JCT: Here's all the good stuff from the the Crown's documentation
at the Supreme Court they never thought would see the light of
day:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(On Appeal; from the Federal Court of Appeal)
Between the Applicant/Appellant
The Attorney General for Canada
Counsel for the Applicant
Sean Gaudet
Certificate of Counsel signed by James Gorham

And the Respondents
Dora Sfetkopoulos et al
Counsel for the Respondents
Ron Marzel

JCT: Mr. Gorham is the attorney who argued Sfetkopoulos in Terry
Parker's case currently under advisement by Justice Tulloch and
will have to defend against our new Supreme Court of Canada Ace.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Dated at Toronto this 22nd day of December 2008.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA'S MEMORANDUM

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

CR: OVERVIEW

1. The Federal Court of Canada has interpreted Section 7 of the
Charter as conferring the right to obtain marijuana from the
supplier of an individual's choice, notwithstanding the existence
of an effective licit supply of marihuana provided by a
Government licensed supplier. If left standing, the decision:

(a) will remove the ability of the Government to limit the size
of marijuana grow operations, making it likely that large grow
operations will be created, thus raising important security
concerns such as the risk that marihuana will be diverted to
criminal use; and

JCT: That's typical backward lawyer thinking when it would be
easier for the RCMP to police 10 large grow ops than 1000 small
ones. Sadly, Ron Marzel never refuted it.

CR: (b) revives arguments that the offence of marijuana
possession in section 4(1) of the CDSA is constitutionally
invalid, despite this Court having settled the issue in R. v.
Malmo-Levine.

JCT: Isn't the Crown lucky to have that Judas Goat Malmo-Levine
case to count on. Another Alan Young-connected "oops, sorry to
help the Crown again" loser. But we know that the Malmo-Levine
decision only stated what we agree with, that Government has the
power to prohibit controlled substances. What it did not say was
that the prohibition is valid. It only says they can make a valid
prohibition. But they have not since Parker and Krieger.

CR: 2. The decision of the Federal Court also contradicts the
judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig v. Canada, and
is inconsistent with the decisions of other lower courts. This
court should resolve the conflict in the jurisprudence.

JCT: The Crown says they're inconsistent because Ontario Court of
Appeal in Hitzig said S.41(b.1) was unconstitutional and now the
Federal Court says it too. This is a favorite Crown tactic, claim
the opposite of what it is. Both courts found the same section
unconstitutional for the same reasons so call that an
inconsistency. Har har har har.

CR: 3.-9. Background....

10. Having ensured the existence of a reasonable and licit
supply, the Government re-introduced s.41(b.1) in order to limit
the number of persons for whom a designated grower can produce
marijuana...

JCT: And the court ruled that that did not mitigate the violation
of the right found in Hitzig and found it violated the same right
for the same reason as Hitzig in Sfetkopoulos. Not inconsistent!

CR: The Judgments in the courts below

11. In April 2005, the respondents file an application for
judicial review seeking an order declaring s.41(b.1)
unconstitutional...

12. The applications judge, Strayer D.J. granted the application
and declared s.41(b.1) to be contrary to section 7 of the
Charter... Strayer D.J. concluded that s.41(b.1) of the MMAR
negatively affected the respondents section 7 liberty and
security interests... Strayer D.J. found that by re-introducing
s.41(b.1) the Government had not complied with the Court's
decision in Hitzig...

13. He rejected that the marihuana supplied by PPS was
inferior...

14. The Government filed an appeal and sought to stay Strayer
D.J.'s judgment pending appeal... Granted by Chief Justice
Richard.

15.-17. (What Crown says happened at Federal Court of Appeal.)

PART II - ISSUES

18. Why the issue is of public importance

PART III - ARGUMENT

20.-26. Arguing its public importance.

JCT: They argued it wasn't of national importance in Terry's
case. Har har har.

CR: The significant implications of the judgments below

27. By striking down S.41(b.1) of the MMAR, the Federal Court of
Appeal has removed the limitation of the size of the DPL
production facilities. It is now possible for one person to grow
marijuana for several authorized marihuana users. In striking
down this provision, the Federal Court of Appeal has effectively
prevented the Government from being able to control the size of
DPL operations.

