JCT: So let's see how the Sfetkopoulos case is being spun to the
rest of Canadians.

From the Crown's Memoranda to the Supreme Court of Canada, we
know they feared that the Sfetkopoulos strike down of the MMAR
meant:
1) greater possibility of diversion by bigger grow-ops,
2) 6 no-law years by Sfetkopoulos like 2 no-law years by Parker!

Over and over, their fear of fewer larger grow-ops being harder
to police, har har har har nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk; and their real
fear of no law back to Dec 2003 like the no-law from Oct 2003
back to Terry Parker Day Aug 2001.

So the true fear is losing all their on-going prosecutions like
they lost the 4000 against me last time. So the real story here
isn't grow-op concerns affecting dozens, it's constitutional
concerns affecting millions.

So let's see what Canadians are being told the Sfetkopoulos
victory means:

>National Post
>Saturday, May 02, 2009
>Legal haze: Health Canada has 'obstructionist approach' over
medical

JCT: Canadians better get ready for the CanWest haze explanation.

>by Shannon Kari,

JCT: Shannon Kari was the presstitute who distorted the Parker,
Hitzig et al consolidated appeals into a Hitzig appeal story so
when the Court of Appeal changed the style of cause to Hitzig,
Parker et al, it was seamless that the public didn't hear about
the Parker, Hitzig case while it was called the Parker, Hitzig
case until it was no longer called the Parker, Hitzig case.
Shannon and the Court of Appeal completely shut original
Appellant Parker out of the story to write case law under the
name Hitzig, Parker.
Just search for Turmel and "Shannon Kari" at my blog in the year
2003 to see his part in distorting the real import of the Parker,
Hitzig et al appeals that resulted in 4000 charges being dropped.

Picture Caption: About 400,000 Canadians use marijuana to deal
with chronic pain, yet fewer than 3,000 have received official
approval from Health Canada.

JCT: According to Justice Lederman in the Hitzig case, it's proof
it works. That's 1 in 133. For an engineer to have 1 in 133
bridges fail would be a disaster. For 1 in 133 to get covered is
what a lawyer-judge like Lederman calls a success. Har har har.

SK: It was nearly 25 years ago that Jamaican dance hall reggae
singer Frankie Paul crooned "Canadian people love the tusheng
peng" as he exhorted them to "pass it ovah" in his breezy ode to
the joys of marijuana. The musical sentiment was expressed long
after the LeDain Commission recommended in 1972 that marijuana
should be legalized and regulated like alcohol. Whether
accompanied by a reggae backbeat or the more formal findings of a
Royal Commission, the conclusions were the same -- there should
be fewer restrictions on marijuana access.

JCT: Actually, they promised my generation decriminalisation and
Trudeau and Chretien let us down. They didn't promise less hoops
to jump through.

SK: Decades later, the Canadian people are arguably farther away
than ever from legally passing the tusheng peng.

JCT: If you believe the Hitzig decision brought the law back
alive. And Shannon was present back in 2003 to help publish Alan
Young's case that Hitzig had brought the law back alive.

SK: About 40,000 people are still charged each year with simple
possession, according to Statistics Canada. Criminalizing
possession was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2003 on
the grounds that the state must be permitted to use the threat of
criminal penalties to stop "vulnerable people" from "self-harm."

JCT: Notice how he's using the Judas Goat Malmo-Levine case from
2003 to say the Supreme Court of Canada said the prohibition was
currently known to law when the court really said government
could prohibit a controlled substance. We agree but say they
never did since they were invalidated by Parker and Krieger. Of
course, that argument is being heard in the courts of justice,
not this court of CanWest-distorted court of public opinion.

SK: The Conservative government of Stephen Harper is again
proposing stiff penalties for even small level growers,
reintroducing legislation that died in the last session of
Parliament but has always been part of its "tough on crime"
agenda.

JCT: And if they're re-introducing a new prohibition under
section 4, I'll have to visit Parliament Hill again while the
prohibition is valid. Probably on the last day, though.

SK: It is in the field of medical marijuana, though, that Canada
has seemed particularly intent on limiting access even though
other Western nations are moving in the opposite direction.

There are an estimated 400,000 Canadians who use marijuana to
deal with chronic pain and other ailments, yet fewer than 3,000
have received official approval from Health Canada, which has
formally conceded there are legitimate medical benefits from
marijuana. As well, it continues to file appeal after appeal
whenever aspects of its maze of medical marijuana regulations are
struck down by a court as being unconstitutional.

JCT: And each it was struck down by the courts, the prohibition
turned off and each time it was struck up by the courts, the
prohibition turned on, turned off, turned off. Judge-made law.

SK: Marijuana advocates suggest there is a disconnect between the
actual risks of the substance and what the public is being told
by politicians and police.

JCT: More and more of the public realize they're lying about a
herb that causes zero deaths.

SK: "Sadly, law enforcement agencies have done a fairly good job
at scaring the public," said Alan Young, a law professor at
Osgoode Hall in Toronto who has represented many people seeking
greater access to marijuana for medical reasons.

JCT: Shannon working with the Professeur Saboteur again to spin
away from what's really going on. So, how's our Court Clutz going
to try turn turn a win into a loss this time?

SK: Those court battles have consistently struck down obstacles
to obtaining a legal supply for medical users.

JCT: And each time, the prohibition turned off while the flaw had
been impairing MMAR function. On, off, on, off, work for lawyers.

SK: The Supreme Court refused last month to hear a Health Canada
appeal of a Federal Court decision that struck down a rule
restricting designated producers from growing for more than one
user.

JCT: Hooray. An MMAR flaw means the prohibition has been invalid.

