welll.. i sked a paralegal who asked a lawyer this simple question:
"if a higher court rules a law unconstitutional, can a lower court re-enact legislation"

The paralegal told me that it is still law however unconstitutional until parliment amends the law within the time frame in this case one year. Then she consulted a lawyer who agreed and said the lower courts are bound by the supreme courts decision.So the parliment has not done this so effectively there is no law until the supreme court hears this new case that he hopes to unmuddle in our favor/ but could have opposite effects.. or until recriminalization..

Happy legal toking until then

and p.s the paralegal was being extremely nosy and covered her ass but i didnt give up the goods to befuddle the question

Quote:

---

Let's say _all of this is true_. That still doesn't address any of the legal issues here, so, my questions re Krieger certainly stand, don't they? I didn't ask for a lawyer's opinion---I asked for anyone's. If an average adult can't even make an educated guess at what the law means, something seems wrong.

---

No problem with the way you asked this time.

But the previous posts by you and others should be moved or deleted in my opinion. Apologies and/or understanding is good, but now the mess needs to cleaned up. The crap still stinks and needs to be flushed.

And I am not into allowing the crappers to just apologize and come back and shit on us another day. At some point they need to be banned, in my opinion, if they keep it up.

"But the previous posts by you and others should be moved or deleted in my opinion."

Why?
Because they same inconvenient things?
There is certainly discussion warranted on this topic, and your repeated attempts to derail it and make it about my conduct is juveneille. There are legal issues of just a _bit_ of importance here. Maybe you could focus on the meat instead of the bread? I know it's easier to chew through bread, so I don't blame you, but sometimes one just has to chomp down on a steak and go to town...

I didn't start the crap-fest. I just pointed it out. Now I am trying to clean it up, so that the discussion can go back to the honest non-insulting discussion it was. The only way (in my opinion) to do that is to delete the insulting, insinuating, or deviously-defamatory posts. I quoted from several people, not just you.

So don't play the "poor me" game. It's old.

"It has to do with that That he is the big lawyer guy that everyone looks to for expertise and he did not tell you that the whole of the law does not even apply to you and he is supporting and subsisting off of a fictional scam!!
You'd think you would have got that David..."

Don't accuse me of supporting lawyers. I did most of my legal research myself and I gave all my won arguments in all the courts ... I encourage others to do so.










"Why not comment on your amazement at what you just read.. It is kind of humbling isn't it? Kind of makes you feel you've wasted a lot of time fighting fictional law right?"

It's only a waste of time if you don't learn anything. I've learned lots. Are you asking me if I regret using the "harm principle" argument? Nope, that one should have one - something tells me that decisions are made by judges on considerations other than the quality of the argument.

That is one of the valuable lessons my experiences have taught me - one of the little lessons that make even failure worthwhile.












"If you like feeding bogus lawyers to support fiction than you may feel differently"

Again .... do you even know who you're talking to? Here - proof I saved money on lawyers doing the work myself:

http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1956.html









"...but how about all who are beliiving the lie? Don't you want to tell them? Don't you want to scream at the top of your lungs it is all a fiction and the law does not apply to us and heres proof? Why not expose the fraud David?"

Basically it doesn't matter - it's all academic - unless you find a judge who will agree.

Screaming won't help. But I would help to promote community support for any non-screamer who put the "law doesn't exist" argument in front of a judge.













"Why continue to act as if the law of the corporation applies to you and I??"

Believe me ..... I don't. That's why I smoke big fatties on my internet show and break other pot-related laws out the open at rallies.







"Now that the proof is available for all to see that the law of the corpoartion known as Canada is not applicable to men and women don't you think it deserves expansion and discussion??"

What do you call this? This is the discussion.

"Quityerdamnbellyaching" as my Norwegian Buppa (Grampa) might say.

I tried to read through the thin "cut/paste" discussion on this and I got to this quote by a certain JTC and now I know for sure that Turmel doesn't know what the fak he's talking about.


JTC:
"Alan did exactly what they asked him to do. Alan got the faulty MMAR
fixed so that it was now a constitutionally acceptable
medical exemption they wanted which now could sustain any
new legislated prohibition."

I was around when this happened. Nobody from the big clubs out west asked Alan to "fix" the MMAR program - both clubs and many on the CCC asked him to challenge it and he ignored all of them.

