 |
JCT: Excuse me for not trumpeting this in my last post when
Noreen mentioned that her friend Chuck had served his motion
to quash. But that now lets Noreen fast-track her slow
train.
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:05:32 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Noreen's Amendments to Quash Kits
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,
> of no force or effect.'
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#citation
>
> JCT: Again, I'd hope any judge would already know this.
NE: But it appears they DON'T. Never hurts to point it out.
That is why it wasn't used in Nicholls.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2003/01/p03_0132.htm
JCT: Okay. I'll put it at the beginning of the timeline. Do
you really think it has to go in the Notices of Motion to
quash and prohibit too?
NE: [6] Mr. Nicholls' counsel, Mr. Weststrate, argued this
application on three grounds:
a) it is a breach of Mr. Nicholls' s.15 equality rights
under the Charter to be prosecuted for an offence for which
he could not be prosecuted were he simply to reside in
another part of Canada;
JCT: That's why Krieger repealing S.7 in Alberta repeals it
for us all. Especially when the the Supreme Court has the
chance and does not disagree.
NE: b) pursuant to the reasoning in Stavert, the Crown is
estopped from arguing that s.4(1) discloses an offence known
to law; or
JCT: The Federal Crown for sure. Isn't this obvious that
it's wrong for the Ministry of Justice to prosecute in one
province and not another?
NE: c) in reliance upon both Stavert and Clarke, it is an
affront to the community sense of fair play and decency -
and thus an abuse of the process of the court - to permit
the federal Crown to proceed against Mr. Nicholls when more
than one third of Canada's population is what he
characterizes as being "immune from similar prosecution"
because of Parker.
JCT: "Because they admit the law is dead" should have been
added so it really means "it is an affront to the community
sense of fair play and decency - and thus an abuse of the
process of the court - to permit the federal Crown to
proceed against the accused when the law is dead."
So all these prosecutions we've been bewailing, once we win,
we can go after those Crowns for abusing the process.
The Nielsens can go after Greg Smith for fooling the judge.
Everyone can go after David Frankel for fooling everyone.
NE: [7] The application was not argued on the original
premise of Parker, namely that s.4(1) is unconstitutional
for its failure to provide for the s.7 rights of medical
users.
JCT: Of course not. That's what the Crown keeps claiming.
That we need to give constitutional notice. We keep
answering that declaring it dead is not declaring it
unconstitutional.
NE: *****Nor did Mr. Weststrate address whether the federal
government's regulatory response to Parker was or was not
sufficient to "save" the section (an issue which as I
mentioned has not yet been considered by the Ontario Court
of Appeal, and has not to my knowledge been argued in B.C.).
JCT: And of course, now years later, we know that the Crown
had to drop the 4000 charges when it was found that the
government's regulatory response to Parker, the MMAR, was
not sufficient to "save' the section. All across Canada.
NE: At the close of his argument, I asked Mr. Weststrate
whether he was inviting me to consider the constitutionality
of the section. But it is clear I cannot address that issue,
in part because no notice was given of that constitutional
challenge, and in part because the applicant did not
directly argue the substantive effect of the new
regulations. So these reasons are limited to the scope of
the argument as framed by Mr. Weststrate's submissions.
JCT: And we don't want to discuss whether it's
constitutionally bad, either. We only want to discuss
whether it's already-determined badness makes it still dead.
NE: 8] Mr. Sommerey, on behalf of the federal Crown argues
that the defendant's characterization of the state of the
law in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia
misapprehends the jurisprudential realities and, in any
event, that proceedings in British Columbia should continue
unless and
*********until a British Columbia court articulates a reason
why they should not, or the Supreme Court of Canada does so
in relation to the whole nation.
JCT: It's weird. We're being told that if you have a case
that's not 100%, that's iffy, and the Supreme Court of
Canada grants leave but then you win, that iffy decision is
Canada wide. But if your case is so powerful that the Crown
don't even appeal or they are not granted leave to appeal,
then it's not Canada wide? Only province-wide!
Isn't that what they are saying if they say that when the
government gives up appealing, it's not as strong as if
you'd won it after an appeal.
Aren't all power cases whose challenges are laughed out of
court and denied leave now considered weaker than had the
lousy challenge gotten in and then you win? It doesn't make
sense, does it, for the weaker cases to be Canada-wide and
the stronger cases not Canada-wide because the government
gave up faster?
>And NO BC court (or other, until Hitzig) even MENTIONED
s.52.
