JCT: The Court of Appeal ducked whether the Section 7
prohibition on cultivation of marijuana was invalid by
saying it didn't apply to my Section 5(2) possession for the
purpose of trafficking to the Prime Minister charge. But
Pierre was charged with both and did challenge his S.7 and
not his S.5(2) charge. So the court couldn't duck it.

DATE: 20070228
ROLE: C44683, C44684

COUR D'APPEL DE L'ONTARIO

ENTRE: SA MAJESTE LA REINE (intime)
c.
REAL MARTIN et PIERRE DROUIN

JCT: Notice they have the case numbers in right order,
Pierre Drouin's C44683 and Real Martin's C44684 but get the
names linked to those numbers backwards, Martin then Drouin,
even though I'd specifically pointed out and asked that the
error be corrected. And they got it backwards anyway!

Unless, of course, there is some advantage in the case not
being named after Health Canada Exemptee Pierre Drouin and
instead being named after non-Exemptee Real Martin. It's
tiring how the court is always fixing things to our
disadvantage. Or the panel missing my explanation of why
Drouin should be first on the style of cause was due to
three simultaneous senior moments. Anyway, it bodes not well
when they can't even keep the names linked respectively to
the right cases.

LE TRIBUNAL: LABROSSE, SHARPE et BLAIR J.C.A.

PROCUREURS: Francois Lacasse et Steve Coroza
Pour Sa Majeste La Reine
Les appellants en personnes

AUDIENCE: fevrier 23 2007
PRONONCEE: fevrier 23 2007

Appel interjete de l'ordonnance du juge N.J. Nadeau de la
cour de justice de l'Ontario datee le 5 decembre 2005.
Appeal from the Order of Judge N.J. Nadeau of the Ontario
Court of Justice dated Dec 5 2005.

INSCRIPTION
ENDORSEMENT

[1] Les appels de Sa Majeste la Reine c. Real Martin et
Pierre Drouin ont ete entendus ensemble. Les appels sont
fondes sur la premisse qu'il n'y a aucune interdiction
relative a la production et a la possession de marijuana en
vue d'en faire le trafic.
[1] The appeals of Her Majesty the Queen v. Real Martin and
Pierre Drouin were heard together. The appeals are founded
on the premise that there is no prohibition relative to the
production and possession of marijuana for the purpose of
trafficking.

JCT: This is called picking on the straw man. Pierre was
charged with Section 7 cultivation and Section 5(2)
possession for the purpose of trafficking like me. He
pointed out that this appeal was for prohibition of the
Section 7 charge, not Section 5(2) that Turmel had lost. But
Ontario's highest Court got it wrong again.

Dans la decision de La Reine c. Turmel, cette cour a rejete
l'argument que l'article 5(2) de la Loi reglementant
certaines drogues et autres substances <<LRCDAS>> L.c. 1996,
c.19 etait invalide et inoperante.
In the R. v. Turmel decision CCC(3e) 533 and Hitzig v.
Canada (2003), O.J. No. 3873, this court rejected the
argument that Section 5(2) of the CDSA was invalid in
inoperative.

JCT: Which is why Pierre didn't try to prohibit his S.5(2)
charge, only his Section 7 charge. Har har har har. How
could the judges get the impression Pierre was challenging
his Section 5(2) charge like Turmel when Pierre even told
them he was only challenging his Section 7 cultivation
charge? More simultaneous senior moments?

[2] En ce qui trait a l'article 7,
[2] As for Section 7,

JCT: Okay, now we're dealing with Pierre's real challenge to
his Section 7 cultivation charge, not the previous challenge
imagined by the court against Section 5(2) which, nowhere,
is mentioned in Pierre's documentation. But at last we're
dealing with the real issue of their appeal.

si no presumons que nous sommes lies par l'affaire de La
Reine c. Krieger (2002) A.J. No 1644 (C.A. Alberta, il est a
noter que la declaration d'invalidite a ete suspendue et par
suite par le reglement sur l'acces a la marijuana a des fins
medicales (RAMFM) D.O.R.S/2001-227 tel qu'indique dans la
decision de cette cour dans Hitzig.
If we presume that we are bound by the Krieger case (2002)
A.J. No 1644 (C.A. Alberta), it must be noted that the
declaration of invalidity was suspended and since then, by
the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (RAMFM)
D.O.R.S/2001-227 as indicated by this court in Hitzig.

[3] En consequence, les appels sont rejetes.
[3] Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.

JCT: So the Acton declaration of invalidity of Section 7
cultivation prohibition remains suspended by the Crown's
stay pending appeal even after the appeal is dismissed and
the Crown loses its status as appellant! Har har har har.

But it does make Pierre's Krieger challenge quite simple at
the top. Does an appellant's stay continue after the
appellant no longer has appellant's status or have 150,000
people been improperly busted on such a fairy tale pretext
reasoning by Justice in Blunderland.



--
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