TURMEL: #2 Marc Emery's "plead guilty" transcript

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

Date: 5 Nov 2004 09:47:32 GMT

[continued...

MS. JOHNSON: Your Honour, It's no secret that my client is a
proponent of the legalization of marihuana. He certainly
hasn't made a secret of it. Mr. Emery being at the Vimy
Memorial on the date of the offence was very much a politic
statement on his part. That doesn't, of course, excuse the
fact that he did have marihuana in his possession and passed
one joint to another individual. However, he was not there
to profit from the distribution of marihuana in, in any
sense of the word. There was no money exchanged for the, the
marihuana cigarette that changed hands. And he certainly
wasn't there advertising his Web site or anything else that
he could possibly have profited from. It was, it was simply
a politic statement. Mr. Emery currently is residing in
British Columbia, has for quite some, some time. He has four
adopted children. He's engaged to be married; however, I
understand a date has not been set for that. He does, just
as a matter of interest, pay income tax on all earnings from
any source, and he contributes approximately $200,000 a year
to a drug addiction centre. He is the president of the BC
Marihuana Party, and he owns a magazine by the name of
Cannabis Culture, and also owns an Internet TV channel. He
spends much of his time advocating the legalization of
marihuana and offering lectures for free at various venues.
And of course, that's what he was doing when he was in
Saskatchewan at the time of these offences.
THE COURT: You say he contributed what, $200,000 to a rehab 

--
MS. JOHNSON: To a drug - to drug addiction rehabilitation 
centre.
THE COURT: Annually, or he has -- 
MS. JOHNSON: Annually. Now, I'm assuming that the Crown is 
getting the evidence that was put forward regarding Mr. 
Emery asking if there was somewhere to smoke marihuana from 
the statement of one of the people that was at, at the Vimy 
Memorial that evening. It does, does state that in the, in 
the statement. However, I don't know what the state of that 
witness was at the time, I don't know whether he had 
consumed marihuana, whether he was confused. Of course, I 
haven't got to ~ 
THE COURT:Was it a - was it a witness or was it an 
undercover officer? 
MR. IMPEY: No, it --
MS. JOHNSON: It was a witness. 
THE COURT: It was a witness. Okay. 
MS. JOHNSON: That's correct. In any case, Mr. Emery doesn't 
remember asking where they could go and smoke pot. 
Generally, after these types of gatherings at universities, 
these lectures, you know, he'll get together with people 
that were at the lecture. He'll often ask, you know, where a 
good place is to meet. And from what he remembers, they 
chose the spot, of course, because he's not familiar with 
Saskatoon. In any case, the evidence shows that all Mr. 
Emery had in his possession at the time was 2.3 grams of 
marihuana, extremely small amount of marihuana, and handed a 
total of one joint to another individual. That's what the 
evidence shows. That's what the statement of the one witness 
states. There was no profit, and Mr. Emery didn't benefit 
from the exchange in any way. The rest of what he had was 
for personal use. With respect to the appropriate sentence, 
the case law is clear that except in unusual circumstances, 
a custodial sentence is appropriate for trafficking 
offences. This is certainly an unusual circumstance and my 
friend has stated the same. In fact, I was not, I was not, 
as he noted, able to find any case on point for this type of 
circumstance, nor was he which, which I believe just shows 
that -- how unusual exactly, it is. With respect to 
Holowenkow\\\<3\ the Crown is relying heavily on, I would 
submit that there are several distinguishing factors in this 
case. I mean, not -- it's not just the amount of marihuana 
that was involved, which was 761 grams as compared to my 
client's 2.3 grams, he also had $2,670 in cash which was, of 
course, related to the ~ 
THE COURT: Yes, and that was a commercial clandestine 
operation, wasn't it? 
MS. JOHNSON: Absolutely. He had people working for him. He 
was in charge of a trafficking enterprise according to his -
- one of his employees in any case. He had - Mr. Holowenko 
had 15 criminal convictions and it was nine that were drug 
related. As far as aggravating circumstances, under Section 
10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, there were 
far more aggravating circumstances in Holowenko then there 
are in this case. In fact, in this case under Section 10 
there is the one aggravating circumstance of a prior record. 
Under Holowenko there were several, several more aggravating 
circumstances including his record and he ~ it would show 
that he'd spent his mature years in drug milieu as the case 
notes. Of course, my client's record shows ~ 
THE COURT: Now the (inaudible - not clear). 
MS. JOHNSON: - convictions in two, two years. 
THE COURT: Okay. In 1999, the possession of a scheduled 
substance, was that actual possession of marihuana and not 
the seeds. 
MS. JOHNSON: No, those were the seeds. 
THE COURT: No. Or was that--all--it's all seeds. 
MS. JOHNSON: All of, all of the trafficking - yeah. 
THE COURT: All right. 
MS. JOHNSON: All of that has to do with the seeds.
THE COURT: All right. 
MS. JOHNSON: As well, in Holowenko, I think it's, I think 
it's important to note that clearly Mr. Holowenko did not 
plead guilty to the offence. There was a significant 
commercial element involved. I mean, there are so many, so 
many distinguishing factors. I just can't see how we can ~ 
you know, obviously if it was a situation like this we'd be 
following this case, but how can we follow the case when 
it's absolutely nothing like the case we have before us. I 
did find one case, Your Honour, by the name of R v. McGinn 
(ph). Now, I've photocopied the, the header which pretty 
clearly outlines my point. It talks about deterrence and the 
integrity of the administration of justice, and it did 
involve also a situation where there was trafficking of 
marihuana. I think the judge does -- Mr. Justice Cameron 
does a good job ~ this is a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal 
case -- of outlining the -- what is involved in, in 
deterrence. One, of course, is the gravity of the fence 
(sic) - the offence, and I would submit here that this, this 
offence is probably of the lowest gravity it can pretty much 
get. Two, the incidence of the crime in the community ~ yes, 
it took place with about 30 or 40 other people and in 
public. The third factor is the harm caused to. the 
individual or to the community, and I would submit that that 
is quite low in this situation, extremely low; and the 
public attitude towards the offence. Now, of course, my 
friend knew that I was going to get into this and I am. The 
public attitude toward, in particular, possession of 
marihuana, and I think that this can be, you know, applied 
to this circumstance where one person hands a joint to 
another person to share with them. You know, public attitude 
has changed and it's actually been ~ I mean, it was, it was 
a large part or at least a part of the recent federal 
election, and Mr. Prime Minister Martin has recently stated 
publicly that by the end of the year he wants to see 
marihuana decriminalized. So, I think that they actually 
cited a poll in the National Post that there is something 
like twice as many people are now saying that they are using 
marihuana as, as had stated that something like 10 years 
ago. So, public attitude is changing, and I think that 
that's -- that should be a huge element in this offence. 
THE COURT: But that's not the issue the Court deals with.
MS. JOHNSON: I understand that, absolutely not.
THE COURT: I'm not ~
MS. JOHNSON: And that's not to excuse the fact that my 
client broke the law and that is why - 
THE COURT: That's ~
MS. JOHNSON: -- he's pleading guilty. 
JCT: She knew the reasons why he's pleading guilty? 
THE COURT: - that to me what the issue ends up being. 
MS. JOHNSON: And he's taking responsibility for that. I 
mean, he understands -- 
JCT: He understands why he pleaded guilty? 
THE COURT: And I have to advise counsel that I - he speaks 
to a lot of students. I speak to a lot of students, and the 
debate with them becomes very simple and straightforward. 
I'm not here to discuss the pros and cons of marihuana. We 
are only here to discuss respect for the law, and without 
respect for the law, no democratic society can function at 
all.
MS. JOHNSON: I couldn't agree more with you, Your Honour. I 
guess my point is, we're not dealing with a substance like 
cocaine, okay. 
THE COURT: No, I totally agree. 
MS. JOHNSON: And that's really my only point in bringing 
that up. We're dealing with a substance that the Supreme 
Court of Canada very recently has made several findings of 
fact on that state that marihuana is a very - has a very low 
level of being dangerous to the public, I suppose you can 
say. In fact, in the Memo Lavigne (ph) case which is the 
case that I was referring to and I'm sure you're quite 
familiar with, it's actually pointed out in the senate 
report that's, that's quoted in the decision that with 
respect to certain elements of marihuana, it's less 
dangerous than alcohol or smoking which are legal. So, that 
is ~ that's the, that's the point I'm trying to make. 
Granted it is absolutely against the law at this point. 
JCT: With Emery pleading guilty, I can see how she might 
believe that, et al.
I just - it goes to the seriousness of the offence and I 
think that that's what we need to focus on today. I mean, 
we're talking about one joint being passed to one person. 
Now, we certainly recognize that Mr. Emery's record is an 
aggravating circumstance particularly under Section 10 of 
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is the one 
aggravating factor that is found under that Section. I would 
note that, I mean, my friend calls him a repeat offender, 
however, I think it's important to note that there is more 
than a five-year gap since Mr. Emery has been convicted of 
any type of narcotics offence. There was one, one conviction 
on his record from 2000. At least that's what I have on my 
copy of the record, for assaulting a peace officer -- 
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. JOHNSON: -- and that was in relation to - 
THE COURT: Relation to being arrested for something. 
MS. JOHNSON: It was a protest ~ 
THE COURT: Yes. 
MS. JOHNSON: ~ you know. It was a political ~ 
THE COURT: Yes. Okay. That's what I thought. All right. 
MS. JOHNSON: Okay, okay. Yeah. He indicates that one of his 
employees was being beat up and he, he spit on a police 
officer apparently, and anyway - caught up in the moment, 
and, and that - those were the circumstances surrounding 
that. So -- 
THE COURT: It was, it was in the nature - as it - it was in 
a protest, right?
MS. JOHNSON: Exactly. 
THE COURT: Yes. 
MS. JOHNSON: That's right. 
THE COURT: Well, he's the one who had been involved in the 
protest that triggered ~
MS. JOHNSON: Absolutely, yeah. 
THE COURT: - that triggered his own behaviour. 
MS. JOHNSON: Exactly.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. JOHNSON: And there have been no-- 
THE COURT: Let's not make light of the fact of the 
circumstances. 
MS. JOHNSON: No, absolutely not. Just wanted to make sure 
you understood that situation. There hasn't been ~ there 
haven't been any breaches or allegations of breaches since 
these charges were laid. It's, it's been several months, I 
guess, since that time, and I go back to this being an 
unusual case and the fact that his primary purpose was 
political. We've already dealt with the fact that the, the 
prior record related to seed sales which are not involved in 
this offence. I would submit that in this situation an 
appropriate sentence would be time served plus perhaps a 
significant fine. Mr. Emery was held on these charges for 
four days prior to being released. He's never had to serve 
any period of incarceration to date besides those four days. 
I would submit that incarceration for any further length of 
time would not be proportionate to the gravity of this 
offence. This case was, I would submit, a technical 
violation as contemplated in R v. McGinn which is actually 
pointed out on the - in the head notes to that case. Also, 
Mr. Justice Cameron states that while it may be that certain 
technical violations of the trafficking offence may warrant 
a fine, coupled with a period of probation, the offence, in 
this case, was not of that type. Of course, this, this guy 
had -- it ~ there was a clear commercial aspect to the 
commission of the offence the court states, and the accused 
admitted that he intended to sell the drugs and had the 
necessary paraphernalia to do so. And just as a point of 
interest, the accused in that case received six months 
incarceration ~ 
THE COURT: In McGinn. 
MS. JOHNSON: Pardon me?
THE COURT: In McGinn he got six months. 
MS. JOHNSON: That's correct.
THE COURT: Yes. 
MS. JOHNSON: Yeah, yeah. And he had a very lengthy criminal 
record and had more marihuana than my client had, certainly, 
which he wanted to make a commercial go of, apparently. 
Again, my client is -- there is the mitigating factor of my 
client taking responsibility for this. He understands. 
JCT: He understands what he is taking responsibility for. 
I mean, he, he, he does his lecture circuit. I mean, he 
understands that this is against the law. He's willing to 
take his punishment for it. 
JCT: He's willing to take his punishment for a charge he 
wanted to plead not guilty to but miscued? 
He didn't want to put everybody through a trial, 
JCT: But Marc told us that that only occurred to him once 
she had made the mistake of pleading him guilty. Marc told 
everyone he knew he would be found guilty so why put 
everybody through a trial. But the lawyer knew this before 
she made her statement! She had heard his "why put everyone 
through a trial" story already! She was instructed by Emery 
and knows he wants to avoid a trial! Can't do that if he 
intended to plead not guilty? 
and I would just really --1 want to point - make it clear 
that I don't think that this case can be decided based on 
Holowenko, a case that just has no bearing on this situation 
whatsoever. And just, I hate to repeat myself 10 times, but 
this was one joint passed to one individual for no profit. 
Unless you have any questions, Your Honour, those are my 
submissions. Oh, Your Honour, I did want to note that my 
client was very cooperative with the police, and he actually 
handed those four marihuana cigarettes over to the police. 
JCT: If all law-breakers rushed up to the police to confess 
and give up, it would be a better place, thanks to the 
example of Marc Emery, Mr. "Confess and Plead Guilty to 
Fight my way."   
It wasn't that the police had to search him to -- in order 
to find the cigarettes. When they walked up he immediately 
owned up to it and handed over his marihuana. 
JCT: He didn't have to, sitting in the middle of a hazy 
cloud and the cops with no probable cause, but he jumped 
right out of the fumes to fess up and be taken away. Our 
hero. 
THE COURT:Crown, any further comments?
MR. IMPEY: Yes, Your Honour. The ~ just a couple of things 
on McGinn. My friend indicates that the Court of Appeal ~ 
I'm sorry, the ~ I believe she's relying on it for the one, 
the one comment the incidence of this offence is high - 
pardon me. While it may be that certain technical violations 
of trafficking offences may warrant a fine and coupled with 
periods of probation, this is a very ambiguous comment by 
the court. What they're saying is in some situations a fine 
and probation may be appropriate for technical violations of 
the law. Mr. McGinn, obviously, didn't fall within that 
category - a small amount of marihuana he received six 
months incarceration. He did have a lengthy criminal record. 
Mr. Emery has a lengthy criminal record. There's 11 previous 
convictions on Mr. Emery's record, Your Honour. Mr. McGinn's 
record were for non-drug offences, Your Honour, and that's 
the aggravating circumstance that the Crown submits that 
takes this out of a fine and probation, and takes it into 
jail and probation, Your Honour. Crown -- I'm not sure if ~ 
the Holowenko decision, Your Honour, we're simply relying on 
the general principles found in that case. The -- we're not 
saying it's on all fours with Holowenko. We never intended 
to say that. The general principles which I pointed out 
earlier, Your Honour, are the general principles we're 
asking the Court to consider. The Section 10 element in 
Holowenko, Your Honour, are identical to the Section 10 
elements here. The, the only Section ~ the comments by the 
court with respect to Section 10 in the Holowenko decision, 
Your Honour, are comments that readily apply because in both 
situations the only Section 10 element that applies is in 
fact the previous criminal record. The list in Section 2, 
Your Honour, talks about weapons, violence, trafficking near 
a school or school grounds, or any other public place 
usually frequented by persons under 18, trafficking to a 
person under 18, and ~ or previous convictions, Your Honour, 
or use of persons under 18. So, the, the comments by the 
court about the aggravating circumstances of Section 10 in 
Holowenko, none ~ there's no indication that any of those 
other principles were present --1 mean, aggravating 
circumstances were present, and that's very similar to here. 
We're talking about the aggravating circumstance of the 
previous convictions, and the courts -- the principles in 
Holowenko should apply as well.
THE COURT: So, we have the Crown asking for three to six 
months incarceration. 
MR. IMPEY: With probation to follow and a 109 order, please, 
Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay, and a Section 109 order. Defence is arguing 
time served and a large fine.
JCT: You have to wonder why they had already argued the 
sentence if Marc hadn't instructed her to plead guilty. 
Otherwise, it would be slightly premature. 
MR. IMPEY: That's correct, Your Honour.
THE COURT: I take it nobody's proposing a conditional 
sentence is appropriate then. Well, the Crown's against it. 
The defence hasn't brought it forward. All right. I'm going 
to break for 10 minutes. I'll just be in the anteroom, so I 
can put together a few thoughts on this. 
( COURT ADJOURNS ) 
( COURT RECONVENES ) 
THE COURT: Mr. Emery has pled guilty to the following 
charge: that he did on or about the 22nd day of March, 2004 
at Saskatoon, 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. From the presentations made by counsel, 
the essence of this offence is that Mr. Emery was in 
Saskatoon giving a lecture at the University of Saskatchewan 
and on the proponents or as an activist propo ~ as, and as a 
proponent to the what I infer as the decriminalization of 
marihuana within ~ in Canada. His defence counsel -- from 
there he met with a group of the students in a public 
setting on the riverbank at the Vimy Memorial in the City of 
Saskatoon. That is clearly a public open gathering spot in 
this city, and the Court takes notice of the same. I'm 
presuming if one wants to make a political statement, that 
is a public setting from which to make it. One must also -- 
clearly, there is the zealousness on his part, as an 
individual, in trying to get the laws in relation to 
criminalization of possession of marihuana changed. His 
zealousness and some of the acts certainly attract attention 
and may be somewhat instrumental eventually in getting the 
public opinion swayed to the point where parliament 
decriminalizes the possession of marihuana. But it is not 
the function or the duty of this Court to get involved in 
any political discussions in relation to the pros and cons 
of marihuana. The function of this Court is to administer 
and enforce the laws imposed by parliament, and there are 
not a lot of judges in the country. The function of judges 
is to remain objective, impartial and apolitical
JCT: Ouch, I hurt myself falling on the floor laughing. 
so that its sole function becomes that of administering the 
laws and the justice of this country. In that respect, it is 
that that this Court is focusing on today in relation to 
sentencing. Along with the freedoms in this society, in our 
democratic society, one of them is the freedom of expression 
which is protected by our Charter of Rights, and Mr. Emery 
had the benefit of that freedom in being able to make public 
comment at a higher learning institution in this country. 
That freedom and benefit comes only with the basic 
principles of a democratic society, and no democratic 
society can have any freedoms unless the underlying value is 
the respect of the laws by every citizen. Without that there 
are no freedoms whatsoever. The Court understands the 
zealousness of Mr. Emery. However, I think a fundamental 
principle in sentencing here, and I take it from the 
decision of R v. McGinn which the defence presented to the 
Court. And as stated by Cameron J.A. in that decision: "the 
sentence originally imposed by the trial judge in this case 
failed to take into account two of the important principles 
of sentencing, namely, deterrence and the need to maintain 
the integrity of the administration of justice. Deterrence 
involves both general and specific deterrence. The integrity 
of the administration of justice entails among others, the 
notions of upholding the public's in the effective 
enforcement of the criminal law of imposing proportionate 
sentences and achieving equity in the sense of avoiding
disparity."
The Crown was relying heavily on the decision of R v. 
Holowenko, a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal 
dated January 15th, 2004. The general principles, in fact, 
are general principles which the Court must take into 
account in all sentencing. As defence has pointed out, this 
was only bone joint to one individual for no profit, but the 
Court must add the following; it was in a public setting 
with an absolute unacceptable flaunting of the laws of this 
country, deliberately done, and in that respect Mr. Emery 
has overstepped the bounds of the fundamental basis of our 
democratic society. In that respect, this Court finds a 
conditional sentence would not be appropriate because it 
clearly offends some of the fundamental principles of 
sentencing set forth in Section 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the 
Criminal Code. I must also take into account Section 10(b) 
of the -- (2)(b) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 
which specifically states that an aggravating factor to be 
considered was that he: 10(2)(b) was previously convicted of 
a designated substance offence. The criminal record is here 
and again, there are a number of convictions in relation to 
trafficking where he received only fines. And those 
sentences remain on the record. However, there comes a time 
when Mr. Emery has to understand respect for the laws 
becomes more important than his zealousness in relation to a 
specific product, and this Court will not enter that debate 
other than this Court will point out to him that the respect 
of the law ~ he overstepped that bound, and that this Court 
will not tolerate under any circumstances, for to do so 
would be to ~ well, not carrying out the function of what 
courts are for. However, at the end of the day, the level of 
what occurred clearly the Court has to take that into 
account, the facts. One cannot say this is in the upper end 
of trafficking. The Court must clearly take that into 
account. But this Court would be remiss if it did not also 
set forth the message to this accused and every other member 
of the society in this country; the laws will be obeyed and 
will be enforced until such time as parliament changes them, 
JCT: Don't tell me he knows how Canada's legal system works. 
Parliament writes and changes laws, Courts enforce or strike 
down bad ones. POLCOA.  
and this Court feels very strongly about that.
Would you please stand, Mr. Emery. It is not easy for a 
Court and individual judges in sentencing individuals such 
as you. You have the freedom to continue to speak out 
against the law, and this Court would protect that freedom 
as strongly as it's protecting the other concept of 
deliberate flaunting of the law, but you have chosen only 
one aspect of those two responsibilities that you and 
everyone else carries. You can't do that. Both are of equal 
importance and you must think of both as you're making your 
political statement, for without both being upheld at the 
same time there is no political statement to be made. We 
would only then have ~ there would be no freedoms to protect 
you to even make the statement at that stage. Accordingly, I 
think - deem an appropriate disposition and sentence in this 
case, I am going to sentence you to three months 
incarceration in a Provincial Correctional Centre.
