[news] Marijuana Law Dead since Aug 1 2001 - No Law Prohibits use and/or possession

[Gordon Flett]

Subject: (act-mtl-d) Marijuana Law Dead since Aug 1 2001 - No Law
Prohibits use and/or possession
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 17:03:44 -0400
From: Freedom 4ME <freedom-4me at freedom-4me.com>
To: act-mtl-d at tao.ca

Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 19:09:25 -0400 (EDT) 
From: turmel at freenet.carleton.ca 
Subject: TURMEL: Justice Rogin rules law died on Terry Parker Day!!!! 

JCT: Wow. You'll remember that "In the belly of the beast" I mentioned: 

JCT: Yesterday I explained that the prohibition law has been dead since
Aug. 1 2001  even though no one noticed or argued it except me and my
medpot guerrilla lawyers, Parker, Paquette, Dupuis, and finally, Brian
McAllister in Windsor and then before judges in New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia. 

With all these judges saying that the prohibition of marijuana was
unconstitutional, I had to take a gamble to prove it before the
government could bring in new legislation to recriminalize it. 

Of course, we've all been waiting on the decision of Justice Rogin on
the Crown's appeal of the McAllister win in Windsor but with the judge
taking his sweet time to come to a conclusion, I considered that it was
a stall until the new law could come in and then, whether yes, or no,
with new laws, our win would be worthless. 

JCT: So on Wednesday May 14 I went up on Parliament Hill with a
life-time-in-jail supply of marijuana to smoke a joint and proclaim the
prohibition of laughing grass dead before Justice Minister Cauchon could
make it illegal again. I was released on Thursday and penned by beef. 

Then, on Friday, Justice Rogin handed down his decision backing up my
claim that prohibition on possession and everything else died two years
ago and they were going to have to erase everyone's convictions
including my upcoming one. 

It was the biggest gamble of my life and the very next day, the Queen of
Spades hits to back up my draw to the Royal Flush. 

The Globe and Mail 
Sat May 17 2003 04:30 AM 
No laws ban possession of marijuana, court rules 
By COLIN FREEZE AND KIM LUNMAN 

CF: Landmark Ontario decision goes beyond the decriminalization proposed
by Ottawa 

TORONTO and OTTAWA -- Canada has no laws prohibiting marijuana
possession, an Ontario Superior Court judge said yesterday in a ruling
that will be binding on judges in the province and may soon be picked up
across the country. "For today, and for the Victoria Day weekend, it's a
very pleasant state of affairs for recreational pot smokers," said
criminal lawyer Paul Burstein, who helped argue the case successfully. 

JCT: But had Cauchon recriminalized it last Thursday, there would have
been no weekend pleasant state of affairs. And the media keep pointing
out that it was the US Drug Czar who talked Cauchon out of
recriminalizing. Thanks loads. 

CF: It was the second time that a Windsor teenager who was caught
smoking pot while playing hooky in a park has been found not to have
broken any law because, the courts ruled, there are effectively no
longer any marijuana laws to break. 

JCT: Music to my ears after raising the stakes. 

CF: Mr. Justice Steven Rogin upheld yesterday a lower-court decision,
based on complex arguments, that has already had far-reaching influence. 

JCT: Nothing complex about it. They had to build a new law with medical
loopholes and when the old law fell, they blew the new prohibition. 

CF: The new ruling means that proposed federal legislation to
decriminalize possession of a small amount of marijuana would actually
"recriminalize" it, defence lawyers said yesterday. 

JCT: And there's been no law since Terry Parker Day, Aug. 1 
2001. Almost 2 years that people have been suffering and dying with no
law to stop them from saving themselves. It's truly the prisoners who
hadn't checked and only found out after 2 years that the lock on their
cell didn't work. 

CF: While the new law would impose fines for pot possession, yesterday's
ruling effectively eliminated any sanctions for simple pot possession in
Ontario, they said. The decision "has effectively erased the criminal
prohibition on marijuana possession from the law books in Ontario," said
Brian McAllister, the lawyer for the accused teenager. 

JCT: Actually, the Parker decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal erased
the criminal prohibition. Justice Rogin on presided over the funeral,
not the death by the Court of Appeal. 

CF: Courts in Nova Scotia and PEI have already put prosecutions on hold
pending yesterday's ruling, he said, and lawyers in other provinces were
similarly watching for this decision. 

JCT: Now judges are all going to jump on the bandwagon to erase their
workloads. But then arises the necessity for the Government to apologize
and erase everyone's convictions. No one's talking about that. Yet. 

