The below is from a person named John C. Turmel. A person I fully trust.
A little background first;
The below is the legal due diligence which explains how a court case
called "Krieger" will cause another scandal in Canada (wooooh
hoooo). I have followed this gentleman for years and fully
support his documentation.
Quote From John C. Turmel (JCT)
JCT: As I was going over the 4-page Krieger hand-out, more
and more dirt
kept surfacing. Sure, we've all heard it all
before but not in one
concentrated lump.
Justice Acton found that the prohibition on
cultivation
violated Krieger's Charter right and suspended her decision
for 1 year which was extended pending the further Order of
the Court of
Appeal.
The first page of the hand-out is the further Order
of the
Court of Appeal:
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum on S.7
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf
R.
v. Krieger, 2003 ABCA 85
Date: 20030318 Dockets: 01-00011-A 01-00288-A
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA
THE COURT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.
JUSTICE WITTMANN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE COSTIGAN
THE HONOURABLE MR.
JUSTICE LoVECCHIO
Docket: 01-00011-A
BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN Appellant
- and - GRANT WAYNE KRIEGER Respondent (Accused)
Appeal from the Judicial Stay of Proceedings by
THE HONOURABLE MADAM
JUSTICE L.D. ACTON
Dated the 11th day of December, 2000
MEMORANDUM
OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH
COUNSEL:
S.A. Couper J. Henchey
For the Appellant
A. Iovinelli For the Respondent
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.
JCT: First
mention that the S.7(1) prohibition on
cultivation in involved.
[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.
JCT: The next mention is Acton's ruling which struck down s.
7(1).
[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.
JCT: No evidence of other effective alternatives! Big point.
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.
JCT:
Even though the Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker
ruled that a s.56
exemption did not accord with the
principles of fundamental justice, they
just repeat their
loser card and hope the court lets it win.
[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.
JCT: This is the important point. Though the court points
out they
didn't have to offer Krieger a supply, they only
had to get the prohibition
out of his way, they keep harping
as if providing the legal supply was the
only alternative
they were offered. Keep in mind that on TV, Government
lawyers don't lie and use cheap tricks. This is real life
and we're
getting a real dose of it here. Third mention that
Section 7(1) is the
prohibition being struck down.
[7] Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as it
relates to the
voir dire ruling.
JCT: As of that moment, the Crown
knew the statute had been
repealed and should have stopped all further
prosecutions
pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada. Of course, they were hoping the new
prohibition would
be introduced in Parliament making
fighting the repeal of the old
legislation moot.
I found out about the Krieger decision from Brian
McAllister's post at Cannabis Culture:
>Silver Lining
>Brian_McAllister journeyman
>Silver Lining
>Date: Tue Dec
23 2003 07:20 AM
BM: While still waiting to read (ie. find) an online
version
of the SCC case, I wanted to point to a hidden silver lining
in
this dark cloud.
Perhaps in an attempt to slip it under the radar
screen,
with all the attention focused on DML, Caine & Clay, the
Supremes also released its decision on the Crown application
to appeal
the Kreiger decision from Alberta. That was the
case, much like Parker in
Ontario for simple possession,
that found the production offence to be
invalid for want of
a proper medical exemption.
The Supreme Court
denied the Crown leave to appeal to that
decision. The decision
stands.
Production legal?
Hey Marc, how about a cross-country
grow-out tour...
JCT: So Brian is the only lawyer in Canada who got it
right.
Unfortunately, all he did with it was let me know so I could
use
it while he didn't. Imagine if he used Krieger for his
clients rather than
let his cultivators be convicted like a
good defence lawyer should.
>rastaruss addict
>Re: Silver Lining [Re: Brian_McAllister]
>Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 07:26 AM
I noticed that too. Krieger's case was
upheld by the Alberta
Supreme Court, stating that in the absence of a
supply, that
a personal grow was legal... is that correct?
JCT: At
the time. Once it was killed, it didn't matter if
they then came up with
supply as they claim Health Canada
did on July 10 2003 in time to satisfy
the Lederman
decision. Fixing things too late after the law has been
repealed doesn't work.
R: Krieger also had/has no MMAR exemption,
and apparently,
doesn't need one now. It would be nice if they would
actually release the details!!!
JCT: There are no other details
other than in the Crown
David Frankel's Memorandum to the
court.
>Brian_McAllister journeyman
>Re: Silver Lining [Re:
rastaruss]
>Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 07:30 AM
BM: Supreme Court leave
decisions are released without
reasons. It's either leave application
granted or leave
application dismissed. You never know why, so you have to
look to the decision for which leave was sought to appeal -
in this
case, from the Alberta CA.
JCT: How true. So why not use it? It's pretty
clear.
>Xuallus old hand
>Re: Silver Lining [Re:
Brian_McAllister]
>Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 07:39 AM
Quote: The Supreme
Court denied the Crown leave to appeal to
that decision. The decision
stands. Production legal?
X: So we can grow, but not posses? Maybe I
just need to go
to sleep for awhile and this will start to make sense...
JCT: No, in the Supreme Court note at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm
they mention
twice that possession fall with cultivation by implication.
>rastaruss addict
>Re: Silver Lining [Re: Xuallus]
>Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 07:53 AM
R: To answer my own question, here are
a few details I
posted a while back:
Quote: I just went back to
Mapinc.org to look up an old
decision (well, it's old now). Grant Krieger
had the
cultivation laws thrown out December 11, 2000, the decision
stayed for one year. Does anyone know what has happened
since?
Appeals?
Here is a clip from the article :
A law that prohibits
the cultivation of marijuana is
unconstitutional because it doesn't allow
for medical use of
the drug, an Alberta judge ruled yesterday.
Justice
Darlene Acton threw out a charge of cultivating
marijuana against Grant
Krieger, who grows and ingests pot
to alleviate the symptoms of his multiple
sclerosis.
JCT: Too bad they don't cite the source.
R: And this
additional article :
JUDGE STRIKES DOWN POT GROWING LAW
But MS
Sufferer Grant Krieger Not To Sell Medicinal
Marijuana
An Alberta judge
has struck down a portion of federal law
that prohibits the cultivation of
marijuana for medicinal
purposes, saying it's unconstitutional.
Justice
Darlene Acton struck down Section 7( 1 ) of the
Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act Monday, but stayed the
decision for a year.
JCT: Too
bad they don't cite the source.
R: This means to me that cultivation is
legal in Alberta --
maybe the thing to try in Edmonton or Calgary is
planting a
few seeds or actually parking a pickup truck full of potted
plants outside the cop shop.
JCT: Not Alberta. Canada.
R:
Not selling, officer, only cultivating....
JCT: Right. Except that
selling falls with possession too.
R: Here's more -- one year later,
appeals court decision
(Alberta):
CN AB: Court Upholds Drug
Acquittal
URL:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n2208/a03.html
Newshawk:
CMAP
Pubdate: Thu, 05 Dec 2002
Source: Calgary Sun, The (CN
AB)
Copyright: 2002 The Calgary Sun
COURT UPHOLDS DRUG ACQUITTAL
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.
---
R:
Goes to the possession issue -- he "didn't have to apply
for an exemption to
simply possess marijuana for his own
use. "
JCT: That's the media
spin people who haven't read the
actual decision get.
R: That is
significant for NON-EXEMPTED medical users (no
matter what the medical
need).
There you go. CULTIVATION LAWS have been STRUCK DOWN. The
Alberta Supreme Court ruling was delayed one year, and was
apparently
upheld by the SCC in its refusal to hear the
Crown appeal.
JCT:
Right, and by implication, possession laws too. And by
the spirit and letter
of the law, trafficking purposes too.
R: However, he was convicted, not
on simple possession, but
on possession with the intent to traffic. His
production
acquittal stands. The lines have been drawn (fuzzy lines,
but
lines).
JCT: They should have never let the purpose stand though he
admitted trafficking.
R: Given the absence of supply, this ruling
should stand,
however, since the MMAR is supplying Flim-Flam weed, maybe
there's no opening to grow our own???
JCT: The July 10 2003 fix came
too late for the Dec 4 2002
further Order of the Court. And now, we have to
look at the
Calgary Herald article, the second page in my hand-out.
App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegher.jpg
POT
RIGHTS UPHELD BY APPEAL COURT
Daryl Slade
Calgary Herald Dec 05
2002
JCT: Actually, the real story isn't "pot rights upheld" but
"pot
prohibition not."
DS: Calgary -- Pot crusader Grant Krieger won a
partial, but
significant victory Wednesday in a federal Crown appeal of
his right to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes.
JCT: "his
right to grow..."
DS: The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld a lower court
ruling
that said it was unconstitutional for the federal government
to
prevent Krieger from being able to obtain the illicit
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 appeal court justices Neil Wittmann
and Sal LoVecchio.
JCT: Notice the quotation marks? Now go to the
judgment
above and see if the judge was quoted right. He was not! He
really said:
"[5] We agree with the trial judge that s. 56 creates
an
absurdity because there was no legal source of marihuana."
DS:
"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.
JCT: "his client" "for his own
use." Same old thing. Just
another sick guy proving he's sick enough to beat
the
charge. Seems like nothing new.
DS: "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.
JCT: The
actual result was that the voir dire ruling struck
down s. 7(1). It said
nothing about a Charter Exemption to a
continuing live law. It said the law
was repealed.
DS: 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.
JCT: Not providing a
source and letting the prohibition
fall was the other alternative.
DS: 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.
JCT: This is completely untrue though it turned
into David
Frankel's eventual spin that there needs to be an
application
to remove the indefinite stay. The actual
O'Leary order says "until further
Order of the court," and
the "final" order of the court is certainly a
"further order
of the court.
DS: 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."
JCT: So Krieger
boldly managed to get the truth out. I
wonder how he felt when his lawyer
explained to him that
the right spin was that it was a personal victory for
him.
DS: 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.
JCT: This is the incredible part. It
"would not apply to the
general public" because of how Ottawa might react!
Sure the
law's dead but you're better not claim it or they'll change
it
to live again. Better to pretend the dead law is alive.
"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."
JCT: "The stay continues" despite the
further order of the
court coming from not only reporter but the defence
lawyer
too.
So, to the bottom of the Herald article in the hand-out,
I
added "Calgary Herald plays down the 3 times the Court of
Appeal
mentioned that the S.7 cultivation offence had been
struck down for all
Canadians as just another personal
medical-use victory for Krieger.
When I attacked Krieger early in 2004, I didn't know about
his
Herald statement of the truth, I only knew he wasn't
trying to collect the
pot on the grounds of bullshit
arguments from his lawyer. I thought they
were just too
stupid to be true. But now that I've seen the Herald lies by
Iovinelli, I find it easier to believe Krieger was conned by
his lawyer
like the Hitzig Eight were conned by Alan Young.
Page 3 of the flyer has
the Crown's admission they knew the
law had been struck down and did
nothing:
App.6: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.jpg
JCT:
I added: Crown Attorney S. David Frankel admits to the
Supreme Court of
Canada in Krieger that the Ministry of
Justice knew upon the further Order
of the highest court in
Alberta that the prohibition on cultivation in
"Section 7(1)
has been declared of no force and effect" and did not amend
the Criminal Code to stop prosecutions of innocent Canadians
under S.
7(1)."
Finally, the Supreme Court note on the Krieger decision:
App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm
JCT:
I added: If cultivation of marijuana is no longer
prohibited, by
implication, possession is no longer
prohibited. If possession is no longer
prohibited, no
purpose of the possession can be prohibited.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/medpot.htm
John
C. "The Engineer" Turmel
JCT: Luckily, the Supreme Court notes how the
Court of
Appeal held that s. 7 of the Charter guarantees the right of
the sick to grow (and by implication, possess) marijuana.
Twice!
What's interesting is in the procedural history where they
mention
Nov 28 2001 Court of Appeal of Alberta (O'Leary J): Period
of judicial
stay extended until further order of the Court
of Appeal.
Of course,
reporter Daryl Slade, Krieger lawyer Iovinelli,
and now David Frankel all
spinning that final Order of
the Court isn't a "further order of the court"
and so the
stay of Acton's decision (so they can keep busting people)
is
still active until another application is made. Of
course, nowhere does it
say this but it lets Frankel plead
"I didn't realize the final order was a
further order
because the defence and the media said so."
Then
further along in the note, "appeal with respect to
s.7(1) dismissed."
And now, Slade, Iovinelli and Frankel expect us to believe
that the
further order of 3 judges dismissing the
government's appeal doesn't remove
the stay and that we have
to go back to a single judge to do that. It would
be funny
it they hadn't gotten away with it.
Should be quite fun
handing them out to the press at Dominic
Gravel's hearings Thursday. It
should be pretty tough to
ignore and omit the name of the case he's relying
on next
time! Imagine, the name of the case everything is based on
hasn't yet been sniffed out by the Canada's newshounds.
And we
should soon be finding out the reasons why Ontario
Judge Serre said the
Supreme Court of Canada ruling doesn't
count in Elliot Lake.
End Quote From John C. Turmel.
I hope you came to the same legal fact of cannabis now fully legal.
Please visit his website for a more information as I can answere possibly the basics.
cheers:) majere
Hello, my name is Roger Murray Roeder from Kitchener Ontario Canada.
My musings range from politics which is my favourite, to critisizing the political pundits, to finding errors in law, to using empathy to get the feelings behind political statements.
I myself cannot run for any "office", as I am disabled. For us here in Canada, we have the right to "shoot the message", not the messenger.
As you can see, I have choosen this site (thanks blogigo), for its location other than North America. I loathe those governments which use heavy handness to persuade those Internet Service Providers to remove anything offensive to THEIR respective governments. Most people cave in quickly lest a law suite (USA) is around the corner. Being that both my wife and I are disabled........I have nothing to lose both physically and collatorally, but lets hear it for due-diligence and prudence to cut down those odds.
cheers:) majere
