JCT: Marc Paquette wrote:

>Can a lower court judge overrule the Ontario Court of Appeal's
decision John?

JCT: The "stare decisis" (already decided) doctrine says judges
SHOULD follow precedents from above to avoid contradicting
themselves. But a judge MUST do what is just.

>Are there any risks that Justice Tulloch could be chastised by
the feds if he rules in Terry's favor.. and declare marijuana
prohibition unknown to law for all Canadians... as stated in the
Parker 2000 decision if the feds wouldn't comply to their
decision by the end of their "1" year deadline?

JCT: He cannot be chastised, he can only be overturned by his
bosses above and laughed at if he's wrong. But will he be
overturned if they were always wrong and he is now right? Though
a minority opinion is not always right, a right opinion on a
novel problem always starts with a minority of one.

Let's say we and he are all wrong and
- Alan Young's Hitzig Court did have the power to resurrect a
struck-down law despite there being no statute saying they can
because Crown Greg Smith convinced Judge Gehan Edward in the
Nielsens's case that they wouldn't have if they couldn't have so
they can and Judge Gehan sent them to their persecution;

- Justice Chapnik had the power to set aside equivalent Justice
Pitt's extending the Ontario Court of Appeal's criminal exemption
for Terry Parker as a civil default judgment;

- The Criminal Code doesn't have to be reprinted because the
Court of Appeal says they'll remember which laws therein have
been struck down and which have not.

- Finding the one doctor in 60 Ontario doctors is not an
unreasonable ordeal to put sick and dying people through;

- The O'Leary stay pending appeal continues to stay the Krieger
invalidation after the appeal is dismissed even if the
Sfetkopoulos stay died with the appeal at the Supreme Court.

Then a wrong Justice Tulloch would be overturned, ridiculed made
a laughingstock by the Court of Appeal.

But let's say we and he are all right and

- Alan Young's Hitzig court did not have the power to resurrect a
struck-down law because there is no statute saying they can and
Judge Edward was wrong to bow down to Crown Greg Smith's argument
that the higher court wouldn't have if they couldn't have so they
can and be forced to let the Nielsens be persecuted;

- Justice Pitt could only be overturned by 3 judges upon appeal
and Justice Chapnik did not have power in civil court to set
aside a criminal court remedy by an equivalent judge;

- The Criminal Code does have to be reprinted when courts strike
down bad laws because the strict interpretation of statutes
doctrine says the printed laws should be precise and courts can't
be left to remember which laws therein have been struck down and
which have not.

- Finding the one doctor in 60 Ontario doctors is too onerous an
ordeal to put sick and dying people through when all doctors
should have been compelled to treat;

- The O'Leary stay pending appeal of the Krieger invalidation
died when the appeal was dismissed like the Sfetkopoulos stay
died when the appeal was dismissed.

Then the right Justice Tulloch would be overturned but with no
laughter because he's right unless they simply restate why their
wrong reasons again. And we'd get to appeal his right decision
they couldn't make fun of to the top.

But also, a right Justice Tulloch might be affirmed by the higher
5-judge panel in over-turning the 3-judge Hitzig panel.

So a judge should always do what is just regardless of precedent
but the stare decisis gives the ball-less ones the Nuremberg out
that they were only following higher orders in letting 4
known Canadians a day die from epileptic seizures that could have
been prevented had it not been for their decision supporting the
prohibition that prevented them having their remedy.

Remember, every judge who had the power to save them and did not
has a 4*t K-slab where t= number of days.

Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons have 4*(over 2000 days in 6
years) for 8,000 dead epileptics they had the chance to save but
did not. Har har har har.

I always told them they were dealing with a question of genocide
of the sick and how are they going to feel when they realize
their grandchildren will probably have the math to understand
what The Engineer was telling them but chose not to believe.

And by then, we'll be able to dig up the names of the 8000
epileptics so their families will be able to personally find out
who were the three judges, Doherty, Goudge, Simmons, who, despite
the Engineer's math, let their loved ones die. Har har har har


Derek Francisco wrote:

> Yes it sure is John, he did like your argument! I'm sure he
also has some family members who are sick and use mj too!! ;)


JCT: Never thought of that but sure, he probably does have family
who will end up suffering if he denies them nature's best herbal
medication. Hope there are already some who would benefit.

Ken Surgent wrote:

> He has to follow precedent

JCT: Good precedent and bad precedent?

> no matter what,

JCT: Or what? Is someone going to put him in jail if he doesn't
follow stare decisis? Fire him? What? Nothing, that's what. Only
the quest for righteousness compels him to follow precedent. It's
a doctrine, not a law. The worst that can happen if he doesn't is
having his arguments rebutted and overturned and his being
laughed at. But no judge has to follow a bad precedent though we
agree it's a wise habit to follow a good precedent.

> or Terry has to appeal.

JCT: Or the Crown will have to appeal. Better the judge goes with
righteousness and not worry about who is going to be appealing.

> But now the Beren case is going to the SCC.

JCT: Beren, same as Sfetkopoulos, same as Hitzig, all finding
flaws in the MMAR exemption and not linking to the CDSA
prohibition. How many times do we expect to have flaws declared
in the exemption before it's failure becomes final?

> Kirk said they will cross appeal the access issue, which would
prolly address not enough doctors participating and no DIN for
cannabis.

JCT: So even if Justice Tulloch doesn't knock the doctors odds,
there's another shot.

> My doctor stated that he does not know the dosage or what can
be treated with cannabis. The bottom line is, that no clinical
testing has been done to issue a DIN. The government is at fault
and causing an unconstitutional condition by not funding the
research. Another barrier to access. JMO Ken

JCT: Whatever the reason that doctors are deterred from
participation, they should be compelled to participate if their
patient decides they want to.

So there seems to be only good news happening. Even the Insite
case may end up of help. But it all boils down to Judge Tulloch
goes with the "must obey higher orders, good or bad" or whether
he goes with whatever is righteous.