In addition, pursuant to Section 109 of the Criminal Code - 
it's mandatory, I hereby make an order prohibiting you from 
possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, 
prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited 
ammunition for life. You are further prohibited from 
possessing any other type of firearm, any crossbow, 
restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a 
period that ends -- okay -- that begins on the day on which 
this order is made and ends not earlier than 10 years after 
your release from imprisonment for the offence for which you 
were sentenced today. I exercise my discretion, I do not 
think anything -- I'm not going to impose any probation or 
any further restrictions. That is not what he was charged 
with. The evidence put forth by the Crown in relation to 
those types of activities that they were seeking to prohibit 
was not sufficient to ~ for me to exercise a discretion to 
deal in any way with any further probation or attempted 
prohibitions.
MS. JOHNSON: I wonder Your Honour, I'm just thinking, I 
can't find the Section right now; however, I understand 
that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that if 
the sentence is 90 days or less, there is an option of - 
THE COURT: Intermittent sentencing.
MS. JOHNSON: Exactly. It would certainly, you know - he does 
have several businesses on the go and if he could do it in 
BC, that would ~ where his family --
THE COURT: I don't think that's a possibility, is it?
MR. IMPEY: Your Honour, I can't tell you that if corrections 
~ I note you would have to sentence him to, I believe it's a 
Provincial Correctional Centre if it's less than two years 
less a day, Your Honour. 
THE COURT: Hmm-mm. 
MR. IMPEY: And the warrant of committal would reflect that.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not about to do it unless I know if 
it's feasibly - it's feasible.
MR. IMPEY: It also reopens the issue, Your Honour, of 
probation as well because then it becomes -- probation 
during the time frame ~ 
THE COURT: During the time frame of completing the-- 
MR. IMPEY: ~ of the conditional sentence - 
THE COURT: Right. 
MR. IMPEY: -- or pardon me, intermittent sentence -- 
THE COURT: Hmm-mm.
MR. IMPEY: ~ pardon me, would come into play. 
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honour
THE COURT: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- in the past, that's gone through 
the Attorney General when the ~ same as a probation order 
transferring jurisdiction.
THE COURT:Yes, that's right, it would have to be, but, but 
the mechanics of it have not been explained to me as to 
whether it's possible, and so I'm not about to do it without 
any further information.
MS. JOHNSON: That's understood.
THE COURT: So -- do you want to have a minute? I can break 
for a minute while you speak to your client.
MS. JOHNSON: Sure. That would be great. 
THE COURT: If you want to get some instructions.
( COURT ADJOURNS) 
( COURT RECONVENES ) 
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honour, I just ~ I did want to make sure 
the -- are you, are you taking into account the four days 
that he spent on remand. Is that to be taken off -- 
THE COURT: No. That-- 
MS. JOHNSON: --or is that-- 
THE COURT: ~ no, no, that's - 
MS. JOHNSON: ~ in addition to his --
THE COURT: - I didn't -- that's in addition to.
MS. JOHNSON: Okay. 
THE COURT: I've sentenced him to three months -- 
MS. JOHNSON: Okay. 
THE COURT: - correctional centre. 
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Surcharge, Your Honour. 
THE COURT: I waive the surcharge. 
MR. IMPEY: For your information, Your Honour, I wasn't able 
to find anything in the Criminal Code which would allow for 
transfers of ~ on request, in essence, of a 90-day sentence. 
THE COURT: Yes. Okay. 
MR. IMPEY: I believe that concludes - 
THE COURT: Thank you. 
MR. IMPEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT:Thank you, counsel. 
MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, Your Honour. 
-------------------------------
SASKATCHEWAN JUSTICE
Transcript Services
1815 Smith Street
Regina, SK S4P 3V7
 
JCT: So is there anybody there who believes Marc Emery's 
claim that he went into that court-room ready to put up a 
fight (without discussingj a defence with his lawyer) and 
simply decided to stay quiet when she accidentally pleaded 
him guilty so his defence would not be tested? 
I don't. And getting caught lying should be a strategic flaw 
in any would-be politician's character. Unless you're 
running for the President of the U.S. What does his election 
say about Americans who let him get away with the lying 
slaughter going on in Iraq? Scary. Now Bush can take the 
kidd gloves off and massacre people almost anywhere in the 
same way without having to worry about re-election. Gut 
environmental treaties, unleash economic trade wars, 
irreparable harm to the ecosystem. What can you say about a 
nation that re-elects exposed liars? Danger! Danger!
--
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