Majeres' Musings

And YES, Cannabis is legal in Canada and is being fought in the Courts to force the government to admit it!

Of course the government is ambarrassed, the Judiciary is ambarrassed and the hole they keep digging is getting deeper and deeper every day with innocent people being prosecuted.

Why they can't just admit that the Courts decided it is a Charter Right and just get on with it.  No government is sitting, therefore very little flak.  Now is the time for them to admit it and blame it on the Judiciary for not informing the government properly.  The government then comes out smelling like an old Rose while the Judiciary comes out smelling like an old dried up prohibitionist prune.

cheers till I get better :) majere

Now, trying to get them to admit that they are keeping it a secret is rather strange indeed.  You see, Two (shown here, there are others) Court Rulings and One Federal Prosecutor has admitted it.  It is in the Public domain ...... but nobody looks, its in the Public domain but no-one of any authority will admit it. 

Does this then mean that if no-one of any authority admits to a truth, it does not exist for the few who care to know?

Now whats wrong with this  picture?
Judges refusing the evidence at every turn without reason, the mocking by Judges and Prosecutors alike of those who dare to bring forth these already Canadian Court  Legal Truths?
This is Canada, not some oppresive third world banana republic, isn't it?

ahhh, if only I controled the CBC, eh?

snipped>

Court File No. _________

             ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

          (Criminal Division - North-East Region)
Between:

                 _________________________
                                           Applicant/Accused
                            and

                   Her Majesty the Queen
                                        Respondent/Plaintiff

                     APPLICANT'S FACTUM

PART I - STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In the Crown Memorandum to the Supreme Court of Canada in
Krieger, Queen's Counsel S. David Frankel acknowledged knowing
that "[57 As matters now stand S.7(1) has been declared of
no force and effect by the highest court in Alberta" and
even though the Attorney General for Canada Martin Cauchon
knew that the highest court of Alberta had struck down the
marijuana  prohibitions, the Ministry did not instruct Law
Enforcement to cease charging Canadians under the invalid
statutes. Deliberately. Applicant therefore seeks:
1) an Order prohibiting prosecution of the count under
S.7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)
relating to marijuana as no longer known to law because
Parliament has not re-enacted the S.7(1) cultivation since
it was struck down by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v.
Krieger on Dec 04 2002;
2) an Order citing the Ministry of Justice for contempt of
this Court by continuing prosecution after Crown Attorney S.
David Frankel acknowledged that the S.7 cultivation and, by
implication S.4 possession, prohibitions had been struck
down by the highest court in Alberta on December 4 2002.
 
PART II - SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:

1. The December 23 2003 Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin of
Proceedings detailing the Krieger decision states:

"29569 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. GRANT WAYNE KRIEGER
(Crim) (Alta.)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Numbers 01-00011-A and
01-00288-0A, dated March 18 2003, is dismissed. 

NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law -
Cannabis marihuana - Cultivation and trafficking - Accused
cultivating cannabis marihuana for his own medical needs and
supplying others as well - Trial judge finding that
prohibition on production of cannabis marihuana infringing
accused's s. 7 Charter rights and not saved by s.1. Whether
The Court of Appeal erred in holding that s.7 of the Charter
guarantees the right to grow (and by implication, possess)
marihuana, to anyone with a medical need for the drug...

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 
December 11 2000 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
(Acton J.) 
Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
inasmuch as it relates to cannabis marihuana, declared
inconsistent with the Charter; declaration suspended for one
year; Respondent granted an exemption from the application
of s. 7(1); charge stayed"

November 28 2001 Court of Appeal of Alberta
(O'Leary J.A.)
Period of judicial stay extended until further order of the
Court of Appeal.

December 4 2002 Court of Appeal of Alberta
(Wittman, Costigan and Lo Vecchio JJ.A.)
Appeal with respect to s. 7(1) dismissed.

May 20 2003 Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed."
(App.1: Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin Dec 23 2003)
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html
 
2. The Supreme Court notes that on Dec 04 2002, the further
Order of the Alberta Court of Appeal sustained the repeal of
prohibition of marihuana in CDSA S.7(1) by Justice Acton by
dismissing the Crown's appeal.

3. In the March 18 2003 Bench Memorandum of the Dec 04 2002
Krieger decision, Justice Costigan very clearly stated for
the panel:

"[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.

