From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: MedPot Bela Beke offered Simple Possession for 10 pounds   
      
   Jct: That's part of the good news. The Crown, Mr. Clark,   
   also reassured Bela that there would be no jail time. He had   
   originally offered him 10 months in jail on P4P Possession   
   For the Purpose of trafficking. Instead, Bela filed his   
   Quash, Constitutional and Return Motions (on time) and chose   
   a jury trial! Maximum documentary nightmare for the Crown.   
   Now they're offering no jail for a mere Possession plea!!   
      
   Bela Beke is another perfect case. He has a spinal injury   
   but needs to find a specialist which will take time. He was   
   pulled out of the line of cars on the 401 doing 107 for a   
   dirty search which revealed 10 pounds in the trunk.   
      
   At the Jan 23 2013 hearing before Justice Rick Leroy, Mr.   
   Clark explained he was just agent right now and when it went   
   to trial, the Ottawa boys would be coming down to fight it.   
   Har har har. I wonder how that sounded to judge Leroy? It   
   had to let him know this was no ordinary case!   
      
   Bela asked if his "McKenzie Friend" John Turmel could speak   
   for him. Mr. Clark didn't object though he pointed out it   
   didn't mean I could defend at the trial. It was understood   
   and Judge Leroy said sure.   
      
   So I explained how Bela's kits were being used in London by   
   Spottiswood, in what order the motions had to be heard, pre-   
   plea S.601 Quash, then Plea (mute), then post-plea   
   constitutional challenges, then Crown prosecution. And why,   
   despite so many judges failing to see, people keep coming   
   back at them with the same POLCOA argument to repeat: S.43   
   Interpretation Act says you can't fix the MMAR to revive the   
   CDSA after Parker struck the offence down. Parliament Only   
   Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate! POLCOA   
      
   I explained how our BENO challenge included the Sfetkopoulos   
   and Beren precedent rulings on the same two flaws as found   
   in Hitzig so it should have the same effect as Hitzig did: a   
   second BENO period as feared by Crown Sean Gaudet to Supreme   
   Court of Canada in Sfetkopoulos v. Canada:   
      
   "[33] The Court in R. v. J.P. 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."   
      
   And we're the only people who have fulfilled the Crown's   
   nightmare to ask the courts to construe what the Crown fears   
   the smart ones would ask the courts to construe. Funny that   
   no lawyer has ever been smart enough to ask what the Crown   
   so fears would be asked!   
      
   I explained how the list of 50 civilian witnesses in   
   Spottiswood will be offered the chance to testify in Beke or   
   whoever's case comes up first. As expected, the 50 civilian   
   witnesses put the Crown in a state of shock. He argued that   
   they'd have to be vetted so we didn't waste time in   
   duplicated. We didn't go into that but I could have pointed   
   out that though all 50 witnesses may want to testify about   
   each tort they suffered, When the judge has heard enough on   
   a particular tort, for instance, that they all had trouble   
   finding a doctor, the judge can say: No more evidence on   
   flaw (d) is now needed from the rest of the witnesses. I've   
   heard enough on that one. In that way, one at a time, the   
   judge can say he's heard enough until all the flaws are   
   covered. So, though they may want to argue that large   
   numbers are an attempt to waste time, the fact is I've   
   engineered a presentation with no wasted time because it's   
   really always going to be up to the judge to decide when he   
   needs to hear no more from witnesses on any particular   
   topic! The last few witnesses may only testify on one tort   
   since the other torts have been taken care of by an earlier   
   20 witnesses. We're just providing him with the biggest list   
   in case he needs to hear the max on any one point.   
      
   Since Bela is also going to want to do a constitutional   
   challenge against the dirty search, I've never done one   
   because getting off on a technicality doesn't win anything   
   for the group though I'd love to do this one challenging the   
   police power to pull anyone over because everyone is   
   speeding when the limit is set too low! I've always hated   
   the fact that just staying with everyone else put me in   
   jeopardy of being arrested and frankly, this first challenge   
   on low speed limits would be a joy and a perfect case.   
      
   After the hearing, Mr. Clark said he'd let Bela plead down   
   to simple S.4(1) Possession and no jail! Bela was now in a   
   bit of shock. I'm playing the bad cop in "bad cop - good   
   cop" so I moan about how Bela won't get his pot back if he   
   stops fighting but Bela's focusing on what kind of sentence   
   recommendation the Crown would make.   
      
   I could see him copping a plea to mere possession if they   
   didn't destroy his pot and he retained the right to move to   
   return the Motion for Return of Controlled Substance when he   
   gets his exemption or if Government changes the law! If Bela   
   is still before the courts when the government changes the   
   law in the next few years, he gets his medicine back. That   
   alone is worth keeping the fight alive for free. He has   
   nothing to gain by taking the conviction now rather than   
   after the lengthy fight. Besides, they might change his   
   sentence and even order return of his pot if he's got his   
   exemption by then. So stopping the fight loses the chance to   
   get his pot back if government changes things.   
      
   So for him to take the plea, they'd have to hang on to his   
   pot a few years until the question of its return is   
   triggered by his getting his exemption or the government   
   changing things, say 3 years. If he keeps his shot at   
   getting his medicine back alive for 3 years, I could see him   
   copping the plea since he already has a record so another   
   possession conviction won't change anything. Unless they   
   want some kind of big fine. He's $30,000 in credit card debt   
   (had to keep using his medicine even after they grabbed his   
   cheaper stash) and that would be onerous.   
      
   But without jail, there's only a fine, a discharge, mere   
   probation, or community service. And the longer he fights,   
   the better the deal will be. When his application to get his   
   pot back is heard, I advised him that having done community   
   service would look better than having paid a fine. And he   
   can't afford the fine anyway.   
      
   So with an acceptable Crown sentencing recommendation, and   
   Bela keeping his chance at his medicine back alive, I could   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)