From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Judge Bradley didn't explain why he wouldn't follow   
   Parker/Krieger, he just said he was following other higher   
   courts who did not follow P/K.   
      
   THE COURT:.. for providing my oral decision. Mr. Ethier, the   
   difficulty that I have with your submission is that the   
   arguments that you have relied on have been used in the past   
   in various courts at different levels and they have all been   
   ejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal in several decisions.   
      
   JCT: They all ignored P/K and they all ignored S.43 of the   
   Interpretation Act so why shouldn't he?   
      
   For example, in R. v. Ethier in 2011 and R. v. Parker 2011 the   
   Ontario Court of Appeal indicated that all of the provisions   
   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are in full force   
   and effect.   
      
   JCT: The Court that violated the Interpretation Act repeats   
   that they brought the laws back to life. Wow.   
      
   Mr. Ethier has not brought forward any evidence for this court   
   to review in support of his application to quash and or stay   
   any sections of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and as   
   a result I will dismiss Mr. Ethier's application to quash and   
   stay section 4(1) of or any other sections of the Controlled   
   Drugs and Substances Act.   
      
   JCT: So, doesn't face the fact he's violating the   
   Interpretation Act, (wonder if he even read the motion?) nor   
   face the fact he's not following P/K. Just relying on the   
   other courts who committed the mistake first, he didn't even   
   have to read why he was wrong when higher guys were wrong   
   first. Not exactly judicious but it's his alibi some day.   
      
   THE COURT: With regards to Mr. Ethier's application under   
   section 24 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Mr.   
   Ethier did not have the right to possess marijuana when the   
   application was brought and there is no evidence before the   
   court which would suggest that the applicant is currently   
   entitled to possess marijuana and as a result the drugs in   
   question which were taken from Mr. Ethier by the authority   
   shall not be returned to Mr. Ethier or his church. Mr.   
   Ethier's application under section 24 of the Controlled Drugs   
   and Substances Act shall be dismissed. This matter shall be   
   adjourned to the trial date.   
      
   JCT: I guess he missed the part where it says Michael wants   
   his pot back at the end of the trial if found not guilty.   
   Looks more and more like he didn't even read it.   
      
   I was just wondering when the trial date was.   
   CLERK A full day on February 5th and 5 hours on February 9th   
   CLERK: Court room 305 at 9:30   
      
   JCT: OK, so Michael has his appeal of his "law still dead"   
   motion to take upstairs. And he has to file his constitutional   
   challenge by Jan 5, 30 days before the hearing.   
      
   He'll need witnesses who can testify in Sudbury that their   
   doctor refused for a non-medical reason. The Mernagh Plus Why   
   move we've never yet had the chance to present.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)