nntp2http.com
Posting
Suche
Optionen
Hilfe & Kontakt

TURMEL: Martin nixes cultivation offence as JP nixed possession

Von: KingofthePaupers (johnturmel@yahoo.com) [Profil]
Datum: 01.06.2010 17:27
Message-ID: <d15eae71-084f-4eb8-b739-754b7f8d0728@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.conspiracy alt.drugscan.legal can.politics alt.fan.john-turmel
JCT: In my last report on Real Martin, "Crown tries to duck
Reply Factum," I don't think I stressed enough how important
Real Martin's case really is to everybody charged with Section
7(1) cultivation when the Crown will argue that Parker,
Hitzig, J.P., Sfetkopoulos, Beren, all the Big Invalidation
cases only ever applied to s.4(1) possession, never s.7(1)
production or S.5(2) possession for the purpose because the
Turmel case says the s.4(1) invalidation doesn't apply to the
other charges, judges will remember which written laws aren't
really there.

But the Krieger Alberta Court of Appeal invalidated the s.7(1)
offence as surely as the Parker Ontario Court of Appeal
invalidated the s.4(1) offence and the only leg the Crown has
to argue the Krieger invalidation of cultivation didn't take
effect is the Frankel Foible that the stay pending the appeal
still had to lifted after they had lost their final appeal in
the Alberta Court of Appeal and then lost their application
for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. No stay of
a lower court has ever had to be lifted once the file was
closed, functus officio. And that's the only leg the s.7(1)
cultivation prohibition has to stand on for the Krieger period
between Mar 18 2003 when it took effect and Oct 7 2003 when
Hitzig fixed the MMAR.

And even if it was true and we are right that Krieger
invalidated the cultivation prohibition, fixing the MMAR in
Hitzig resurrected not only the S.4(1) possession but also the
S.7(1) cultivation prohibition too. Except, POLCOA.

And the fact that unlike where JP said Parker-Hitzig mean
"MMAR bad, ergo possession absent," we still have never had a
court say that like JP,  Krieger-Hitzig mean "MMAR  bad, ergo
cultivation absent," until fixed by Hitzig.

Except for Real Martin, the only person before the courts who
was charged with cultivation in the magical period between Mar
18 2003 when Krieger cultivation invalidation took effect, and
Oct 7 2003 when Alan Young's Hitzig case fixed the MMAR.

Of course, two months later, the Crown attached the two Stupid
Re-introductions of the flaws so that if the Parker
invalidation now comes back into force for possession since
Stupid Gimme Day because the MMAR has been found deficient in
Sfetkopoulos and Beren, so too, the Krieger invalidation comes
back into force for cultivation for the same reason.

That's if the prohibitions were ever really turned back on
between Oct 7 2003 and Dec 3 2003 because they could not be
resurrected at all pursuant to the Interpretation Act.

Isn't that amazing. We still have a pure Krieger quash from
the 7-month window of "absence" in 2003 still going on just
like the JP quash in the possession window 2001-2003!  Upon
which everybody else's cultivation charges depend! What an
incredible case of timing.

And the Crown's trying to get it thrown out without a hearing!
Without an argument. When we've got the two new points 1)
Gaudet Goodie admits JP an analogy applies and 2) Wilson Wipe-
out (admitting it's alive after May 14 2009 implies it was not
before), they can't duck. Especially when Parker is ongoing,
and Pallister,

Still, I'm in awe to think we have a victim of being busted in
the window of Krieger cultivation invalidity still ongoing to
establish that S.7(1) offence did die before everyone gets to
argue that even if it was resurrected by Hitzig, it was killed
again with the possession offence since Stupid Gimme Day.

People have asked what "Stupid Gimme" means. From the
expression "gimme that," or "gimme this." A stupid give-to-me
is a strategic error from which recovery is impossible. Like a
fumble in the end zone except it's a brain move error. Open up
a lane for my Queen to check mate your King was a stupid
gimme. A stupid give-to-me-the-win. Like not aiming at the
hole in golf, a stupid gimme.

So everyone defending themselves with the Stupid Re-
introduction of the flaws argument proving the cultivation
offence was dead while the MMAR was deficient have Real
Martin's case to point at as someone wanting the same thing
for cultivation that JP got for possession, charges quashed.