SK: A judge in British Columbia also struck down another
restriction in February that no more than three designated
producers can grow together for medical users, in a case
involving the Vancouver Island Compassion Society. Health Canada
responded by filing an appeal of the B. C. decision.

JCT: Hooray, a second MMAR flaw means the prohibition has been
doubly invalid these past 6 years.

SK: Both of these restrictions had already been ruled
unconstitutional in 2003 by the Ontario Court of Appeal, because
sick people were forced to use the black market to obtain their
medicine. Instead of appealing the decision, Health Canada simply
ignored it and re-enacted its restrictions -- those that were
recently struck down again.

JCT: Gimme the ball in your end zone and I say thanks.

SK: The actions of Health Canada "border on contempt" said Mr.
Young, who acted in the 2003 Ontario Court of Appeal case and the
2008 Federal Court proceeding. "They have an obstructionist
approach," he stated.

JCT: Even if it's more than just a stupid gimme, it's a
contemptuous gimme, it's still a gimme and the only thing that
now counts is getting our score on the scoreboard.

SK: While the government has provided a legal supply of marijuana
through a private producer, only a small percentage of medical
users access the product because of complaints about its quality.

JCT: Which the Federal Court did not accept.

SK: The significance of the Federal Court decision is that it
will start to open up the market to other legal producers,
explained Mr. Young. "There is now much more leverage to
cultivate for sick people," he said.

JCT: Now that the prohibition is invalid, I would think everyone
can grow and sell at farmers' markets. Oh, Alan Young meant that
he presumes the prohibition is valid while he gets a license for
his company, not that anyone can now grow it. Which is what the
Crown's greatest fear, the 6 like 2 periods of invalidity,
results in, everyone being able to grow for anyone. No
prohibition.

SK: Health Canada said that in light of the Supreme Court's
decision to not hear an appeal of the that ruling, it will "take
swift and immediate action to revamp the [medical marijuana]
program," though it did not say what that action would be.

JCT: And I've been assured that the Minister has said that they
will not permit multiple exemptions. It would have been useful to
send to Judge Tulloch but you can't always use all your great
cards in making your hand. But that letter would have been a key
support.

SK: The government is also moving forward on tightening laws
against non-medical use.

JCT: Which probably means that since they know the prohibition's
been invalid for the past 6 years, they'll pull another Hitzig
coup, declaring the law alive on the day the admit it's been dead
for the past 2 years. Now they're going to re-enact the law alive
after admitting it's been dead the past 6 years.

SK: The House of Common justice committee resumes hearings on
Monday over reintroduced legislation that would require a
mandatory minimum of six months in jail for anyone found to be
growing even one marijuana plant illegally.

JCT: Lunatics running the asylum. With the financial crash and
police resources soon to be stressed to the limit in dealing with
the new-depression era homeless and disadvantaged, they're
expanding their war of cops and gardeners. Sure seems like there
must be a hidden agenda. Make sure to note the prohibitionists
for someday, the 4 dead epileptics a day since they could have
helped end it can be computed for their discomfort.
For instance, in the 5.5 years, 66 months since the Parker,
Hitzig et al Court could have allowed every epileptics possession
of a joint but instead the Hitzig, Parker et al Court tricked
them into not possessing their cure by convincing them the courts
could bring laws back alive. And the judges are working on
bringing back capital punishment, new judge-resurrected law, to
deal with real problem cases.

SK: Phillipe Lucas, executive director of the Vancouver Island
Compassion Society, and a city councillor in Victoria, stated
that it is the "police lobby" keeping prohibitions in place to
preserve its budgets.

JCT: Another Alan Young-Marc Emery cahoot who accepts that the
prohibition hasn't been invalidated by the flaw in the MMAR. He's
lawying.

SK: Suspicion of marijuana possession is often used as a
"gateway" by officers to check individuals for other crimes, Mr.
Lucas noted.

JCT: Introducing irrelevancy to the story.

SK; During his recent appearance before the Commons justice
committee, the federal justice minister Rob Nicholson told
members that the government believes Canadians welcome tough new
laws against marijuana growers. As well, he asserted that
"marijuana is the currency" used to bring in harder drugs into
Canada. If this is the case, it is a function of the laws against
marijuana, Mr. Lucas said. "Drug-related crime is prohibition-
related crime," he suggested. Small-time medical growers may not
be targeted by the new laws, "but they will be caught up in it.
Police always go after low-hanging fruit," he predicted.

JCT: Been there, heard that. Old news.

SK: Along with easing restrictions on growers, Mr. Lucas urged
Health Canada to simplify its regulations for users.

JCT: Busy man while he can help the notion that prohibition is
still alive even if flaws keep being found in the MMAR.

SK: He pointed to Oregon, where more than 20,000 people have a
state Medical Marijuana card as a result of a streamlined
application process. The program is so accepted that Kitty
Piercy, the Mayor of Eugene, Ore., recently proclaimed next week
as Medical Marijuana Awareness Week.
The state of California has a similar law that allows almost
30,000 cardholders or their caregivers to grow six to 12 plants,
and some counties have recently moved even further on the road to
legalization with proposed measures that would tax the production
of medical marijuana.
It remains to be seen, though, whether Canada will follow those
trends -- despite what Frankie Paul said all those years ago.
skari@...


JCT: Old stuff. And not a word about the "6 years of Sfetkopoulos
invalidity like 2 years of Parker invalidity" problem. Har har
har har. The only place the get the truth of what's going on the
Turmel channel of information. The only place you can read in the
Crown's own words what is really at stake.

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. 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: And it sure isn't the story pushed by Alan Young and
Philippe Lucas to their presstitute Shannon Kari from CanWest
Crooked media in Canada.

One more time:
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.