TURMEL: Why Young won't move to quash
From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 08/19/04
- Next message: Mark Monson: "Re: Why Chavez Won a Landslide Victory"
- Previous message: Lantern: "Re: A COMPLETELY NEW Economic System COMING SOON WORLDWIDE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Aug 2004 00:33:36 GMT
JCT: This guy's got his law right:
>BudManTaz enthusiast
>Re: Any updates on Marc Emery? [Re: Marc Scott Emery]
>Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 08:11 AM
The law was dead when you were charged and is still dead.
Only the legislative arm of government can enact criminal
staute. When a law has been struck as unconstitutional,(see
the death penalty statute and the abortion laws.
The Interpretation Act states that once a statute has been
rendered unconstitutional and struck, it is dead as soon as
the periond of suspended invalidity expires.
R. v Parker July31/2001 period of suspension of invalidity
expires without being relegislated by parliament.
Dec/2002 supreme court rejects crown appeal in the R. v
Krieger cultivation case. That period of suspension of
invalidity expired without the parliament re-enacting the
criminal statute.
JCT: Actually, Dec. 2001 is when the Acton ruling came into
force.
The law is dead, null, void, of no force and effect.
The Crown continues to violate canadians rights by
continuing to persecute/prosecute canadians with a DEAD LAW.
THAT IS THE REAL CRIME HERE!
JCT: Prosecuting people by pretending the law's alive is
mischief.
DONT PLEAD OUT YOUR CASES, MOVE FOR DISMISSAL ON THE GROUNDS
THAT THE LAW IS DEAD.
The crown is withdrawing charges (not just staying charges)
When people are challenging them in this way, Ask Bruce Ryan
and Pierre Champagne of Toronto's "Section 56 Compassion
Club"
JCT: And Sandra Kramer, Ed Martin and the Nielsens,
Where are Mr. Young and Mr. Conroy? Why havent they gone
this route?
JCT: Har har har har. It would be pretty hard for Mr. Young
to argue that the law is dead when it's his case that the
Crown keeps using the argue that the law's alive.
Is it because they are making too much money letting the
Crown of this country get away with breaking the laws they
are oath bound to respect and enforce?
My Not So Humble Opinion
B. Cyre
JCT: It's because Alan Young is a narc mole working as a
saboteur. Last Monday while sitting outside the court with
Terry Parker, he started talking with a lawyer and when he
mentioned Alan Young, I heard the lawyer laugh that Young
had never won a case in his life. Har har har har. He's
laughed at by his peers too.
I don't know about Conroy though the fact he's never argued
that the prohibition is no longer known to law sure looks
bad.
===
JCT: This is in response to someone who pointed out Alan
Young's new "exciting" (Cannabis Culture thinks so) case in
Smiths Falls.
>BudManTaz enthusiast
>Re: Any updates on Marc Emery? [Re: Gruntman]
>Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 11:10 AM
Again this deals only with the MMAR or OCMA regulations
thats all they are is regulations and have no force with no
criminal statute to back them. The MMAR was already
proclaimed unconstitutional, and although the courts tried
to re-write the regs to make them constitutional and
resurrect a dead criminal statute. The courts have no power
to resurrect dead laws,, only the legislative arm of
government has that power., it does nothing to affect the
fact that the criminal statutes is dead, null, void, of no
force and effect.
JCT: And Alan Young's new exciting move is off-target.
Again.
I only asked a question? perhaps Mr. Young and Mr. Conroy
can answer this themselves. Is not the Law the Law.
JCT: I think it's a question they can't answer.
How can the crown and the police continue this
unconscionable treatment of Canadians when they know the law
has been struck and hasn't been re-enacted by parliament.
JCT: They don't know the law's been struck. Crown Attorneys
Croft Michaelson, Chris Leafloor and Vanita Goela have left
the impression that the law is still alive and while the
Ministry of Justice keeps telling the cops to keep busting
us, it's not the cops' fault. It's the Crowns fault for
being wrong and causing almost 200,000 to be improperly
busted.
Over 100.000 Canadians have been charged and prosecuted
since July31/2001 when the cdsa 'possesion' part of the
marijuana laws died and since December/2002 when the
cultivation part of the cdsa for marijuana died, and I bet
there are a few were medi-pot users who died because of the
ordeal of this type of immoral and unethical prosecution
under dead statutes.
JCT: They say O'Leary could extend the prohibition past the
date of Acton's suspension but I don't think so. So her
Order came into force one year after Dec. 11 2000.
That is murder, when the prosecution is illegal and causes
someones death, directly or indirectly,, that is murder.