28. The judgment may result in the proliferation of large scale
marihuana grow operations. To this point in time, one grower has
already indicated an intention of growing for 250 people. This
will entail the cultivation and harvesting of several hundred
kilograms of marihuana.

JCT: Good, finally, they'll be able to get the benefits of the
economies of scale.

CR: 29. It is important to emphasize that they were intended to
be small operations producing marijuana only for one person...

JCT: Reducing any economies of scale down to zero and making the
medicine as expensive as possible.

CR: 30. Indeed, this rationale - minimizing the risk of diversion
- was a key reason for the re-introduction of s.41(b.1).

JCT: Again, the risk of diversion is less for 10 large well-
policed grow-ops versus 1000 small ones.

CR: 32. Given the high street value and its wise use as a
recreational drug, it was reasonable for the government to
conclude that the risk that DDPL holders will use marijuana for
non-medical purposes or that marijuana will be stolen from their
premises is greater for larger scale grow operations than for
smaller operations.

JCT: Who's going to rob one of those 10 grow-ops with the RCMP
sitting on top of them? The rationale is backwards.

CR: 33. The judgment in this case may create confusion concerning
the constitutional validity of the prohibition against the
possession of marihuana as set out in S.4 of the CDSA and
therefore compromise existing prosecutions under the CDSA. In R.
v. Poelzer, for example, a prosecution currently underway in B.C.
Supreme Court, defence counsel has argued that, by virtue of the
Ontario Court of Appeal's judgment in R. v. J.P. the invalidation
of s41(b.1) of the MMAR retrospectively invalidates s.4(1) of the
CDSA in respect of marihuana.

JCT: And not only now in BC, but Terry Parker has it before
Justice Tulloch, Real Martin has it in the Court of Appeal, Jim
Turner too. After 6 years of us arguing it, someone in BC finally
caught on to lead us to victory?

CR: The Court in R. v. JP ruled that the combined effect of
Parker and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally valid
marijuana possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003,
the date the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the decision
in Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision as creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity
dating back to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-
introduced into the MMAR."

JCT: Wow.

CR: The conflict between the judgments below and other
jurisprudence

34. ..The Federal Court of Appeal has now stated that this (MMAR)
is not an adequate response to the supply problem, without
articulating any reasons explaining why this is so.

35. A number of other courts across the country have also
concluded that the regulatory amendments made by the Government
in response to the Hitzig decision ensure an adequate supply of
marijuana, and therefore pass constitutional muster.

CR: Dated Dec 22 2008.
Sean Gaudet

JCT: So those were the high-lights of the Crown's Memorandum to
the Supreme Court of Canada.

Now the Response by the Alan Young teammate Ron Marzel.

RESPONDENTS' MEMORANDUM

RM: OVERVIEW
5. The Federal Court of Appeal's decision dovetails with the
Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig and any inconsistency with
lower courts is solely the result of the inadequacy of evidence
concerning the operation of the MMAR program in those lower court
proceedings.

7. The Federal Court of Appeal chose to answer.. that a one-to-
one ratio is arbitrary in so far as such a limitation does
nothing to advance the Government's interest in preventing the
diversion of a controlled substance into the recreational market.

8. The Federal Court of Appeal's conclusion that s.41(b.1)
violates Section 7 of the Charter
(b) does not call into question the constitutional validity of
the marijuana possession offence contained in CDSA s.4(1).

JCT: So the prohibitionist Crown admits that J.P. says that the
MMAR flaw does invalidate the CDSA prohibition and the pro-medpot
lawyer argues not!!! Whose side is he on? Of course, being
connected to the Professeur Saboteur, there's no more need for
the Crown to argue that the prohibition does not fall when the
Respondent has accepted it has not been invalidated!! Well, we
disagree with Mr. Marzel and his mentor, Court Clutz Young.

RM: 9.-41. Nothing much of interest.

