Hilfe & Kontakt

TURMEL: Yaroslawsky & McDermott POLCOA in Edmonton Friday

Von: KingofthePaupers (johnturmel@yahoo.com) [Profil]
Datum: 24.05.2010 19:02
Message-ID: <daed3045-3ea3-4d89-9213-29e9d5012f19@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.conspiracy alt.drugscan.legal can.politics alt.fan.john-turmel
JCT: Todd Yaroslawsky and Elisha McDermott are in
Alberta Superior Court on Friday May 28 for an order
prohibiting their and everyone's marijuana charges as
no longer known to law pursuant to section 601 of the
Criminal Code after they were repealed and never re-
enacted by Parliament.

Todd's is an exemptee with a license to grow 50 plants
who was busted with 40 plants and over 200 small not-
even-proven-rooted clones under Section 7(1)
cultivation and S.5(2) possession for the purpose of
trafficking (that's a standard presumption).  It seems
the Crown has rethought their prosecution and have
offered to withdraw the heavy charges and return his
stuff if he'll simply plead guilty to mere possession
of marijuana. Same offer Derek Francisco didn't take.
So far he's resisting too. What's he got to lose
waiting until he sees whether the law is even alive
before dealing?

Elisha McDermott has filed her POLCOA for Friday but
the Crown has asked her to bring in her medical file to
prove she has one of the medical needs Health Canada
approves. And she does.

So the Crown is faced with withdrawal of charges from
people with legitimate medical need, and remember the
Hitzig Court of Appeal's ruling on medical exemption to
prohibition [170]... "Those who establish medical need
are simply exempted from it." And the Crown Attorneys
in Alberta are smart enough to acknowledge that being
sick with that medical need is all it takes to be
exempted, like Health Canada should have had a program
where anyone with a doctor's prescription was exempted.

What's funny is that the Crown has sent Elisha the R.
v. Dwernychuk (Alta. C.A.) precedent showing that we
need to give Notice of Constitutional Question when
seeking a remedy under S.24 of the Charter or S.52 of
the Constitution Act. It helpfully explains what must
be done to get the Constitutional Notice filed.

The problem is that there is only one thing we can't
come up with. A right we're claiming under Section 24
of the Charter. We're not using the Charter to say a
bad law needs death but using S.601 of the Criminal
Code to say a dead law needs burial in the Criminal
Code they just won't reprint. The reason for the
400,000 bogus convictions busts in Canada.

This is the same boner so many judges have used to duck
jurisdiction, just recently by Ontario Superior Justice
O'Connor for Gary Pallister and Quebec Superior Justice
Bedard for Yvon Denis, that I changed the first line of
the Notices in the kits to say: "TAKE NOTICE that this
non-constitutional motion pursuant to S.601 will be
heard..." so if they try to go off in the wrong
direction, you can ask the judge to re-read the first
But I wrote up a Notice of NO Constitutional Question
for Yvon because Justice Bedard ordered it. For Elisha,
it's not a judge being twitted, it's the Crown making
the mistake. So rather than bow to the Crown's folly,
Elisha need simply be ready to spring the joke:

Nowhere do I claim Charter relief that a bad law should
be dead. I'm claiming Criminal Code that a dead law
should be buried. The Criminal Code needs to be
reprinted and the prohibitions repealed by Parker and
Krieger made unknown to law since 2001 or 2003,
depending on whether the judge obeys the Interpretation

But for the Crown to open themselves up to such a super
barb would give them even more reason to withdraw their
charges once they realize their error.

Of course, we all hope the Crown decides to put up a
fight and we have a chance to catch a judge who can see
with Superior Power to bury the already-killed bad law
once and for all. But getting two more out from under
the prohibitionist yoke of oppression makes for
celebration too.

[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]