JCT: So the Crown lost their application for leave to appeal the
Federal Court of Appeal's declaration that the MMAR was not
constitutionally sound since Dec 3 2003!!!

Of course, the Government has not corrected the unconstitutional
violation yet until they heard from the Supreme Court yesterday.
So now they're going to have to fix it to bring the probihition
back alive according to Alan Young's Hitzig statute resurrection
theory.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot-discuss/message/12636
is the Crown's description of what the Sfetkopoulos case was
about before we go in the CanWest misrepresentation.

>57. On Jan 10, 2008, approximately one month after Justice
Clements released his decision in this matter, Deputy Judge
Strayer of the Federal Court released a decision declaring
paragraph 41(b1) of the MMAR constitutionally invalid as
inconsistent with section 7 of the Charter.

JCT: So the MMAR were not constitutionally sound since Health
Canada re-issued the bad conditions on Dec. 3 2003. Of course,
the Crown tried to argue that:

>58. However, the decision of Deputy Judge Strayer did not
invalidate the entire MMAR, only s.41(b1). Therefore, the
possession prohibition remains valid despite the decision in
Sfetkopoulos and the Appellant cannot rely on that decision in
support of his argument that he now has a right to possess
marijuana.

JCT: However, the Hitzig Court also did not invalidate the entire
MMAR, but only s.41(b1) and three other sections. And there, the
possession prohibition did NOT remain valid. If 4 flaws made the
whole MMAR invalid, then 1 flaw makes the whole MMAR invalid too.
Har har har har.

>59. Furthermore, the issue before Deputy Judge Strayer was
whether persons authorized to possess marijuana have reasonable
access to a licit supply of marijuana.

JCT: It doesn't matter what the flaw or flaws were. Once the
exemption was constitutionally flawed, the prohibition was
invalid.

>Parker has reasonable access to an exemption. The provisions of
the MMAR which are germane to this appeal, namely those
provisions governing how an individual obtains authorization to
possess marijuana, were not at issue in Sfetkopoulos.

JCT: And they weren't at issue in Hitzig. Other flaws were found.
It isn't at issue here but another flaw was found by the court.

>As such, the decision should have no impact on the case at bar.

JCT: As such, the decision should have a great impact on the case
at bar. If the possession prohibition is invalid because the MMAR
was constitutionally flawed again, we win. Quite an impact.

>60. In any event, the Federal Court of Appeal has stayed the
decision of Deputy Judge Strayer pending the resolution of an
appeal initiated by the Attorney General of Canada. Therefore,
the decision of Deputy Judge Strayer is of no force and effect
for the purposes of this proceeding.

JCT: And it's official as of April 23 2009 that the stay and
application for leave to appeal have both been dismissed and the
decision of Deputy Judge Strayer is now of force and effect for
the purposes of this proceeding. And dismissed with costs! A true
waste of time argument.

I'm having a buddy go get the background documents from the
Supreme Court in Ottawa (remember the Frankel statement from the
Krieger memorandum that the cultivation and by implication
possession had been declared of no force and effect?) We'll hear
what the Crown told the Supreme Court about what the case meant
and you can bet it wasn't what Janice Tibbetts is telling us on
CanWest news:

Top court ends government pot monopoly
By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service April 23, 2009
The Vancouver Sun
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/x.php?1s7j

OTTAWA - Canadians who are legally permitted to smoke pot to
treat illness won a victory in the Supreme Court of Canada on
Thursday when it refused to hear an appeal of a ruling that put
an end to the federal government monopoly.

JCT: A declaration that the MMAR didn't work is warped into an
"end to monopoly?

>A three-judge panel, without giving reasons, rejected the
Justice Department's application to challenge a Federal Court of
Appeal decision that gave licensed producers the right to grow
marijuana for more than one patient.

JCT: It didn't give them the right, it declared that preventing
them was a violation of their rights. Which should stop as of
today. The MMAR hasn't yet been fixed. Giving licensed producers
the right to grow is far less important that giving the MMAR a
constitutional thumbs down.

>The Supreme Court's decision to stay out of the matter
effectively upholds the 2008 ruling, which dismissed the
government's argument that the industry would be thrust into
deregulation if the court loosened federal restrictions.

JCT: She tells us of the wrong argument that got dismissed. But
not of the right argument that won.

>The decision was a victory for a group of patients who
challenged the federal regulations, arguing that the government-
issued pot, supplied by Prairie Plant Systems in Manitoba, is too
weak and that they should have the option to find their own
supply.
The appeal court decision struck down government regulations that
authorized users who cannot grow their own marijuana to designate
a grower, or obtain government-issued weed.

JCT: U guess the strike down took effect yesterday and according
to the Professeur Saboteur, now that the MMAR flaw has been
removed after 5 years, the law's back alive again.

On until Turmel's Parker case turned it off on Aug 1 2001.
Off until Young's Hitzig case turned it on Oct 7 2003.
On until Health Canada installs the flaw on Dec 3 2003.
Off until Health Canada fixes the flaw.
And it hasn't announced any repair since the loss yet.

> The patients sought the right to buy marijuana from Carasel
Harvest Supply Corp., which, under the current regime, was not
allowed to supply more than one patient with medical marijuana.
There are about 2,000 people legally allowed to use marijuana for
medical purposes, but the lower court found only 20 per cent buy
it from the government supplier.
Justice Department lawyer Sean Gaudet argued in the appeal court
that statistics weren't enough to conclude the government-
supplied marijuana was inadequate, or forced people to seek drugs
on the black market.
Moreover, sanctioning growers to supply more than one patient
would allow the industry to develop "without safeguards" and
exacerbate the risk that marijuana will be diverted to improper
use, he said.

JCT: Those are his rejected reasons for re-installing the flaw.

>With files from Jordana Huber + Copyright + Canwest News Service

JCT: Of course, no one expects the CanWest presstitutes to tell
the whole story, the important story. This isn't the first time
CanWest distracted from the true victory to focus on the minutia.
They ignored Terry Parker who eventually got the law declared
invalid on Terry Parker Day Aug 1 2001 to concentrate on Alan
Young's case that got the law declared resurrected on Hitzig Day
Oct 7 2003.

This is an incredible victory for us that the Crown and the narc
moles won't be able to high-light. Only we can use it because
only we keep going after the repeal the prohibition. Sfetkopoulos
is in Terry Parker's case under advisement before Justice Tulloch
right now (I'll have to fax him info on this), it's in Real
Martin's cultivation appeal, and it's going to be in every
application to prohibit or quash charges we ever file from now
on.

By the way, I was speaking to a guy doing a Krieger prohibition
who mentioned that the Crown was getting frustrated since they've
been at it for 3 years and with no trial started. I pointed out
it gave him more time to keep looking for a specialist so his
doctor will sign his exemption application and once he gets it,
he's off the hook like Derek Francisco. So spending another year
going all the way to Supreme Court gives him an extra year to
find a doctor and win by exemption!

I suggested he have his doctor ask Health Canada for a list of
Ontario doctors who have signed for exemptions so his doctor
doesn't have to search for the 1/60 needle in the haystack. If no
list, a judicial review. Wouldn't a list available to doctors be
useful! Applicants too?
What a rush when you know the real truth.