CF: The initial ruling in favour of the Windsor teenager, identified
only as J. P., had a significant spillover effect and the higher-court
decision is expected to be even more influential. The federal Department
of Justice, which appealed the initial ruling, is planning another
appeal. 

JCT: And my Charbonneau appeal is already there to make sure there's no
funny business. 

CF: The government still plans to introduce its marijuana-
decriminalization legislation later this month. Most Canadians are
behind the idea, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll released yesterday. 

JCT: Not if it's going to violate the right to life, they won't. And not
without now proving the dangers while making the same case to
recriminalize alcohol and tobacco. 

CF: It found that 55 per cent of Canadians did not believe smoking
marijuana should be a criminal offence, while 42 per cent thought it
should be. 

JCT: That sounds crooked. Every poll I've heard recently is 
4:1 in favor. They say it's 4:3. That's too off to be true. They're
lying. 

CF: More telling, 63 per cent of respondents supported Ottawa's plans to
issue tickets and fines similar to traffic violations to those caught
with 15 grams or less of marijuana, the poll found. 

JCT: Do a search for "Turmel" and "Humphrey Appleby" to find out how
they can fix polls with leading questions and only the published answer.
4:3 is too far off 4:1 to be honest. And also keep in mind that polls of
the hypnotized don't mean anything anyway. 

CF: Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has said he is seeking the changes
so that people who are caught with small amounts will not clog up the
court system, potentially receiving criminal records. 

JCT: But they're still going to be clogging the court system with people
trying to beat a rap that will kill their chances for international
travel. It's still a fine that will cause you trouble in Amerika. 

CF: For the moment, however, marijuana possession remains the most
frequently laid drug charge in Canada even though courts are becoming
increasingly resistant to hearing those cases. Jim Leising of the
federal Justice Department said in an interview that he was
"disappointed" by yesterday's decision and will push to have the case
heard quickly in the Ontario Court of Appeal. 

JCT: We know how quickly they don't go though they might want to fly
here. Still, I don't think they'll be able to catch up with our
Parker-Turmel-Paquette Charbonneau appeal that simply awaits my Appeal
Book and Factum. With the Rogin decision backing us up, we just won. 

CF: "We are are still of the opinion that the law against marijuana is
valid," he said. Mr. Leising said prosecutions will continue, although
some may be put on hold. 

JCT: It's like saying "we retain the right to remain unconvinced." 

CF: But defence lawyers involved in J.P.'s case said Ontarians facing
possession charges should fight Crown prosecutors' attempts to delay
their cases until the law is clarified. Ontarians who are charged with
marijuana possession after yesterday's ruling could consider suing
police for wrongful arrest, they said. "Anybody who's got a charge
before the court should definitely take advantage of this," Mr. Burstein
said. 

JCT: They should have been doing it a lot longer ago since I've been
screaming it for almost 2 years. Why did it take Rogin's opinion to
convince Paul the law was dead and my exhortations fell on his deaf
ears? 

CF: Multiple court battles to strike down the marijuana laws are taking
place, he said, leaving Ottawa besieged from many directions. "The
courts keep firing big shots into the sides of the government's ship,"
Mr. Burstein said. "They're sinking lower and lower. They are bailing it
out with a cup." 

JCT: He makes it sound like there is still some fight left in the corpse
that I'm trying to end the funeral for. The law died 2 years ago.
There's no bailing going on, just a refusal on all parts to accept the
consequences. 

CF: The Ipsos-Reid poll -- of 1001 people, conducted between May 13 and
May 15 -- found people still have some reservations about
decriminalization. 

JCT: I have reservations about decriminalization so that's a fixed
question. I have no reservations about legalization. 

CF: The poll results are considered to reflect accurately the feelings
of the entire country to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of
20. 

JCT: Bull feathers. They reflect the manufactured consent for the
probable conclusion the train of questions was designed to elicit. As
Yes Minister's Sir Humphrey Appleby so clearly pointed out.
theglobeandmail
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030517/UMARIM/National/Idx> 
======

Marijuana possession law 'erased' Sat May 17 2003 05:14 AM Marijuana
possession law 'erased' Ellen van Wageningen The Ottawa Citizen 

EW: WINDSOR -- Possessing less than 30 grams of marijuana is no longer
against the law in Ontario, a Windsor judge says in a ruling released
yesterday that compounds the chaos over Canada's pot laws. Superior
Court Justice Steven Rogin's decision has "effectively erased the
criminal prohibition on marijuana possession from the law books in
Ontario," said Brian McAllister, the Windsor lawyer who challenged the
law on behalf of a 17-year-old client. 