[..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.
(App.2 Krieger Court of Appeal of Alberta Judgment)
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf
4. In the May 16 2003 endorsement of the Crown's Memorandum
to the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Krieger, Crown
Attorney S. David Frankel, Q.C., admitted:

"[57 As matters now stand S.7(1) has been declared of no
force and effect by the highest court in Alberta."
(App.3 Crown Memorandum Paragraph 57)
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.jpg

5. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the
Crown's application for leave to appeal the S.7(1)
prohibition on marijuana being declared of no force and
effect by the highest court in Alberta.

6. The Ministry of Justice knew that the marijuana
prohibitions in S.7 (and by implication S.4) of the CDSA had
been declared of no force and effect by the highest court in
Alberta on Dec 04 2002 and never dutifully amended the
Criminal Code to reflect the Krieger decision and stop
prosecutions of innocent Canadians under S. 7(1).

7. On Jun 23 2005, Applicant moved pursuant to S.601 of the
Criminal Code to quash the count under S.7(1) as unknown to
law. Judge Nadeau dismissed the motion.

PART III - ISSUES AND THE LAW

8. Though the Attorney General has not amended the Criminal
Code to reflect the invalidation of the prohibition of
marijuana production in Section 7(1) of the CDSA in Krieger,
it does not mean that the invalidation has not taken place.
The Supreme Court notes that the prohibition in Section 7(1)
was declared inconsistent with the Charter by Judge Acton.
When S.7(1) was declared inconsistent with the Charter, it
was in effect struck down, the words used by the Alberta
Court of Appeal. Since the prohibition on production under
S.7(1) of the CDSA being pronounced invalid, prosecution of
Applicant under an invalid statute should be prohibited.

9. The Ministry of Justice has shown contempt for the court
when Crown Attorney S. David Frankel acknowledged that the
S.7 Cultivation and S.4 Possession prohibitions had been
struck down by the highest court in Alberta but did not
amend the Criminal Code to so reflect that decision. To
deliberately ignore that the Supreme Court of Canada
supported the Alberta Court of Appeal's invalidation of the
CDSA Section 7(1) prohibition of marihuana cultivation not
only shows a contempt for the courts but has tricked the
courts into registering hundreds of thousands of convictions
under an invalid statute since Dec 4 2002, the greatest
miscarriage of justice in Canadian history, with this court
having no doubt also participated in the error. Deliberately
inducing the court into error is manifestedly contemptuous.
The courts should not stand for being tricked into
continuing to newly victimize approximately 160 new
Canadians every day. It's the name of the judge on those
invalid convictions, not the name of the Crown.

10. The Ministry of the Attorney General is culpable of
mischief, genocide since patients who needed access to
cannabis were denied such access on the basis of the
enforcement of invalid statutes and died, and contempt of
this court. The invalid prosecutions, persecutions, of
hundreds of thousands of Canadians is so egregious an abuse
of the process of the court that instant reaction by the
courts to such contempt is mandated. The Attorney General
for Canada has known about the sections having been repealed
since the highest court in Alberta struck them down on Dec
04 2002. The Ministry of the Attorney General is culpable of
mischief and genocide, after all, it did involve denying
patients who needed access to cannabis such access on the
basis of the enforcement of invalid statutes. 3000 extra
dead epileptics since they could have all had a joint to
protect them from seizures.

PART IV - ORDER REQUESTED

11. This request is made for:

1) an Order prohibiting prosecution of the count under
S.7(1) of the CDSA as an abuse of the court process for
being no longer known to law;

2) an Order citing the Ministry of Justice for contempt of
this court by continued prosecution under an invalid
statute. 



PART V - SCHEDULE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

App.1: 2003 Dec 23 Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin: Krieger
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Judgment on S.7
App.3: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel Memorandum Par 57


Dated at ____________ on __________ 2004









_____________________________
Applicant/Accused Signature

Name: ___________________________________

Address: _________________________________________________

Tel: _________________________  Fax: _____________________

Email: ______________________________

TO: Ministry of Justice
TO: The Registrar of the Court


JCT: The Crown's Factum is due 3 days before the Friday the 15th,
Tuesday the 12th. What's fun is that all these different Crowns
all write up their own reasons to explain why Krieger doesen't
count.

It seems like there's no central coordination, incredibly!

And keep in mind that
Aug. 1 2001 is the day the S.4 prohibition died on Parker Day and
Dec. 4 2002 is the day the S.7 prohibition died on Krieger Day.

Even though no one else knew, I and the Attorney General knew.
                                                                  

Now is a chance for Canadian Politicians to jump up and say to Yankee journalists, come to Canada where you are journalistic free from Government control.  Leave the Land of the Less Free and bring your skills northward.  Report on the Yankees from up here.  Live up here, pay your taxes up here.  A reverse of a linguistic brain drain as long as you don't write uneducated ghetto english ....... waaats dat homey? - Yall  dunno?

English High School Teachers make 60 plus grand a year up here as a considered sideline.

But don't expect to work for the CBC if you don't like the Liberals of Canada, and don't worry about getting 10 years in a Yankee jail  for a benign herbal garden.

yes I do not like the Yankee government and the constant erosion of individual rights
cheers :) majere

snipped>

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two journalists should be jailed for refusing to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name to the news media, a federal prosecutor said on Tuesday.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald urged Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan to reject requests from New York Times correspondent Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper for home detention instead of jail.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise confidentiality -- no one in America is," Fitzgerald, a U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, wrote in one of the court filings.

He said he would defer to the judge on whether the two journalists should be confined in the Washington, D.C., jail or in some other nearby federal detention facility.

The judge has scheduled a hearing on Wednesday to consider the punishment for Miller and Cooper for refusing to disclose their sources and comply with a subpoena requiring them to turn over documents and testify before the grand jury.

They have been found in contempt by Hogan and each could be jailed for up to 120 days, the remainder of the grand jury's term. The investigation seeks to determine who in the Bush administration leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003.

Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a diplomat in the Clinton administration, has accused the White House of being responsible for the leak. He said officials did so because Wilson had publicly disputed a prewar claim by President Bush about Iraq's attempts to buy nuclear weapons parts.

Although Time magazine has handed over subpoenaed records, Fitzgerald said after reviewing the documents that Cooper's testimony was still necessary for his investigation.

Fitzgerald said "special treatment" for the journalists would "enable, rather than deter, defiance of the court's authority."

"Although confinement in a federal detention facility would separate Cooper from his family, special counsel reiterates that all Cooper need do to avoid this result is to follow the law as all American citizens are required to," he said.

Fitzgerald made a similar argument in the Miller case and said she would be jailed only for as long as she refuses to comply. "Miller could avoid even a minute of separation from her husband if she would do no more than just follow the law."

Fitzgerald said the judge should reject an alternative request by the journalists that they be sent to a specified federal prison camp instead of to a local jail.

Cooper's attorneys said in court documents that his refusal to testify was a matter of personal and professional ethics involving his desire to keep his obligation to protect the identity of his confidential sources.

Miller's attorneys made similar arguments.

They said she must have confidential access to high-level government sources to do her job. "Nothing less will do in a free society with an independent press."
unsnipped<

Ankylosing Spondylitis.  If you know someone who has it, or if you have it, consider Remicade infusions. 

Here in Ontario with Trillium and some private insurance companies cover it.  Its very expensive and is costed/measured by a persons weight.  For my wife at 2 vials every 6 weeks its about 2250.00 per infusion.

It has helped my wife with mobility and pain management.  Still on Duregisic patches and diluids but more manageble. 

The reason I brought this up is that some Rhuemy docs have not at least broached this with their Ank Spond patients since Remicade is usually only reccomended to RA patients and Crohns patients.

For some it might not work, for some the side effects might not be worth it, for those that are one hundred percent bedridden and racked in pain with docs not willing to prescribe enough pain meds  ......... ????????


cheers :) majere

I want them to stand up and expose more corruption as in the Krieger Ruling and S. David Frankels' "the law won't change unless I report my loss".   I want them to set aside their "bible moralistic" views and look to the Charter for their Moralistic Policies.  Besides, its the Charter that our Countrys'  laws and morals are based on.

My general comments embedded throughout as I watch the BoSox nail biter.

snipped>

STELLARTON, N.S. (CP) - Stephen Harper says he wants Canadians to see beyond Liberal fear-mongering as the Conservative leader's image-makeover tour came to Nova Scotia.

Harper hugged babies and flipped burgers Monday during a stop in Tory-friendly Stellarton, N.S., where he was joined by local MP Peter MacKay and Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm. The federal Conservative leader has been in the Maritimes since the weekend for the start a cross-Canada tour designed to improve his image with voters.  The image wouldn't matter if the Policies were from the right place.

