 |
JCT: We learned another disadvantage of lots of
documentation yesterday in the Nielsen Prohibition hearing.
A new axiom: When a judge hasn't cracked it open, it's a lot
harder to get him to look if it's big than if it's small. A
lesson to be remembered.
>Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:29:32 -0800
>From: wworld@island.net (Evers)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] BC Motion to Quash
>To: slsnodrifters@hotmail.com (sledman jones)
N: Sledman:
John Turmel's arguments are quite right. Crown is making
every excuse not to accept this motion. You may note that I
did not insert the Parker judgement, nor Hitzig in this
motion, only because these arguments have been used in a
successful motion to quash before Judge Chen in the BC court
(although section 4, not 7), and the arguments are the same.
(If you want to, you could add this case - print out the
whole thing). Also note I point out paragragh 6 in Krieger
(bold at para 3).
JCT: I've included Chen's great statement in the timeline
but it's just too big to include in a mini-kit meant to push
through fast. Isn't Chen something that every judge should
know so is it something that needs to be given to them
rather than cited. The Chen decision is a lot of pages when
my current Quash and Prohibit Kits are 24 pages each. That's
why I start with only the Court of Appeal Orders, none of
the lower court judgments or opinions. Just Winning Aces.
N: So Chuck went to the courthouse last Thursday and tried
to file this quash with the Crown. She didn't accept it then
and told Chuck to bring it with him to his first court
appearance today. (She left town before he could see her
again).
JCT: How dare she not accept it. Bluffing sick people who
don't know better.
N: Today, in the little room with the court clerk, Crown
told Chuck the motion was no good because it had already
been dealt with in Malmo Levine, and gave the motion back to
Chuck.
JCT: Gave the motion back? Un-served it? That's why it's
often best to just hand it to them and say "you're served"
and see a J.P. to commission the oath of service.
N: She tried to strike a deal with Chuck to plead guilty and
get a $250.00 fine, and go to court today, but Chuck said he
would like to check with me 1st and so they set his court
date to next Thursday.
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 22 to Chuck's day
and can do the talking for both of them at the advanced
date.
And he can file a mini-kit and Noreen can bring her maxi-kit
to the advanced hearing.
N: When Chuck called me to tell me what happened I informed
him this motion has absolutely nothing to do with Malmo
Levine and told him to serve it to Crown (just give it to
her and then sign the affidavit) and then file it with the
court registry.
JCT: The lawyers working for the government tricked the
citizen. Not as bad as Frankel but still pretty bad. Malmo-
Levine is what they're being told to spin? Well, of course,
that is the media spin we've gotten from the Cannabis
Culture crowd who supported the Hitzig-Myrden and Malmo-
Levine cases that are so useful to the Crown now. "Oops."
All the time?
N: Because he had originally served it, and she had given it
back, he thought he was OK to get the duty lawyer to sign
the affidavit, which he did, however, upon realizing Crown
hadn't yet got their copy, got kind of embarrassed about it.
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. Pick
the first early date that gave them 30 days, so that's right
after Feb 12. And you can piggy back yours there with plenty
of notice too. And you can do the talking from his mini-kit
and if they can't beat your aces, no need to call on the
smaller cards in the maxi-kit.
N: I told Chuck (who doesn't really understand the motion) -
DON'T let Crown bafflegab you.
JCT: That's why he'd feel so much better if he linked your
case to his. Wouldn't he? Just get him filed first for the
quickest date and then you give them notice of earlier
return of motion. Yee hah. The Crown should take a real
beating in B.C.
N: If they try to bring up anything you don't understand,
you just say: "I am presuming the judge is looking out for
my best interests. It's all written down, I have nothing
further to add."
JCT: Beautifully put. How perfect a reminder of his
responsibility.
N: YOU can do the same. Noreen
BTW - In case you are worried about the "only in Alberta"
concern:
Note my para 8 - Constitution Act s. 32
'The Charter applies to the Parliament and government of
Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of
Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon
Territory and Northwest Territories; and to the legislature
and government of each province in respect of all matters
within the authority of the legislature of each province.'
Note also that Frankel, the Crown that appealed Krieger at
the Supreme Court, is a BC Crown (not from Alberta) -
Note also that BC Judge Chen (Masse), and Alberta Judge
Acton (Krieger) BOTH use Ontario Court of Appeal Parker.
If you are at all concerned that a Manitoba court can't use
Krieger (because it's an ALBERTA decision) - all you have to
do is find ONE case in ANY Manitoba judgments that use any
other provincial appeal court. I'm sure there are several -
you can't be too redneck out there.
JCT: I still say the Crown staying the 4000 charges across
all Canada means that when these federal prosecutions are
unconstitutional in one province, they are barred in all
provinces.
Anyways - show this information to your friend Lothar. I
would be interested in his comments - I believe they are all
addressed here. He may also want to show this to his
attorney friends:
Court File No. ____________
Courtenay Registry
JCT: Home of the world very first LETS. Michael Linton's
first Dbase II interest-free Greendollar system.
