JCT: Ontario Provincial Court of Justice in Brampton got
started about 10:30. Chris Leafloor for the Crown. Ontario
Provincial Court Judge Clements presiding.

I found out that that the Crown had received the transcripts
from the last hearing but Parker had not. When I mentioned
it to the judge, he said: you didn't contact the clerk? I
guess we should have. We will. So that may be online
eventually.

Judge Clements started by saying he hadn't had time to read
the materials. Who can blame him? The Crown loaded him with
a file 8 inches thick. With Parker only providing a quarter
inch's worth of it, the judge knew the Crown was serious
about this. I wonder if that's how they deter a judge from
reading the material in advance? Like Chris joked, or not:
he who files the most material wins. But who wants to break
into such a monster file the night before?

Anyway, the judge had not only not read the Crown's two 3-
inch thick binders but had also not read our 1/8 inch thick
12-page Reply which contained all our arguments. We were
going to have to go over it all now. No problem. It's all
covered in Parker's Reply at:
http://yahoogroups.com/medpot/messages/2238

But first, the judge ran through how he thought things had
gone on; with a few small mistakes which will be corrected
when he reads the actual Reply. He thought it boiled down to
two main grounds for the return of the controlled substance:
1) Parker's S.4 Pitt protection against possession offence
was still alive or 2) his Sheppard S.7 protection against
cultivation offence was alive too. The Crown pointed out
there were actually five grounds listed but the judge will
see that when he reads the Reply.

1) Pitt exemption
The Crown simply repeated that Superior Court Justice
Pitt had been set aside by Superior Court Justice Chapnik
without explaining how one equal judge gets power to set
aside the ruling of another equal judge. When I asked what
legislation says it's okay for a Superior Court Judge's
Criminal Order to be set aside by an equivalent Superior
Court Judge's Civil Order even if at the recommendation of
the Crown and Professor Alan Young, the only point the judge
could make was that the Court of Appeal had specifically
said it was okay by them that Chapnik did it and so he was
bound to obey their decision. The Nuremberg cop-out. "Just
following orders." Orders of Dr. Mengele to deny this man
his medicine" didn't stand up in Nuremberg and won't stand
up in the posterity's court of public opinion. Still, it's
not that bad because we can appeal higher for remedy.

2) Sheppard exemption
The Crown argued that when the Parker One decision said
that Judge Sheppard had no power to read in an exemption to
the possession prohibition so they were replacing his
exemption from S.4(1) with an order striking down S.4(1) and
a personal court-exemption, then it also meant that Sheppard
did not have the power to read in an exemption to the
cultivation prohibition which they did not replace because
they could not strike it down because it had not been raised
before them. So they struck down his Sheppard S.7 protection
but did not replace it with an exemption like they did for
the S.4 offence. So because the Crown did not appeal his S.7
cultivation exemption, the Court couldn't strike S.7 down
but it could take away his Sheppard S.7 exemption leaving
him unprotected against S.7. And leaving him once again, on
Aug. 1 2001, prohibited from the cultivation of marijuana
offence.

I could only point out that the court could not have left
him unprotected because it would have rendered the
prohibition once again unconstitutional, just as they had
originally found. If Parker's unprotected, the law is bad,
he'd just have to prove it again.

3) Hitzig "medical" exemption
I did use the Hitzig case in the way Derek Francisco used
it to argue that: "Those who establish medical need are
simply exempted." But the judge said that it meant that
"people who establish medical and get exemptions are simply
exempt." Of course, they're not talking about people who can
get exemptions who are simply exempted, that's obvious.
They're talking about people brought to trial before them
who have been charged because they do not have exemptions.
It's people who are charged who show medical need to be
simply exempt, not people who aren't charged.

4) Hitzig resurrection
And of course, we got into whether the Hitzig Court could
resurrect the law. I pointed out how the Parker Court of
Appeal had said it wasn't up to the courts to fix the
legislation and then the Hitzig Court of Appeal said it was
fixing the legislation.

The funniest part of all was when Leafloor cited out how
Section 2(2) of the Interpretation Act says that when a
court declares a law to be of no force and effect, it is to
be deemed repealed but then pointed out where the Hitzig
Court of Appeal had said that when a court declares a law to
be of no force and effect, it is to be deemed "inoperative,"
not repealed. Imagine the Crown laying out the indictment
against the Hitzig judges for usurping the prerogative of
Parliament perfectly. Parliament says "do this" and a court
says to ignore Parliament and "do that." That's the point I
later stressed, these judges told Canada's judges to ignore
Parliament's Act and obey their Order!! And the Crown uses
it to point out that the Order of the Court supersedes the
law of the land!!! It is often part of a Crown strategy to
make my points for me and pretend that they worked to score
for them.

The judge pointed out how the Hitzig Court had found it
reasonable to have a "gatekeeper" dispensing the drug and
that the Court of Appeal had fixed it so that they ruled the
MMAR Marijuana Medical Access Regulations were now
functioning fine. I could only point out that exempting one
in a thousand who need it might be construed as success for
a lawyer but not for an engineer. Remember, for an engineer,
one in a thousand failures causing death is unsuccessful.
Until every epileptic is protected, it can't be said to
work. For a lawyer, one in a thousand causing life is not
failure. The difference between a lawyer and engineer is
the difference between between a competent man and a not
less competent man but an incompetent man. Imagine them
saying that protecting one in a thousand is good enough. I
could only protest that it may be good enough for lawyers
but not good enough for reality.

The Crown again tried to argue that the Parker Two case was
asking the same medical relief as the Parker One, to declare
the prohibition unconstitutional. I pointed out he wasn't
asking to declare it unconstitutional since I was an
applicant and I wasn't sick. So it couldn't have been the
same request. It was to declare it unconstitutional since
Terry Parker Day.

5) Krieger invalidation
I pointed out how the Krieger invalidation of section 7
applied to section 4.

For most of the two hours, the judge was looking for a way
to wriggle out of it. He kept hitting me with Alan Young's
damned Hitzig decision and I kept hitting back that it was a
travesty that had to be ignored and was still being now
challenged at the Supreme Court.

Judge Clements reserved his judgment to June 28. It's the
same day that Rudy Seegobin returns to Ottawa for his S.24
application for the return of his pot too. Busy day.

--
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