Harper smiled non-stop as he posed for dozens of snapshots at an outdoor barbecue attended by about 200 Conservative supporters.  Its easy when your preaching to the choir.

"All we're asking of people is: don't believe the fear mongering," What alternative does Harper give us to the status quo Liberals other than "don't believe"?   Harper said. "This country and this region have tremendous potential and we don't need to vote out of fear, we need to vote out of hope."  Perhaps some facts to ease the "fear" and some facts to base "hope" on, versus the Liberal status quo.

Harper's style, described by some as aloof and stiff, has been a lightning rod for criticism as the Conservatives continue to trail the Liberals in public opinion polls despite a short-lived boost from the inquiry into the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

Harper has blamed Liberal demonization of his party for his ongoing difficulties in winning over Canadians.  Yet the Conservatives have no Policies that ease the demonization portrayed by the Liberals, and some of their Caucus do not help - Grewal, White with Harper doing nothing but supporting them.

But no doubts were expressed openly Monday during the Stellarton stop, where Harper - his shirt sleeves rolled up and his shirt collar open - stood shoulder to shoulder with MacKay, the party's deputy leader.

People shaking Harper's hand congratulated him on everything from his opposition to same-sex marriage to helping Nova Scotia get a bigger share of offshore oil and gas revenues.  Of course they were supporting him, they are all Party members, not the average electorate.

"He's a fine Canadian, he's an intelligent Canadian," said Hamm, the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia. "What he has to do is connect with Canadians."  He can be intelligent and NOT have the Policies that connect with Canadians.  Its the Policies, not a Leaders IQ/EQ that connects.

Gerald Romsa, who recently moved to the Stellarton area from Ontario, said Canadians will warm to the Conservative leader once a significant number meet him in person.  Trying to get several million to meet with him would be a challenging task.

"He's probably the most honest politician we have, but Canadians are used to duplicity in their politicians," Romsa said as he headed to the gas barbecue where Harper was doling out burgers.  An honest politician with bad disconnecting Policies is still an honest politician with bad policies.

"I think it's hard because he's not going to mislead people, and that doesn't make it easy to win votes."  Harper, or anyone would not have to misleed anyone if they have Policies with the electorate at heart.  Unless they are lying.

Romsa said Harper needs to come up with a solid economic plan for the Atlantic region if he is to win more seats in the predominantly Liberal region.  B-I-N-G-O, as long as its solid with the peoples blessing versus solid with ONLY  the Conservatives blessing.

The Conservatives currently hold only seven of 32 federal seats in Atlantic Canada.  And Harper only realizes this now?

But Harper didn't announce any new policies during his Stellarton stop.  Does he not have to go back to the grass with roots and have the Party Member faithfull vote on it?  Or does he have the authority to change the Montreal Policy Convention Party Policies?  Or can he ignore those people that voted on them word for word, phrase by phrase?  Or can he add to the Policies as he sees fit?

He said he'll flesh out Conservative plans Or non-approved policies? during the coming federal election campaign, which he expects to follow release of the report on the sponsorship scandal in December.  He does not want the "new" policies shot down by the Liberals as they would have holes in them anyway, so may as well wait.  Harper knows he would not be able to defend/counter them.

Harper has said he'll offer new ideas for health care, What would be new about purchasing PET Scans, paying doctors more to stay in Canada, giving hospitals more money to hire more nurses and other staff? , the environment, child care, I guess Rona Ambroses' daily Question Period policy spars was for naught?  Canadian federalism, Federalism by giving the Provincialisms more power? immigration Cut or increase?  and rebuilding rural economies.  Won't say how until writ is dropped is a good excuse for remaining low in the Polls in the East.

On Monday, he repeated a promise to replace the fledgling national child-care program with tax credits for parents.  Ah ha, sorry about above Rona, but I still bet the tax credit will not even cover one week out of every months child care expenses versus the Liberals day care centers for the average daily worker.

"We don't believe in giving billions of dollars to advocates and bureaucrats," he said. "That doesn't help Canadian families.  Trying to associate bureaucrat with a social worker in day care?  Its wording like this that can get you into credability troubles.

"We want to have a universal child care payment to every single family with children in this country."  They still won't say how much - ever - never.  Why?  Because the dollar amount will not amount to much, as in votes if the voters ever found out the dollar amount.

