while there exists no legal source in Canada
    from where the holder of an exemption may obtain dried
    marihuana to consume or viable seeds to cultivate.
    [317] As to the constitutional question, I have concluded
    that the interdiction edicted by section 5 of the CDSA
    against distributing, for therapeutic purposes, marihuana to
    sick and suffering people for whom this substance is
    necessary for medical reasons, according to the
    recommendation of their treating physician, while there is
    no legal source from which these persons might producer this
    substance, violates the rights and liberties guaranteed in
    the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties, more
    particularly the right to life, to liberty and to the
    security of the person guaranteed by section 7 and that this
    interdiction does not conform with the principles of
    fundamental justice.
    [318] I have concluded that this restriction is not
    reasonable nor justified according to the criteria of
    section 1 of the Charter and in consequence, a stay of
    proceedings with respect to the three counts in the
    indictment is the only just and appropriate remedy given the
    circumstances.
    Gilles Cadieux, J.C.Q.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/cadieux.txt Translation
    Jan 2 2003
    PHILLIPS J. RULES PROHIBITION REPEALED IN WINDSOR
    Ontario Judge Phillips in Windsor rules in R. v. J.P. that
    whether the MMAR amending formula failed to save the CDSA
    prohibition or not, the legislation itself had to be
    completely enacted anew by Parliament and had not been.
    [7] It is submitted by the Applicant therefore, that
    Rosenberg, J. A.'s judgment had the effect of declaring
    invalid the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 (1) effective on
    July 31, 2001 - twelve months after the release of the
    reasons in R. v. Parker. It is therefore argued that in
    keeping with s. 2(2) of the Interpretation Act(2), the
    enactment was deemed repealed.
    (2)See the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21 at
    Section 2(2) which states: "For the purposes of this Act, an
    enactment that has been replaced is repealed and an
    enactment that has expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to
    have effect is deemed to have been repealed."
    [8] The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was not amended
    by Parliament, and no prohibition on the simple possession
    of marihuana has been re-enacted(4).
    [22] Simple possession of marihuana in s. 4(1) of the
    Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was struck down by the
    Court of Appeal. But the Court of Appeal went further in
    identifying whose task it was to address a remedy, writing:
    "...this is a matter within the legislative sphere. There is
    also a particular problem in the case of marihuana because
    of a lack of a legal source for the drug. This raises issues
    that can only be adequately addressed by Parliament."
    [23] Repeatedly Rosenberg J. A. returns to the theme of
    Parliamentary authority to address the remedy:..(8)
    <<<<8) Throughout the Parker dicta, reference is made to the
    need to legislate by Parliament. Parliament was repeatedly
    identified as the body competent to create such a framework,
    not the Government. Rosenberg J. A. must be taken to have
    known the difference between Parliament and the
    Government.>>>>
    [26] The Applicant therefore argued as follows, that as of
    July 31, 2001, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act at
    s.4 (1), could no longer be said to prohibit the simple
    possession of marihuana.(11)
    <<<<11) The Applicant refers the court to the consequences
    of repealed addressed in s. 43 of the Interpretation Act,
    R.S.C. 1985 c. I-21 at s. 43 which states: s. 43
    "Where an enactment is repealed in whole or in part, the
    repeal does not (a) revive any enactment or anything not in
    force or existing at the time when the repeal takes effect."
    [36] To repeat: the Regulations were designed to meet the
    demands of R. v. Parker. Did the Regulations achieve that
    result? The Applicant did not put that in issue directly
    before this Court.(19)
    [38].. it may very well be that the Regulations do
    not meet the rigorous objectives of the Court of Appeal
    decision in R. v. Parker. Were the Regulations to fail to
    meet the required standards as stipulated in R. v. Parker,
    then the declaration (having been determined effective at
    the end of the twelve-month July 31, 2001) would be in place
    and the impugned section currently of no force and effect.
    [41] But, and in my view this is the nub of the issue: Can
    Parliament provide a total discretion to the federal Cabinet
    (through the mechanism of a Governor General-in-Council
    order) in creating the remedy to address Parker? How is that
    fundamentally different from the authority granting power to
    the Minister of Health to stipulated exemptions in s.56 of
    the Act? Regulations can be changed with every publication
    of the Canada Gazette, without consideration of Parliament
    and the debate that that would entail.
    [46] While Regulations were enacted, but the legislation
    was not amended, the "gap in the regulatory scheme" (to use
    the language of Rosenberg J. A. in Parker) was not
    addressed. In my view, the establishment by Parliament of
    suitable guidelines in legislation fettering administrative
    discretion was requisite, but lacking. This is simply not
    the sort of matter that Parliament can legitimately delegate
    to the federal cabinet, a Crown minister or administrative
    agency. Regulations, crafted to provide the solution (even
    were these fashioned to create sufficient standards
    governing exemptions) cannot be found to remedy the defects
    determined by the Parker dicta. Therefore, since a statutory
    framework with guiding principles was not enacted within the
    period of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity,
    it follows in my view that the declaration is now
    effectively in place.
    Conclusion
    [47] In light of that analysis the young person's
    application must succeed.
    Released: January 2, 2003 Signed: Justice D. W. Phillips
    http://cannabislink.ca/legal/windsordecision.htm

