TURMEL: Nielsens ask Judge Edward Reconsider Quash Oct 4
From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 09/29/04
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Previous message: shinakaidah: "Re: Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq -- AP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Sep 2004 20:25:56 GMT
JCT: The only way you can go back to ask a judge to
reconsider a decision without making him mad is to come up
with something new which forces the reconsideration.
Judge Edward basically ruled that the opinion of the Ontario
Court of Appeal in Hitzig has given new force and effect to
prohibition across Canada. But we know that the Court's
Order did not say that. As a matter of fact, the Court was
asked to state it and just two days after the Edward
decision, Justice Doherty refused to Order the resurrection!
So, because the Nielsens have an appointment with Judge
Edward on Oct 4 2004 for disclosure anyway, why not file
a...
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(Criminal Division - Brantford Region)
Between:
Douglas Nielsen
Applicant/Accused
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent/Plaintiff
------------------------------
NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Returnable October 4 2004
------------------------------
TAKE NOTICE that on Oct 4 2004 at 10am in Courtroom #1 at 44
Queen St. Brantford, Applicant will make a motion to Judge Edward
to reconsider that the court has power to quash the charge
relating to marijuana under section 4(1) of the CDSA as unknown
to law because the Ontario Court of Appeal specifically refused
to include its resurrection in the Order when asked.
AND FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the motion, or amending any defect as to form or
content of the motion, or for any Order deemed just.
DOCUMENTATION will be Written Representations.
THE GROUNDS ARE that the resurrection of prohibition on marijuana
in s.4(1) of the CDSA by the Ontario Court of Appeal opinion is
not binding when Justice Doherty specifically refused to include
the resurrection in the final Order when requested. Without an
overt Order that prohibition be resurrected, the opinion
construed as resurrecting the penal statute does not have the
power of law.
Dated at Brantford on September 29, 2004.
For the Accused:
Douglas Nielsen
46 Mechanic St.
Paris ON N3L 1K4
Tel: 519-442-4954
Fax: 519-753-0645
TO: Ministry of Justice
TO: The Registrar of the Court
----------------------------
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
Motion Returnable Oct 4 2004
----------------------------
1. Appendix 1 is the Order sought from the Ontario Court of
Appeal by two of the parties in the consolidated Hitzig case
for a declaration that the prohibition on marijuana in s.4
of the CDSA which had been repealed as of August 1 2001 was
now resurrected.
2. Appendix 2 is the Order sought by the Crown which simply
stated that the appeal had been dismissed.
3. Appendix 3 are the Written Representations to the
Registrar.
4. Appendix 4 is the letter dated August 19 raising an
objection to the acceptance of the Crown's draft Order.
5. Appendix 5 is the letter dated August 24 from the court
registrar indicating that Justice Doherty would be dealing
with the matter in writing.
6. On Sep 14, 2004, Applicants' motion to quash was
dismissed by Judge Edward the grounds the court was bound by
the opinion in Hitzig of Justices Doherty, Goudge and
Simmons JJ.A. of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that the
prohibition on marijuana had been resurrected.
7. Appendix 6 is Order issued on Sep 16 2004 showing Judge
Doherty specifically refused to Order that the prohibition
had been resurrected. This Court is bound by no order, only
an opinion, a wrong opinion, which binds no other province's
courts.
8. The Crown failed to answer this Court's questions:
1) how can the Ontario Court of Appeal overrule itself when
they made a finding in respect of Parker one and then came
back in Parker two, three years later, and essentially said
4(1) is now valid legislation. That's the first question.
2) does the federal prosecutor accept that the current law
on marijuana possession under 4(1) is in a confusing state,
and as such, an inappropriate piece of legislation to
prosecute under?
3) can a court resurrect a legislative provision that has
been otherwise struck down as offending the provisions of
the Charter?
9. These representations are made in support of a motion to
reconsider that the court has power to quash the charge
relating to marijuana under section 4(1) of the CDSA as
unknown to law because the Ontario Court of Appeal
specifically refused to include its resurrection in the
Order when requested.
Dated at Brantford on September 29, 2004.
Signature
For the Accused:
Douglas Nielsen
JCT: So we have the motion filed early enough to give judge
Edward the necessary time for a decision on the issue on
Monday. This is new information about the opinion, not
Order, he cited in the Nielsen ruling.
Why should the lower courts treat it like a binding order if
Doherty J. refused to include such a momentous change in the
law in his Order? If they won't make it an Order, why should
anyone obey another wrong opinion? Isn't their failure to
sign the Resurrection Order an acknowledgment that even they
know it's bogus? They'll issue a bad opinion but not a bad
Order?
Don't think because there were earlier refusals that going
back can't work. When I won Canada's exemptees their
exemption extensions, it was the third time I'd sent someone
in on the same point. And this is only the first rematch.
So, next Monday is a freebie. While we have produced the
Parker "Order" which binds him to the invalidity of the
prohibition, if Judge Edward accepts that there is no Order
binding him to the Crown's resurrection theory, then we're
back in the game. He could still make a momentous statement
for the whole country.
Let's hope Judge is feeling puked out about all the innocent
people he has had to permit be prosecuted and convicted
before him in the past month, on top of all the innocent
people he helped convict while no judges had kept on Terry
Parker Day.
Who knows when serendipity strikes again. Maybe second time
lucky.
Crown wouldn't accept service. Again!
-- 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: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Previous message: shinakaidah: "Re: Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq -- AP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