Harper and his family headed to Prince Edward Island after the Stellarton stop for a brief vacation.  A beautiful place to visit.

He will be picking up the tour later this month in the West, but will return to Atlantic Canada in August.  Why return in August when you just stated you will not announce anything until the writ is dropped next spring?  More showmanship and no substance again?  Oh wait, your only talking to Party Members.

cheers :)  majere

Five thousand years of recorded history, the past 80 years of prohibition and studies,  and yet the Yankees cannot prove that their bias against cannabis is justified.  But then again, keep throwing "those" people in jail and enforce through trade other countries to do the same, and the Yanks just might get other people to believe their lies, they have lied before to their friendlies.  One reason I give our fellow North Americans Governments a hard time.  Meanwhile here in Canada, our Learned Courts and two Senate Studies could not justify the Yankees biased approach either.

cheers :)  majere

snipped>

Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists (most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). Over the years, Tashkin's lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue. With NIDA's support, Tashkin and colleagues have identified the potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke, biopsied and made photomicrographs of pre-malignant cells, and studied the molecular changes occurring within them. It is Tashkin's research that the Drug Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a study in which Stephen Sidney examined the files of 64,000 Kaiser patients and found that marijuana users didn't develop lung cancer at a higher rate or die earlier than non-users. Of five smaller studies on the question, only two -involving a total of about 300 patients- concluded that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer. Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, prospectively designed, population-based, case-controlled study. "Our major hypothesis," he told the ICRS, "was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airwaves cancers."

The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided Tashkin's team with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with cancer (611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal). Interviewers collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family history of cancer, and various "socio-demographic factors." Exposure to marijuana was measured in joint years (joints per day x 365). Controls were found based on age, gender and neighborhood. Among them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31% had used less than one joint year, 12% had used 10-30 j-yrs, 2% had used 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs. Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airwaves cancers. All the odds ratios turned out to be less than one (one being equal to the control group's chances)! Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported. "We found absolutely no suggestion of a dose response." The data on tobacco use, as expected, revealed "a very potent effect and a clear dose-response relationship -a 21-fold greater risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke more than two packs a day." Similarly high odds obtained for oral/pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal cancer and esophageal cancer. "So, in summary" Tashkin concluded, "we failed to observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential confounders."

There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the microphone: "You don't see any positive correlation, but in at least one category [marijuana-only smokers and lung cancer], it almost looked like there was a negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on that?"

"Yes," said Tashkin. "The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis."

Abrams had results of his own to report at the ICRS meeting. He and his colleagues at San Francisco General Hospital had conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 50 patients with HIV-related peripheral neuropathy. Over the course of five days, patients recorded their pain levels in a diary after smoking either NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes or cigarettes from which the THC had been extracted. About 25% didn't know or guessed wrong as to whether they were smoking the placebos, which suggests that the blinding worked. Abrams requested that his results not be described in detail prior to publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal, but we can generalize: they exceeded expectations, and show marijuana providing pain relief comparable to Gabapentin, the most widely used treatment for a condition that afflicts some 30% of patients with HIV.

To a questioner who bemoaned the difficulty of "separating the high from the clinical benefits," Abrams replied: "I'm an oncologist as well as an AIDS doctor and I don't think that a drug that creates euphoria in patients with terminal diseases is having an adverse effect." His study was funded by the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.
unsnipped<

A mouthfull? Or perhaps a cookie full, or a dropper full of tincture, or even a vapour, or how about Queen Elizabeths cannabis tea prescribed for her for her severe menstrual cramping while she was just a youngster?  There are many ways without the fallacy of "smoking" (proved not harmfull, I will post latest study later).  Also the below shows why I give S. David Frankell, Q.C. and his former associate,  Former  Crown Prosecutor Peter Mackay a really hard time.

snipped>
JCT: Most charges for cultivation under S.7(1) are
accompanied by charges for possession for the purpose of
trafficking under S.5(2) but discussion of 5(2) allowed
judges to get confused and miss the power of the Krieger
challenge to the S.7 cultivation. So I got tired of giving
them an out and prepared a Prohibition motion for Pierre
Drouin and Real Martin against only S.7(1). Once it's dead,
then we'll argue about S.5(2) alone.

So this is the new Prohibition motion to be used by
charged cultivators:

Court File No. _________
             ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
       (Criminal Division - ________________ Region)
Between:
                 _________________________
                                           Applicant/Accused
                            and
                   Her Majesty the Queen
                                        Respondent/Plaintiff

                   NOTICE OF APPLICATION

TAKE NOTICE THAT on July 15 2005 at 10am at 149 4th Ave in 
Cochrane Ontario an application will be made to a judge for:

1) an Order prohibiting prosecution of the count under
S.7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)
relating to marijuana as no longer known to law because
Parliament has not re-enacted the S.7(1) cultivation since
it was struck down by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v.
Krieger on Dec 04 2002;

2) an Order citing the Ministry of Justice for contempt of
this Court by continuing prosecution after Crown Attorney S.
David Frankel acknowledged in the Crown's Memorandum to the
Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Krieger dated May 16 2003
that the S.7 cultivation and, by implication S.4 possession,
prohibitions had been struck down by the highest court in
Alberta on December 4 2003 and has never dutifully amending
the Criminal Code to reflect the Krieger decision and stop
prosecutions of innocent Canadians under S. 7(1).
 
AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT Applicant seeks approval to
turn on a portable tape recorder pursuant to S.136 of the
Ontario Courts of Justice Act which states that "nothing
prohibits a party acting in person from unobtrusively making
an audio recording of the court hearing for the sole purpose
of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes in the
manner that has been approved by the judge;" or for any
other manner of audio-taping deemed preferable by the court.

AND FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to
form or content of the application, or for any Order deemed
just.

THE GROUNDS ARE:

1. The December 23 2003 Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin of
Proceedings detailing the Krieger decision states:

"29569 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. GRANT WAYNE KRIEGER
(Crim) (Alta.)
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major and Fish JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Numbers 01-00011-A and
01-00288-0A, dated March 18 2003, is dismissed. 

NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law -
Cannabis marihuana - Cultivation and trafficking - Accused
cultivating cannabis marihuana for his own medical needs and
supplying others as well - Trial judge finding that
prohibition on production of cannabis marihuana infringing
accused's s. 7 Charter rights and not saved by s.1. Whether
The Court of Appeal erred in holding that s.7 of the Charter
guarantees the right to grow (and by implication, possess)
marihuana, to anyone with a medical need for the drug...

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 
December 11 2000 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
(Acton J.) 
Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
inasmuch as it relates to cannabis marihuana, declared
inconsistent with the Charter; declaration suspended for one
year; Respondent granted an exemption from the application
of s. 7(1); charge stayed"

November 28 2001 Court of Appeal of Alberta
(O'Leary J.A.)
Period of judicial stay extended until further order of the
Court of Appeal.

December 4 2002 Court of Appeal of Alberta
(Wittman, Costigan and Lo Vecchio JJ.A.)
Appeal with respect to s. 7(1) dismissed.

May 20 2003 Supreme Court of Canada
Application for leave to appeal filed."

Appendix#1: Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin Dec 23 2003
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2003/html/03-12-23.bul.html
 
2. The Supreme Court notes that on Dec 04 2002, the further
Order of the Alberta Court of Appeal sustained the repeal of
prohibition of marihuana in CDSA S.7(1) by Justice Acton by
dismissing the Crown's appeal.

3. In the March 18 2003 Bench Memorandum of the Dec 04 2002
Krieger decision, Justice Costigan very clearly stated for
the panel:

"[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.

[..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.

Appendix 2 Krieger Court of Appeal of Alberta Judgment
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf

4. In the May 16 2003 endorsement of the Crown's Memorandum
to the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Krieger, Crown
Attorney S. David Frankel, Q.C., admitted:

"[57 As matters now stand S.7(1) has been declared of no
force and effect by the highest court in Alberta."

Appendix 3 Crown Memorandum Paragraph 57
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.jpg

5. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the
Crown's application for leave to appeal the S.7(1)
prohibition on marijuana being declared of no force and
effect by the highest court in Alberta.

6. The Ministry of Justice knew that the marijuana
prohibitions in S.7 (and by implication S.4) of the CDSA had
been declared of no force and effect by the highest court in
Alberta on Dec 04 2002 and never dutifully amended the
Criminal Code to reflect the Krieger decision and stop
prosecutions of innocent Canadians under S. 7(1).