JCT: No, that is genocide, the indiscriminate inflicting on
the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction. These Crowns never met the victims
they murdered, all those sick people who died because the
Crowns were wrong about their medicine being illegal never
knew those Crowns. It wasn't murder, it was genocide.
If the lawyers know about this, isn't there a thing called
the Good Samaritan Law that binds all of us to act when we
see a crime of violence being committed or dead laws being
enforced even to the death of some of those being
prosecuted?
JCT: And these Crowns kept letting the cops bust people and
deter sick people from accessing their medicine knowing that
the prohibition had been repealed. It's the lawyers in the
Justice Department who should have known their argument was
as crock once they'd heard The Engineer's logic. Just like
judges who say they kept the prohibition on anti-seizure
medicine alive, the Crowns have got blood on theirands too.
Lets keep them donations rolling in to fight prosecution of
Canadians charged under DEAD laws. Yessir,, lets keep them
lawyers pockets lined, while canadians, even whole families
are destroyed (They now lay charges on all family present to
threaten and intimidate and coerce a plea bargain from one
of the family members. Got an answer Mr. Young or Mr.
Conroy? Another humble opinion.
JCT: No, they don't. They can't argue the law's dead because
it would put them out of business.
===
>ShadowYeti addict
>Re: Any updates on Marc Emery?
>Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 01:23 PM
" They're good people"
ROFLMAO Now that's funny never heard a Lawyer being refered
to as good before.....ground bottom feeder, pond scum,
scumbag, ect ect but never good. I guess if anyone is
deserving of the title though it's Mr. Young & Mr.Conroy.
JCT: I don't know about Mr. Conroy but those sure do fit Mr.
Young in my book.
==
>BudManTaz enthusiast
>Re: Any updates on Marc Emery? [Re: MRNICEakaBRIAN]
>Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 08:13 AM
Then why not tender a motion to dismiss on the grounds that
the law is dead.
JCT: Becuase Narc Emery's working with the Alan Young crew
of prohibitionist agents. Why else would he not use the
winning argument? Keep asking though. Keep embarrassing him.
Again, ask Bruce Ryan and Pierre Champagne of the Toronto
compassion club, "Section 56", they did it and had ALL
CHARGES WITHDRAWN, not stayed so they could continue later,
WITHDRAWN. several others as well.
JCT: They used the Turmel motion to quash, why doesn't Marc?
I guess it would mean too much press, and Canadians would go
into a legal pot frenzy and the nation would fall,,, YEAH
RIGHT. When lawyers trash the double speak and get to the
crux of the matter in dealing with the courts (freeing up
countless man hours) then I might include them in the ranks
with my lawyer. If Mr. Young or Mr. Conroy are doing pro-
bono work for you,, ask him about this.
The possession laws were struck, rendered invalid, but the
invalidity was suspended for one year. That period expired
without parliament re-legislating the criminal statute.
The cultivation law was struck, rendered invalid, but the
invalidity was suspended for one year. That period expired
and parliament has not relegislated new criminal statute for
marijuana. So in effect, possession and cultivation are
legal in Canada.
JCT: Pretty simple, actually.
Interpretation Act section 2 sch 2 :
"repeal" includes revoke or cancel.
Expired and replaced enactments
(2) For the purposes of this Act, an enactment that has been
replaced is repealed and an enactment that has expired,
lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect is deemed to have
been repealed.
R.S., 1985, c. I-21, s. 2; 1993, c. 34, s. 88; 1999, c. 31,
s. 146.
The courts can read into an existing statute, but they cant
resurrect a dead one,, only parliament can do that.
Or maybe folks are so used to cannabis being illegal that
the lower prices brought about by legalization isn't enough
to feed the greed of present black market growers and resale
agents.
JCT: Legalisation would put Narc Emery out of business.
>Pigeon newbie
>Re: Any updates on Marc Emery? [Re: BudManTaz]
>Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 03:38 PM
I'm very interested in the whole motion to dismiss idea, but
most people I've talked about it with seem to think its a
bit of a lark, including Emery and Malmo-levine.
JCT: Good to know who are dissing the answer.
what is Emery's defensive strategy anyway?
JCT: Har har har har. He has no defensive strategy. He
doesn't mind saying that arguing that the law is repealed is
a "lark" but has nothing of his own. Calling it a name means
they don't have to explain their opposition. It's a lark so
it doesn't have to be explained.
Glad to have the motion to quash shoved in their faces at
Cannabis Culture by both Paul Coulbeck and Budman.
-- 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
- Next message: Mark Monson: "Re: Why Chavez Won a Landslide Victory"
- Previous message: Lantern: "Re: A COMPLETELY NEW Economic System COMING SOON WORLDWIDE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
