From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: In my years of objecting to "only dried" marijuana, I   
   thought it was merely too stupid for them to prohibit   
   removal of impurities. That was the only reason I thought I   
   would have ever needed. But it was limiting my view in   
   another way.   
      
   The "dried only" prohibits purer product but it also   
   prohibits an alternate method of ingestion!!! Considering   
   how the Hitzig deficiencies in caps on growers were judged   
   serious enough to warrant BENO during the 2 years, they were   
   not-so-deadly as prohibiting the only way cannabis can be   
   applied to tumore. It's like saying: here's your penicillin   
   prescription but you can't inject it, you have to smoke it.   
   Or eat it. But not inject it. Far more genocidal.   
      
   So much more genocidal that a Supreme Court of Canada ruling   
   that denying best method violated their right to life for   
   the past 15 years, the whole time, and just like with   
   Hitzig, the shysters didn't ask for No Offence as they   
   Proved Bad Exemption. And just like last time where we had   
   Brian McAllister asking to quash J.P.'s charge as no   
   offence, and winning, everyone can now ask based on Smith, a   
   far more genocidal violation of patient rights.   
      
   With denial of best method, indeed, insistence upon most   
   dangerous method, the MMAR can never have been said to have   
   been constitutional. And like the Ontario Court of Appeal   
   said in rejecting BENO for the Magnificent Seven in R. v   
   McCrady, et al:   
       It was only in Hitzig that the effect of the   
       Bad Exemption was to retroactively render of no force   
       and effect the s. 4 CDSA possession prohibition as it   
       related to marihuana. That order gave effect to the   
       order of this court in Parker (2000). In Parker (2000),   
       this court gave Parliament a year to fix the problem   
       identified in that case. The effect of Hitzig was to   
       find that Parliament had not succeeded. Hence the order   
       in Parker (2000) declaring s. 4 as related to marihuana   
       of no force and effect, took effect, but only until   
       October 7, 2003. Put another way, the BENO argument only   
       applied to the period from July 31, 2001 to October 7,   
       2003.   
      
   JCT: So the first and only BENO period, they say, based on   
   the violations found by Hitzig was from 2001 to 2003. My   
   point is it happened before, it can happen again.   
      
   We now have the Smith decision establishing that both   
   regimes had this genocidal deficiency violating patients'   
   rights the whole time. And like Hitzig, the shysters only   
   sought to prove Bad Exemption, never to emulate McAllister's   
   No Offence. But we may now all use the Smith deficiency to   
   seek the declaration of No Offence and whether the court   
   dare say fixing the regimes after 15 years revives the   
   prohibition, a la Hitzig, it's over just like J.P. could   
   have made it over.   
      
   So here's Voytek's Reply for his Quash Motion which   
   introduces the Smith precedent for the J.P. Quash for the   
   first time presented today in St. Johns.   
      
                                 Information No: 0115A 00409   
                                 Application No: 0115PA 00380   
      
          PROVINCIAL COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR   
                            ST. JOHN'S   
      
   BETWEEN   
                          WOJCIECK KRZYZ   
      
                                                Applicant   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                Respondent   
      
      
             WRITTEN REPLY TO BRIEF OF THE RESPONDENT   
                 APPLICATION TO QUASH INFORMATION   
      
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
      
   1. On Jan 2 2003, a week before the Jan 9 Hitzig decision on   
   the MMAR, Brian McAllister moved Ontario Provincial Justice   
   Phillip to quash the possession charge in J.P because the   
   MMAR exemption had been improperly enacted by policy, not   
   legislation, and with a Bad Exemption, No Offence (BENO) was   
   known to law having not complied with Parker; the charge was   
   quashed. The Crown appealed.   
      
   2. On Jan 9 2003, Ontario Superior Court Judge Lederman   
   struck down the MMAR Exemption as deficient in Hitzig. Upon   
   successfully proving the Bad Exemption for supply flaws,   
   Alan Young failed to move the Court for a declaration of No   
   Offence. Terrance Parker appealed, Crown Respondent dragged   
   in Hitzig Cross-Appellants.   
      
   3. On May 14 2003, Superior Court Judge Rogin upheld the   
   Phillip ruling that a Badly-enacted Exemption meant No   
   Offence known to law. Crown appealed.   
      
   4. On Oct 7 2003, Hitzig and J.P. were ruled on   
   simultaneously. Though Alan Young had proven the Bad   
   Exemption in Hitzig but failed to ask for a declaration of   
   No Offence while the Exemption was absent, luckily, Brian   
   McAllister had asked for such declaration of No Offence to   
   Quash J.P.'s charge.  Though the Ontario Court of Appeal   
   struck out the Bad Exemption due to bad-enactment, it still   
   quashed the charge because the Hitzig decision had arisen   
   proving there had been a Bad Exemption by deficiencies in   
   supply, if not enactment.   
      
   5. The Crown repeatedly cites courts that mention the Court   
   of Appeal did not strike out the MMAR in its entirety but   
   only 4 specific parts. This only furthers the point that the   
   few parts that were struck down in Hitzig were still enough   
   to have rendered the exemption unconstitutionally illusory.   
   Analogous to an automobile with a clamp on the gas line, it   
   won't go far (1 patient/gardener makes expense); with a   
   wrench in the spokes, it won't go far (3 gardeners/garden   
   makes expensive), with a locked steering wheel, it won't go   
   far where you want; the whole machine did not have to be   
   condemned in order to fail.   
      
   6. The Crown points out that the Court of Appeal only struck   
   out the wrench (Patient cap) and the clamp (Gardener cap)   
   leaving the rest of the gone-nowhere-yet machine intact. The   
   Court ruling demonstrates how any malfunction that impedes   
   the machine from proper operation is sufficient to   
   invalidate the prohibitions dependent on it. And with such   
   almost-trivial supply issues to boot.   
      
   7. Despite the original "wrong enactment" reason for the Bad   
   Exemption having been rejected, with the new Hitzig reason   
   for the Bad Exemption, No Offence known to law was ruled by   
   the Ontario Court of Appeal and the charge remained quashed.   
      
   8. On Dec 3 2003, less than 2 months later, Health Canada   
   re-enacted the cap on patients (clamp on gas-line) and the   
   cap on gardeners (wrench in spokes).   
      
   9. In 2008, Alan Young once again, got the clamp struck down   
   as unconstitutional. But forgot to ask for a Declaration of   
   No Offence while there again had been a clamp on the gas   
   line like in Hitzig.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)