TURMEL: Krieger v. Clay/Caine/Malmo-Levine at SCC
From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 03/03/05
- Next message: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Population problem? Solved!"
- Previous message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Armstrong's Krieger quash delayed to March 22"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Mar 2005 12:46:41 GMT
JCT: Seems most of the cases being used against us are from
the Alan Young cabal. His Wakeford case was used by the
Crown, his Hitzig case was used by the Crown to argue the
resurrection of the law; his Clay/Caine/Malmo-Levine case is
being used by the Crown and others to argue that the Supreme
Court has validated the possession offence despite
contradictorily repealing it in the Krieger case.
The Krieger Court repealed cultivation Section 7 and
possession Section 4 (by implication) on Dec 04 2002. The
repeal was not overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.
And yet, on the same day that the court validated the
Krieger repeal of cultivation and possession, we are told
the Court contradictorily validated the possession offence
in the recreational use cases. This is the standard
government spin but both cannot be true or the Supreme Court
would have contradicted itself. The words in the Krieger
decisions are clear while the words in the CCML cases are
not. So the interpretations of the CCML have to be wrong.
Let's see how they warp what really happened:
>elagabalus
>Date: Babbler # 8199 posted 14 February 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=001427&p=
Why should you still be living with the danger of arrest
when you are not breaking any law, Rev? That's what is so
scandalous about the Parker/Krieger/Hitzig affair.
Parker struck down laws against possession in 2001. It took
the media two years to even acknowledge this!! Krieger took
out cultivation in 2002. They spun that into a small ball
and buried it. (Thanks Calgary Sun)
But Hitzig, a judgement on a side issue in 2003, was
trumpeted from sea to shining sea as a restoration of the
dead laws.
No court has dealt with the Parker/Krieger challenges in a
substantive way since that time. They've retreated behind
technicalities, dropped charges or delayed hearings.
But more and more people are starting to catch on. Courts
cannot resurrect dead laws - only parliament can.
No one should have to live in fear of being charged under
non existent laws for taking something that makes them feel
better. I hope you can grow your own alongside the tomatoes
this year, Rev.
--- >andrewtgsadler Babbler # 3604 >Date: posted 15 February 2005 Many Canadians might remember the fall of possession laws with the media outburst that came in May of 2003, with court rulings that acknowledged that the possession laws were of no force and effect since August 1, 2001. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected (6-3) constitutional challenges to marijuana laws in three cases (R v. Malmo- Levine, R v. Caine and R v. Clay) released the same day that it refused leave to appeal in R v. Krieger. JCT: This makes it sound like they were connected. They were not. --- >From: Rev. M Babbler # 8182 >Date: 15 February 2005 >Why should you still be living with the danger of arrest when you are not breaking any law, Rev? Last I heard it was illegal to grow Marijuana. --- >From: elagabalus >Date: Babbler # 8199 posted 15 February 2005 That's what everyone thinks, Rev. And that's what THEY want everyone to think. Check out Virgil's links above to see what's really going on. --- >From: andrewtgsadler >Date: Babbler # 3604 posted 15 February 2005 A: No, check out the Supreme Court of Canada rulings in R v. Malmo-Levine, R v. Caine and R v. Clay if you want to know what's really going on. Check out Virgil's links if you want to see a selective history that ignores the leading Supreme Court cases on the issue. JCT: Wow. Wrong and haughty about it too. He certainly hasn't interpreted the ones he read properly. --- >From: chester the prairie shark >Date: Babbler # 6993 posted 16 February 2005 so, please, which is it? have posession and cultivation laws been struck down and we can smoke and grow as we see fit or am i going to be arrested if i spark a spliff on the street? --- >From: andrewtgsadler >Date: Babbler # 3604 posted 16 February 2005 A: The Supreme Court of Canada has links to their decisions. In the cases, the Supreme Court rejected several constitutional challenges to marijuana laws. In upholding the laws, they found ample power under the federal criminal law power. JCT: They did not uphold the laws. They upheld the power to create the laws. Yes the Court found ample federal power to ignore the right to recreation in protecting Canadians from a possible threat. But is that the same as upholding the law? They did say recreational need could not stop the Feds' power to prohibit. No one argues with that. But they did not say the prohibition is on. They only said it may be on if the only objection is recreational. Of course, Parker and Krieger proved that medical use does overrule their concern. A: The court also rejected various Charter challenges under ss. 7, 12 and 15. In reviewing the effects of marijuana use, they found that it seems clear the effects were much less serious and permanent than was once claimed. The majority found that criminalization of marijuana possession does not violate principles of fundamental justice under s.7. The principle that criminal law cannot be used where there is no reasonable risk of harm is not a principle of fundamental justice. JCT: But in it all is the presumption that the law is alive and a recreational challenge can't win. Nowhere is the presumption dealt with that the law is not alive. That's coming up. A: It was also found that the prohibition does not violate fundamental principles against laws not being arbitrary or irrational and that the effects of enforcement not be grossly disproportionate. JCT: Against recreational need, not medical need. Obviously. Right? The courts have found that prohibition does violate the fundamental principle against laws that cause death of epileptics. A: Possession of marijuana is still illegal in Canada. JCT: That's an unwarranted conclusion. Nowhere in the judgment does the court say marijuana is illegal. Except in Krieger where they do say it is no longer illegal. The court only says Parliament has the power to make it illegal, not that it is. In the CCML decisions, they only say that Parliament may prohibit on occasions of recreational need but there's no comment on prohibition on occasions of medical need. Actually, there was in Krieger. The only way for Andrew to come to this conclusion is for him to not have read the Supreme Court Krieger ruling: Krieger Note: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html Keep in mind that for him to conclude that the Supreme Court says possession is alive, he cannot look closely at the Krieger statement that the Supreme Court says possession is dead. Right? Since he cannot look at the Krieger wording and show it wrong, he can only try to get us to accept that there's no need to prove Krieger is wrong when his interpretation of Malmo-Levine proves the opposite. If the opposite is accepted as true, then Krieger can be presumed to be wrong without further need to explain why. A: Medical use / medical exemptions remain a separate issue. JCT: That's my point. The laws were repealed on medical issues and the fact the Supreme Court threw out attempts at repeal on recreational issues has no bearing on whether the medical shots hit the target that the recreational ones missed. --- >From: Rev. M >Date: Babbler # 8182 posted 17 February 2005 "Medical use / medical exemptions remain a separate issue." And here is the crux of the matter. Although it is my right as a cancer patient to use Marijuana legally, I have not been able to obtain a signature for an exemption. Myself, along with over one million other Canadians who are suffering from both life threatening and chronic diseases, are not able to obtain signatures. There are a mere 800 maximum people in Canada with an exemption. The government program is useless. I have a number of other co-morbidities that accompany my cancer diagnosis of stage three renal cell carcinoma. I had surgery two years ago, but I have a high risk of the cancer returning, since it was late stage and locally advanced. Among the other diseases I have, is Dystonia; a neurolgical problem that is known to respond to Cannabis. I have a brain aneurism. I have IBS and PTSD. I have fibromyelgia and arthritis. I have Hypothyroidism. I am currently having stomach problems and waiting for testing, since the current pharmacuticals I am on are not working. Only Marijuana stops me from vomiting. I have lost almost thirty pounds this last year, but it would have been much worse, had I not had Marijuana to give me an appetite. The plant has saved my life. Yet, it remains illegal for me to self medicate. I have had to choose between engaging in criminal activity or dying. No one should be forced into this situation. JCT: And actually, Parker's Judge Sheppard said anyone who needs it for medicine has an automatic exemption; Parker's Court of Appeal went one further and repealed the possession offence. Krieger went one further repealing the cultivation offence and standing up at the Supreme Court of Canada. And this evidently qualified medical user guy thinks he's breaking the law? --- >elagabalus Babbler # 8199 >Date: 27 February 2005 >The Supreme Court of Canada rejected (6-3)constitutional challenges to marijuana laws in three cases (R v. Malmo- Levine, R v. Caine and R v. Clay) released the same day that it refused leave to appeal in