From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   Jct: Crown Andrew Brown filed his Response to Voytek Krzyz's   
   Quash Motion coming up on July 15 in St.Johns. It was a 2-   
   inch binder of his argument and a couple of dozen of the   
   past dismissals by other courts. As if their wrong opinion is   
   going to help.   
      
   Remmeber, the major Ace in the hand is S.43(a) of the   
   Interpretation Act on the effect of the courts striking down   
   the caps on growers so they are deemed to be repealed in the   
   MMAR:   
       Effect of repeal   
       43. Where an enactment is repealed in whole or in part,   
       the repeal does not (a) revive any enactment or anything   
       not in force or existing at the time when the repeal   
       takes effect..   
      
                 PROVINCIAL COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND   
   BETWEEN   
                          WOJCIECK KRZYZ   
                                                Applicant   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                Respondent   
      
                     BRIEF OF THE RESPONDENT   
                 APPLICATION TO QUASH INFORMATION   
      
   CR: PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   1. The Applicant, Wojciech Krzyz, has been charged with the   
   following offences:   
   i. possession of in excess of 3Kg of cannabis marijuana for   
   the purpose of trafficking, contrary to S.5(2) of the CDSA;   
   ii. trafficking in excess of 3KG of cannabis marihuana   
   contrary to s.5(1) of the CDSA.   
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
   2. The Applicant says that the Information charging him   
   under ss5(1) and 5(2) CDSA does not allege offences known to   
   law and should be quashed. The CDSA sets out general   
   prohibitions subject to targeted exemptions, notably   
   regulations permitting licensed possession and production of   
   cannabis for medical purposes in some circumstances. Some   
   courts have found specific clauses of the applicable   
   regulations (Medical Marijuana Access Regulations and   
   Medical Marihuana Production Regulations) unconstitutional   
   but this has not yet led to a declaration of invalidity of   
   the general prohibitions contained in the CDSA. The   
   Information in question is not misleading; it contains   
   sufficient detail such that the applicant is reasonably   
   informed of the unlawful acts against him. The offences in   
   the Information are known to law and the Information should   
   not be quashed.   
      
   PART II - ISSUE   
      
   3. Are any of the charges faced by the applicant under the   
   CDSA "unknown to law?"   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENT - THE LAW   
      
   4. The applicant argues that the provisions dealing with   
   marihuana in the CDSA are not in force because they have   
   been previously struck down by courts and not re-enacted by   
   Parliament (the "POLCOA" argument). The applicant also   
   alleges that there are inadequacies in the Marihuana Medical   
   Access Regulations (MMARs) made pursuant to the CDSA and   
   that these inadequacies render the marihuana prohibitions in   
   the CDSA invalid (the "BENO" argument).1   
      
   Note1: The BENO argument arguably raises a constitutional   
   question by impugning the constitutionality of the   
   regulations governing medical marihuana. While Mr. Krzyz has   
   not served the federal Attorney General or Newfoundland and   
   Labrador Attorney General with the application to quash, the   
   PPPSC has provided copies to both AGs who have declined to   
   participate in the application.   
      
   JCT: I thought Crown Brown had ducked the Rogin Joker but   
   he's back to take another beating. Voytek will have to ask   
   to have a copy of that letter to see what statute Brown told   
   them Voytek was trying to strike down in his Charter Quash   
   motion! Har har har.   
      
   CR: Response to the "POLCOA" argument   
      
   5. The decisions in R. v. Parker [2000] and R. v. Krieger   
   [2000] [2003] (Crown appeal on S.7 CDSA dismissed,   
      
   JCT: Brown forgot to mention that they declared the   
   prohibition on production in S.7(1) of the CDSA of no force   
   and effect! Oops. Must missed that line out of the 10 line   
   decision.   
      
   CR: Crown leave to appeal dismissed at SCC, led to orders   
   making the constitutionality of S.4(1) and 7(1) CDSA   
   dependent on the existence of a constitutionally sound   
   medical exemption regime!   
      
   JCT: Har har har. After denouncing BENO. Bad Exemption means   
   No Offence, he now affirms that the Offences in "S.4(1) and   
   7(1) CDSA dependent on the existence of a constitutionally   
   sound medical exemption!" He gets that "Good Exemption is   
   Good Offence," but now has to argue that Bad Exemption is   
   Good Offence too, not NO OFFENCE. Har har har har har har.   
      
   CR: 6. In response Parliament enacted the Marihuana Medical   
   Access Regulations (June 14 2001) ("MMAR"),   
      
   JCT: Wonder where Crown Wonder got June 14 2001. They had a   
   year from the July 31 2000 Parker decision and issued the   
   MMAR the day before giving Terry 1 day to get a specialist   
   to sign. So that's July 30 2015. I guess I'll have to have   
   Voytek point that out.   
      
   CR: intended to provide a regime for a medical use exemption   
   as a cure to the problem identified in Parker and Krieger.   
   Parliament amended the MMAR in 2003 and 2005.   
      
   JCT: Well do I remember July 9 2003 as I predicted Health   
   Canada would have to ship out the pot to users since I'd   
   scuttled their extension of time for their Hitzig appeal and   
   the Lederman decision would have taken effect if they had   
   not. I even had a countdown day by day laughing how they'd   
   better ship the pot by the 9th or I'd win. Just check the   
   medpot archives at yahoogroups. Great day. I'd stayed over   
   at Terry's and saw in the morning paper.   
      
   CR: 7. In Hitzig v. Canada   
      
   JCT: Turmel was there too! Heck, Cross-Appellant Hitzig   
   wouldn't have been there if Appellants Parker and Turmel   
   hadn't appealed. So why was the case not named after the   
   Appellant Parker and instead named after the shysters the   
   Crown dragged in? As the crooks in the back-rooms why the   
   Style of Cause was changed from Parker-Hitzig-Turmel to   
   Hitzig-Parker-Turmel.   
      
   CR: Lederman found that the MMAR were unconstitutional and   
   declared the MMAR invalid, with a 6-month suspension of the   
   declaration. On appeal, Hitzig v. Canada [2003], [leave to   
   appeal denied SCCA] on Oct 7 2003, the court overturned the   
   broad declaration of invalidity of the MMAR, striking down   
   only specific sections:   
       a. the prohibition against an Authorization To Possess   
       (ATP) holder compensating a Designated-Person Production   
       Licence (DPL) holder for growing marijuana - s. h34(2);   
       b. the provision preventing a DPL holder from growing   
       for more than one ATP holder - s.41(b);   
       c. the prohibition against a DPL holder producing in   
       common with more than two other DPL holders - s.54; and   
       d. the second specialist requirement - s.4(2)((c), s.7.   
      
   JCT: But since they still had to drop all remaining charges   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)