TURMEL: Marc Emery's "plead guilty" transcript

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 11/05/04 

Date: 5 Nov 2004 09:43:56 GMT

JCT: Finally, 1) was Emery's lawyer instructed to plead
guilty or 2) did she misunderstand Emery's non-discussion of
a defence as a desire not to fight?

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT FOR SASKATCHEWAN
SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN

BETWEEN :
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
MARK SCOTT EMERY

August 19, 2004 GUILTY PLEA AND SENTENCE
Lavoie PCJ
Franklin Impey appearing on behalf of the Crown
Leanne Rae Johnson appearing on behalf of the Accused

(A TRANSCRIPT OF A TAPE RECORDING)

THE COURT: All right. We have here the matter of Mark Emery.
Is that it? Is it one Information ending in 260?
MS. JOHNSON: That's correct.
MR. IMPEY: That's correct, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Two counts.
MR. IMPEY: Actually, Your Honour, there's just the one count
live. Your Honour, there's one charge of trafficking. THE
COURT: Okay, so that's count number one.
MS. JOHNSON: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. Information ending in 260, March 22nd,
2004, unlawfully traffic in a controlled substance, to wit:
cannabis marihuana in an amount not exceeding three
kilograms, contrary to Section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act. All right. Is that proceeding to trial
or is there going to be a plea on that?
MS. JOHNSON: No, it's not, Your Honour. My instructions this
morning -- or this afternoon, excuse me, are to enter a plea
of guilty to that.
JCT: Her instructions from Marc Emery were to plead guilty
which is why she had and Marc had not discussed a defence.
The fact no defence was prepared proves Emery did not intend
to plead not guilty and fight it so when he said she
misunderstood his intention to fight and wrongly pleaded him
guilty, he was lying.

THE COURT: All right. Guilty plea recorded to count number
one.

JCT: And he didn't jump and indicate correctly that he
wanted to fight. Instead, he just bowed down and croaked his
failure.
 
MS. JOHNSON: And we're ready to proceed to sentencing.
THE COURT: All right.

JCT: The rest of the transcript is appended.

>Article #395978 (396190 is last):
>Subject: Re: Canada to relax drug law
>Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 01:44:06 -0500
>From: "GEM" <webmaster@gemsgallery.org>
>Newsgroups:
alt.drugs.pot,rec.drugs.cannabis,can.politics,talk.politics.drugs

> In fact, marijuana use is entirely legal in Canada... but
> the government refuses to admit it, and the Supreme Court
> has yet to hear the cases that will establish that fact.
 
GEM: Absolutely correct.
 
Our government has put a ban on all things Turmel so that
their immoral and, IMO, illegal court machinations will be
known to as few as possible.
 
A Canadian Court ruled the prohibition of cannabis to the
sick and dying as unconstitutional and gave the government a
year to fix it. The government failed to do this and instead
simply blackmailed the Canadian Press and Television Media
into not reporting any of the results of the Cannabis Court
Battles or mentioning that the law is truly dead. They then
moved the head Narc to Health Canada along with his best
Narco Squad - who now run Health Canada like a sting
operation.
 
It is only because of the corner the government of Canada
has painted itself into, that we Canadians are witnessing
the "outing" of all the federal moles in the movement.
 
The self appointed Proprietor President of the Marijuana
Party of Canada has just been used by the Feds to reinforce
the notion that the law is still alive and fully functional,
by making him plead guilty to possession with intent to
traffic.

JCT: No, worse. He pleaded guilty to actual "trafficking."

GEM: The logic is simple. If the Head of the Canadian
Marijuana Party pleads guilty, then the law MUST be in place
and of full force and effect and any contrary rumours you
may have heard from internet users is obviously untrue. :)
What can you expect from a Wannabe Police State tho eh. GEM

JCT: That's bang on and I'm glad someone's explaining it to
the outside world.
====

>Article #396013 (396190 is last):
>From: P Odgen <pogden321@msn.com>
>Subject: Re: Canada to relax drug law
>Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:53:00 -0500
 
GEM webmaster@gemsgallery.org wrote in article ID:
 
>A Canadian Court ruled the prohibition of cannabis to the
>sick and dying as unconstitutional and gave the government
>a year to fix it. The government failed to do this and
>instead simply blackmailed the Canadian Press and
>Television Media into not reporting any of the results of
>the Cannabis Court Battles or mentioning that the law is
>truly dead.
 
You can't substantiate that, which makes it a lie.

JCT: The only thing he can't substantiate is that the media
sat on the story he never heard about. Har har har har.
===

>Article #396127 (396190 is last):
>From: "GEM" <webmaster@gemsgallery.org>
>Subject: Re: Canada to relax drug law
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:53:44 -0500
 
> Did you watch H2O last night? They ought to make a
> version about profits from the drug trade. :-)
 
GEM: No I did not see it. I gave up on US and Canadian TV
shortly after 9/11.

Bull*** is bull***. Bull*** with commercials is simply
that straw - camel - you know.
 
BushCo. was the US Media-killer. Never saw anything like the
way they played the scripted partyline for years instead of
news. All it took was a perusal of Headlines that did not
see US print and you knew right then that the medias were
being squeezed and directed and were no longer trustworthy.
Not one media form has asked any questions about the
destruction of those buildings in New York since that
bull*** Nova Video where "they melted" like Western Witches
under water.

(That scientists are not screaming foul tells me there are
only well paid scienticians remaining in that once lofty
field.)
 
And here in Canada, it was reading the internet proceedings
presented by Mister J Turmel as they happen and knowing that
every newspaper and tv channel in the country is Purposely
and Unanimously ignoring Canada's greatest story and a court
room drama to beat all court room dramas for the last half
decade that convinced me that Canadian News contained fewer
facts than no News at all.
 
JCT: The Editor of the New York Times, Swinton, at this
retirement speech, said that there was no free press, that
reporters were marionettes whose strings were pulled by
their financial puppeteers. And I must admit, I'm stunned
that the Canadian media could be sitting on The Engineer in
the Supreme Court with 3.3Kg.

But don't forget how they build up the Judas Goats like Alan
Young and Marc Emery to do our talking for us.

Continuation of Emery transcript:

MR. IMPEY: Your Honour, the Federal Crown's alleging a prior
criminal record. This has been disclosed to my friend and I
believe it's been acknowledged, Your Honour.
MS. JOHNSON: That's correct.
THE COURT: Wait a minute here. Okay, let's proceed.
MR. IMPEY: Just for the record, Your Honour, there's 10
prior convictions on Mr. Emery's record for either
trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking. In
the past, Mr. Emery has received fines for his convictions,
the largest amounts being $5000 for a number of instances in
2000. In addition, later on in 2000 on one single incident
he was fined $5000 for trafficking, Your Honour. The - at
the outset, we'll state that the Crown can't lend a whole
lot of assistance in trying to find a case that's on all
fours on this particular matter, and I understand my friend
had those same difficulties, as well. There's very unusual
circumstances here in that as you'll note from the
circumstances, the amount of marihuana involved here was
quite small. However, the accused's criminal record is
extremely aggravating in the submissions of the Crown. The
circumstances of the offence, Your Honour, March 22nd, 2004,
Mr. Emery was in town, Your Honour. I believe he was giving
a pro-marihuana lecture at the University of Saskatchewan.
At the conclusion of the lecture, or sometime during the
lecture, Mr. Emery asked students where would be a good
place to smoke pot.
THE COURT: He asked.
MR. IMPEY: He asked, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. IMPEY: By -- close to his hotel. His hotel was the
Bessborough. He ~ one of the student's suggested the Vimy
Memorial on Riverbank, and a large number of students after
the lecture congregated at the Vimy Memorial. Your Honour,
there's ~ police estimates are anywhere between 20 and 30
students. These are university students. Police estimate the
age to be typical of university students and be anywhere
from 18 to mid to late 20's even, Your Honour. So, the there
was a number of individuals there. Mr. Emery then showed up,
Your Honour, bringing with him his marihuana. The marihuana
that he passed out, Your Honour, we're not entirely sure the
exact amount. The -- one of the - the witness who did give
us a statement at the time initially said Mr. Emery passed
out joints to the students. When asked to clarify how many
he actually saw, he said he saw one. So, we're not sure
exactly how many. We know for a fact that the witness saw
the one and he suggested earlier that there was more than
one, so we're not sure how much Mr. Emery passed out to the
students, Your Honour. He didn't collect money for it.
THE COURT: He did?
MR. IMPEY: He did not collect cash for it.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. IMPEY: However, I'll be making some more submissions on
this later on, Your Honour. The - when arrested, Mr. Emery
acknowledged that he had the marihuana and a police search
revealed 2.3 grams of marihuana in his front -- in his
pocket. I'm not sure which pocket, Your Honour, and those
were four marihuana cigarettes.
The - 1

THE COURT: This was 2.3 grams, which was four joints, or?
MR. IMPEY: Four joints, yes. And that was in his pocket when
he was arrested.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. IMPEY: The -- Mr. Emery, at that time, Your Honour, and
I make this submission based because the Crown considers it
an aggravating circumstance, obviously he's being sentenced
to the circumstances of March 22nd in Saskatoon. However,
Your Honour, the -- at that time - you'll note his prior
criminal record, Your Honour. I believe most if not all of
those convictions would involve trafficking by the way of
selling viable marihuana seeds from his business in British
Columbia. The -- this - that's a continuing business and it
was at the time of the offence, Your Honour, March 22nd,
2004. I state that because it's an aggravating circumstance
because it shows continuing nature of his conduct. But I
also state, Your Honour, while Mr. Emery was in fact giving
pro-marihuana speeches and talks there also is a profit
potential with respect to engaging in this type of
behaviour, engaging in a very public display like Mr. Emery
did. Obviously, he's making his living, Your Honour, through
the sale of marihuana seeds. The publicity with respect to
pro-marihuana would, in fact, do nothing but benefit his,
his business, Your Honour. So, there is a profit, I guess,
motivation if you want to call it that, Your Honour,
involved here as well. The -- at this point, I'd like to
submit the Holowenko case, Your Honour. This is a case out
of Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal. My friend -- gave a copy
back in March and I did make another copy, so I might as
well hand a clean one out at this time.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. IMPEY: Mister -- the Holowenko matter, Your Honour, the
~ obviously involves a much more significant amount, and it
obviously involves much more money and a direct profit
motive; however, there are some general principles. I
indicated at the outset, Your Honour, there's no case on
fours and it's very difficult, Your Honour. I'm not sure if
you wish to review the Holowenko case at this time, Your
Honour.
THE COURT: Well--continue. You--if I have to I'll just break
for a minute at the end.
MR. IMPEY: Oh, certainly.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. IMPEY: The -- in the Holowenko case, Your Honour, I'll ~
I can summarize it right now, actually, as we go along.
There's -- the police had found Mr. Holowenko in possession
of 2,600 and either 79 or 70 dollars in cash. They note that
there was $32,030 that had gone through his account
previous, and ultimately defence acknowledged that out of
that money $6,000 was a profit from the sale of marihuana.
So, Mr. Holowenko was being sentenced on the $6,000 worth of
profit and $2,679 worth of cash that was found at that
particular time, Your Honour. He -- in addition they found
761 grams of marihuana and the court in the initial
instance, Your Honour, granted to Mr. Holowenko a
conditional sentence of two years less a day.The Court of
Appeal, Your Honour, noted the following things. First of
all, Mr. Holowenko had -- a 38-year-old individual, had 15
criminal convictions, nine of those criminal convictions
were drug-related. Two of them were for possession for the
purpose of trafficking and four of them were for
trafficking, so Mr. Holowenko had six priors on his record
for the more serious offences of trafficking and possession
for the purpose. Mr. Emery in the instant case has 10, Your
Honour. The court in Mr. Holowenko's case, at page three,
paragraph nine indicates that they agreed with the Crown. It
was inappropriate in the circumstances to allow the sentence
to be served in the community. They then went to speak of
Sections 10, of the Controlled Substances Actand Section 718
to 718.2 of the Criminal Code, the general sentencing
provisions, and then a specific sentencing provision with
the - in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. And I draw
that to your attention, Your Honour, the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act, Section 10(2) lists a large number of
aggravating circumstances, Your Honour. And the
circumstances listed in Section 10 include a prior criminal
record for a designated offence, the designated drug
offence.
THE COURT: Ten sub two.
MR. IMPEY: Pardon me?
THE COURT: I have the -
MR. IMPEY: Oh, yes.
THE COURT: - okay, purposes. I have that here.
MR. IMPEY: Yes. Section 10, Your Honour - I guess if you
start with ~ right at number one, Your Honour: 10(1)... the
fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under
this Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and
the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while
encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate
circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done
to victims and to the community. Now subsection (2)
indicates that: 10(2) If a person is convicted of a
designated substance offence, the court imposing sentence on
the person shall consider any relevant aggravating
(circumstances)... including the following (specific
ones)... and I take you down to:
(b) was previously convicted of a designated substance
offence; In this particular case, as I've indicated there's
been 10 previous, so obviously Mr. Emery falls within the
ambit of Section 10(3), Your Honour. So, it's codified as an
aggravating circumstance under the Act. Subsection (3) says:
10(3)... the court is satisfied (if any)... one or more of
the aggravating (circumstances)... but (does not decide)...
to sentence the person to imprisonment, the court shall give
reasons for that decision. At that point in time --
THE COURT: 10(3) If, under subsection (1), the court is
satisfied of the existence of one or more of the aggravating
factors... (under)(2)(a) to (c), but decides not to sentence
the person to imprisonment, the court shall give reasons for
that decision. Okay.
MR. IMPEY: And it's, I think an indication, Your Honour, of
the intention of parliament, Your Honour, certainly for
repeat offenders with respect to trafficking offences. And
Mr. Emery is certainly that. In the Holowenko decision, Your
Honour, the, the court found first of all that the Holowenko
case didn't comply with Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code
to start with. Further and later on on page 4 at paragraph
14, they also talk about Section 10(2) of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act where the court says the judge
failed to take into account that particular Section, and it
requires the sentencing court to take into account
previously -- previous convictions of a designated substance
offence as aggravating circumstances. This offender's record
shows that he has spent his mature years in the drug milieu
and has regularly trafficked in drugs. And this is a
serious, aggravating circumstance that can not be ignored.
The record, Your Honour, here is a serious, aggravating
circumstance. The -- finally the court held that the
sentence does not meet the requirements of denunciation and
deterrence or parity. And denunciation and deterrence, I
think, are paramount in this particular case, Your Honour,
because we are speaking of ongoing continuing behaviour. We
are talking about the llth conviction for trafficking, Your
Honour. There's -- in addition, Your Honour, this was to
youthful individuals, Your Honour, university students. I
know my friend is going to suggest that there's a public
outcry or public support of banning marihuana laws, and that
should affect deterrence and denunciation. And while I don't
dispute, there are certainly those in the public who take
that position, I would suggest that there's those in the
public who would abhor someone giving marihuana to
university students, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Well - yes. It's two separate debates.
MR. IMPEY: Oh, certainly.
THE COURT:There's two separate issues. One issue is whether
marihuana should be a criminal offence or the possession of
the same, but issue number two is the laws of the country,
and we don't get to pick and choose which laws we follow
until such time as they are changed.
MR. IMPEY: Well, I would agree, Your Honour.
THE COURT: That's the issue.
MR. IMPEY: Absolutely. I actually don't think it's an issue,
Your Honour. Quite frankly, the Crown's position is very,
very clear on - with respect to that particular debate.
These are the laws of the land. Mr. Emery, like everybody
else, has to obey the laws of the land. If Mr. Emery wishes
to make a statement, if he wishes to advocate for changing
