From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Mike Ethier MedPot Impaired & Charter trial today   
      
   JCT: Mike Ethier's charge for driving while impaired by   
   marijuana charge is being heard today in North Bay.   
      
   He's going to cite the Rick Reimer precedent from a dozen   
   years ago as well as no proof that cannabis impairs.   
      
   Other than chems, "high" doesn't mean "impaired" like   
   "drunk," it means enhanced like better concentration and   
   motor skills. Ask any musician.   
      
   After that, he makes his Mernagh Plus Why Charter challenge.   
   Of course, the Crown has conflated his previous Quash Motion   
   to declare the laws dead by other cases with this new one   
   to make the laws dead by Mike's case. They did not respond to   
   one of the 20 points, including the lack of doctors that won   
   the original Mernagh Minus Why decision.   
      
   Here are my notes on the Crown's arguments against the   
   motion and against the expert witness.   
      
   JCT: Their Defence to the Charter motion does not raise any   
   of the issues of the Charter motion. Ducked it all.   
      
   ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE   
   (NORTHEAST REGION)   
   BETWEEN:   
   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
   Respondent   
   - and -   
   MICHEL ETHIER   
   Applicant   
      
   FEDERAL CROWN ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF APPLICATION   
   DATED 4 JANUARY 2018   
      
   1. The Applicant is charged with S. 4(1) of the Controlled   
   Drugs and Substance Act, S. 253(1)(a) and S. 354(1)(a) of the   
   Criminal Code arising from 11 September 2016.   
      
   2. The Applicant has brought six Applications on 4 January   
   2018, returnable on 5 February 2018, in which he asks this   
   Court seeking an Order declaring:   
      
   A)The MMAR-MMPR-ACMPR marijuana medical exemption regimes   
   invalid for violating the accused's S. 7 Charter right   
   B) Controlled Drugs & Substance Act S. 4, S.5, S.7   
   prohibitions on marijuana of no force and effect while the   
   exemption is unconstitutional pursuant to R. v.Parker (2000)   
   and R. v. Krieger (2000)   
   C) Staying the charges against the accused, and ifjurisdiction   
   D) Striking the word "marijuana" from CDSA Schedule Il;   
   E) Expunging all convictions registered since Aug 1 2001   
   F) Returning the seized Controlled Substance be returned to   
   Applicant pursuant to S. 24 ofthe CDSA   
      
   A) The MMAR-MMPR-ACMPR marijuana medical exemption regimes   
   invalid for violating the accused's S. 7 Charter right   
      
   3. The Applicant advances arguments challenging numerous   
   regulations which are not in issue in the case before this   
   Honourable Court.   
      
   JCT: They are in issue if the issue is the dysfunction of the   
   regimes.   
      
   CR: 4. The Applicant's entire Application concerning the   
   Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR) has no rational   
   connection between the Information before this Honourable   
   Court, and the legislative scheme concerned.   
      
   JCT: It did when Mernagh raised the same challenge minus our   
   extra 19 points.   
      
   CR: 5. On the date of these offences, the Applicant was not   
   licenced to possess medical marijuana.   
      
   6. The Applicant lacks standing, in this proceeding, to   
   challenge the Constitutional validity of the legislative   
   scheme that was not applicable to the Applicant on the date of   
   these allegations.   
      
   JCT: Of course, he has standing by having his Right to Liberty   
   in peril and the ACMPR was applicable to all Canadians.   
      
   CR: 7. Section 7 of the Charter states: Everyone has the right   
   to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not   
   to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the   
   principles of fundamental justice.   
      
   8. Even if the Applicant has standing, his Section 7 Charter   
   rights have not been breached.   
      
      
      
   JCT: Great opinion. Sad there's no why.   
      
   B) Controlled Drugs & Substance Act S. 4, S.5, S.7   
   prohibitions on marijuana of no force and effect while the   
   exemption is unconstitutional pursuant to R. v. Parker (2000)   
   and R. v. Krieger (2000)   
      
   9. The Respondent argues that Sections 4, 5, and 7 of the CDSA   
   are of no force and effect.   
      
   10. It is settled law that the above noted provisions are, and   
   were at the date of the Applicant's arrest, in full force and   
   effect.   
      
   11. These arguments are entirely without merit. The Ontario   
   Court of Appeal recently dismissed these very arguments on   
   substantially similar facts in R. v. Parker, R. v. McCrady et   
   al and R. v. Maloney l and confirmed that the marihuana   
   offences are constitutional and in force.   
      
   12. The Court of Appeal addressed and dismissed exactly this   
   argument in McCrady and Parker. It is worth setting out the   
   court's reasons at some length:   
      
   JCT: All those were motions to quash on grounds that Parker   
   and Krieger had already invalidated the laws and Parliament   
   had never re-enacted them. This is a Mernagh Plus Motion to   
   declare the ACMPR exemption newly dysfunctional for Mike's own   
   Mernagh constitutional win. None of the cases cited dealt   
   witih any new invalidations, they were POLCOA motions.   
      
   CR: The marijuana offences remain in full force   
      
   JCT: The Court has already ruled on that. We are working on   
   that basis they are in force as we try to kill them anew.   
      
   [17] The appellants argue that, in combination, Parker (2000),   
   Hitzig and J.P. have the effect of completely repealing all of   
   the marihuana offences set out in the CDSA. That is incorrect.   
   In R. v. Turmel (2003), 231 D.L.R. (4th) 190, released   
   concurrently with Hitzig and J.P., this court held that Parker   
   (2000) did not have the effect of deleting marihuana from   
   Schedule Il of the CDSA, at para. 6:   
       The declaration of invalidity made by this court in   
       Parker, supra, does not delete marihuana from Schedule Il   
       of the CDSA. It simply declares that the reference to   
       marihuana in Schedule Il is of no force or effect for the   
       purposes of the possession charge in s. 4 of the CDSA. The   
       declaration does not extend to any other section of the   
       CDSA. In particular, it does not diminish the effect of   
       the listing of marihuana in Schedule Il for the purposes   
       of s. 5(2) of the CDSA.   
   In R. v. Parker, 201 1 ONCA 819, R. v. McCrady etal, 2011 ONCA   
   820 and R. v. Maloney, 2011 ONCA 821.   
      
   [18] Following Hitzig and Turmel (2003), this court has   
   repeatedly confirmed that the marihuana offences in the CDSA   
   remain in full force. See for example R. v. Turmel, 2007, ONCA   
   133, at para. 2; R. v. Real Martin (2010, unreported, Ont.   
   C.A. Docket C50273), at paras. 6-8; and R. v. Ethier, 2011   
   ONCA 588, at paras. 3-4.   
      
   JCT: But none of them were constitutional challenges a la   
   Mernagh. If he could, we can.   
      
   CR: Krieger does not assist the appellants   
      
   In Krieger the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that   
   because Mr. Krieger used marihuana to alleviate his suffering   
   from multiple sclerosis, the production prohibition in s. 7(1)   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)