I did a comment on my http://facebook.com/john.turmel page
about a big bust from the Peterborough Examiner May 22 2010
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e%90037
titled "10 facing charges after $7 million in drugs seized
during raids in City of Kawartha Lakes, Durham Region":

Jct: I ran in the byelection there last year. They should have
voted for me and their Member of Provincial Parliament would
have been there to help them.

Imagine all the resources Harper's wasting on Cops and
Gardeners to net 4 gardens that could be spent elsewhere added
to the funding from less payments for chemical drugs. 7,000
plants, mainly clones, 7 million! Har har har har.

JCT: Anyway, having Real as a S.7(1) cultivation quash appeal
analogy to J.P.'s 4(1) possession quash going on at the very
time everyone needs the S.7(1) invalidation officially stamped
dead once like the S.4(1) invalidation was officially stamped
dead in Parker. And Real Martin is the cultivation equivalent
to the JP possession claim. And the Parker Ontario Court of
Appeal had found the cultivation and possession
unconstitutional though only declared the possession invalid
since the Crown had dropped the cultivation appeal! Krieger's
judge Acton said she was finishing the job for cultivation!

What an incredible incredible link to the past by everyone
wanting to use the Stupid Flaws in the MMAR against
cultivation as successfully as they've been used against
possession.

And if the Registrar pulls dismisses his argument without
argument, I'll appeal to a judge to have it consolidated with
Terry's appeal on the same issues. Because Terry also has
Krieger in his arguments since it invalidated possession by
implication with cultivation too.
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e%90037

It's nice that the Crown has withdrawn cultivation charges
against people who get their exemptions, who produce
convincing medical files Hitzig [170]... "Those who establish
medical need are simply exempted from it" and Ken Surgent who
wasn't sick and simply scared them out of S.7!!!

But it's not like the JP decision where it's official for
possession. JP was the only case from the pre-Hitzig
resurrection for possession that was established and Real
Martin is the only case from the pre-Hitzig resurrection for
cultivation that was not yet established! It's coming up: that
the cultivation prohibition was as invalid just before Hitzig
Day as they've admitted possession was invalid. I'm still in
awe.

And of course, for the rest of the guys in the 4-garden bust,
who were busted after Pallister Day, they'd have to use the
pure POLCOA "once dead, Parliament Only brings it back)
argument that Krieger killed cultivation as Real Martin is
saying.

J.P. Quash possession in window
Martin Quash cultivation in window

What a fluke that the appeal of Real Martin's motion to quash
S.7 becomes important like JP's motion to quash due to Parker
and Hitzig won in their window of invalidation.

And the Crown's only leg to stand on is to argue that the stay
pending appeal from the court below somehow prevented the
dismissal by the Supreme Court of Canada from taking effect
forever. Har har har har. The Frankel Foible coming back to
haunt them as it becomes the only card the Crown has to play!

And best of all, Real isn't trying to argue POLCOA since he
was busted before Alan Young says his Hitzig case resurrected
the prohibitions in possession and cultivation offence by
fixing the MMAR in Hitzig. Martin is a pure Krieger Alberta
Court of Appeal that said cultivation is as dead as the
Ontario Court of Appeal made possession dead. But he's the guy
who can extend the JP possession quash by Parker to
cultivation quash by Krieger.

Anyway, the analogy is established and if the courts want to
tell appellant after appellant that the Krieger invalidation
never took effect because a lower court stay pending appeal
still needed to be lifted and can't be done anymore since the
moment they closed the file, they look silly.

So with all our hopes pinned on our backwoods bushman's
perfect Krieger card and Parker's perfect Beren and POLCOA
cards, looks like we've got them cornered.

Just sorry about the guys being pleaded guilty by lawyers who
don't know what Crown Attorneys Sean Gaudet and Kevin Wilson
know. Har har har. I wonder if they laugh at the thought that
the prosecutors know the law's dead (since they've argued it)
but defenders don't know it's dead and keep losing. Har har
har. Lawyers. What would history be without lawyers?

So there are my thoughts on the serendipitous finding that we
still have a Krieger period-of-invalidation-of-S.7(1) victim
before the courts upon whom the establishment that cultivation
had been as dead by Krieger as possession had been dead by
Parker before Hitzig resurrected them if they were resurrected
at all and the Interpretation Act says they weren't
resurrectable at all.

[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]