From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Chris Enns Seeking Return of Pot from last bust, busted again!   
      
   JCT: Chris Enns just posted:   
      
   Background & Overview:   
      
   Sherri and I are seeking compensation for the cannabis   
   plants and dried cannabis that the police seized in 2014   
   despite being within the limits of our MMAR production   
   licenses. As all of the charges surrounding that raid have   
   been completely withdrawn, our CDSA s 24 application, which   
   was filed within the 60-day time limit, is now live and set   
   down to be heard in Dartmouth Provincial Court in April 2018   
   with Tousaw Law at helm of the ship.   
      
   JCT: I'm proud to say it was my motion for Return of Pot   
   which is included when people file the Quash Motion that is   
   now paying off. Bet Kirk Tousaw is happy fighting this   
   unique opportunity. Face it, no one else ever applied for   
   the return of their pot up front except guys arguing the law   
   is dead, not that they're not guilty. It paid off for Derek   
   Francisco and Voytek Krzyz. Should pay off for Chris too.   
      
   CE: This is a nascent area of caselaw, however, so I am   
   seeking legal advice and reasoned responses from all those   
   interested in the outcome. It seemed fairly straightforward   
   that the crown would need to compensate us for the plants   
   and cannabis that were seized. They are now seeking to   
   dismiss our claim for lack of jurisdiction. I've copied   
   below the section of the criminal code that provides the   
   right for compensation in lieu of return:   
      
   Application for return of substance   
   24 (1)Where a controlled substance has been seized, found or   
   otherwise acquired by a peace officer or an inspector, any   
   person may, within sixty days after the date of the seizure,   
   finding or acquisition, on prior notification being given to   
   the Attorney General in the prescribed manner, apply, by   
   notice in writing to a justice in the jurisdiction in which   
   the substance is being detained, for an order to return that   
   substance to the person.   
      
   Payment of compensation in lieu   
   (5) Where, on the hearing of an application made under   
   subsection (1), a justice is satisfied that an applicant is   
   the lawful owner or is lawfully entitled to possession of a   
   controlled substance, but an order has been made under   
   subsection 26(2) in respect of the substance, the justice   
   shall make an order that an amount equal to the value of the   
   substance be paid to the applicant.   
      
   JCT: Seems pretty clear that when the substance has been   
   properly disposed of too soon, there is compensation.   
      
   Security, health or safety hazard   
   26(2) Where, on the hearing of an application made under   
   subsection (1), a justice is satisfied that there are   
   reasonable grounds to believe that the controlled substance   
   constitutes a potential security, public health or safety   
   hazard, the justice shall order that the substance or any   
   portion not required for the purposes of a preliminary   
   inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this or any other   
   Act of Parliament be forfeited to Her Majesty to be disposed   
   of or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the   
   regulations or, if there are no applicable regulations, in   
   such manner as the Minister directs.   
      
   Issue   
      
   The police, without legal jurisdiction, destroyed the plants   
   and cannabis before making any application to the court. As   
   such, when our section 24 application was filed, the judge   
   never made an order under s. 26(2) because the Crown noted   
   on the record that the plants and cannabis had already been   
   destroyed by the police independent of any application or   
   legal process.   
      
   Crown is seeking to having our CDSA s. 24 application   
   dismissed on the grounds that since no order was issued by   
   the provincial court under s. 26(2), then there is no   
   jurisdiction to have a hearing under s. 24(5) for payment of   
   compensation in lieu.   
      
   JCT: "since no order was issued by the provincial court   
   under s. 26(2) TO DESTROY IT, then there is no jurisdiction   
   to have a hearing under s. 24(5) for payment of compensation   
   in lieu.   
      
   So when the substance has been properly disposed of too   
   soon, there is compensation, but when improperly disposed of   
   too soon, no compensation? Har har har. Since the cops broke   
   the law, Chris has no recourse. Lawyers will say anything.   
      
   More serious, two days after the Crown withdrew the 2014   
   charges, they busted Chris again! Of all the people to want   
   to tangle with again.   
      
   I hope it's made him mad enough to dig out some ACMPR   
   Delayed victims to join our Federal Court Fight. Looking   
   forward to April's hearing. Should be great fun for Kirk.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)