R v. Krieger. E: Thanks for your comments on the Supreme Court decisions, Andrew. The Malmo-Levine, Caine and Clay cases were widely reported and interpreted as confirmation of the Hitzig ruling that supposedly resurrected the law struck down by the Parker decision. However, the most important case (for the Rev and others in his boat) was the Krieger appeal, which the Supremes chose NOT to hear. The appeal was made by the Crown, and the Supreme's refusal to hear it means the laws against cultivation have been struck down, and can only be restored by parliament. JCT: And possession, mentioned by the Supreme Court twice in their note, is, by implication, also struck down. E: Keep your eye on the case of Pierre Gravel that is unfolding in Quebec if you want to see where this is going. He's leading with the Krieger card. http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot-discuss/message/9087 Showtime might come as early as next Tuesday, but I've watched the courts divert, subvert, invert and pervert all Krieger challenges for the last six months, so who knows what they've got up their sleeve this time. The only thing they haven't tried yet is facing the challenges head on. --- >andrewtgsadler Babbler # 3604 >Date: 28 February 2005 >However, the most important case (for the Rev and others in his boat) was the Krieger appeal, which the Supremes chose NOT to hear. The appeal was made by the Crown, and the Supreme's refusal to hear it means the laws against cultivation have been struck down, and can only be restored by parliament. A: No, JCT: Yes. A: the refusal to hear it on the same day as the other decisions upholding the laws JCT: The Corut did not uphold the law. They upheld Parliament's power to create such law. They did not uphold the law that they accepted had been struck down in Krieger. The very fact both judgments were issued together is the best evidence the Court knew what was going on. The law was being struck down for medical reasons but the power to create the law was being upheld against recreational ones. Of course, this is easily confused. A: means that the Court didn't feel it necessary to address, again, the issues it had just ruled on -- that being, the constitutionality of the laws. JCT: No, it means that the Court didn't feel it necessary to address, again, the issues the Alberta Court of Appeal had just ruled on -- that being, the constitutionality of the laws. That the court said Parliament has power to prohibit has not meant the court did not strike it down. A: Later precedents by the SCC are more binding than earlier precedents by appellate courts. JCT: But Krieger is the latest winning card for our side. A: Even though the Krieger appeal wasn't heard, the decisions upholding the constitutionality of the laws remain binding. JCT: Krieger was a decision striking down the law, not upholding the law, that remains binding. He's got it backward. See, he hasn't even read it. His only way to argue it is to not read it. The contradiction cannot be explained so it must be ignored. So I hope this clears up how the losing CCML case does not validate prohibition even if that is the government's and it's agents' spin. Parker and Krieger struck down the laws. Clay/Caine/Malmo- Levine did not strike them up. Just like the Hitzig bowzer losing at the top doesn't validate the resurrection. The only way to put the doubters on the spot is to challenge them to interpret what the Krieger decisions mean. Ask him to go read them and tell us what they mean. Bet he never shows his face again. KRIEGER JUDGE ACTON IN ALBERTA http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL SUPPORTS ACTON http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf SUPREME COURT DISMISSES KRIEGER CROWN LEAVE APPLICATION Order: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.jpg Krieger Note: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html Then ask him where in the CCML decisions the court says "the prohibition is valid" rather than "the power to prohibit is valid." Isn't it incredible how almost every major case not done by Turmel has ended up helping the government? Young's Wakeford hurt us. Burstein's Hitzig hurt us. Clay/Caine/Malmo-Levine hurt us. I can't think of one non-Turmel court case that has helped our side. Anyway, the fact the Malmo-Levine bowzer lost on recreational use all the way to the top while the Parker and Krieger cases won on medical use all the way to the top is the key. Who cares if off-target cases get shot down? Except when it gets interpreted as a loss for our hand too. -- 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: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Population problem? Solved!"
- Previous message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Armstrong's Krieger quash delayed to March 22"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
