TURMEL: How Crown, Media, Krieger hid S.7 repeal!

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 12/11/04 

Date: 11 Dec 2004 16:21:11 GMT

JCT: I only found the articles reporting on Krieger's great
victory striking down the marijuana prohibitions a few days
ago. Once again, let's remember the Crown's explanation of
the issue from http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegcm.txt

PART II ISSUES
34. Leave is sought on the following grounds:
(b) that the Court of Appeal for Alberta erred in law in
holding that, by reason of s.7 of the Charter, to sustain
the validity of the general prohibition on the production
(and by implication, possession) of marihuana, the
government of Canada is obliged to ensure a legal, safe and
reliable source and supply of this drug for anyone with a
medical need for it.
S. David Frankel Q.C. Counsel for the Respondent May 16 2003

JCT: Of course, nowhere did Judge Acton ever say "the
government of Canada is obliged to ensure a legal, safe and
reliable source and supply of this drug for anyone with a
medical need for it." Even the Court of Appeal pointed out
it's not what Judge Acton had done but that's the canard S.
David Frankel repeated at the top once again. So here are
the first seven of eleven paragraphs dealing with the voir
dire that struck down S.7. The other count isn't important.

Appeal from the Judicial Stay of Proceedings by
THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE L.D. ACTON
Dated the 11th day of December, 2000

Costigan, J.A. (for the Court):

[1] The Respondent was charged with possession of marihuana
for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 and
unlawful production of marihuana contrary to s. 7(1) of the
Act.

[2] The Crown appeals a voir dire ruling which struck down
s. 7(1) and also appeals the Respondent's acquittal by a
jury of the s. 5(2) charge.

[3] As to the voir dire ruling, the Crown says that the
trial judge applied the wrong test in finding that the
Respondent was deprived of his s. 7 Charter right to
security of his person in the face of evidence that there
were other untried and effective legal alternative
treatments. We are not satisfied that the trial judge
applied the wrong test, nor are we satisfied that the
evidence established other effective alternatives. At best,
the evidence on the effectiveness of the alternatives was
equivocal. In those circumstances, the trial judge was
entitled to find that the Respondent's right to security of
his person was infringed by denial of a treatment which the
evidence established was effective.

[4] The Crown also says that the trial judge erred in
failing to find that the deprivation accorded with the
principles of fundamental justice. The Crown says a s. 56
exemption, for which the Respondent did not apply, would
have accorded with the principles of fundamental justice
because the Respondent had an available supply from his own
grow operation.

[5] We agree with the trial judge that s. 56 creates an
absurdity because there was no legal source of marihuana.
That absurdity is not removed by the fact that the
Respondent had a personal supply at the time the charge was
laid. There was no evidence as to how long the supply would
last nor as to the duration of the potential s. 56
exemption.

[6] Nor are we satisfied that the trial judge imposed a
positive obligation on the Crown to ensure a supply. The
trial judge struck s. 7(1). Her order imposed no obligation.

[7] Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as it relates to the
voir dire ruling.
MEMORANDUM FILED at Calgary, Alberta this 18th day of
March, 2003 Costigan, J.A.

JCT: So that's it. CDSA S.7 is mentioned three times in
under 40 lines of text representing the whole Court of
Appeal decision supporting Judge Acton striking down the S.7
prohibition on the production (and by implication,
S.4 possession) of marihuana. Pretty clear right? So let's
read again how the reporters managed to miss the gist of
those 7 paragraphs by focusing on the the lawying of the
Crown and Defence.

POT RIGHTS UPHELD BY APPEAL COURT
Calgary Herald
by Daryl Slade
http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/
December 5, 2002 Thursday Final Edition

Pot crusader Grant Krieger has won a partial, but
significant victory in a federal Crown appeal of his right
to grow and use cannabis marijuana for medical purposes.

On Wednesday, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld Queen's
Bench Justice Darlene Acton's ruling two years ago, in which
she said it was unconstitutional for the federal government
to prevent Krieger from being able to obtain the drug to
alleviate pain caused by his multiple sclerosis.

"We agree with the trial judge that there is no legal forum
of marijuana for the accused," Justice Peter Costigan said
in speaking for fellow justices Neil Wittmann and Sal
LoVecchio. "There is no evidence how it could be supplied,
even if he had a Section 56 (federal government) exemption."

Krieger's lawyer, Adriano Iovinelli, said outside court it
was an important decision that permits his client to
continue to cultivate and use marijuana for his own use to
alleviate chronic pain caused by multiple sclerosis.