Dated at Toronto on Feb 6 2009.
Ron Marzel
---

APPLICANT'S REPLY

JCT: Even though Ron Marzel stated up front that he doesn't
believe that the flaw in the MMAR causes the CDSA prohibition to
be invalid, the Crown's last point was:

CR: 12. Finally, while many lower courts have refused to follow
the judgments of the Federal Court case, the B.C. Supreme Court
recently relied on the judgments below in invalidating s.41(b.1)
of the MMAR, although it suspended its declaration for a year.
The accused was convicted of possession for the purpose of
trafficking but was granted an absolute discharge because some of
the intended recipients of the marijuana were ATP holders.
Dated Feb 16 2009
Sean Gaudet
---

JCT: Now for some fun, the Crown's motion for a stay of
execution. Here they're going to tell some truth about what their
losing will mean, words we'll use against them in all upcoming
cases.

MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

CR: The public will suffer irreparable harm if the Order is not
stayed

5. If the Order is not stayed pending the proposed appeal, the
public will suffer irreparable harm... Courts of criminal
jurisdiction may interpret the Order as retrospectively
invalidating the offence of marijuana possession in CDSA s.4(1).
Dated Feb 19 2009
Sean Gaudet

JCT: Dropping their last 10,000 cases and erasing their last
400,000 bogus convictions is going to cause the public to suffer
irreparable harm? Not doing anything costs 5000 new busts a
month.

CR: MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT

1. The Federal Court of Appeal has declared s.41(b.1) of the MMAR
constitutionally invalid...

2.-16. Grow-op concerns

17. This Court has recognized that there is a public "interest in
avoiding harm to users and others caused by marihuana
consumption." The effect of the judgment of this Court is to
jeopardize this public interest in two ways:

(1) by invalidating s.41(b.1) Health Canada may be required to
issue DPLs to producers operating large scale "grow ops" that are
not subject to the prescriptive security requirements that are
imposed on licensed dealers such as PPS; and

(2) Courts are being urged and may interpret the FCA's judgment
as retrospectively invalidating the offence of marijuana
possession, trafficking and/or production in sections 4,5, and 7
of the CDSA.

JCT: I also argued that if the possession offence was invalid,
the other marijuana-related charges including my own possession
for the purpose of trafficking charge had to also be invalid. The
Ontario Court of Appeal rejected my argument and said that it was
possible to possess something legal for an illegal purpose. Har
har har. Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons are the same judges
as in the Hitzig case. Nice to see lawyers making the points I
had made that the learned judges rejected. Sort of proves I was
right and they were wrong all along.

CR: (2) The public interest in maintaining the offence provisions
of the CDSA

JCT: And if they lose, the offence provisions are no longer
maintained?

CR: 21. Members of the criminal defence bar have argued that s.4
of the CDSA is retrospectively invalid as a result of the
judgments of the courts below.

JCT: And members of Turmel's guerrilla lawyer army have been
making the argument a lot longer than these newbies.

CR: For example, defence counsel in the R. v. Poelzer appeal
before the B.C. Supreme Court argued that the FCA's judgment
means that Parliament failed to implement a constitutionally
acceptable scheme for ensuring a licit supply of marijuana for
medical reasons, as required in the Ontario Court of Appeal in
Hitzig, and that the prohibition of possession of marijuana is
therefore of no force and effect. While this argument was
rejected by the Court in that case, this has not prevented it
from being raised in other prosecutions.

JCT: Namely, all of ours. Parker, Martin, Turner, TO Trio,
Nielsens, even Turmel and Pierre Drouin.

CR: 22. In a judgment issued on Feb 2 2009, without written
reasons, Justice Koenigsberg of the B.C. Supreme Court declared
that s41(b.1) of the MMAR to be unconstitutional on the same
grounds as the FCA in this case, but suspended the declaration of
invalidity for one year. She went further and, on the same
grounds, struck down S.54.1 of the MMAR, which restricts the
number of licensed growers who can grow in common.
R. v. Beren, Feb 2 2009, (B.C.S.C. #131900)

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/04/2009BCSC0429.htm is
the decision in R. v. Beren. The highlights are:

[127] Adopting the reasoning in Hitzig and Sfetkopoulos, further
bolstered by the evidence before this court, I find ss. 41(b.1)
and 54.1 of the MMAR contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

REMEDIES
[129] As the matter now stands, the federal Court of Appeal in
Sfetkopoulos declared s. 41(b.1) invalid and refused to suspend
that declaration. The case is under appeal to the Supreme Court
of Canada.

