 |
JCT: More lawying from Glenn Gray's friend:
>From: "sledman jones"
>Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 12:10 pm
>Subject: RE: TURMEL: Help First Krieger Quash in Manitoba?
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com, turmel@yahoogroups.com
"Now, this is binding from the perspective of the senior
appellate courts of the provinces (including yours) because,
obviously, the SCC cannot rule on it's own refusal of leave
to appeal, since....well....it never heard the appeal..."
JCT: Obviously. Yes. The Alberta Court of Appeal Krieger
ruling is binding from the perspective of the senior
appellate courts of the provinces (including yours) because,
obviously, the SCC cannot rule on it's own refusal of leave
to appeal, since....well....it never heard the appeal..."
Seems pretty clear that when the Crown's appeal is thrown
out by the Supreme Court, then the Provincial Highest Court
ruling stands, and that's in all Canada. Just like Parker.
That's our point. Why didn't the Crown stop busting?
What this rest means:
>First off, a quote from the highest authority, The House of
Lords in Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd. V. Modern Engineering
(Bristol Ltd. [1973] 3 AII E. R. 195 at p. 214 (H.L.):
" Refusal to Leave to Appeal does not imply approval of this
house of a judgement sought to be appealed against. That
judgement carries the same authority as any other
unappealled judgement of the Court of Appeal - neigher more,
nor less".
This has been accepted by the high courts of the provinces,
notably in R. v. Decoste (1984) 15 C.C.C. (3d) 289. N.S.C.A.
JCT: Again, I know this. I agree. No one is saying
otherwise. What's the point? There's no argument that when
the Supreme Court throws out the Crown's appeal, the Krieger
ruling remains valid Canada-wide.
"...As well by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v.
Santeramo (1976) 32 C.C.C. (2d) 34. :
"It is true that the conduct of the trial and argument on
appeal raised, inter alia, issues relevant to those in this
case and that the appeal from conviction was dismissed by
this court. However, there were no reasons for judgement
delivered to this court, and of course there were none
delivered on the refusal of the application to leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not think that
we should assume that the higher court intended to determine
these issues, nor do I think that we must necessarily accept
that this court, by dismissing the appeal, resolved the
issue I am here concerned with. "
JCT: Fine. We all know this. If the Ontario Court of Appeal
in Parker made the news by striking down S.4, why didn't the
Alberta Court of Appeal in Krieger make the news when they
struck down S.7. Regardless, our argument is that the
Alberta Court of Appeal struck down the law and the Supreme
Court of Canada didn't overturn it.
>You see what I mean now, the highest courts of the
provinces, and the House of Lords (the that high courts
consider an authority, although not binding) are saying that
leave to appeal dismissed means......"leave to appeal
dismissed." - and that's that.
JCT: Again, what does this have to say about the decision by
Costigan, Wittman and LoVecchio of Alberta's highest court?
So, I'm guessing that means that the Krieger decision is not
in my favor,right?
JCT: Not, it means that the Krieger is still in your favor.
Like the lawyer said: Krieger is binding from the
perspective of the senior appellate courts of the provinces
(including yours)...
Can't be much clearer than that? Look, I reduced it down to
just a few paraggraphs:
2. On Dec. 11 2000, Alberta Judge Acton in R. v. Krieger ruled:
"[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."
www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf
3. On Dec 04 2002 the Alberta Court of Appeal sustained the Acton
repeal of prohibition in S.7 and Parliament has never since re-
enacted any new prohibitions.
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum on S.7...(A2)
www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf
4. The Calgary Herald and Sun reports misrepresented the striking
down of S.7 and S.4 as a personal victory for Krieger. Calgary
Herald's Daryl Slade wrote that "Krieger's lawyer, Adriano
Iovinelli, said outside court it was an important decision that
permits his client to continue to cultivate and use marijuana for
his own use to alleviate chronic pain caused by multiple
sclerosis. Iovinelli said, as it stands, it is status quo on
Krieger's charter exemption. But he suggested that would not
apply to the general public.."
App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article............(A4)
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegher.jpg
App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article...............(A5)
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsun.jpg
5. On May 16 in 2003, the Crown's Memorandum to the Supreme Court
of Canada in Krieger, Queen's Counsel S. David Frankel pleaded
for leave to appeal because "[57 AS MATTERS NOW STAND S.7(1) HAS
BEEN DECLARED OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN
ALBERTA." Crown Attorney S. David Frankel, Q.C., knew that the
marijuana prohibitions in S.7 (and by implication S.4) of the
CDSA had been declared of no force and effect by the highest
court in Alberta on Dec 04 2002 and did not so inform Canada's
police services.
App.5: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause.......(A6)
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.jpg
10. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the
Crown's application for leave to appeal the striking down of the
marijuana prohibitions by Alberta's highest court.
App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order...(A13)
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.jpg
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm
JCT: So what's hard to get? The Alberta Court of Appeal ruling
striking down cultivation was not over-turned by the Supreme
Court of Canada so Krieger repeals cultivation.
Krieger really: "is binding from the perspective of the senior
appellate courts of the provinces (including yours)..."
It's the truth. I'm betting on it.
Fax your notice by tomorrow. It's important
--
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
|
|
