Orchidman >From: Orchidman >Re: Mike South Uses Get Out Of Jail Kit & Gets Out >Date: #1012239 - Sun Dec 26 2004 07:13 AM O: Here is a letter I sent today. JCT: Instant reaction. Thanks much. O: Dear Chief Justice McLachlin, I feel it is my duty as a Canadian to speak up when I see a grave injustice in my country. In 1982 this country changed from a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional democracy. The constitution is now supreme. It is the duty of the court to ensure that the constitution remain supreme. If police violate anti-privacy laws they must be stopped. If crown prosecutors prosecute in violation of the constitution they must be stopped. If governments try to uphold laws that are unconstitutional they must be stopped. The constitution is now King. When the court sees repeated violation of the constitution in cases such as the abuse of process in the marijuana laws they have a duty to put there foot down hard. JCT: I sure hope so. If not to rein in an errant Sheriff, who? The King of Parliament? The Court? Citing for contempt has to be a useful tool here. Can anyone not say that continued prosecutions under a statute they admitted was invalid is an abuse of process and should be cited for contempt for what they did and if they don't stop? O: No law is better than the confusing state of the marijuana laws today. JCT: And no law is what it really happens to be. O: As a citizen of this great country I am entitled to a law that is clear and free of confusion and every person must be treated equally. Many courts have ruled the marijuana laws are too confusing and threw out the cases. JCT: Some threw them out because the marijuana laws were dead too. O: Now the court has an opportunity to put things straight. The motion coming before you from Mr John Turmel to cite the Crown Prosecutors for contempt and abuse of process is your chance to put your foot down hard. JCT: Oh, is it ever. End the nightmare for the whole country all at once. Make room in the jails to give serious criminals some space. I can move on to bigger things at the UN next. The U.N. marijuana laws are killing the Third World too and The Engineer's job ain't over until everyone's got access to the best herbal medication God ever gave us. O: I have read every word of his motions and I think he is absolutely correct. There is no marijuana law as we speak and the police are still arresting people. JCT: I'd bet they're going to have correct over 200,000 invalid convictions under the invalid statutes. O: When the law was dead for the summer of legalization our society did not fall apart. If you stay the Hitzig ruling like John Turmel is asking our society will not fall apart. If you uphold the constitution our society will not fall apart. JCT: Great point. If there was any use to the 26 months of liberation from Terry Parker Day Aug 01 2001 to Hitzig- Myrden Day Oct 07 2003 that's call the "summer" of legalisation, it's that society did not break down. Thanks much for bringing that to her attention. O: And if you over-ride my rights with the cop-out clause of "compelling public interest" it better be compelling. JCT: And what they found compelling enough to beat recreational use at 6:3 judges will certainly not be compelling enough to beat medical necessity and medical prevention uses. O: I really do believe in the harm principal which states that if I do no harm to others then I should be kept harmless. How could the court over-ride that for the sake of marijuana. JCT: The Court has only ruled it's compelling enough to beat the Malmo-Levine recreational use claim. The court has not yet ruled on whether the need to protect society is compelling enough to beat the Parker medical and Turmel preventative medical claims. Can you not see how the Turmel claim to increase protection for Epilepsy, Dystonia, MS, Fibromialgia, and so many other diseases is much stronger than the Malmo-Levine claim to increase his recreational fun? O: Even the most devious pedophile must be guaranteed the rights of the constitution and his rights should not be over-ridden except in the most compelling cases. To over- ride my rights for the sake of a marijuana cigarette is ludicrous. JCT: I'm an adult with a Grade 17 in science and many more years of post-graduate research and I say what I choose to medicate myself with shall be my choice to the ends of my forces. O: According to the Leger and Leger poll a couple of years ago 1 million people in Canada use marijuana as medicine but the government has about 500 licenses for exemptions. With the recent withdrawl of all major selling pain killers from the pharma-monopolists I believe there will soon be a lot more people using the safest pain killer, marijuana. JCT: And Judge Lederman called that a success. 9 epileptics out of 400,000 and this Gilligan of the Bench ruled that The Taj Professor's math was "weak." Not wrong, weak. Only a trained lawyer could think something right can be "weak." But 9 epileptics protected out of the whole 400,000 Canadian epileptic population, less than 1 in 40,000 and Justice Lederman called that workable enough to pass constitutional muster. The other 39,999 who don't qualify will have to do without resulting in 4 dead epileptics a day who knew they were epileptics and should have possessed a joint to stave off their seizure. And Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons agreed! Repeat: Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons agreed that 9 out of 400,000 epileptics was successful enough to call the MMAR a reasonable response! Only failure to provide supply at the pharmacy was the problem and Alan Young's Hitzig case fixed that up just fine. O: The whole MMAR is an abuse of my rights. According to the Parker ruling a patient in Canada has the right to the treatment of their choice. What happened to the rights of the 1 million Canadians. What was the compelling interest to deprive them of their rights. JCT: As Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons pointed out, when the million sick-enough Canadians are dragged before their tribunals, they'll be let off. Right. Justices Doherty Goudge and Simmons said the cops bust everyone and those who are sick get off. If they survive confiscation of their best medicine. No kidding. O: Everyone knows that the Hitzig ruling is a farce. The court doesn't have the authority to re-write the law once it has been declared unconstitutional. I think John Turmel's request to stay the Hitzig ruling is correct. JCT: They can reply, if it's dead, then there's no reason to stay Hitzig. We have to answer "until it's admitted dead, while they're still busting, there is reason to stay Hitzig. O: This is the most confusing part because the resurrection of a dead law is unconstitutional. Once it has been declared unconstitutional it is of no force and effect. Period. Immediately. Read the constitution. JCT: Has the Chief Justice read it? Orchidman has. O: In my opinion it has been unconstitutional since 1982 and all charges since 1982 should be reversed. JCT: I agree. It's one of the three alternatives I asked for. All the way back to Mama Turmel's birthday 1982. April 17 1982. Just like the admission should have happened on April 17 2002 at the Chapnik hearing before Crown Lara Speirs got Parker stabbed in the back by a friend. O: The court does not have the power to fix it up. I believe it is your duty to stay the Hitzig ruling and cite the crown for contempt. JCT: I sure hope it's her duty. O: Please give Mr Turmel's work the consideration it deserves. Study it carefully please before you rule. His arguments are irrefutable. JCT: Sure seems that way. And the Crown's continual back- pedalling and stalling have to point that way too. It's just the magnitude of the abuse that's so startling as the stun the mind. We understand. O: If you stay the Hitzig ruling it basically means we have no marijuana law again. That's okay because our society will not fall apart and the law will once again be clear cut for all to understand. No law. Constitution is King. Respectfully, Orchidman Toronto JCT: And yet, most of the press spokespeople for the Crown keep saying that "no law" is muddy, confusing, hard to get a handle on. Maybe they just can't cope with the job. O: p.s It is also the job of the courts to try and build a case law that reflects the views of society. A recent poll that asked what should happen to people found in possession of small amounts of marijuana got a result of 55% in Canada and 68% in Quebec saying they should be left alone. So when I come before you your honour for possession of marijuana it is your job to leave me alone in order to reflect the views of society. Nice eh? JCT: Thanks. Perfect gentle but righteous indignation. I'd be asking if she'd consider grabbing Frankel's passport before he tries to get out of town.