"They upheld (Acton's) ruling from the voir dire, which
found Grant Krieger's Section 7 charter rights were
violated, specifically in the areas of liberty and health,"
Iovinelli said. "There was a breach, and it wasn't a
reasonable breach. The result was Grant Krieger was given a
charter exemption to cultivate and possess marijuana for his
personal use," said Iovinelli.

Acton had issued a stay of her ruling for one year, to
permit the federal government an opportunity to provide a
source for people who require marijuana for health reasons.

Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Willis O'Leary last year
extended that stay indefinitely, until there is an
application to the courts to remove it.

But the appellate court's three-justice panel also ruled the
trial judge had wrongly instructed the jury in the defence
of necessity for having the drug, and quashed Krieger's
acquittal on possessing marijuana for the purpose of
trafficking. Krieger, 48, who has admittedly supplied others
whom he believes require the drug for health reasons, will
have to go back to arraignments on Feb. 12 to have a trial
date set on that charge.

"As far as I'm concerned, there are no pot laws in this
province," Krieger boldly declared outside court.

"I'm ready to go in front of another jury for trafficking.
The defence of necessity stands." Crown lawyers Scott Couper
and Janet Henchey declined to discuss the Court of Appeal
ruling and said their next move is to go back to the federal
government for instructions.

Iovinelli said, as it stands, it is status quo on Krieger's
charter exemption.

But he suggested that would not apply to the general public
as Ottawa would move quickly to do something if the stay was
removed and it was generally believed the possession law was
struck down.

"The reason for Acton's ruling was for there to be changes
by the federal government," said Iovinelli. "There may or
may not have been changes, but I'm leaning more towards yes,
there have been. "The stay continues and it's a benefit to
my client that nothing happens, because he has a charter
exemption to cultivate and possess marijuana."

COURT UPHOLDS DRUG ACQUITTAL
Calgary Sun, The (CN AB)
http://www.fyicalgary.com/calsun.shtml
by Kevin Martin, Calgary Sun

Pot crusader Grant Krieger's licence to grow won't be
chopped down by Alberta's top court.

A three-member Alberta Court of Appeal panel yesterday
upheld Kreiger's acquittal on a charge of cultivating a
narcotic.

The appeal judges agreed with a lower-court ruling that the
federal government's exemption to pot possession was "an
absurdity because there was no legal source of marijuana."
But the high court overturned Kreiger's acquittal on a
charge of possession of the drug for the purpose of
trafficking. Justice Peter Costigan, in handing down the
unanimous decision, said the trial judge erred in her
explanation of the defence of necessity to the jurors, who
found Kreiger not guilty. Costigan said Queen's Bench
Justice Darlene Acton was right when she ruled Kreiger
didn't have to apply for an exemption to simply possess
marijuana for his own use.

Crown prosecutor Scott Couper argued that Acton erred when
she ruled that the cultivation law deprived Kreiger -- who
suffers from multiple sclerosis - -- the right to his
medicine of choice. "The evidence clearly disclosed a number
of alternatives," he said.

JCT: And of course, if it didn't make the news, then
Canada's no-homework judiciary didn't find out! A judiciary
that relies on TV news to keep up to date on their bailiwick
can hardly be expected to know the current state of affairs
with respect to their powers. If they didn't see it on TV,
it didn't happen.

Imagine though, the Attorney General for Canada has known
about the repeal of these statutes since Crown David Frankel
told the Supreme Court of Canada so and conspired to hide
that fact from Canadians with a compliant media and narc
mole defence lawyer successfully for two years worth of
extra busts.

I think it's fair to say that Sumbitch David Frankel and his
kin Harvey and Lara Speirs can claim responsibility for
those two extra years of injustice to 100,000 Canadians.

But what can we say about Calgary Herald's Daryl Slade and
Calgary Sun's Kevin Martin. Were they innocent dupes who
just failed to notice the triple mention of S.7 repeal or
were they part of the CanWest + media cover-up?

And what can we say about Chief Justice McLaughlin who knows
she struck down the Crown's appeal against the repeal of
those prohibitions and has said nothing as the Attorey
General flouts Canada's highest court's decision (quietly)
with the continued busting of another 50,000 Canadians since
she ruled.

Canada's Chief Justice has known the prohibitions have been
repealed for the past year and has done nothing to see her
Order obeyed. She's as responsible as the shysters and the
media for covering it up. She could have exposed and
corrected the contempt shown her with one speech. And did
nothing.

Sometimes doing nothing can make you guilty. 

--
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

Relevant Pages