Yes, the Courts have ruled cannabis is legal in Canada, shhhh, they didn't bother to tell anyone though
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.
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.