JCT: Was.

[133] The discussions set out above, in both Hitzig and then
Sfetkopoulos, suggest the admissibility of finding a means by
which compassion clubs can be licensed or regulated. I use
compassion clubs as shorthand for persons who, once licensed and
regulated, may grow marihuana and cannabis for more than one ATP
holder. In order for such regulation to withstand Charter
scrutiny it must be done without unduly restricting the ability
of such organizations to take advantage of economies of scale,
carry out research on the efficacy of varying strains of
cannabis, and/or other desirable activities directed toward
improving access to medical treatments to eligible patients.

[134] Such regulation and licensing requires careful thought in
drafting. Consistent with the reasoning in Schachter v. Canada,
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, 93 D.L.R. (4th) 1, these provisions, unduly
restricting DPLs from growing for more than one ATP or growing in
concert with two other DPLs, are hereby severed from the MMAR.

[135] The government, in my view, will need time to put in place
appropriate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in relation to
such compassion clubs. Thus, it is appropriate to stay the
effect of this declaration of invalidity for one year.
"Koenigsberg J."
Feb 2 2009

JCT: Wow, another flaw has been declared in s.54.1 of the MMAR
that we didn't even know about!!! The MMAR is doubly
unconstitutional!! Hey, Michael Muirhead, are two flaws starting
to turn you optimistic?

RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR STAY
Dated Mar 4 2009
Ron Marzel

JCT: The Alan Young-connected lawyer didn't deal with whether the
prohibition becomes invalid when the MMAR becomes invalid. We
know our medpot champion lawyer accepts that the flaw in the MMAR
does not invalidate the prohibition in the CDSA.
---

REPLY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

JCT: Nothing more on whether the prohibition is dead or not since
Ron Marzel has accepted it isn't.

ORDER
It is ordered that the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal
made Oct 27 2008 is hereby stayed pending further order of this
Court.

JCT: "Pending further order of the court" are 6 words we've seen
before in our dealings with David Frankel. This time, it's going
to be a bigger dog to bite him. It strengthens Terry's Krieger
card!
This is the exact wording used by Alberta Justice O'Leary in
staying the effect of the Krieger invalidation of S7 cultivation
prohibition letting Crown Attorney David Frankel argue that the
Krieger invalidation never took effect because the stay pending
further order survived the Final Order upon dismissal of their
appeal and still needed to be lifted. Of course, once the appeal
is dismissed and the court becomes functus officio, no motions
may be made to lift the stay so Frankel's Foible results in the
Krieger invalidation being stayed forever.

Now here at the Supreme Court, the execution of the Sfetkopoulos
invalidation of the MMAR was stayed "pending further order of
the court" which I argued is s standard phrase, not a prime
Order. And now that the Supreme Court has dismissed their case,
can the Crown now argue the Frankel Foible that the stay still
needs to be lifted (even though motions can't be filed after the
court is functus officio) and ergo, the Sfetkopoulos invalidation
is stayed forever a la Krieger?

Of course, I doubt they will dare raise the Frankel Foible to
argue the Sfetkopoulos decision remains stayed forever because a
stay pending further order of the court survives the Final Order
of the Court and still needs to be somehow lifted.

The Frankel Foible arguing that a stay pending appeal needs to be
lifted after the appeal is dismissed before the Krieger
invalidation took effect has been exposed by this analogous
situation at the Supreme Court as baseless and strengthens
Terry's ground that the prohibitions on cultivation and
possession were invalidated by Krieger in early 2003 making for a
seamless interval of invalidity between Terry Parker Day and now.

A third flaw in the prohibition strengthened. Feeling rosier
Michael?

So finally, on April 23 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada
dismissed the Crown's application for leave to appeal and all the
things the Crown says they fear will come true have hopefully
come true. Of course, even though they should stop prosecutions,
they're going to keep the machine slicing through the population
until a judge of a superior court comes to that conclusion
officially.

Isn't it incredible how much good stuff can be dug out of the
background material that no one ever expected anyone but the
judges to ever read? Har har har har.

What's interesting is that despite the claims of national
importance from the fear that the law will be declared invalid
since 2003, with another 300,000 bogus convictions to deal with,
the Supreme Court still rejected their appeal.