7. Deliberately ignoring that the Supreme Court of Canada
supported the Alberta Court of Appeal's invalidation of the
CDSA Section 7(1) prohibition of marihuana cultivation not
only shows a contempt for the courts but has tricked the
courts into registering hundreds of thousands of convictions
under an invalid statute, the greatest miscarriage of
justice in Canadian history. Deliberately inducing the court
into error is manifestedly contemptuous. The Court should
not stand for being tricked into continuing to newly
victimize approximately 160 new Canadians every day. It's
the name of the judge on the invalid conviction, not the
name of the Crown.

8. When the highest courts in Canada affirm a ruling which
strikes down an unconstitutional violation of a Charter
right and then see that ruling not reflected in the Criminal
Code of Canada so that the invalid statute continues to be
enforced against an unsuspecting populace, it has to be the
duty of the judges whose signatures end up on the invalid
convictions to end the abuse.
 
21. The Ministry of the Attorney General is culpable of
mischief, genocide since patients who needed access to
cannabis were denied such access on the basis of the
enforcement of invalid statutes and died, and contempt of
this court.

The application will be argued orally.

The documentation to be used will be:

App.1: 2003 Dec 23 Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin: Krieger
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Judgment on S.7
App.3: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause
Dated at ________________ on __________ 2004
_____________________________
Applicant/Accused Signature
Name: ___________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________
Tel: _________________________  Fax: _____________________
Email: ______________________________
TO: Ministry of Justice
TO: The Registrar of the Court

JCT: Pierre is right now preparing a report on their day in
court. Sounds like it was a lot of fun for our side. The
Crown says it's the same old thing that was dismissed last
time without realizing that this version can be appealed to
the top first. unsnipped<

I truly enjoy seeing a Politician (Grewal) contradict himself.

I also enjoy seeing how Grewal attempts to illicit feelings of sympathy by associating his actions to that of a whistleblower.  The, "I am a victim" feel sorry for me, don't look at the contradiction of me admitting there was no stress and yet I took stress leave.  The apparent view of his that the electorate is actually that shallow.  His feeding of his ego and trying to portray himself as that of a "commoner", a any next door neighbour.

I hope one can see how his actions do not compare to that of a real whistle-blower.  A Corporate whistleblower immediately loses their carreer within their choosen educational field.  Grewal does not.  Grewal as a Politician knows that one or two terms in Office with a scarce chance at three is common place, then other employment.  A carreer Corp employee has an excellant chance at 20 to 25 years unless the Corp goes under.  A carreer corp employee remains within the same field of educational expertise while a Politician does not go to other political employment.  Ok, some go to embassies or to the Senate, but that is the fallacy of small numbers.  Just to add, does Grewal actually believe that by proving the political obvious through technically correct whistleblowing that the electorate which already knew existed, is perhaps not whistleblowing in the sense that a Corp whistleblower brings forth the unknowing?

Article showing Grewals' contradictions and sympathy seeking with my write up from the 7 June 05 below it.

snipped>
Gurmant Grewal, the embattled Conservative MP, is speaking out for the first time since taking stress leave last month.

Grewal unleashed a firestorm of controversy when he released secretly audio-taped conversations with high-ranking Liberals ahead of the May 19 crucial confidence vote, which could have toppled the minority Liberal government.

He accused Liberals of offering him and his wife Nina, also a Tory MP, plum posts if they would abstain from the budget vote or cross the floor.

Soon after he released written transcripts and segments of the taped conversations, audio experts said the tapes appeared to have been altered, a charge with he denied.

Despite the controversy, Grewal says, appearing on Vancouver's Channel M television that he doesn't regret making the recordings.

"I am not bothered by anything. I feel very proud of what I have done because what I did was for the right cause," he says, according to a written transcript released by Channel M.

"You and your other media colleagues did not give correct information in the media because you did not do proper research, did not find many facts.

"When the investigation is over, I will have an interview with the whole media, will tell them all the fact so that they could judge on the basis of fact."

He says the only way to expose hidden corruption was through the recordings, which were made legally.

"I am proud that I, at least as a whistleblower, have brought to surface the behind-the-scenes corruption and attack on our democracy," he says in the transcript.

When asked if he still secretly records conversations, Grewal said he did not record "common people" and blamed the media for misrepresenting him.

"Media turned it around as if I record everybody. No, I am a common man, live like common people. I never record an ordinary person."
unsnipped<

My write up from the 7 Jun 05.

Ok, waying in on Grewals Stress Leave.  Its a farce, the stress part that is, and basic human physiology says so.

