JCT: Rudy Seegobin, another sick person put through Alan
Young's Hitzig prosecution ringer, was in Ottawa court
Friday morning May 4 trying to have his 2+ ounces of
marijuana medicine returned to him after the possession
charge against him had been stayed once he had received his
Health Canada exemption.

The Crown, of course, is resisting. Though he's sick enough
to have the charges dropped from the time of the offence,
they won't give him back his marijuana from the time of the
offence.

So, I prepared a short written representation for him:

No: __________
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
RUDY SEEGOBIN
Applicant

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR A S.24 ORDER

1. I was charged in Ottawa with possession of marijuana and
in Perth with cultivation and possession of marijuana.
All charges have been stayed though I did not have a
"ministry-granted exemption" at the time of the arrest after
I claimed a court-granted exemption like another Ontario
case, that of Derek Francisco, based upon:
A) the Hitzig decision;
B) the Krieger decision;
C) the Selkirk decision.

A) The Hitzig Decision

2. The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig v. HMQ ruled:
"[170] There will immediately be a constitutionally valid
exemption in effect and the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of
the CDSA will immediately be constitutionally valid and of
full force and effect. In R. v. Parker, supra, this court
declared the prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by
that date the Government had not enacted a constitutionally
sound medical exemption. Our decision in this case confirms
that it did not do so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in s.
4 has been of no force or effect since July 31, 2001. Since
the July 8, 2003 regulation did not address the eligibility
deficiency, that alone could not have cured the problem.
However, our order has the result of constitutionalizing the
medical exemption created by the Government. As a result,
the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent
with the provisions of the Constitution. Although Parliament
may subsequently choose to change it, that prohibition is
now no longer invalid, but is of full force and effect.
Those who establish medical need are simply exempted from
it."

3. Those who establish medical need are exempted from the
possession prohibition by the courts if not the Ministry of
Health; at the time of the offence!

4. The best way to establish medical need is to qualify for
an exemption from the Ministry of Health. I have since
established my medical need for the herb by qualifying for
an exemption from Health Canada.

5. But a person with true medical need doesn't have to have
a ministry exemption at the time of the arrest, he only
needs to have true medical need for a court-granted Hitzig
exemption to be then due at the time of the offence!

6. The first Canadian to receive a Hitzig court-granted
exemption for the time of arrest when not under ministry
exemption is Derek Francisco who was charged with
cultivation, then qualified for an exemption, then had the
charges stayed and a Section 24 Order by Justice Rhys-Morgan
for the return of the controlled substance though he did not
have a ministry exemption at the time of the offence, only a
Hitzig "prove medical need" court-granted exemption. A sick
person doesn't need to establish he possesses a Health
Canada permit at the time of the offence, a sick person only
needs to establish medical need.

B) Krieger

7. I sought an order quashing all my charges relating to
marihuana under s. 7(1) and 5(2) of the CDSA as unknown to
law on the grounds Parliament has not re-enacted the s.7
cultivation (and by implication s.4 possession) prohibitions
since they were struck down by the Alberta Court of Appeal
in R. v Krieger on December 4, 2002.

8. Acton J. of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that
section 7.(1) of the CDSA, which underpins all other
marihuana prohibitions in the CDSA, violated rights to
liberty and security of the person as guaranteed by section
7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She therefore
struck down s.7(1) to the extent that it dealt with the
production of cannabis marihuana. The Alberta Court of
Appeal dismissed the Crown appeal on Dec 4 2002 and the
Crown's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
of Canada was dismissed on Dec 23 2003. Parliament has never
re-enacted the Section 7(1) prohibition on cultivation of
marijuana since it became of no force and effect on Feb 3
2003. Because I was as legitimately sick as Krieger, I
wanted a court-granted constitutional exemption for the
charges at the time of the offence too.

C) The Selkirk decision

9. In his Sep 26 2005 decision, Judge Selkirk game me a
conditional discharge with 1 year probation and the
condition not to consume marijuana in front of children in
tacit understanding of my medical need.

Dated at Ottawa on May 4 2007
Rudy Seegobin

JCT: If he had gotten his medicine back, a la Francisco, it
would have helped in Terry Parker's bid to get his pot back
after it had been seized by Canada Post. Very many people
sending their pot by Canada Post these days?

Unfortunately, the Crown said that Derek hadn't provided him
with a chance to study any materials so the judge ordered
Rudy to provide the background documentation, (Krieger,
Hitzig, Selkirk decisions) and argument, some time for the
Crown to respond and they'll all be back on June 28 2007.


--
Abolitionist Debt 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 USENET blog: alt.fan.john-turmel