    Jan 9 2003
    ONTARIO JUSTICE LEDERMAN RULES MMAR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH
    PARKER FOR FAILURE OF SUPPLY
    Ontario Superior Court Justice, Lederman J., declared that
    the MMAR permission system was unconstitutional because it
    failed to comply with the Parker court's ruling by not
    ensuring Parker a supply of marijuana and suspends his
    declaration of invalidity of the MMAR for 6 months. He
    ignored the Parker and Turmel-Paquette applications to
    declare the CDSA prohibition no longer known to law.
    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10584.html
    Order: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ledero1.jpg
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ledero2.jpg
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ledero3.jpg
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ledero4.jpg

    Mar 18 2003
    ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL SUPPORTS ACTON REPEAL OF CULTIVATION
    AND POSSESSION PROHIBITION IN KRIEGER
    The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal
    against Acton J.'s Krieger declaration that the cultivation
    prohibition under s.7(1) of the CDSA was of no force and
    effect. It's official. s.7(1) became of no force and effect
    one year after Acton J. said it did, Dec. 12 2001. All
    charges prosecuted since repeal have been improper.
    Order: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriego1.jpg
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriego2.jpg
    http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf
    Mar 31 2003
    ONTARIO WEILER J.A. STYLES PROCEEDING "PARKER ET AL"
    On a motion to consolidate the Hitzig AND Turmel-Paquette
    applications into the Terry Parker case, Madam Justice K.M.
    Weiler of the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled: "For the sake
    of clarity, the style of proceedings is to reflect the name
    of Mr. Parker first in the list of parties..."
    May 14 2003
    JOHN TURMEL'S 3.3KG HOUSE OF COMMONS PUFF
    On the day before the Minister of Justice was to introduce
    legislation to newly re-criminalize prohibition of marijuana
    with double the penalties, mis-named "de-criminalization,"
    John Turmel , Guinness record candidate for the House
    of Commons two dozen times, candidate for mayor of Ottawa
    and candidate in all Ottawa provincial elections and
    byelections, appeared at the doors of the House of Commons
    with 3.3Kg of marijuana to dare a life sentence to show that
    the prohibition was no longer valid in Canada and still
    inoperable without a workable medical exemption which this
    legislation did not. Charged with s.5(2) possession for the
    purpose of trafficking 'under 3Kg" for possession 3.3Kg.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/taipei.jpg

    May 15 2003
    JOHN TURMEL HOLDS BACK MARIJUANA BILL
    The Globe & Mail headline "Ottawa holds back marijuana bill"
    when the Chretien Government called off re-introduction of
    new Parliament-enacted law should have been headlined "John
    The Engineer holds back marijuana bill" with life-sentence
    gamble. The caption: "Minister denies he delayed tabling new
    pot legislation because of pressure from Americans" is true,
    it was pressure from John The Engineer.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmel11.jpg
    May 16 2003
    ONTARIO ROGIN J. RULES CDSA IS REPEALED FOR FAILURE TO RE-
    ENACT NEW CDSA PROHIBITION LEGISLATION
    Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin dismisses the Crown
    appeal of the Windsor J.P. decision on the technicality that
    ruled that once the legislation was going to be struck down
    on Terry Parker Day, a new statute had to be enacted by
    Parliament, not a fix of the statute that was being struck
    down. This is the third Ontario Superior Court Justice to
    have ruled that the MMAR had not functioned to save the
    CDSA.
    [9] (1) On July 31, 2000, Rosenberg J. in R. v. Parker,
    severed marihuana from s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and
    Substances Act and declared it invalid. Section 4 as it
    relates to substances other than marihuana remains in full
    force and effect.
    (2) The declaration of invalidity was suspended for a period
    of 12 months from July 31, 2000. Mr. Parker was granted an
    exemption from the marihuana provision in s. 4 during the
    period of suspended invalidity.
    (3) As of July 31/01, s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and
    Substances Act as it related to marihuana was invalid...
    [10] In addition, since s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and
    Substances Act has not been re-enacted, as it relates to
    marihuana, there is no penalty in the act for simple
    possession of marihuana even if it had been prohibited by
    the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations. It is to be noted,
    that there are no penalty sections set out in the Medical
    Marihuana Access Regulations.
    [15] It follows from these reasons, that neither Count 1 nor
    Count 2 contains an offence known to law...
    [16] The Crown Appeal from the judgment of Phillips J. is
    dismissed.
    Steven Rogin, Justice Released: May 16, 2003
    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc10765.html






    May 16 2003
    CROWN SCC MEMORANDUM ADMITS KRIEGER REPEALED CULTIVATION
    The Crown's Memorandum pleading for Leave to Appeal the
    Krieger invalidation to the Supreme Court of Canada because
    "[57].. as matters now stand s.7(1) has been declared of no
    force and effect by the highest court in Alberta."
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegcm.txt

    May 26 2003
    ONTARIO AITKEN J. WON'T QUASH PARLIAMENT HILL BUST
    Ontario Superior Court Justice Aitken dismissed John The
    Engineer's motion to quash the Parliament Hill Bust charge
    by an Order of Prohibition on the grounds that without new
    legislation effecting the the Parker and Krieger rulings,
    they could only be effected by the deletion of the word
    marijuana from Schedule II of the CDSA, thus invalidating
    the prohibitions in the other sections too. S.4(1) says it
    is an offence to possession anything on "Schedule II of
    banned substances." Section 7(1) says it is an offence to
    cultivate anything on "Schedule II of banned substances."
    Section 5(2) says it is an offence to possess for the
    purpose of trafficking anything on the "Schedule II of
    banned substances." On Aug. 1 2001, the day on which the
    courts have found that the invalidation of the prohibition
    on the possession of marijuana in the CDSA by the Parker
    Court to have taken effect, there was only one way for the
    publication of the new legislation to reflect that fact.
    Since marijuana is not mentioned in the CDSA sections 4, 5,
    7, but only on the Schedule II of banned substances, the
    invalidation of the prohibition can only be effected by the
    deletion of the word "marijuana" from Schedule II of banned
    substances. There is no other way for the invalidation to
    have taken effect given the state of the out-of-date
    legislation.
    Jun 10 2003
    JOHN THE ENGINEER TRIPS UP CROWN APPEAL
    Lederman Appellant John The Engineer fails to file the
    Appeal Certificate of Perfection thereby tripping up the
    Crown's attempt to have the appeal heard before the Lederman
    suspension of the invalidation of the MMAR elapses on July 9 2003.
    Jun 25 2003
    CARTHY J.A. REFUSES TO EXTEND SUSPENSION TO SAVE MMAR
    In Parker, Turmel-Paquette, Hitzig et al v. HMTQ, Carthy
    J.A., unlike Alberta's O'Leary J.A. who had extended Acton
    J.'s suspension of the declaration of invalidity for the
    s.7(1) cultivation offence in Krieger, did refuse to extend
    the suspension of the Lederman declaration of invalidity of
    the MMAR. The Crown appealed believing the Court of Appeal
    can do Parliament's job of bringing the MMAR back to life.
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/parkerM29602.htm
    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10445.html
    Jul 9 2003
    LEDERMAN SUSPENSION OF MMAR INVALIDATION EXPIRES
    The Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) becomes of no
    force and effect at midnight. In the vain hopes of pulling
    off a resurrection if the appeal of the refusal to extend
    the suspension wins and they extend it so the MMAR can be
    kept alive, the Ministry of Justice announces it is shipping
    out the pot to Canada's exemptees in compliance with the
    Lederman Order that has come into effect. Though they have
    accepted the Lederman Order about the necessity of providing
    the pot, they failed to accept the Lederman Order about the
    invalidity of the MMAR legislation. The MMAR law was gone
    like the CDSA law it was trying to save two years too late.
    So, the artificial MMAR heart didn't work to save the CDSA
    patient by July 31 2001 and the patient was declared dead.
    Now the artificial MMAR heart that didn't save the CDSA is
    declared bad on July 9 2003. For the first time, both the
    CDSA ship and its MMAR lifeboat are sunk. There is no CDSA
    prohibition system, there is no MMAR permission system.
    Jul 29 2003
    ONTARIO APPEAL COURT HEARS BIG 5 APPEALS & HITZIG & J.P.
    John The Engineer's Big Five Appeals to kill the CDSA
