From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: After ruling he didn't see how reduced chances of   
   survival relate to the Right to Life, Ontario Provincial   
   Judge Keast dismissed his constitutional Mernagh Plus Why   
   Charter motion and convicted Mike Ethier of Possession of 3   
   ounces of marijuana.   
      
   But then said that given the state of the law and upcoming   
   legalization, he was granting an Absolute Discharge! He knew   
   that Mike had been exempted before but had lost his doctor.   
   No criminal record! How great! Mike's last conviction was in   
   2008 so he'll be past the 10 year limit that would bar him   
   from being a Designated Grower. He can now get into the   
   industry legally. After all, his conviction proves he's   
   experienced.   
      
   But Judge Keast also convicted him of pot-impaired driving,   
   gave him a $1,000 fine and had to impose the mandatory 1-   
   year license suspension for pot impairment. That's going to   
   hurt a guy who lives in the northern sticks half an hour   
   from town. Remember, if he drove in the manner testified to   
   by the delusional cop, it's hard to believe such a danger on   
   the road has never caused an accident!   
      
   The learned judge erred in presuming that someone who smokes   
   marijuana is therefore impaired, doesn't matter if he's   
   never caused an accident. Then again, he did have a demented   
   cop's testimony to convince him this guy who's never caused   
   an accident has been driving dangerously impaired all these   
   decades.   
      
   It will be a fascinating appeal. Anyone know anyone else   
   ever convicted of pot-impaired driving? I remember Rick   
   Reiber beat the charge in Pembroke in yesteryear. Mike   
   pointed it out but the judge still found that Mike had been   
   too impaired at the time to drive safely. Har har har.   
      
   The judge who could not see what was there, the flaws in the   
   ACMPR to render the regime constitutionally dysfunctional, but   
   now sees what was not really there, impairment. Har har har.   
      
   Anyway, Mike could have one of our last MedPot appeals to   
   the top and maybe the only "Pot-Impaired" appeal ever! And   
   by the time we get there, pot will have been legal and   
   accidents will have come down.   
      
   So, is Mike Ethier the only person ever convicted of pot-   
   impaired driving in Canada? He'll be the only such case ever   
   recorded in the Supreme Court of Canada. Guaranteed.   
      
   Then again, the hallucinating cop will be a stumbling block.   
   Maybe he was tired, rather than delusional or demented. But   
   following a driver for over 20 minutes before deciding he's   
   impaired seems odd. Wonder if he and Mike had a history?   
      
   Still, since cannabis enhances motor skills, the law itself   
   that presumes impairment is the problem, not just the cop   
   who, even if he had seen no impaired driving, could have   
   still laid the charge based on smell alone.   
      
   So a unique pot argument on the way to the top.   
      
   But we have to get a stay on the sentence and him driving   
   again as soon as possible. Remember, despite evidence of   
   never causing an accident, the judge can say: Sure, we now   
   know that cannabis enhances motor skills but the cop did say   
   that even with better motor skills, you crossed the line and   
   the shoulder in those 30 kilometers of driving.   
      
   But if the pot-mandatory minimum isn't there, the sentence   
   can be reduced. And if the pot-impairment isn't there, so he   
   wandered across a line. And there could be other reasons he   
   strayed. He could have been reaching for his coffee. Rather   
   than due to being high, it was due to him rolling a joint!   
      
   Final problem, I left Mike the money to order me the CD of   
   my testimony. They're telling him that he has to make a   
   motion to the judge and won't sell him the audio.   
      
   Don't forget, self-defenders, lawyers and reporters have the   
   right to tape the proceedings for our own notes. I've done   
   it since 1988, but I'm the only court-participant who ever   
   took advantage of that. No lawyers or reporters bright   
   enough to have caught on yet. So I've stopped telling people   
   to record their hearings because they can order them.   
   Quebec, same day. Nova Scotia, paid and mailed a few days   
   later. But I guess the Charter Right to equal treatment   
   under the law may not apply in North Bay or Ontario.   
      
   So maybe not just North Bay. Looking at the Audio Order   
   Form, it says that Crown Attorneys and media can buy a CD   
   but Litigants and Members of the public have to get an Order   
   from the judge! Right on the form.   
      
   I presumed that when a litigant filed the form, it would be   
   sent to the judge for his consent. But Judge Brown sent   
   Mike's form back stating he had to make a motion for an   
   Order!   
      
   Imagine. In Quebec, I walk over to the tape-recorder   
   department and fill out the form and walk out with the tape   
   half an hour later. In Nova Scotia, I filled out the form   
   and paid the $25 and they mailed it to me. But in North Bay,   
   or maybe Ontario, your lawyer needs to file a motion.   
      
   Now the form asks reason: to supplement personal notes, and   
   lays out the understanding of conditions and no-nos I have   
   to sign that I understand. It points out I'm subject to   
   Court of Justice Act Rule 136, the rules for self-taping   
   against broadcasting. I've abided by it for almost 30 years.   
      
   But they changed that rule. It used to say that litigants,   
   lawyers and reporters could unobtrusively tape record to   
   supplement their notes. I did that for years without even   
   telling the judges.   
      
   Then they changed it to say: may tape, in a manner approved   
   by the judge...   
      
   What does that mean? How many manners are there to   
   unobtrusively record? Something wrong with my phone? They   
   could have said: "after alerting the judge..." to let him   
   know, but no, "in a manner approved by the judge" lets him   
   say he doesn't approve of your tape recorder or phone.   
      
   And now the form says that litigants have to get the judge's   
   permission to get their audios but not Crown or reporters.   
      
   Almost begs for a constitutional challenge.   
      
   Since either the litigant or member of the public has to go   
   for the order, I decided I would file the motion for the   
   Order okaying selling me the transcript of my testimony. So   
   I wrote up a short Motion:   
      
                         COURT OF ONTARIO   
                   (Superior Court of Justice)   
                        (Northeast Region)   
   BETWEEN:   
                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                       Respondent   
                             - and -   
                          MICHEL ETHIER   
                                                          Accused   
      
                         NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT John Turmel, member of the public, seeks an   
   Order authorizing the sale of the audio recording of the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)