bb573d62   
   XPost: alt.drugs, misc.legal, rec.drugs.misc   
   XPost: talk.politics.drugs, uk.legal   
   From: reality@check.it   
      
   "johnturmel"  wrote in message   
   news:f9629cf8-c089-45de-b743-5b1ae6e3ed51@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   > JCT: Just a reminder that over the past month since the   
   > Sfetkopoulos ruling on the flaw making the exemption   
   > unconstitutional, 4,000 to 5,000 have been busted under this now   
   > for sure no-longer-known-to-law prohibition.   
   > It's as if the Crown is laughing at the Courts. The Courts can   
   > rule that a law is invalid but as long as the Ministry of Justice   
   > doesn't print any changes in the Criminal Code to reflect those   
   > decisions, the prosecution and defence bar and judges say they're   
   > just going by the Criminal Code. Right? Isn't that their out?   
   > Except that we've now told them about Sfetkopoulos and the Crown   
   > own worst fears stated by Her Majesty's Crown Attorney Sean Gaudet   
   >   
   > The Court in R. v. JP ruled that the combined effect of Parker   
   > and Hitzig meant there was no constitutionally valid marijuana   
   > possession offence between July 31 2001 and Oct 7 2003, the date   
   > the MMAR were constitutionally rectified by the decision in   
   > Hitzig. Courts may construe the Federal Court of Appeal's   
   > decision as creating a similar period of retrospective invalidity   
   > dating back to December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-   
   > introduced into the MMAR."   
   >   
   > JCT: Let's call this the Gaudet Goodie from now on and we'll call   
   > David Frankel's admission that, but for a stay pending appeal   
   > that somehow survived the dismissal of the appeal and the   
   > dismissal of the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme   
   > Court of Canada that still has to be "lifted," Section 7   
   > cultivation and Section 4 possession prohibitions would have no   
   > force and "in Alberta," this Federal Crown Attorney opines. Har   
   > har har. I'll call this "stay pending appeal that still needs to   
   > be lifted or the law is invalid" argument the Frankel Foible   
   > because it surely is one lamentable weakness for a Federal Crown   
   > Attorney to profess or make up.   
   >   
   > But still, of these last 4,000 recently-busted people, imagine,   
   > not one is filing a "no-longer-known-to-law" motion to prohibit   
   > because it was suppressed by Alan Young who has misrepresented   
   > the real win and Shannon Kari, CanWest's distortioning   
   > presstitute. Imagine the thousands busted in just the past 4   
   > weeks who don't know! Har har har har. Boy, will they be pissed   
   > off when they find out. I hope.   
   >   
   > Anyway, the Crown has responded to our added arguments about the   
   > meaning of the Sfetkopoulos decision in Terry Parker's case   
   > before Justice Tulloch for the return of his anti-seizure   
   > epilepsy herb that was seized by Canada Post that has raised the   
   > Gaudet Goodie, the Sfetkopoulos argument, (and now Koenigsberg   
   > argument) as our final arguments that the Crown's worst fears   
   > have come true; that this court will   
   > - construe the Federal Court of Appeal's decision as creating a   
   > similar period of retrospective invalidity dating back to   
   > December 3 2003, the date that s.41(b.1) was re-introduced into   
   > the MMAR;   
   > - or worse earlier for various other reasons presented.   
   >   
   > I can tell you that their arguments are really lame, really lame,   
   > and I'm going to have fun parsing it and then filing my final   
   > Reply.   
   >   
   > But think of it, 4,000 busted people don't yet know because no   
   > one but Alan Young and CanWest is telling them! Amazing example   
   > of media distortion, isn't it? 4,000 should-be-angries if they   
   > ever find out what the Crown was really worried Sfetkopoulos   
   > meant about as they were still busting them under a 6-year   
   > invalid law like the erred the last time I caught them for   
   > busting people under the 2-year dead law they're now worried   
   > might once again have happened. And if it weren't for our Judas   
   > Professeur Saboteur on the media telling everyone it's not about   
   > the prohibition being gone, they might have found out.   
   >   
   > Anyway, I'm always staggered at the stakes I am a gambling. The   
   > last time I was right about the law being dead for 2 years, that   
   > cost 100,000 bogus busts and convictions even if they let the   
   > last 4,000 off. This time I'm right about the law being dead for   
   > the past 6 years, tha cost 250,000 to 300,000 bogus busts, even   
   > if they again let the last 4000 off.   
   >   
   > And think of the Crown lawyers who pulled it off. All those Crown   
   > Attorneys who presented those bogus arguments while they kept   
   > busting people are now exposed as again being wrong and again   
   > having caused these incredible numbers of bogus convictions.   
   >   
   > The guys who were wrong about the earlier 2-year error have blown   
   > it again, right?   
   >   
   > Wrote this on my break. Tomorrow for Crown's case   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)