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
APPLICANT/ACCUSED
AND:
Her Majesty the Queen
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO QUASH AS UNKNOWN TO LAW
-------------------------------
TAKE NOTICE THAT on ______, 2005 at 9:00 AM or so soon
thereafter as can be heard the application to a judge for an
Order pursuant to S.601(1) of the Criminal Code quashing all
charges relating to marijuana under the CDSA as unknown to
law.
AND FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to
form or content of the application, or for any Order deemed
just.
THE GROUNDS ARE:
1. On Dec.11 2000, Alberta Judge Acton in R. v. Krieger
ruled:
2. On Mar 18 2003, Reasons for Judgement from an Appeal
Heard December 4, 2002,
3. On May 16 2003, the Crown's Memorandum to the
4. On Sep 04, 2003 Reasons for Judgement, in R. v. Kurtis
Lee Masse, BC Judge Chen ruled, when speaking to an
application to quash regarding possession of marihuana:
[65]....s.4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as
it applies to marihuana, ceased to be valid legislation
after July 31, 2001.
[66]........July 31, 2001 had, by that time, already come
and gone, and the legislation had already been rendered
invalid. Once invalid, it became a nullity and could not be
resuscitated, it could only be re-enacted.
[67] It follows therefore, that there is no offence known to
law at this time for simple possession of marihuana. The
application is allowed.
App. 6: 2003 Sep 04 Provincial Court of BC - Reasons for
Judgement, R v. Kurtis Lee Masse
JCT: I agree with Noreen that this is wonderful but it's
something any judge should know. If I include the Chen
decision, it's a lot of paper to a 24 page kit.
5. On Oct 06, 2003 Ruling on Application, in R. v. Graham
and Parks, BC Judge M. Buller concludes:
[21] Therefore, I must follow Masse and the conclusion that
section 4(1) of the Act as it related to the simple
possession of marihuana is invalid.
JCT: Send me the URL for this decision and I'll include it
in the timeline. But we know the Hitzig Court of Appeal
admitted the law was invalid. The issue is whether they
could resurrect it. So do we need another affirmation that
the law was dead? Again, this was the day before Hitzig
when everyone was under the impression that the Windsor
technicality had caused Terry Parker Day. Though they
admitted it died on TP Day while resurrecting the
prohibition, they did strike down the technical reason. So
this really doesn't help any more since it was trumped by
Hitzig on Oct 7. If you believe Courts can help Parliament
create laws.
N: Judge Buller also notes:
[14] Crown Counsel submits that the law is still valid until
the British Columbia Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of
Canada decides otherwise.
App. 7: 2003 Oct 06 Provincial Court of BC - Ruling on
Application, Michael Robert Graham and Bobbie Jo Parks
JCT: What did Buller say to that? I'll put that in the
timeline too. But it's still too small to be included in the
mini-kit.
N: 6. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada denied
7. On Dec 10, 2004, Mrs Evers asked the British Columbia
Chief Judge to clarify the meaning of a 'dismissed' ruling
of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Chief Judge, although
including in the reply, "Any responses are for general
information only and do not constitute legal advice or
authority for court proceedings or any other purpose", did
explain that:
The simple answer to your question is that if an appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada (or any appeal court) is
dismissed without reasons (usually this relates to an
application for leave to appeal), the decision appealed
from, that of the Court of Appeal in the situation you have
referred to, remains "valid," as if it had not been appealed
from.
App. 10: Evers' letter to 'Ask the Chief Judge'
JCT: Yes, my dear. You certainly must include your own cards
in your own hand to show your own flair. This sure helped
convince one young lawyer to look deeper into Krieger. After
all, where's the shame in having been fooled by the media?
N: 8. Constitution Act, 1982, s.32(1) states that:
'The Charter applies to the Parliament and government of
Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of
Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon
Territory and Northwest Territories; and to the legislature
and government of each province in respect of all matters
within the authority of the legislature of each province.'
and Constitution Act, 1982, s.52 (1) states that:
' The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada,
and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of 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.
N: 9. The Welcome page at the Supreme Court of Canada
website states:
"A strong and independent judiciary guarantees that
governments act in accordance with our Constitution. Judges
give effect to our laws and give meaning to our rights and
duties as Canadians."
App. 12: Welcome page, Supreme Court of Canada website
10. In the Crown Memorandum to the Supreme Court of Canada
11. Nothing but the threat of a citation for contempt
16. When the highest courts in Canada affirm a ruling which
JCT: Finally, remember one last thing. What if you're faced
with a completely ignorant judge? Right now, using a mini-
kit, one has to only the equivalent of 3 pages and refer to
a dozen appendixes which takes less than half an hour if you
read slowly. Most judges will quietly abide a half-hour
presentation. Noreen, they booked you way off in March for a
full day presentation. If you're faced with a totally
ignorant judge, do you really want to have to give him the
story over a whole day or crystallize it half-an-hour.
There's enough and there's over-kill. And though I don't
caution against it if your good enough to handle the volume
of info, but there are negatives. Doug bemoaned not having a
mini-kit when his maxi-kit pretty well eliminated much
chance the judge was going to even look once he'd decided it
was in the wrong court.