JCT: Is this something most judges have forgotten?
>Michael Robert Graham and Bobbie Jo Parks:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2003/03/p03_0369.htm
[16] NE: NOTE THIS: ****The applicants must provide some
legal basis for a conclusion that section 4(1) of the Act is
invalid
JCT: What's wrong with Parker and Krieger Orders?
N: ******in this province. For the reasons stated above,
Parker and J.P. are not helpful.
JCT: Parker is not helpful? Who is this judge?
N: The applicants have not otherwise provided persuasive or
binding authority from outside of this province that the
Parker declaration of invalidity applies nationwide.
>NE: You NEED to include Section 32 (not only in
Alberta/Ontario) AND Section 52.
THE APPLICANTS MUST PROVIDE. Besides - you don't need to
include the whole thing, just PLEASE point it out.
JCT: You've seen my timeline format. Go ahead and prepare
the parts the way you think you'd like them laid out.
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:40 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: Richard: Please include Section 32 and 52
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com
Richard and Suzanne - PLEASE point out to the judge Section
32 and 52 of the Constitution. I believe it can be found in
the Criminal Code Book.
JCT: That's great news. No need to print it. So sure, I can
throw it in. Unless we've already won in North Bay!
N: DO NOT expect the judge to remember it. (Although in your
case it may be too late)
PS. I am sure stoked about hearing what Judge Serre has to
say.
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:29:37 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Noreen's Amendments to Quash Kits
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> JCT: Wow. That's this Thursday. Of course, all he has to
> do is pick a date for criminal hearings with 30 days
> notice, serve the quash motion, then Noreen serves a
> Notice of Return of Motion to piggy-back from March 17
NE: March 17 - but what's a "Return of Motion?"
JCT: You pick the day when Criminal Court Motions are heard
and write it on your "Notice of Return of Motion" indicating
that the Notice of Motion adjourned to March 17 is now going
to be returnable on an earlier day after the 30-days service
requirement.
You hand it to the Crown, don't bother asking them for
service if people find their refusal confusing, just make
sure you leave one with them, swear the affidavit of
service you served your date to dance with the Crown in
front of a judge on them and file it in court. No one can
make you live under the cloud of a defective indictment more
than 30-days.
N: Crown asked for 3 hours time - the judge asked me if I
required witnesses, so an all day was booked. 17 March is
the only day where it can be all day.
JCT: But you don't need any witnesses for a motion to quash.
Just get hooked up with Chuck and plead his minikit and
refer to your maxi-kit if you need to. As for the witnesses
at trial you mentioned earlier and what evidence to be
raised in defence, that's all years away. Don't even go
there with your friend. He doesn't need that now. I presume
he's sick?
> Make sure to bring your tape recorder and point out how
> Section 136 permits taping as supplementary for personal
> notes in Ontario and you may get a judge who says yes. Is
> it banned completely?
NE: Banned completely in BC Courts.
JCT: Time to ask to have the ban deemed unconstitutionally
not equal treatment. We get it in Ontario, they get it in
Quebec. Take the time to push. Could be a valuable win for
all of you in BC to get high-tech notes like us.
> to Chuck's day and can do the talking for both of them at
> the advanced date.
N: I think Chuck will get heard with mine. He is also
charged with cannabis resin (and marijuana).
JCT: I'd rather you picked the date and got yours heard with
his. There's no reason either of you have to wait more than
his 30 days notice. That's your next battle. Actually, it's
not going to be a battle if you just file his forms for the
day he has a right to in February and file your Notice of
Return of Motion for the earlier date. Fait accomplit.
There's nothing they can do to deny you if you don't ask.
Just like the service they refuse. There's nothing they can
do to stop you serving them if you don't ask for their
admission of service because you'll swear you gave it to
them at the JP yourself.
There is no need for the extra month delay. We need you
coming into combat now. You're too well-versed a combatant
not to get into it while the action's hot. And there's
nothing they can do to stop you if Chuck demands his 30-day
hearing. After all, you can promise his minikit won't take
more than half an hour to argue.
Then you hit them with your motion letting them know you're
bringing along your maxikit should the minikit prove
insufficient. But it seems to have worked for Tarzan in
North Bay. We need another quick Superior Court decision in
another province fast. Fastest.
> Anyways, it worked out OK, Chuck found Crown - gave her
> the copy - so now - she informs him that this will
> probably be heard in March. (Although he now has a
> scheduled Court date for next week). We'll see what
> happens next week.
