JCT: Real Martin lives is in the Northern Ontario bushland
with without electricity or modern conveniences. He gets no
mail delivery but uses a post office box.

The Crown has the same bad habit I do of serving and filing
our documents usually on the very last day. I do it because
I mull and mull and only when faced with a deadline does it
all finally come out in its final form at the last minute.
In this case, I finished printing out my last Reply at
4:15am and my bus was leaving Brantford for Ottawa at 5am.

It's incredible how many of the hundred cases or projects
I've engineered were finished in the last two hours. I
remember a couple of times typing up my motion right in the
Court of Appeal office lobby. Once I arrived at 3:30,
sitting down on the floor and plugging in my typewriter and
finishing up at 4:15, with time to make copies and file by
closing time at 4:30. I have no doubt the clerks have their
own favorite stories and some may remember Turmel's instant
paperwork.

This time, last minute service caused the Crown a problem.
When their bailiff went looking for Real, they couldn't get
proof of service until he picked it up and who knows when
he's going to come into town. So they couldn't prove service
and have to file an application to the Supreme Court for an
extension of time to file their Response to Real and to use
fax service which comes to my number, since Real doesn't
have a phone.

Of course, because Real adopted Pierre's arguments, I didn't
write and file a Reply for his case! You'll notice that the
Ontario Court of Appeal had listed Real Martin before Pierre
Drouin on the documentation even though Pierre was charged
first and filed his Krieger motion to prohibit prosecution
first. I had even asked the Court to make sure our
consolidated case be headed Pierre Drouin, the accused sick
guy with the exemption, but they put the Real Martin, the
accused sick guy without the exemption. So I didn't want
them allocating the argument to Real so I didn't file a
Reply after having him adopt Pierre's arguments.

But I couldn't have served Real's Reply to the Crown
Response anyway. He never got it. He's only getting it now.
So even though all their arguments have been rebutted in
Pierre's Reply and I don't really have to file one in Real's
name, it does give me one last kick at the can in case I've
forgotten anything.

I've actually thought of something that would be useful for
someone in Real's position to make.

No matter what bull the Crown is issuing about some
imaginary stay giving them the right to bust cultivators,
the Supreme Court of Canada own web site's note on the
Krieger case says only that the Alberta Court of Appeal
struck down the Section 7 cultivation offence. No mention of
any imaginary stay. Has Real been entrapped by the Supreme
Court saying Section 7 offence was struck when it never took
effect?

And the Alberta Court of Appeals own decision says clearly
that Justice Acton demanded nothing of the Government, she
simply struck the section 7(1) cultivation offence as
unconstitutional. And the Court of Appeal dismissed the
Crown's appeal against her Order invalidating the
cultivation offence in 2003 in exactly the same way the
Parker Order invalidated the possession offence in 2001. No
mention of any imaginary stay. Just that Section 7 is
struck. Has Real been entrapped by Alberta Court of Appeal
saying the cultivation was struck when it never took effect
because of some stay continuing emanate out of the Appeal
Court when the Appeal Court dismissed the matter?

If there was some kind of Order forever staying the Acton
invalidation, you'd have thought these courts should have pointed it
out rather than let everyone think Section 7 offence is
struck when it's not. Looking at the Supreme Court's
information, it says the section is struck down, that's all.
So, going by only the Supreme Court writings, they
said Section 7 has been struck down no matter what the Crown
says.

Now they're going to have to tell him that what the Supreme
Court of Canada has printed is not right, that there is a
stay out a lower court that they didn't mention which
countermands the striking down of the section by the highest
courts. So though the Supreme Court says it's struck down,
it really isn't. Har har har har. Can't wait to hear them
say their judgment has been over-ruled by a lower court!

Criminal law demands a strict interpretation of criminal
statutes. Even if the Appellant Crown's stay pending appeal
continues after the appeal has been dismissed, the fact it
wasn't mentioned has mislead and entrapped the accused into
thinking that what the Supreme Court had said was true.

If what the Supreme Court printed wasn't true, then the
accused shouldn't be held accountable for what the Supreme
court misrepresented as a non-illegal activity.

Wow. Pretty neat. With all the technical stuff in Pierre
Drouin's case, I can seek the obvious conclusion in the side
case!

If anyone else can think of anything that should be added at
this stage, I've still got 4 more pages I can fill in our
last shot to erase all 300,000 marijuana convictions in
Canada the past 6 years. And then send those ill-defended
people to their court masters to tax their lawyer's bill
for incompetent representation that let them be convicted
under and invalid statute that was plainly invalid. Can't
they read the Supreme Court's English?

No one should laugh. Going after the the last 300,000 bogus
prosecutions is the cake for which the original 4000 people
I did get off the hook is just the icing.

Send any suggestions to medpot-discuss@yahoogroups.com


--
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