From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: MedPot Mike Spottiswood wins if all grows in Canada illegal   
      
   JCT: I was going to parse the Crown's arguments in response   
   to our motions but a card fell into my hands today that   
   comppletely zaps the Crown's case! This is the most   
   incredible card to fill Mike Spottiswood's Royal Flush, a   
   true Joker, and I just discovered it today. It's been in the   
   legislation for the past 3 years and even I hadn't noticed   
   the contradiction before.   
      
   MMAR Section 32:   
   "The Minister shall refuse to issue a personal-use   
   production licence if:   
   (d) the proposed production site would be a site for the   
   production of marihuana under more than four licences to   
   produce; or   
   (e) the applicant would be the holder of more than two   
   licences to produce.   
      
   Everyone thinks no permit for grower with "more than two   
   licences" or site with "more than four licenses."   
      
   But that's not what's written. Sure, the section refuses a   
   grower with "more than two licences," but S.32(d) refuses   
   growers with "under more than four licenses."   
      
   What's "under more than four?" What's "under over four?"   
      
   ar har har har har har. They threw in one too many negatives   
   to reversed the onus! When dealing with "over" or "more   
   than," "under is like a "not!"   
      
   What's "more than four?" Problem triggers at "five." So   
   replace "more than four" with "five" and repeat:   
      
   "Refusal for sites with under "five" licenses.   
      
   Right? "Under more than four" means "under five?" Repeat.   
      
   "The Minister shall refuse to issue a personal-use   
   production licence if: (d) the proposed production site   
   would be a site for the production of marihuana under five   
   licences to produce."   
      
   Since this section has been misinterpreted to say they can't   
   have a site with over four, when it really says "under five"   
   which reverses the direction, it means there are no legal   
   over-four sites at all in Canada and that the extra negative   
   in the Section makes all "under five" sites illegal. And   
   that's all of them!   
      
   The MMAR can't be said to be working for Mike if his grow is   
   illegal under S.32(d)!   
      
   If "under more than four" is the new Regs, they're already   
   dead too! Won't Harper be screwed to have his new Regs   
   declared unconstitutional the day after they come into force   
   since they come into force on June 19, right in the middle   
   of Mike's June 17-21 trial!   
      
   Justice and Health Canada don't have links to the new   
   legislation, so check it out and relay it me if the new June   
   19 Regulations contain the Fatal Turmel Miracle Card.   
      
   The reversed S.32(d) onus will be introduced at the opening   
   of Mike Spottiswood's constitutional challenge Monday   
   morning. Imagine spotting the strategically winning card on   
   the verge of Monday's combat! Serendipity.   
      
   Imagine all the work I no longer have to do. The MMAR's been   
   flawed all the way, they're going to have to drop all   
   remaining CDSA charges while the "under" was in the section   
   back to 2010 at least, (and I'll ask the Court to order the   
   expunging of old convictions while the law was dead Monday   
   rather than ask the Crown later,) and even before 2010   
   because the MMAR was flawed by the Beren flaws they didn't   
   fix in the new legislation that got their fix backward.   
      
   Oh, three licenses per site not enough, okay, we won't lift   
   it to four, like it looks, we'll cancel them all! Quite the   
   fix. Cancelling them all in trying to raise to cap to four.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)