A judge might scan or peek at a mini-kit even if he thought
it was in the wrong court just to mollify the civilian. But
an inch thick book isn't something he's going to scan. It's
too big to even start to look into.
There are many advantages to mini-kits and perhaps having a
maxi-kit at one's side only to answer if the Crown should
raise a point that needs answering.
So as of right now, with Krieger higher and after than
Hitzig, Krieger striking down and Hitzig making up laws, I
don't see any reason to add the POLCOA arguments to defeat
Hitzig. I've been thinking of dropping the Hitzig Order
though it does show, with the Turmel-Paquette Order, that
they didn't sign any resurrection Order.
You're free to convince me any other documents deserve to be
in the basic kit. But what else does anyone really need?
The Appellant Courts striking down the sections:
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4.........(A1)
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum on S.7...(A2)
Why the judge didn't hear
App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article............(A4)
App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article...............(A5)
Minister of Justice knew and didn't stop cops.
App.5: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause.......(A6)
Turmel challenges Section 5
App.6: 2003 May 14 Turmel holds back marijuana bill..........(A7)
Hitzig fixed MMAR to resurrect CDSA
App.7: 2003 Oct 07 Hitzig Ont.C.A. Order for MMAR fix........(A8)
Parker/Turmel-Paquette invalidate law proceeded
App.8: 2003 Oct 07 Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for Parker Day.....(A10)
Result of Terry Parker Day for S.4 all across Canada
App.9: 2003 Dec 08 Turmel stays 4000 since Parker Day.......(A12)
Supreme Court Notes Krieger struck S.7 and not overturned
App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order...(A13)
Turmel demands not just pending mistakes corrected
App.11: 2004 Apr 01 Turmel to A.G. for 100,000 more.........(A15)
Failure of MMAR makes exemption absent again
App.12: 2004 Nov 22 AIDS Society decries exemption absence..(A16)
Come on. I've just done the whole case without any of the actual
3 pages of text. What is there to add? The judge should know the
law. The judge should know the Constitution Act, it's on his
bench.
We've got the Crown's Frankel admission. Start there with the
Supreme Court Answer. Who needs little cards? Even if you
know your little cards.
So Noreen, I want you to assure Chuck that you can consolidate
your case with his, just like they consolidated Parker with
Hitzig-Myrden and Turmel-Paquette. You can stand side-by-side
with Chuck if you just get him filed and serve a Notice of Return
of Motion for your case to the earlier day on the Crown. So
they'll have the maxi-kits in the file though you try to win with
the mini-kit cards without recourse to the maxi-kit cards.
After the Crown comes up with some bowzer you have the answer
for, you could always ask if you need to rebut it. Perhaps the
judge will be able to.
Anyway, you and Chuck's prayers have been answered if you start
by piggy-backing your motion onto his and then getting them
consolidated. Believe me, they'll let you talk for your friend
like I talked for Terry and then give Chuck his chance to add his
last comments.
So please, Noreen, I think we're aware that you are one of our
toughest fighters. I realize you ran for marijuana in elections
so public speaking should be right up your alley.
Please take advantage of your friend's dilemma to jump-start the
BC challenges to early February. What a quantum leap in
excitement if the Noreen Evers bout can be expedited!
So it's trivial to pick your date and then piggy back.
Finally, we need a challenge in a Hitzig-Proof, no Nuremberg-
alibi province as fast as we can. Guarantee your friend will pick
an early date and guarantee you'll join him and Richard Johnson
will be able to boast about our BC Krieger challenge.
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.
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.
And of course, our two most unusual miracle cards which I only
discovered as lately as last month are the Calgary Herald and Sun
misrepresentations of the Costigan decision which explains why no
lawyers or judges know the truth except S. David Frankel and
Gang. And Minister, no doubt. Who was that? McLellan on Dec. 4
2002?
Frankel's a B.C. Crown? What's he doing the Memorandum at the
Supreme Court in Krieger for? He may have been a BC Crown but
he'd be based in Ottawa or Toronto. Verify that please.
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.
How dare judges endorse convictions knowing the law was repealed
and never re-enacted by Parliament.
"I believed the Hitzig Court did it" ain't good enuf.
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.
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?
It's about time you started providing some of the combat reports.
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? If
not, you'll probably get the same as we in Ontario and Quebec
have. In Quebec, the court sell you the tape! Talk about great
justice. No waiting for transcripts, immediate listening that
evening. In Ontario we have to do it ourselves. In BC, you should
get at least what if we get if not a copy of the tape. But it's
only real purpose is to supplement the notes you would be forced
to take in writing.
Anyway, tomorrow could be the biggest day in medicinal history.
Would the Engineer have picked this plant to champion if it
really wasn't the Tree of Life? Would The Engineer have
championed UNILETS if it wasn't the Credit System of Life? Would
The Engineer have championed the Water of Life if it wasn't
really the best sustenance our bodies need most?
Tomorrow is the beginning of the end for all prohibition of the
Tree of Life in Canada and the end of the beginning of the
immediate assault on the UN prohibition conventions that need to
be abrogated .
And it all starts with just one Canadian official named "Justice"
Amen!
--
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
|
|
