Majeres' Musings

-TRA: On December 11 2002, the trial court in Alberta,
Madam Justice Acton ruled that section 7, 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. On December 4 2002, the Court of Appeal for Alberta
Justices Wittman, Costigan and LoVecchio dismissed the
Crown's appeal concerning Section 7.

Si vous voulez maintenant aller a l'appendix 5, dans le
Memorandeum du 20 mai 2003 de la couronne federale David
Frankel qui avoue a la cour supreme que: "[57 Telle qu'elle
l'est maintenant, la loi 7(1) a ete declaree de nul force ni
effet par la plus haute cour de l'Alberta." Donc, le
Ministere de la Justice savait que les sections 7(1) et par
implication 4(1) avaient ete abrogees. Cependant, on n'a pas
change le code criminal pour refleter ces abrogations.

-TRA: If you'll now move to Appendix 5, there, the May 20
2003 Memorandum of Federal Crown David Frankel who admits to
the Supreme Court that "As matters now stand, Section 7(1)
had been declared of no force and effect by the highest
court in Alberta." So, the Ministry of Justice knew that
sections 7(1) and by implication 4(1) had been repealed.
Nevertheless, they did not change the Criminal Code to
reflect those abrogations.

Maintenant si vous voulez retourner a l'appendix 10b. La
Cour supreme du Canada siegee par les juges McLachlin, Major
et Fish, "La requete par la couronne en autorisation d'appel
du jugement de la cour d'appel de l'Alberta est rejetee."

-TRA: Now, could you return to Appendix 10b. The Supreme
Court of Canada Justices McLachlin, Major and Fish: The
application for leave to appeal the judgment of the Alberta
Court of Appeal is rejected.

Madame la juge, ca a l'air que peut-etre la loi est morte.
Et, pour cette raison, que j'ai une requete en cassation a
la Cour du Quebec qui a ete signifie le 24 janvier dernier
que je veux retourner a la cour au plus vite. Je voulais
retourner la requete la semaine derniere mais j'ai eu des
problemes avec l'assermentation de mes documents a la
prison. J'ai eu des problemes avec M. Landry parcequ'il n'a
pas pu assermenter mes documents. Il voulait que je donne
mes documents a un autre detenu pour qu'un autre detenue
puisse lui donner ca a la cour. Ces choses-la. J'ai eu de la
difficulte mais je l'ai ici presentement. Mais je trouve que
c'est un abus et mes droits sont un petit peu brimes de ce
cote-la.

-TRA: Madam Judge, it looks like the law might be dead. And
for this reason, I have my motion to quash in the Court of
Quebec which was served last Jan 24 and which I want to
return as quickly as possible. I wanted to return the motion
lastweek but I have problems with swearing my documents in
prison. I had problems with Mr. Landry becaue he wasn't able
to swear my documents. He wanted me to give them to another
inmate who was going to court that day to be passed along to
him at the court. I had trouble with things like that. But
I've got it here now. But I think it's an abuse and my
rights have been a little ignored in that respect.

En cas que j'ai raison, s'il y a une chance que l'abrogation
de la prohibition de la culture de marijuana dans la section
7 par la plus haute cour en Alberta s'applique au Quebec
lorsque la decision est soutenue par la cour supreme du
Canada, me garder en prison en attendant un proces sous une
loi morte doit constituer un abus de procedures de la cour.
Et c'est a vous d'arreter cet abus.

-TRA: In case I'm right, if there's a chance that the
abrogation of the prohibition on the cultivation of
marijuana in section 7 by the highest court in Alberta
applies in Quebec when the decision is sustained by the
Supreme Court of Canada, to keep me in jail awaiting a trial
under a dead law would constitute an abuse of the process of
the court. And it's up to you to end this abuse.

Si vous voulez retourner a l'appendix 13, la cour d'appel du
Quebec a suggere en fevrier que les juges de premiere
instance devront etre plus sensibles a des suggestions de
sentences avec sursis pour ceux trouves coupables dans les
cas d'accusations de production de marijuana. Cela devrait
aussi s'appliquer pour accorder une caution avant meme
d'avoir ete trouve coupable.

