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.

--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics