LuciferN
10-23-2007, 06:10 PM
I have the pleasure of announcing an important legal victory. Today in an Oshawa Court, the trial judge in the 'Tom, Dick, and
Harry' case dismissed the charges against them, for simple possession of marijuana. He said that in his view the marijuana prohibition had no valid force or effect. In the lunch recess Justice Edmunston had read the judgement of Borenstein, J. which found the same conclusion in July, a judgement that our team had managed to get to his attention, with difficulty, against obstruction by the Crown prosecutor. He said the cases against Tom, Dick, and Harry, are dismissed because the law is not there to charge them or convict them. The exact terms of his decision will be available later, after an exchange of faxes with the Court house. So the marijuana law has fallen again. It seems bound to fall repeatedly whenever the Borenstein judgement is invoked. Justice Edmundston said that though he was not bound by the decision of Justice Borenstein (the two courts are 'parallel', viz. neither one issues judgements that are binding on the other), he was persuaded by it, and found that the law had fallen into invalidity. The precise point at issue in the Borensten ruling (the case of R. v.Lord) is that the 2003 December standing order which made it a policy to supply Health Canada schwag to those of us who are medically authorized was only a policy. Being only a policy, it wasn't good enough protection for those whose rights need to be protected (i.e.
the sick among us); this means that the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations are unconstitutional, the entire prohibition falls, because the MMAR is the only thing propping up the prohibition from falling into obvious and undeniable invalidity / Therefore in my view the best public relations course is to call for a stay of all proceedings in Canada on this charge, together with a moratorium on arrests. I will be making a public call on the Prosecution service soon, to urge him to make this decision. The case of R. v. Lord has been appealed by the Government (the appeal was filed in August, but there was murkiness on this in court today), but no date has yet been set for this appeal in the Ontario Superior Court.
Harry' case dismissed the charges against them, for simple possession of marijuana. He said that in his view the marijuana prohibition had no valid force or effect. In the lunch recess Justice Edmunston had read the judgement of Borenstein, J. which found the same conclusion in July, a judgement that our team had managed to get to his attention, with difficulty, against obstruction by the Crown prosecutor. He said the cases against Tom, Dick, and Harry, are dismissed because the law is not there to charge them or convict them. The exact terms of his decision will be available later, after an exchange of faxes with the Court house. So the marijuana law has fallen again. It seems bound to fall repeatedly whenever the Borenstein judgement is invoked. Justice Edmundston said that though he was not bound by the decision of Justice Borenstein (the two courts are 'parallel', viz. neither one issues judgements that are binding on the other), he was persuaded by it, and found that the law had fallen into invalidity. The precise point at issue in the Borensten ruling (the case of R. v.Lord) is that the 2003 December standing order which made it a policy to supply Health Canada schwag to those of us who are medically authorized was only a policy. Being only a policy, it wasn't good enough protection for those whose rights need to be protected (i.e.
the sick among us); this means that the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations are unconstitutional, the entire prohibition falls, because the MMAR is the only thing propping up the prohibition from falling into obvious and undeniable invalidity / Therefore in my view the best public relations course is to call for a stay of all proceedings in Canada on this charge, together with a moratorium on arrests. I will be making a public call on the Prosecution service soon, to urge him to make this decision. The case of R. v. Lord has been appealed by the Government (the appeal was filed in August, but there was murkiness on this in court today), but no date has yet been set for this appeal in the Ontario Superior Court.