Nowhere does JTC provide any evidence that ALL the clubs asked him to challenge it in the way he did. Perhaps it is true that the EASTERN clubs asked him to challenge the MMAR in that way, but the critique of the MMAR that came from the western clubs was much more penetrating, and is reflected in the Canadians for Safe Access critiques of the MMAR programs;

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr18.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr17.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/quelabresults.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr14.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/vics_pps_pics.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr13.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr12.htm
Health Canada Contempt for Appeal Court Decision Calls Constitutionality of Federal Cannabis Program into Question

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr11.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr9.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr7.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr8.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr6.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr5.htm

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr4.htm
Canadians for Safe Access Denounce Health Canada Interim Cannabis Distribution Plan as Unworkable

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/csapr2.htm




All the above links are to press releases that criticize the MMAR. If anything I would say that the Compassion Clubs are way ahead of the paralegals in terms of doing the research AND outreach to the public.

The following link is to a page where all the press against the MMAR that came from the Canadians for Safe Access.

http://safeaccess.ca/news/index.htm

I can't think of anyone else in Canada that has done a better job of challenging the faulty MMAR program than the CSA.


And another thing ....


Perhaps the reason I haven't jumped on the "law is dead" bandwagon and began screaming it at the top of my lungs is because:

1) If the judges toss out the very reasonable "harm principle" and lump us in with cannibals & animal abusers & pimps and incestuous people, what makes you think you can find some judges to agree with you that "the law is dead"? Unreasonable judges = longshot.

2) Why would I endorse someone who considered everyone who doesn't agree with him right off the bat a Narc (Alyson Myrdon????????)?

3) Why would I endorse someone who didn't bother to phone either of the compassion clubs and fact checking before blaming them for asking Alan to "fix" the MMAR (something I know for sure they didn't do)? No fact checking?

Longshot + paranoia (calling Myrdon a Narc) + no fact checking = not the sinking boat I wish to attach myself to.

I'm open to being corrected on this ... I hope someone can point out where I'm wrong on all that.

And one more thing:

I admit that many times people use the word "kook" instead of reasoned debate .... I get called a Kook alot and most of it is undeserved ..... but in this case Turmel is certainly acting like one!

Fact checking JTC - try it out sometime.

OK, I agree that Turmel does a lot of finger pointing and calling people narcs---but that's neither here nor there to his legal argument. Assume he's 100% unjustified every time he calls someone a narc. Even this does not make his legal arguments unreasonable---and this isn't so much about arguments against anything on his part as it is about having the courts and crown recognize what's already true---i.e., that the law is dead. What else does Krieger say? The crown admits this themselves.

Do you have an alternate interpretation of Krieger and the crown memorandum? I mean, if you do, I would be very happy to hear it!

This is all focusing on the font instead of the writing.

Peace

Quote:

---

1) If the judges toss out the very reasonable "harm principle" and lump us in with cannibals & animal abusers & pimps and incestuous people, what makes you think you can find some judges to agree with you that "the law is dead"? Unreasonable judges = longshot.

---

Longshot? Agreed. It is very much a longshot. That doesn’t mean that attacking the CDSA by the throat and going for the kill is a bad thing though.

Fighting to end prohibition, is still fighting to end prohibition.

Gotta keep up with that whole clogging up the courts thing ya know?

Quote:

---

2) Why would I endorse someone who considered everyone who doesn't agree with him right off the bat a Narc (Alyson Myrdon????????)?

---

I don’t think any are asking you to do that. Most wanted an honest opinion on your interpretation regarding the legal arguments. The “rantings and ravings” should be taken with a grain of salt and you should try and look past the “spectacle” and address the issues of fact.

Quote:

---

3) Why would I endorse someone who didn't bother to phone either of the compassion clubs and fact checking before blaming them for asking Alan to "fix" the MMAR (something I know for sure they didn't do)? No fact checking?

---

That anyone would ask DML for a leap of blind faith is ludicrous. If they did, they would get the answer in the negative, and rightly so. Turmel’s guilt by association (Young and Myrden) are egomaniac ravings. The thing is, his reputation precedes him, and valid and factual points don’t score as they would if others had brought them up.