Of course, they didn't expunge the 100,000 bogus convictions
during the Parker two years and the the Supreme Court even helped
with the cover-up when it was pointed out to them. so they must
figure they'll refuse to expunge the next 300,000 bogus
convictions during the Sfetkopoulos interval of invalidity too.
The Supreme Court of Canada did nothing to correct the record
the last time hundred thousand bogus convictions registered were
pointed out, who bets they'll do anything to correct the record
now when it's soon pointed out the 300,000 bogus convictions
registered? And still being registered since April 23 2009 when
it became official.

My "Supplementary Written Representations on the Sfetkopoulos
MMAR invalidity rendering the marijuana prohibitions in the CDSA
of no force and effect" to Superior Court Justice Tulloch will be
filed at the Brampton courthouse on Monday.

Sorry Derek if I've had to focus on winning it for everyone but
just sit back and know you're legal for all sorts of medical and
non-medical reasons so whether you closely follow MMAR
regulations on supply issues can't be much of a worry, especially
when they know tangling with you is a war of attrition with them
on the expensive end. It's actually time for everyone who can to
go for the kill.

The Crown didn't say how many cases it feared were being fought
on this issue below. But it's going to be more and more.
Sure, it's a "stupid gimme" kind of win, prohibition is off
because of flimsy grower regulations rather than solid too-long
odds of finding doctors, or solid POLCOA with Parker and Krieger
invalidations, but if Health Canada wants make a stupid move to
gimme the ball in their own end zone, who am I to not to have
Terry Parker take it, sit down and score.

What an ending to the Parker saga. The first Superior Court
Declaration of S.4 being declared no longer known to law by the
same guy who got the Appeal Court ruling s.4(1) to be invalid.

What serendipitous coincidence in timing that it be Terry Parker
in court right now leading the final charge after having lead the
original charge and discovering a third nail to hammer in the
prohibition's coffin. It's like having this last Sfetkopoulos
card popping up on River to give him his Royal Flush. What
theatre!

And the best part of it all is that visually, it's not just some
guy disappearing after the charge is dismissed, it's the Crown
handing over a pound of pot to Terry Parker! I'll have a camera
there even if the major media don't.

I'll always respect Terry for standing firm 7 years ago when Alan
Young and Crown Lara Speirs tried to get him to swap Justice
Pitt's constitutional exemption "until the Government complies
with the court's ruling" for a S.56 exemption by the Minister of
Health or Justice Chapnik's exemption without that declaration
that the MMAR had failed to comply with the Parker ruling. So we
know that Alan and Lara wanted to get rid of, don't we. And we
never lost the Pitt declaration, first out of Superior Court,
that the MMAR had failed to comply, because Terry didn't take the
bribe.

And that enthused me into getting him into every court I could
until we're now at the serendipitous point that Terry's going to
win it all for us. Sorry if I'm gushing but imagine how
everything would be different today if he'd fallen for Alan's the
Crown's bribe.

My hat's off to you Terry, I'm just honored to have been given
the privilege of engineering your armaments for you. When I think
of how they robbed you of the credit in the Hitzig decision by
changing the style of cause from Appellant Terry Parker and
others to Respondent Hitzig and others, it's justice that you get
the credit for the final kill even if Alan robbed you of your
name on the all-important "Hitzig" decision.

Go look it up anyone. After a Justice had specifically titled the
consolidated appeals as Terry Parker, Hitzig et al, after that in
the Carthy decision you'll see that the style of cause is Terry
Parker, Hitzig, et al. But to give Alan Young credit, the Court
of Appeal surreptitiously changed it to Hitzig, Terry Parker et
al. Why would they switch names so the Respondent gets credit and
not the Appellant who initiated the issue? It's quite the theatre
and it's all recorded in 9 years worth of blog.

Interesting that the abolition of the prohibition of marijuana
may be taking place at the very same time as my project to
abolish interest rates takes root with interest-free community
currencies abounding all around the world and only a matter of
time until they adopt the Time Standard of Money and become
compatible with each other.

Imagine fixing usury and healing herb prohibition around the same
time. Either one will propel interest in the other. Then maybe I
can get them to legalise gambling and other joys in life.