the law, that's fine. He's welcome to do so. He's not being
prosecuted here today, he's not being sentenced here today
because he's advocating a position, he's being prosecuted
because he broke the law and he trafficked yet again, Your
Honour.
THE COURT: So, he got -- Holowenko got one year over and
above the six-month ~
MR. IMPEY: Yes, he --
THE COURT: ~ served on electronic monitoring ~
MR. IMPEY: The, the --
THE COURT: - and then ~ but then they tacked on four months
consecutive. For what was that?
MR. IMPEY: I believe it was possession of proceeds, Your
Honour, if I recall correctly. He --
THE COURT: All right, so we end up with 16 months.
MR. IMPEY: Yes. In total, what the court in that case did -
THE COURT: Court of Appeal gave him 16 months.
MR. IMPEY: Yes. The court did, however, state, Your Honour,
at the time of sentencing the proper sentence for Mr.
Holowenko would have been two years. And they did, they did
state that, you know, this is again, repeat, repeat, repeat,
repeat, and they did, in fact, emphasize one, one
circumstance which is obviously distinguished here and that
circumstance is, he's regularly trafficked for a profit
motive. He's making money off the sale of drugs. Mr.
Holowenko has been doing it over, and over, and over, and
over again. In that case, 32,000 goes into his account and
6000 was profit. And then there was another 20 -
approximately $2700 involved as well, and 700 and some
grams. So, it is - it's distinguishable on - in that regard,
and I agree with my friend who's obviously going to attempt
to distinguish in that matter. I mean, they're, they're very
different in the amounts, Your Honour. They are not very
different, however, in the fact that it's - Section 10 does,
in fact, come into play here. We're speaking of small
amounts; however, the Crown would submit that doesn't change
what should be the appropriate penalty as far as form. It
does only change the appropriate penalty as far as how long.
And that's the position of the Crown in sentencing, Your
Honour, is that we are seeking incarceration.
THE COURT: So, you're asking for incarceration.
MR. IMPEY: Yes, we are.
THE COURT:You're opposed to a conditional sentence.
MR. IMPEY: Yes, and, and I will get into that, as well.
What we're seeking for is incarceration here, Your Honour,
we recognize and we know the Court can't lose sight of the
fact that this is a dramatically different amount, and that
there are other, other circumstances that come into play as
far as the motive for him doing what he did. We're still
seeking incarceration, and we would suggest a range, Your
Honour, of between three and six months incarceration. And I
think that range would adequately reflect the lesser amounts
involved, and it would adequately reflect the fact that it
wasn't purely for profit reasons here, Your Honour. The, the
Crown would suggest, Your Honour, that denunciation and
deterrence requires incarceration. I note my friend
indicated that she'd be seeking a fine in this matter, but
Mr. Emery has been fined in the past and his behaviour
continues. The fines have had no deterrent effect on
continued criminal behaviour and a fine, in the Crown's
respectful submission, will not adequately denounce the
trafficking of marihuana. The, the courts - I didn't bring a
copy of the Proulx decision, Your Honour, but I'm sure the
Court is quite aware of the Supreme Court of Canada's
comments in Proulx\N\ft\ respect to conditional sentences.
In that particular case, Your Honour, they considered the
safety of the public issue and whether or not a conditional
sentence can be imposed on repeat offenders, Your Honour.
The,the courts - while it doesn't entirely preclude it, it
does state quite strongly that if the court is satisfied
that the safety of the public is at issue, there shall be no
conditional sentence. I mean, it's an absolute (inaudible -
not clear) conditional sentence. What they went on to say
then was the courts can - have to consider all types of
offences and the likelihood of repeating offences.
THE COURT:Yes. Well, public safety wasn't the only issue.
The court - Supreme Court of Canada went on to say that you
also have to look at all the relevant ~ Section 718.
MR. IMPEY: Absolutely. Sentence ~
THE COURT: The relevant factors ~