-TRA: If you would return to Appendix 13, the Quebec Court
of Appeal suggested last February that trial judges should
be more sensitive to suggestions of sentences with of house
arrest for those found guilty in cases of marijuana
production. This should also apply to grant bail before even
being found guilty.

Pour ces raisons, sans avocat, je me fie au tribunal pour
determiner s'il y a une chance, seulement une chance, que
l'abrogation de la section 7 en Alberta s'applique au Quebec
et ainsi, peut-etre, me sauver de l'abus d'emprisonnement en
attendant un proces sous une loi morte. Pour toutes ces
raisons la, je vis un abus et c'est a vous, madame juge,
d'arreter cet abus aujourd'hui. Merci beaucoup.

-TRA: For these reasons, without a lawyer, I count the
tribunal to determine if there's a chance, even a chance,
that the abrogation of section 7 in Alberta applies in
Quebec and thus, perhaps, save me from the abuse of
imprisonment awaiting a trial under a dead law. For all
these reasons, I see an abuse and it's up to you, madame
judge, to stop this abuse today. Thank you very much.

TRUDEL J: Merci beaucoup monsieur pour votre representation.
Maitre Depassille, etes-vous prete a lui repondre.

-TRA: Thank you very much sir for your presentation. Me.
Depassille, are you ready to respond?

JCT: Remember how Le Droit framed the winning argument
against why the Krieger strike down of Section 7 did not
apply to Dominic in Quebec:
"Maitre Genevieve Depassille reminds is that as she sees it,
the Alberta case has no similarities with Dominic Gravel's
case other than the quantity of marijuana involved. The
Alberta case concerns an individual whose reasons for
consuming implied the notion of therapeutic value which,
according to the Crown, isn't the case with Gravel."

DEPASSILLE: Oui. Tous simplement, madame la juge, que les
criteres de l'article 520 en revision de cautionment n'ont
pas ete rencontres par le requerant.

-TRA: Yes, quite simply, madam judge, that the requirements
set out in Section 520 for revision of bail have not been
met by the Applicant.

JCT: Oh no, sounds like the requirements of another section
have not been met? Reading Section 520 to see where we could
have gone wrong.

"520(1) Review of order of justice

520. (1) Where a justice makes an order under subsection

515(2), (5),(6), (7), (8) or (12) or makes or vacates any
order under paragraph 523(2)(b), the accused may, at any
time before the trial of the charge, apply to a judge for a
review of the order made by the justice."

JCT: Okay, Justice Dagenais made an Order under S.515 for
detention so certainly this applies to Dominic Gravel.

"520(2) Notice to prosecutor

(2) An application under this section shall not, unless the
prosecutor otherwise consents, be heard by a judge unless
the accused has given to the prosecutor at least two clear
days notice in writing of the application."

JCT: That's what we did and it's been remanded by Judges
Bedard and Plouffe ever since. So Section 2 can offer no
problem over insufficient service.

"520(3) Accused to be present

(3) If the judge so orders or the prosecutor or the accused
or his counsel so requests, the accused shall be present at
the hearing of an application under this section and, where
the accused is in custody, the judge may order, in writing,
the person having the custody of the accused to bring him
before the court."

JCT: Dominic is present so there's nothing with Section 3.

"520(4) Adjournment of proceedings

(4) A judge may, before or at any time during the hearing of
an application under this section, on application by the
prosecutor or the accused, adjourn the proceedings, but if
the accused is in custody no adjournment shall be for more
than three clear days except with the consent of the
accused."

JCT: Whoops. Bedard adjourned it a couple of times for more
than 3 days without asking for Dominic's consent. Plouffe
didn't and got it back in 2 days. Nice to now know.
"520(5) Failure of accused to attend

(5) Where an accused, other than an accused who is in
custody,...

JCT: This can't apply to Dominic who is in custody.

"520(6) Execution

(6) A warrant issued under subsection (5) may be executed
anywhere in Canada..."

JCT: Looking for non-prisoners who don't show so this
doesn't apply to

"520(7) Evidence and powers of judge on review

(7) On the hearing of an application under this section, the
judge may consider

(a) the transcript, if any, of the proceedings heard by the
justice and by any judge who previously reviewed the order
made by the justice,

(b) the exhibits, if any, filed in the proceedings before
the justice, and

(c) such additional evidence or exhibits as may be tendered
by the accused or the prosecutor,"

JCT: Okay, the judge may consider the transcripts but did
not, may consider the exhibits, and may consider the
additional information about Krieger and Parker and the
Quebec Court of Appeal. So it's not something Dominic has to
to so this section presents no problem so far,

"and shall either

(d) dismiss the application, or

(e) if the accused shows cause, allow the application,
vacate the order previously made by the justice and make any
other order provided for in section 515 that he considers is
warranted."

JCT: But the Crown said that we had failed to comply with a
something in Section 520 and I don't see what possible
requirement the Crown can say we failed to meet:

DEPASSILLE: Oui. Tous simplement, madame la juge, que les
criteres de l'article 520 en revision de cautionment n'ont
pas ete rencontres par le requerant. Par consequent, je vous
demanderais de rejete a la face meme la requete de monsieur
Gravel.

-TRA: Yes, quite simply, madam judge, that the criteria in
Section 520 for revision of bail haven't been met by the
Applicant. Consequently, I would ask you to reject Mr.
Gravel's motion on the face of it.

JCT: Wow. Gravel didn't follow 520 right so throw it out. No
explanation of what was in particular was done wrong after
hinting he'd failed to meet them all in the plural.

TRUDEL J: Est-ce qu'il a quelque chose que voulez rajouter
en replique a ce que vient de dire la procureur.

-TRA: Do you have something to add in reply to whatever the
Crown just said.

GRAVEL: Je n'ai pas bien compris. Pouvez-vous repeter votre
question, s'il vous plait?

-TRA: I didn't understand. Could you repeat the question,
please?

TRUDEL J: Suite au propos de la procureur qui repondait a
votre argument, est-ce que vous souhaiter dire quelque chose
en replique?

JCT: Given whatever the Crown just said in response to your
argument, do you wish to say something in reply?

JCT: He's being asked to reply to "whatever" he missed.

GRAVEL: Oui. Je l'explique asser bien dans mon... C'est tout
ecrit la dans mes documents. Vous avez eu la chance de le
lire?

-TRA: Yes, I explain it pretty well in my... It's all
written down in my documents. Have you had the chance to
read them?

JCT: I'd have made a motion for Particulars. They can't just
say: you missed something in this section. You have to say
what section you missed in particular. So when they don't
give you the particulars of their ambiguous charge, you can
ask. Of course, I've dealt with this before. Imagine no one
having any idea what he did wrong. Le Droit had to make
something up. And the judge asking him to respond to
"whatever it is she said" was wrong without her having to
particularize what was wrong. Think about that. The judge
keeps asking Dominic to reply to the accusation that
"something from Section 520 is wrong" without finding out
what the Crown says it is that is wrong. Imagine! "What's
your answer to whatever the Crown accuses you of?" Sounds
Kafkaesque, doesn't it.

TRUDEL J: Oui, je l'ai lu. Alors ca, ca constitue la
replique, le document intitule "arguments ecrits de Dominic
Gravel" qui est signe par vous a Gatineau le 24 mars 2005 et
que j'ai lu tout a l'heure dans mon cabinet, constitue votre
replique aux propos de la procureur?

-TRA: Yes, I read it. So, that constitutes your reply, the
document titled "Written Representations of Dominic Gravel"
that was signed by you in Gatineau on March 24 2005 and that
I read earlier in my office, that constitutes your reply to
whatever the Crown said.

JCT: Of course the "Written Representations" about federal
service have nothing to do with "whatever the Crown said"
and can't be a response to "whatever." The response to
"whatever the Crown said" was right in his documents, no
matter what the Crown said. Dominic gave the right answer.
The Ace of Diamonds is in his case file and until he
understands why the 520 card trumps it, he can only keep
pointing out his winning card in the case file. So not only
does she urge him to find a response to "whatever the Crown
said" but now she presumes that his non-related earlier
representations are germane to it. Wow.

GRAVEL: C'est ca. C'est tout.

-TRA: That's it. That's all.

TRUDEL J: Tres bien. Alors, la requete est rejete.

-TRA: That's fine. So, the application is dismissed.

JCT: Now you know what it feels like to run into a stacked

deck.

There you have it.  A prohibitionist Judge that does not act as the self representatives advocate, and makes it as if no one is watching.
roger roeder