    against Chapnik J., Lederman J. x2, Charbonneau J., Aitken
    J. were all expedited and heard together with the Windsor
    Rogin J. appeal and the Hitzig Lederman J. appeal to fix the
    MMAR. Rather than hear the cases in chronological order with
    Parker first and Hitzig second, the Court of Appeal insisted
    on hearing them backwards, putting the Hitzig case first,
    then surreptitiously altering the style of cause from
    "Parker et al" to the now infamous "Hitzig et al" without
    directly overturning Justice Weiler's Order. Doing things
    backwards ended up with backward results.
    While only John The Engineer and Team were proclaiming
    prohibition was repealed, everyone else in Canada had been
    told or were pretending that the law was still valid.
    Unfortunately, Global-CanWest was the only source of media
    through which filter all the other media got their reports.
    Reporter Shannon Kari did not focus on the parties who were
    right about the CDSA law being repealed and only
    concentrated on the Professor who was wrong about the CDSA
    prohibition law still being repealed while still working on
    fixing the MMAR permission legislation.
    Aug 01 2003
    5) COURT UPHOLDS CARTHY J.'S REFUSAL TO EXTEND SUSPENSION OF
    MMAR INVALIDATION
    The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal in Parker
    et al (including Hitzig) against Carthy's refusal to suspend
    the declaration of invalidity.
    "We treat this as a request by the Crown for stay of the
    order of Lederman J.. We do not propose to make any order."
    The Crown was still asking for a continued stay of Lederman
    Order to be able to argue that though it had come into
    effect and repealed the MMAR, this later stay would cancel
    that effect and unrepeal the MMAR. So, for sure, the MMAR
    permission legislation was repealed on July 9 2003 and was
    not alive when the Court started the Hitzig operations on
    the bad parts out of the MMAR cadaver.
    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10445.html
    Oct 7 2003
    THE ENGINEER'S CDSA & ALAN YOUNG'S MMAR RULINGS
    The Court of Appeal changed the name of the case from the
    Appellant "Parker and others" to the Cross-Appellant "Hitzig
    and others" versus The Queen. How often is a case named
    after the cross-appellant's and not the Appellant?
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigsynopsis.htm
    1) COURT VALIDATES REPEAL OF CDSA AND MMAR IN PARKER AND
    TURMEL-PAQUETTE
    The Ontario Court of Appeal grants John The Engineer's
    applications in Parker and Turmel-Paquette to declare that
    the CDSA prohibition on marijuana became invalid on Aug. 1
    2001, Terry Parker Day, because the Marijuana Medical Access
    Regulations (MMAR) had failed to safety Terry Parker.
    Unfortunately, they misplaced our relief sought in the J.P.
    and Hitzig rulings, but not in ours.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmelo1.jpg
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmelo2.jpg
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/jpC40043.htm
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm
    2) COURT UN-REPEALS MMAR & CDSA LEGISLATION IN HITZIG
    In Alan Young's Hitzig case, the Court of Appeal ruled that
    it was re-enacting the MMAR legislation after 3 months of
    being repealed in order to cut out the offensive parts
    Young's applicants were complaining about, thus making the
    MMAR workable and unrepealed which would then make the CDSA
    prohibition legislation that had been killed by the Parker
    26 months earlier unrepealed too. Without the Alan Young's
    Hitzig case to fix the MMAR access after the CDSA
    prohibition had died, there would have been no new court-
    enacted MMAR legislation to put the new un-repealed CDSA
    prohibition back up again.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/hitzigo1.jpg
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/hitzigo2.jpg
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm

    3) COURT REJECTS WINDSOR TECHNICALITY
    The Court of appeal overturned the Rogin decision in J.P.
    and ruled that merely amending the not-yet repealed CDSA
    legislation to comply with Parker by Order in Council would
    have been good enough had it been on time. But since the
    prohibition had been repealed on Terry Parker Day and J.P.
    had been charged after Aug. 1 2001, he was the first
    Canadian to benefit by having his charges quashed for having
    fallen in the Window of Death for Prohibition legislation
    between Aug. 1 2001 - Oct 7 2003.
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/jpC40043.htm
    4) COURT RULES MARIJUANA STILL ON SCHEDULE II WITHOUT PRINT
    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Aitken J.'s
    refusal to prohibit prosecution of my Parliament Hill Bust
    because "marijuana" had to have been stricken from Schedule
    II for all related sections without any new print job
    detailing the exemption ruling that there was no need to
    strike the word "marijuana" from Schedule II when the
    Courts, Crown and Police would remember in their own minds which sections Section II applied too,
    or not, without actually having to put it in print.
    http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/turmelC40127.htm
    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10599.html
    Oct 23 2003
    PEI JUDGE MATHESON ACCEPTS HITZIG RESURRECTION
    In R. v. Stavert, Justice Jaqueline Matheson wrote:
    "[16] The effect of the Hitzig decision from the Ontario
    Court of Appeal is to create a constitutionally valid
    medical exemption for marihuana users to s.4 of the CDSA,
    thus making s.4 of the CDSA constitutionally valid and in
    full force and effect."
    http://www.canlii.org/pe/cas/pesctd/2003/2003pesctd85.html
    Nov 2003
    PARLIAMENT FAILS TO RE-ENACT PROHIBITION IN FALL SESSION
    In the fall session, the Minister of Justice introduced the
    new re-criminalization prohibition with doubled penalties
    despite the Court of Appeal having recriminalized marijuana
    for them.
    Dec 3 2003
    HEALTH CANADA REINSTATES REPEALED SECTION!!
    Health Canada Notice of Changes to the Marihuana Medical
    Access Regulations (MMAR) which became effective December 3
    2003 and include: "(4).. Paragraph 41(b) will be re-enacted
    to reinstate on a national basis, the limit on the number of
    persons for whom one designated person can produce
    marihuana; under the MMAR, one DPL holder can cultivate for
    only one ATP holder; and Section 54 will be re-enacted to
    reinstate on a national basis, the limit on the number of
    DPL holders who can produce marihuana in common; under the
    MMAR, a DPL holder is not permitted to produce marihuana in
    common with more than two other DPL holders." So, the
    changes announced to MMAR do not comply with the Hitzig
    decision! Even if the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to do
    Parliament's job for them and re-enact the prohibition by
    striking out five unconstitutionally cancerous sections of
    the MMAR, the Ministry of Health has re-instated two fatally
    cancerous sections. The MMAR is once again unconstitutional.
    The CDSA prohibitions are once again unconstitutional even
    if they are found to be really resurrected.
    http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2003/20031217/html/sor387-e.html#avis
    Dec 7 2003
    HITZIG APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
    Hitzig Application for leave to appeal announced to the
    Supreme Court of Canada, filed late on Jan 7 2004, and
    dismissed on May 6 2004. Turmel Application in Forma
    Pauperis gets more time.
    http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/messages/1116

    Dec 8 2003
    OTTAWA STAYS POT CHARGES IN 4,000 CASES
    Upon expiry of the 60-day period to seek leave to appeal the
    Terry Parker Day victories, the Crown was forced to announce
    the stay of all 4,000 pending improper s.4(1) charges after
    July 31 2001 but not after Oct 7 2003 when the new court-
    enacted legislation came into force and effect, just like
    the charges for J.P. in Windsor. The charges laid under an
    invalid statute should have been withdrawn, not stayed and
    kept over their heads for an extra 6 months.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/stay4000.htm

    Also, the Crown has done nothing about the 100,000 Canadians
    who were improperly convicted while the law was of of no
    force and effect because Lara Speirs and later Crowns were
    all wrong. Firing the Keystone Krowns would be nice but
    forms for late appeals to correct this injustice one at a
    time may be found at John The Engineer's site:
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm

    Dec 23 2003
    SUPREME COURT DISMISSES KRIEGER CROWN LEAVE APPLICATION;
    CLAY, CAINE, MALMO-LEVINE APPEALS
    1) SUPREME COURT DISMISSES CROWN'S PLEA THAT KRIEGER MEANS
    POSSESSION AND CULTIVATION ARE NOW REPEALED
    The Supreme Court of Canada denied the Crown's application
    for leave to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in
    R. v. Krieger where "[57 as matters now stand s.7(1) has been
    declared of no force and effect by the highest court in Alberta."
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.jpg

    2) SUPREME COURT DISMISSES CLAY APPEAL
    The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Clay and
    Caine/Malmo-Levine recreational use cases 6 judges to 3.
    Terry Parker's 4-dead-epileptics-a-day should sway a few
    more on medical use necessary for all of Canada's 400,000
    epileptics, not just the 40 out of 400,000 who can qualify
    with the strict Health Canada requirements. All epileptics.
    All people who can benefit from this completely safe, non-
    toxic herb.
    In Clay, the Supreme Court does explain:
    "3. In this trilogy of cases, we affirm the legislative competence
    of Parliament to prohibit the possession of marijuana....
    4. The task of the Court in relation to s.7 of the Charter
    is not to micromanage Parliament's creation or continuance
    of prohibitions backed up by penalties. It is to identify
    the outer boundaries of legislative jurisdiction set out in
    the Constitution. Within those boundaries, it is for
    Parliament to act or not to act... The Court's concern is
    not with the wisdom of prohibition but solely with its
    constitutionality. We have concluded that it is within
    Parliament's jurisdiction to criminalize the possession of
    marihuana should it choose to do so, but it is equally open
    to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise soften any
    aspect of the marihuana laws that it no longer considers to
    be good public policy."
    The Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada:
    http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2003/vol3/texte/2003scr3_0735.txt
    2) SUPREME COURT DISMISSES CAINE, MALMO-LEVINE APPEALS
    The Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada:
    http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2003/vol3/texte/2003scr3_0571.txt
    Apr 1 2004
    DEMAND TO MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR 100K CORRECTIONS
    Since the 4000 charges still pending from the Aug. 1 2001 to
    Oct 7 2003 period were invalid, convictions had to be too.
    The Engineer demanded that the convictions registered
    against the other over 100,000 Canadians (Statistics Canada)
    who were charged and pleaded guilty during those 26 months
    be expunged and any jailed victims released
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ag01.txt
    May 2004
    PARLIAMENT FAILS TO RE-ENACT PROHIBITION IN SPRING 2004
    In the Spring session, the Minister of Justice introduced
    the new recriminalisation prohibition with doubled
    penalties. Reminders from John The Engineer to Prime
    Minister Paul Martin that the number of dead epileptics he'd
    cause with the new legislation would be published online day
    by day during the election, (now, it's the judges who are
    responsible for fooling Canada's epileptics into not
    protecting themselves with a joint) and Mr. Martin ended the
    session with no new Parliament-enacted legislation.
    May 13 2004
    TORONTO TRIO FILE MOTION TO QUASH
    The Toronto Trio at the Section 56 Compassion Club of Ryan-
    Champagne-Wallace who were busted last year during the
    Prohibition Window of Death filed to quash their charges for
    cultivation and possession for the purpose of trafficking of
    marijuana.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryannoti.jpg
    Jun 9 2004
    TRIO'S POT CASE NIXED
    Upon motions to quash on the grounds Parliament has not
    legislated a new prohibition after the Parker and Krieger
    cases invalidated the marijuana prohibitions, the Crown in
    Toronto withdrew charges against Bruce Ryan, Pierre
    Champagne, James Wallace for cultivation, possession (over),
    possession for the purpose of trafficking which occurred in
    the Window of Death. The Crown cannot produce the new court-
    enacted legislation keeping marijuana on Schedule II for all
    other offences than s.4(1) and s.7(1).
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/totrio.jpg
    Jun 15 2004
    CROWN WITHDRAWS CHARGE AGAINST ED MARTIN
    Charge of possession withdrawn in Toronto against Ed Martin.
    Jun 17 2004
    FIRST CHARGE AFTER HITZIG UN-REPEAL WITHDRAWN
    The Crown withdraws possession under 30 grams vs Sandra
    Kramer charged after Window of Death is said to have been
    closed by the courts. In every instance where the Crown was
    challenged to produce the new court-unrepealed legislation,
    the charges have been withdrawn. Seems every one of the
    100,000 people improperly charged are going to have to ask
    the government to correct the government's error in their
    case.
    Jul 22 2004
    NIELSEN MOTION TO QUASH ON PARLIAMENTARY PREROGATIVE
    The motion in R. v. Nielsen (Doug, Laurel, Danielle) was
    heard by Judge Edward to quash the charges of possession
    under CDSA s.4(1) and possession for the purpose of
    trafficking 21 grams in their home on the grounds Parliament
    never re-enacted the marijuana prohibition after the Parker
    Court of Appeal for Ontario had repealed the possession
    prohibition and the Krieger Court of Appeal for Alberta had
    repealed the cultivation prohibition. Judge Edward asked the
    Crown if a court can resurrect a legislative provision that
    has been struck down as a violation of rights in the
    Charter. The Crown could not show any such power but did
    note that the Court had resurrected it. And they wouldn't
    have if they couldn't have so they must be able to. In
    essence, the court can because the court did. Judgment to be
    delivered on Sep 14 2004.
    http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/messages/1293
    Aug 04 2004
    WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS FOR RESURRECTION ORDER
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/jcmno2.txt
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/jcmnom.txt
    Aug 18 2004
    JUDGE SHEPPARD ORDERS RETURN OF TO TRIO GROW-OP
    After ordering the return of the equipment and money from
    the S.56 Club's Toronto Trio who had their charges
    withdrawn, Judge Sheppard reserved his decision on returning
    their marijuana to Oct 19.



