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
You can read the article HERE
posted by Loretta Nall at
3:22 AM
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, 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
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, at 10:29 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home