From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Bob Woolsey is in Provincial Court this morning in   
   Abbotsford BC. He filed a Motion to Quash a few weeks ago, the   
   Crown filed a Response and this is his Reply he'll be reading   
   into the record later today.   
      
   Court File No.: 84714 Abbotsford Registry   
      
        IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   
      
                               REGINA   
                                 v.   
                        Robert James WOOLSEY   
      
           APPLICANT REPLY - SECTION 601 MOTION TO QUASH   
      
   1. The Respondent has mischaracterized many cases:   
      
   PARKER NEVER TOOK EFFECT   
      
       3. July 31, 2001 is the date that the Parker order was to   
       have taken effect. In R. v. Parker, on July 31, 2000, the   
       Ontario Court of Appeal declared the marijuana prohibition   
       in s.4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be   
       invalid. The Court suspended the declaration of invalidity   
       for one year. It never took effect because the Marihuana   
       (Medical Access) Regulations came into force on July 30,   
       2001.   
      
   2. The numerous courts cited in the Crown's Response accepted   
   that when the Hitzig decision ruled the MMAR was   
   unconstitutionally deficient on Oct 7 2003, Parker took   
   retroactive effect after July 31 2001.   
      
   REGULATIONS DISPLACED PARKER ORDER   
      
       The Applicant disputes that the Regulations had the effect   
       of displacing the declaration.   
      
   3. "Displacing" is not a legal term but Applicant would submit   
   that that the Crown means that until the MMAR was declared   
   deficient two years after its promulgation, the Parker Order   
   did not take effect, or "displaced."   
      
       8. In Parker, there was a finding of fact that Mr.   
       Parker's frequent and potentially life threatening   
       seizures were best managed by using marihuana. The Ontario   
       Court of Appeal determined that s. 4(1) of the CDSA   
       unjustifiably infringed Mr. Parker's s. 7 Charter rights   
       because it required him to choose between, on the one   
       hand, committing a crime to obtain effective medical   
       treatment and, on the other, continuing with an   
       ineffective treatment.   
       9. Upon declaring this section constitutionally invalid on   
       July 31, 2000, the Court suspended the declaration for one   
       year to give the government time to cure the   
       constitutional defect. The precise nature of the   
       appropriate measures to address the constitutional   
       infirmity was left to be dealt with in the legislative   
       sphere: paras. 200..:.20?.   
       1O. In Krieger, Acton J. of the Alberta Queen's Bench   
       followed Parker but at the same time went even further   
       than Parker. On December 11, 2000 she declared s.7 of the   
       CDSA of no force and effect to the extent that it related   
       to cannabis (marihuana): 2000 ABQB 1012. She also delayed   
       her declaration for one year. The Alberta Court of Appeal   
       upheld her declaration: 2003 ABCA 85 at paras. 4-7.   
      
   NO APPEAL KRIEGER TO SCC   
      
       4. The Government of Canada did not appeal Parker or   
       Krieger to the Supreme Court of Canada.   
      
   4. Applicant's Factum Paragraph 3 notes that leave to appeal   
   the Alberta Court of Appeal's striking down of the S.7   
   prohibition on marijuana production to the Supreme Court (File   
   Number 29569) was denied! In Paragraph 37 of Respondent's own   
   Memorandum with the Voss decision, it says:   
            [3] The appellants advance.. R. v Krieger, 2003 ABCA   
            85 (Canlll), 18 Alta LR (4th) 227, 327 AR 88, leave   
            refused [2003] 3 SCR viii.   
      
   5. The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision striking down the   
   S.7 Production prohibition was not overturned.   
      
   PARTS OF MMAR HITZIG STRUCK DOWN, NOT ENTIRETY   
      
       Instead, and primarily in response to the decision of the   
       Ontario Court of Appeal, it developed the Marihuana   
       Medical Access Regulations, which were promulgated on July   
       30, 2001.   
       16. The Court of Appeal considered the issue of remedy in   
       great detail (at paras. 153-176) and determined that the   
       regulations would become constitutional if the following   
       parts of the MMAR were immediately declared of no force   
       and effect:   
       a) The prohibition against an ATP holder compensating a   
       DPL holder for growing marihuana;   
       b) The provision preventing a DPL holder from growing   
       marihuana for more than one ATP holder;   
       c) The prohibition against a DPL holder producing   
       marihuana in common with more than two other DPL holders;   
       and   
       d) The second specialist requirement.   
      
   6. So only those parts of the MMAR had to be struck down to   
   render regime constitutionally dysfunctional. Only partly   
   defective still caused the Parker declaration of invalidity of   
   the Possession offence to take effect and the 4,000 charges   
   dropped.   
      
       16. The Court held that striking down the MMAR in their   
       entirety and invalidating the marihuana prohibition in s.4   
       of the CDSA was too broad:   
      
   7. The Crown states that striking down the bad exemption in   
   its entirety makes for No Offence. a) As noted, the regime   
   could be dysfunctional without the whole regime being sok. b)   
   Parker already struck down the prohibition in S.4 of the CDSA   
   absent an exemption. If their Hitzig Order that the MMAR had   
   failed to pass constitutional muster and the Parker order   
   invalidating the prohibition had taken effect, why would they   
   be asked to strike down the prohibition that was automatically   
   struck down by Parker? They're were not being asked but should   
   have stated whether the Parker Strike-Down took effect when   
   they declared the MMAR constitutional. J.P., who did ask that   
   the Parker invalidation took effect, was not a constitutional   
   challenge all over again, like Hitzig against the MMAR, nor   
   Parker and Krieger against the CDSA, it was a motion to Quash   
   because of the constitutional wins in Parker and Hitzig. Not a   
   constitutional challenge in itself. So no other judge could   
   ever strike down the CDSA prohibitions once they find the   
   exemption absent and that Parker and Krieger have taken   
   effect, they can only declare that Parker/Krieger have taken   
   effect.   
      
       [156] Dealing first with the eligibility deficiencies in   
       the MMAR, it is true that the declarations sought by these   
       applicants have the effect of removing the barrier of   
       criminal sanction for possession of marihuana by those in   
       medical need of it.   
      
   8. The declaration of a Bad Exemption sought would have the   
   effect of No Offence. BENO again. But Hitzig sought not to   
   strike down the CDSA prohibitions for the "constitutional   
   deficiencies in the MMAR" exemption for the medically needy!   
      
       However, the remedy proposed by the respondents achieves   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)