JCT: Again, his decision has enforced the erasure two years ago by the
Court of Appeal. It's important that people not think that it's the
Rogin Superior Court decision that invalidated the CDSA prohibition but
that it was the Parker Court of Appeal decision that slew the beast.
Rogin's decision is the eulogy at the funeral. 

EW: Judge Rogin's decision is almost certainly to be followed by judges
of Ontario's lower court, where nearly all marijuana possession cases
are decided. "This decision is also likely to have significant
repercussions on the viability of marijuana prosecutions across the
country," Mr. McAllister said. 

Hundreds of marijuana possession cases in Ontario have been put on hold
pending Judge Rogin's ruling and the outcome of other cases currently
before the Supreme Court of Canada. That shouldn't change until the
Ontario Court of Appeal reviews Judge Rogin's decision, said Jim
Leising, the Justice Department official responsible for drug
prosecutions in Ontario. "We certainly continue to maintain that
possession of marijuana is prohibited by the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, and we'll be moving quite quickly to appeal this
judgment," he said. Mr. McAllister said police in Ontario should note
Judge Rogin's judgment and stop laying charges for marijuana possession. 

JCT: Actually, they should stop laying all charges, not just for
possession. Oops. Too late to not charge me. 

"Otherwise, the police will be arresting people for an activity which is
no longer outlawed," he said. Judge Rogin upheld Ontario Court Justice
Douglas Phillip's decision to quash a charge against a Kingsville youth
for possessing less than 30 grams of marijuana because the law is no
longer valid. 

The government needed to pass a new law prohibiting marijuana possession
after the current one was struck down by the Ontario Court of Appeal two
years ago, Judge Rogin agreed. 

JCT: So it's pretty clear. The law was slain by the Court of Appeal and
Justice Rogin is just admitting it. 

EW: The appeal court ruled in favour of severe epileptic Terry Parker,
of Toronto, saying the law violated the constitutional rights of sick
people who used marijuana for medical reasons. It gave the government
until July 31, 2001, to remedy the situation or the law would be
invalid. The government responded by passing the Marijuana Medical
Access Regulations, which were found to be unconstitutional by a Toronto
judge in another case involving Mr. Parker. 

JCT: They always forget to mention the first Superior Court judge,
Justice Romain Pitt, who only needed to see that Parker's situation had
not been remedied with an expired exemption and the OMA telling his
doctor not sign. But he was first and we're going to be consolidating
the appeal against Alan Young getting the Pitt decision set aside with
the Lederman appeal. Won't that put Alan in a horrible predicament.
Arguing the MMAR did not save the CDSA and then explaining why he helped
get the Pitt decision that the MMAR did not save the CDSA set aside. 13
months ago on April 17. 

EW: That judge said the problem is there is no legal supply of marijuana
for sick people. 

JCT: And Pitt said the MMAR was no remedy for Parker. 

EW: Meanwhile, the federal government is attempting to get new
legislation dealing with marijuana before Parliament by the end of the
month. 

JCT: Now comes the biggest fight of them all, to get them to explain the
harms they didn't have to explain in 1923 when they just slipped
marijuana on the prohibited list. 

EW: It is proposing to make possessing 15 grams or less of marijuana a
non-criminal offence for which people could be fined as little as $100.
The relaxing of the pot possession laws would be accompanied by stiffer
penalties for drug traffickers and marijuana growers, as well as drug
use prevention, education and treatment strategies. 

JCT: And it's touted like a liberal change when it's reported that when
they decriminalized in New Zealand so people only faced fines and not
jail, prosecutions tripled. More jobs for judges, clerks, lawyers when
cops can lay more jobs because they're not ruining people's lives as
badly. 

So ends Alan Young's equation of responsibility. We could have had the
same declaration 13 months ago on April 17 2002 and Alan Young conspired
with the government to get this declaration delayed that whole 13
months. In the extra 13 months that Young managed to delay it, almost
4000 extra epileptics died who would have lived had it not been for his
helping the Crown to delay liberation until now. 

Of course, he doesn't understand where I get my estimate of the 4000
epileptics he helped die. But everyone with some basic math skills knows
the Wizard of Odds ain't wrong. 

Now to get to work on the motion to have my life-sentence- threatening
charge thrown out next week. With the Rogin decision now in hand, it
will be a pleasure. Who knows, I might be the very last Canadian ever
busted for trafficking in this now-legal substance on Parliament Hill. 

Might be able to soon get back to work full time installing my
world-wide UNILETS anti-poverty system and abolishing the interest rate
that takes from the poor to give to the rich, my number one major
political reform program. 


--
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 / http://www.medpot.net 613-562-0669