    Sep 14 2004
    JUDGE EDWARD OBEYS RESURRECTION OPINION NOT COURT ORDER TO PROSECUTE
    NIELSENS
    Citing paragraph 2 of the Hitzig decision which states that
    the Court's MMAR operations have resurrected the prohibition
    in s.4, Judge Edward ruled he was bound by the highest court
    of his province. And on the ruling in R. v. Turmel on
    section 5(2) possession for the purpose of trafficking
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/edwardo1.txt
    Sep 16 2004
    JUSTICE DOHERTY REFUSES TO SIGN RESURRECTION ORDER
    Justice Doherty refused to include the resurrection of the
    CDSA prohibition in s.4 of the CDSA when requested
    relegating the resurrection of the prohibition stated in the
    Hitzig decision to mere opinion, not Order.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmelo1.jpg
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmelo2.jpg
    Oct 7 2004
    SCC APPLICATIONS IN RESURRECTION AND REMEMBER APPEALS
    Applications for leave to appeal the Lederman Resurrection
    Opinion and the Aitken "We'll remember all across Canada in our minds," decision were filed
    in Supreme Court of Canada.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/sccjcm.txt
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/sccdare.txt
    Oct 19 2004
    JUDGE SHEPPARD RULES HITZIG BARS TO TRIO'S POT RETURN
    Judge Sheppard rules he is bound by the Hitzig Resurrection
    Opinion not to give the TO Trio their pot back.
    Oct 22 2004
    JUDGE EARLE-RENTON DISMISSES QUASH IN HILL BUST TRIAL
    Judge Earle-Renton dismissed the motions to quash the
    Parliament Hill charges as unknown to law and as impossible
    to prove possession under 3Kg by evidence of over 3Kg and
    adjourned the trial to Feb 10 2005 because she is bound by
    the Court of Appeal statement that section 5(2) was valid at
    the time of the charge.

    Oct 25 2004
    JUDGE SHEPPARD RULES NO JURISDICTION ON S.24 POT CLAIM
    Judge Sheppard rules he had no jurisdiction to give the TO
    Trio their controlled substance back pursuant to an
    application under section 24 of the CDSA (must be appealed)
    and Orders the return of grow-op equipment and money.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan2.jpg

    Nov 7 2004
    JOHN TURMEL FILES IN SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
    John Turmel files Application #30570 for Leave to Appeal the
    Lederman J. Hitzig resurrection with:

    1) an Order overturning the court's opinion which has been deemed
    by lower courts to render the prohibition on cannabis in s.4(1)
    of the CDSA no longer invalid and declaring that the prohibition
    on marijuana remains repealed since Terry Parker Day Aug. 1 2002;

    2) Order of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General for Canada
    to withdraw all current s.4(1) prosecutions.

    3) Order of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General to release
    all prisoners and expunge all convictions registered under s.4(1)
    of the CDSA since:
    a) the Charter was enacted; or
    b) Aug 1 2000 when the section was deemed unconstitutional; or
    c) Aug 1 2001 when the section was deemed repealed.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/sccjcm.txt

    12. On Oct 7 2004, John Turmel filed application #30571 for leave
    to appeal the refusal to extend the invalidity to all sections
    with an Order declaring that the word "marijuana" was deleted
    from Schedule II for all sections of the CDSA on the grounds that
    without the underpinning of the cultivation and possession
    statutes, all other prohibitions lack the spirit of the law as
    well as the letter of the law.
    http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/sccdare.txt

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home