When one knows one is correct in something without doubt there is the increased dopamine levels making one feel good and confident.  Same feeling, same thing as cocaine ingestion, ok.

When one knows that one is correct legally and cannot have their personal freedom removed, see above.

When one is doing something, whatever the cause, and is truly alturistic, see above.

The Kicker.  The Tell.

When one has doubt about any of the above, this means that they KNOW they have done something wrong.  This is where the stress comes in.  This is where the Cortisol is pounding throughout the Blood system hitting the brains Seretonin, Dopamine and Eneneprine systems causing a depletion leading to the "fight or flight response".  This is stress.  The Brian messenger dopamine (feel rewards) is forced lower.  The other two prominent brain messengers forced lower also for any kind of prolonged period leads to depression.  Depression of course causing more stress leading to even lower levels leading to increased levels of Depression...... the untreated depression death cycle unless chemically intervened.

Ok, enough of the side track.  Back to Grewal.

Grewal if he loses his job, kicked out, forced to go home, can still pump gas somewhere.  So I know that food and shelter will not be a cause of stress.

Grewal if correct legally in what he did will not face prosecution, therefore no loss of freedom, no stress.

Grewal facing the media and opposition scrutiny causing stress?  No.  He has already shown he can handle dealing with a wide variety of peoples as a politician.  This of course is made very easy if he knows he is correct on his past actions and is riding the dopamine upswirl.

Conclusion.

He has no basis for stress that would be beyond any regular persons day to day living.

His Stress Leave is a farce designed to get him out of the media and Conservative spotlight.  He has been invited on CTV to be interviewed by the Duff Man but has declined.  The Conservatives WANT him to go away. 

Bottom line, his stress leave is a farce as far as "stress" goes.

But then again, he might be feeling pretty guilty about trying desperately to cross the floor for selfish gains while taping it to look like a Conservative Hero if he could not get exactly what he wanted from the Liberals.  That he would only cross the floor with a guarentee of financial gain and/or employment security of a Senate Seat or an out of site, secure, overseas Posting.

Everyone I know knows that.  So to throw in something crude, he is a lying shithead stressed out of his own making.  Do I think that the Ontarian electorate picked up on this in the para above? - Yup.  Then the known libs get the vote by default.

A little while ago I came across a comment on another website refering to Alberta seperation.  The comment basically stated that if Alberta were to seperate, it would be debt free.

I can understand how a person upon hearing that Alberta has no Provincial Debt can seperate debt free.  They might be missing the next level conscience thought here though.

I can also understand how the same person, if that person is the Leader of Alberta during a seperation, not feel that it is their National and International legal obligation to take their part of the Canada National debt with them.  And then not understand why they have no financial credability with other countries.

My reply, though I did not reply to the comment, is then it would be exactly the same as if every other Province seperated from Canada at the same time prior to Alberta seperation, therefore leaving Alberta with "Canadas'" debt obligations.

I have written in the past on Quebec seperation and how Canada can easily enforce a seperating Province to take their share of the National Debt with them. 

The absudity of shallow thinking by some individuals is not wrong.  Its just morally wrong to some when these people spread their fallacies to the naive.

cheers :) majere

A thanks to the Youth who recognize that a bastion of freedom exists on Hard Drives and the thoughts that can originate from them have their political futures tied as well.

Too bad some of the youth do not recognize that for what it is.

A scream for maintaining freedom.  A bartering of goods without government intervention.  A giving from one person to another,  their property,  without government or corporate intervention.

snipped>

Two-thirds of U.S. college students see nothing unethical about downloading digital copyrighted files without paying, a survey found.

In addition, 52 percent think downloading music without paying is acceptable behavior in the workplace, according to the survey released by Business Software Alliance.

The survey reveals 45 percent of students are using campus networks for downloading activities.

Downloading music is a gateway to downloading software, the survey found. Among students who say they would always download music or movies without paying for them, 27 percent said they regularly download software from a peer-to-peer network.

Generation Y has largely grown up using the Internet and the majority of this group is extremely comfortable with technology, said Diane Smiroldo, BSA's vice president for public affairs. Unfortunately, this survey shows students who engage in these illegal behaviors are likely to continue after college and when they enter the business world.

The survey, conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, polled 1,000 students and 200 university faculty and administrators' digital piracy attitudes and behaviors.

unsnipped<

cheers :) majere