Quote:

---

Longshot + paranoia (calling Myrdon a Narc) + no fact checking = not the sinking boat I wish to attach myself to.

---

I agree in that context it looks grim, but the “sinking boat” may be going to the Supreme Court to argue the law is dead. Look at the timeline again….WITH the legal cases to reference. Look at the orders from the Court(s). Look at the arguments presented in those cases in the timeline. A frivolous and irrelevant argument shouldn’t be before the courts, but this isn’t one of them. The matter needs to be addressed.

Quote:

---

I'm open to being corrected on this ... I hope someone can point out where I'm wrong on all that.

---

The fact that there are currently 6 cases / motions asking for the courts to acknowledge the fact that there is no possession or cultivation laws can only be a good thing. Out of those 6 cases, there will be 6 judges. The more we keep bringing them before the court, the better the chances one might come across a “reasonable” judge.

Quote:

---

And one more thing:




I admit that many times people use the word "kook" instead of reasoned debate .... I get called a Kook alot and most of it is undeserved ..... but in this case Turmel is certainly acting like one!

---

This “kook” that you refer to, is actually the one that should be given some of the credit for the over 4,000 stays for possession.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=current&Number=737531&fpart=&PHPSESSID=

I see no reason why anyone should pass up a free shot at getting their charges dismissed. Nothing to lose, everything to gain.

Get out of Jail Free forms

Quote:

---

Fact checking JTC - try it out sometime.

---

He seemed to have his facts together when he helped Bruce Ryan and the Compassion Club get off the hook with the Krieger argument. So in reference to your question about the Krieger ruling and how binding it is? Ask Bruce Ryan. The Crown withdrew the charge, which didn’t set a precedent, but it certainly made the Crown nervous enough to drop the charge.

http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan2.jpg
Bruce Ryan CC Thread

Peace

Peace

Quote:

---

This is all focusing on the font instead of the writing.

---

My teachers always gave me crap for not focusing in class too.

I always wanted to tell them to give me a big fat Sativa joint to get me "right in the zone" and back on topic.

Peace

"OK, I agree that Turmel does a lot of finger pointing and calling people narcs---but that's neither here nor there to his legal argument."

I agree. It IS here and there when I get accused of not promoting the argument - give me someone who is a team player who is presenting the argument (someone who won't call me a narc the moment I disagree, someone who will give the FRIGGIN CSA the benefit of the doubt etc etc etc) and I would love to help them out.

Teaming up with a non-team player seems like more trouble than it would be worth - notice how the latest (today) attempt resulted in the Judge ignoring the argument?

Now imagine the judge ignores the argument again, PLUS anyone who threw their lot in with Mr. Fingerpointer Fact-ignorer will be called a KooK too.

Perhaps if he was more of a team player there would be no risk supporting him, but he presents himself as too crazy even for me to back him up. And that's saying a lot when the guy who once had green dreadlocks thinks you're too much of a wingnut to get behind.

I will vocally support anyone (aside from John T.) who presents the "law is dead" argument - I'm just betting it will continue to be ignored.

I can't be bothered to help the guy who calls everyone a Narc and who won't call the FRIGGIN clubs up to double-check ... or even bother to read any of the press releases against the MMAR that were on line and available from the CSA.










"Assume he's 100% unjustified every time he calls someone a narc. Even this does not make his legal arguments unreasonable---"

Unreasonable? No.





".... and this isn't so much about arguments against anything on his part as it is about having the courts and crown recognize what's already true---i.e., that the law is dead. What else does Krieger say? The crown admits this themselves."

Good luck with anyone who attempts it - I might use it myself if I got busted for possession, but it's not my first line of defense (I've got one in mind that is way more educational and principled - less "win by technicality").







"Do you have an alternate interpretation of Krieger and the crown memorandum? I mean, if you do, I would be very happy to hear it!"

Nahhhh .... I think Turmel is right - I just think he's too much of an asshole.





"This is all focusing on the font instead of the writing."

Sometimes being a nice guy is the difference between the Kooks you support and the kooks you shun. I guess I refrain from calling too many people "narcs" and I DO check my facts before I go public on things and I try and work with the rest of the activists .... therefore my fellow drug-peace activists allow me my kookieness and even support me from time to time .... who knows, that might even work for the engineer.