>
> JCT: Bull. He picks the date of return and tells her.
???????????????? Explain please
JCT: He finds out when the first possible date for a short
half-hour motion to be heard after the 30-day required
service. If he hadn't served it already, he'd just pick the
date and hand it in. In your case where you're already
booked, you need the Notice of Return of Motion. But since
he's coming up Thursday morning, he need merely demand what
he could have had if he'd refiled the whole thing. He
cannot be denied his early hearing. Then you piggy-back.
> Noreen, you know the smarter bad guys monitor what I'm
> going to do to them. You have got to promise us you'll
> make the offer of consolidation with your friend.
NE: I think Crown is consolidating him with me, but I think
he may be OK to do it himself.
JCT: Of course the Crown wants to put him off to March with
the thick file on the bench. But you want to force him to do
it in February with the little file on the bench. First
show, only Aces and Kings, no small cards unless necessary.
NE: Depends on who the judge is on Thursday. I know already
Crown will be asking to have his heard with mine on the 17th
- but his is only CDSA 4(1), although also cannabis resin -
which if required could be heard with mine - but otherwise -
depending on the judge - it is only really a 5 page motion
(with just a lot of references).
JCT: You must get him his early date and not let them slow
him down to your delayed case. This is your chance to
advance your date if you do it right. Concentrate on getting
him his early date and then you'll love all talk of
consolidation. But not while he's trying to get Chuck
delayed to your date. This is important. There is no reason
for you to suffer delay. You can get into action sooner.
Chuck is your ticket. You must try.
> Richard's already referring to you tomorrow morning, the
> only thing I made sure to remind him to mention. That if
> the judge has any idea of saying she's bound by the higher
> Ontario Court, to remember that Noreen Evers and her
> friend aren't facing a judge bound by Hitzig but purely by
> Krieger Supreme Court. And it's not right for Feds not
> prosecuting in one province and prosecuting in another.
NE: Thanks Richard.
> Anyway Noreen, if for some reason Justice Serre doesn't
> deliver the same tomorrow, it sure would cheer the A-Team
> if you got another BC Challenge filed with yours
> expedited. We need someone to kick Crown ass in another
> Hitzig-proof arena.
NE: It will be interesting.
JCT: Not just interesting. If Justice Valin really declared
possession and cultivation unknown to law, you get to use it
first and get a double Superior Court to agree. You must get
booked to establish Krieger in your province fast.
> How the Hitzig Court "made prohibition known to law again"
> said Crown Attorney Greg Smith to Superior Court Justice
> Festeryga who bought that courts can make a struck-down
> prohibition known to law again. That didn't sound odd to
> him when Smith said it. The Court "made it known to law
> again." And Doug even quipped that Parliament Only
> Legislates Courts Only Abrogates. The judge wasn't
> listening to this civilian on law.
NE: That's why I live in BC. We have better weed out here -
makes people (and judges) smarter.(hopefully)
JCT: And the sooner you get the issue before the hopefully
smarter crew of judges, the better.
> Anyway, a declaration of war out of the West would sure
> cheer up the Ontario Team. Richard Johnson and family.
> Will you make sure to get the earliest BC date and
> piggy-back into an expedited hearing so we can get our
> most-informed and "practiced" guerrilla lawyer into
> action?
NE: I would love to, but I am not sure about the 1 day
thing (although I don't think I need that long) - it really
depends on Judge Serre's decision.
JCT: Of course, you don't need that long. Doug and Laurie's
case was only 300 pages because I used the Acton and Parker
decisions and all the other stuff to establish the sections
were dead. Then along came the "Krieger 3-Judge Memorandum"
detailing that it was S.7 being struck down 3 times, the
Calgary Newspaper misrepresentions and the Supreme Court of
Canada note that S.7 had been struck down with the Order
which made the Minikits just as powerful as the maxis.
So let Chuck's case lead, you do it, and only call on your
maxi-kit if you aren't winning it with only the mini. But
make sure Chuck doesn't suffer much more than 30 days before
challenging the defective indictment. The key point to keep
hitting the judge with it that. No Canadian needs live under
the cloud of a defective indictment more than the 30-day
notice.
Hey, the defence lawyers always get in and never get stalled
from the motions on Law and Order. Why here?
Thursday is your chance to put your machine on the fast-
track. Don't miss it. The war's almost over.
--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics
|
|