MR. IMPEY: Yeah.
THE COURT: ~ to be taken into account.
MR. IMPEY: Absolutely. It has to first of all--the first
step, I think, is it has to meet the requirements of Section
718 ~
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. IMPEY: - and the court has to balance those factors and
come to the conclusion that it does meet those. The next
step is, does the public get put at risk. And in considering
that second step the courts indicate that - the Supreme
Court of Canada has indicated that even for property
offences, repeat offenders ~ continuing repeat offenders are
a risk to the public. And they specifically ruled out that
it has to be a violent offence. So, they said ~ so, even for
property offenders, and the Crown would submit that would
also apply to those who traffic. The, the other aggravating
circumstances I wanted to point out at this time, as well,
to the Court is that in addition to
the continuing conduct there appears to be a very much a
lack of remorse. There, again, this was done, Your Honour,
in a very public and open and quite frankly, defiant
circumstances. Mr. Emery completely ignored the law as
though it didn't apply to him. He ~ and that would also
mitigate against a conditional sentence, Your Honour. It
would be -- if there's a lack of remorse, if there's
continuing conduct, the suggestion of the Crown is that
Court ought to be concerned with continuing behaviour, Your
Honour. The - as I indicated, we would ask for incarceration
between three months and six months, and I believe, Your
Honour, that's a balance between the Proulx decision from
the Supreme Court of Canada and the Holowenko decision, at
least the principles contained therein. In addition, we'd
seek a probation order, Your Honour, lengthy probation
order. We would ask, and again, this would be a part of the
deterrence, Your Honour, we would ask that Mr. Emery not be
involved in any way, shape or form in trafficking. In other
words, to quit doing what he's being sentenced for today,
and has been sentenced for on 10 previous occasions. He,
from what I understand, Your Honour, Mr. Emery's business
goes on through the Internet, and we would ask that he have
no association whatsoever with any business, corporation,
partnership or person who traffics marihuana ~ or who
traffics period, Your Honour. We would ask that to be part
of the lengthy probation order to follow a custodial
sentence. My friend has indicated that, again -- pardon me.
There's also a mandatory order, Your Honour, under Section
109(l)(b) - or sorry, (c) of the Criminal Code. It's
mandatory for a minimum period of 10 years for the firearms
prohibition, Your Honour. Any conviction under this
particular Section requires that.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, there was--there was a pretrial on
this and there's something attached to this Information. I
just haven't looked at it. I don't know if it's appropriate
just - there's a photocopy or a printout. Is this something
from ~
MR. IMPEY: Oh, that was submitted by the Crown as part of
the -- at the bail hearing, Your Honour, and we'd submit
that at this point in time as well. That's the company I'm
talking about.
THE COURT: www.emeryseeds.com
MR. IMPEY: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Do we ~ does Crown know if that -- is that Web
site in effect right now?
MR. IMPEY: It was in effect after he had been released from
custody, Your Honour. I assume it's still in effect. I
haven't gone into it personally.
THE COURT: You haven't ~ nobody's checked.
MR. IMPEY: No, it was, it was - I'm going to submit that
it's in effect, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Well -
MR. IMPEY: I'd be quite surprised, I'd be shocked that it's
not ~
THE COURT: That's right.
MR. IMPEY: - if it's not in effect at this point in time.
THE COURT:That's right. You'd be shocked if it wasn't and I
could also go to you first and say I'm shocked you didn't
check.
MR. IMPEY: The -- but we can certainly do that if - it won't
take very long, Your Honour. It'd be a matter of a phone
call and -
THE COURT: For all the time it would have taken.
MR. IMPEY: Yeah. You're right.
THE COURT: That's right.
MR. IMPEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

[continued... 

--
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