TURMEL: Four more POLCOA marijuana defences in Edmonton?
KingofthePaupers
Todd Yaroslawsky wrote to say that he had been busted as an
exemptee for growing too may plants. The police were unaware he
was growing for two exemptees (and maybe had some clones which
aren't supposed to count). And Bruce Codere knows 3 kids who were
busted for growing 2 plants who can now fight back.
So getting Todd's charges withdrawn might be easily done once the
Crown realizes that the Gaudet Goodie admitting that the law's
been dead over the past 6 years as it had been during the Parker
two years before Hitzig worked for Surgent who isn't even sick,
the idea of first battling over the existence of the law with
someone who's then going to return from the Supreme Court to
continue the fight over the number of plants this honestly
medically-dependent marijuana user was growing. Who wouldn't want
to. And besides, because he's already proven sick, maybe we don't
want the Crown knowing there are three more kids coming at them
with the same POLCOA bullet down the line and should delay them
with requests for consultations until Todd is dealt with. Once
they've backed down to him, it'll be easier for the kids.
Todd was in court on Dec 15 and we don't know what happened. But
Bruce Codere wrote me:
BC: John,
It's procedural matters I need to get right. I made a few
mistakes. We had incomplete information to go on or present, and
I didn't dig into that enough. We met resistance and the
suggestion that Conservative country is quite the place to be
doing this. I took that as a compliment, though I realize it was
fair warning of the system before us.
We didn't file. The court file no. was missing. If you don't ask
the right question you can't get the right answer...
JCT: Prick clerk. You get a file number when you file your
Application Record with the Registrar's office. Now, knowing the
number of the file below might be useful.
BC: The advice from the clerks got progressively less from the
first call a few weeks ago to today. This is not what they're
used to, and something I/we are new at. Got punted between them
and the law office and back trying to tie things up Monday on the
phone, and in person was no different. I need to over-prepare.
That means homework. The clerks are simply that.
JCT: So contact Max Cornelssen at 780-922-3770 and look at the
forms he used that were acceptable just a few years ago. Bring
Max with you and it might intimidate the clerks since he's been
through it before. He'll barge in anywhere. Barging into Superior
Court in Calgary is how he got a subpoena served on Krieger's
Crown Attorney prosecutor.
BC: One of the kids will call tomorrow and ask if the forms that
appear to be the two we need to submit with the Factum are the
only ones.
JCT: I've looked at the two forms. The first one is a standard
Notice of Motion which is the same thing as the "Notice of
Application."
The second form is wrongly steering you to the Federal Court and
the Federal Court of Appeal and you're not going there. Again,
copy Max's Record of Application (or Motion, I forgot). His got
in, yours will too. Besides, he'll enjoy the combat.
For the record, I'm going to explain how I deal with these kinds
of clerk objections to typos of defects in minutia. Included in
your Notice is the following request relief E):
"E) And for any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to form or
content of the application, or for any Order deemed just.
So if some clerk points out that it should say this instead of
that, or it needs this instead of that, I point to the E) relief
sought of having the judge "amend the defect as to form or
content" and it's up to the judge to decide if he wants to make
the amendment sought of the defect of if he'd rather have the
whole thing changed and filed all over again. Most just use their
pen to fix it and we go on. So the E) relief takes the minor
issue out of the hands of the clerk by formally requesting that
the judge decide. Neat eh? Sorry, you didn't know, don't worry.
So what did happen to Todd yesterday? Was it just put off?
BC: The one form corroborates Ken's experience they'll need to
read the Factum to the judge and the other is for personal
details. They need to do things for themselves so I can focus
more on the things they can't do for themselves yet.
JCT: There is nothing for them to do but read the factum and try
to use the Surgent Precedent to make the Crown explain why
Alberta is different. Each in a separate hearing, if possible, to
use up maximum court time. Guerrilla lawyering at its best.
>They want to ask for a later court date to get prepared for
POLCOA. Is that the recommendation?
JCT: Yes, Todd wants his filed 30 days down the road in Superior
Court of your province, see Max's..., then the first kid filed at
the next sittings of criminal superior court after that, then the
second, and the third, and any more you can find. They all need
the chance to find the one judge who will see from among the many
who are willfully blind.
We have a handful here in more general terms. There is a malaise
beneath the surface I know more about now than I would have
thought was there weeks or months ago, and it's serious. This
town I live in is karmically bankrupt. It means way more help is
needed. The unemployment rate is pushing 20% and it's oil and gas
country, old gas plants and serious threats of some shutting
down. Rolling up the sleeves a bit higher tomorrow.
Jct: Imagine rolling fields of wheat and green!
So they should not be too happy about spending money fighting an
army of kid guerrilla lawyers who have nothing better to do than
fight back and who aren't brain-damaged like their alcoholic
parents but are actually brain-enhanced by the neurogenesis due
to cannabis marijuana. So sharper angry kids coming at them one
at a time with the Interpretation Act in their hand and the
demand the courts obey it and not the crooked judges who didn't
have to power to do the dirty deed they did that resulted in the
deaths of so many epileptics for nothing over the past 9 years.
BC: Attached are the two forms it appears are required.
JCT: Again, maybe the word "Motion" is insisted upon rather than
the equivalent "application," maybe it's not. Seeing Max's
documentation might reveal that "application" is perfectly
acceptable but even if it isn't, it's still jerking you around,
especially when you take into account them trying to slide you
some forms into the Federal Court which we know is a bogus route
for sure.
Look, we had back-room shenanigans in Max's hearing. Read about
the time the back-roomers slid the case to a judge who had not
been slated to hear it and didn't know what it was all about.
Sure, we've seen crooks in the backrooms (witness the Ontario
Court of Appeal accepting to deal with an Inmate Appeal even
though Jim Turner wasn't even an inmate), but they can't prevent
the motions being heard and once you do it right, the avalanche
will proceed apace.
As for a Court number, the Superior Court Registrar gives you
that when you file your new originating Motion in Superior Court.
By the way, were you at the Superior Court?
Anyway, here's the usual service and filing steps.
1) Call the court scheduler for Superior Court, book an hour at
the next possible hearing.
2) Add the date to the Notice
3) Bring a copy of the Application Record to the Crown office and
have them sign for service on the back of another copy. They do
this for lawyers and should do this for you too. But if they
refuse, there's a simple blurb you can write on the back and have
sworn by a suit or a Justice of the Peace who does it for free in
criminal matters:
"Sworn before me at ______ on ________.
<Your signature>
<Commissioner of Oaths signature.)
Easy.
4) File the copy with service at the Registrar's office and get a
Court File Number. .
4) Serve the Crown, go file the Record of Application.
So the service is on the very back of the document in the judge's
hand. It's never failed.
Though in Alberta, Max used to do it differently. He'd go get it
registered at the Registry with a number, then serve a copy with
number on the Crown, go back and file an Affidavit of Service
which means a whole document that merely says:
[ R. v. Whomever ]
[AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE]
I, Whoever, make oath as follows:
I did personally serve a true copy of the Application Record on
the Crown Attorney's Office at ___________ on ____________
Sworn before me at________ on __________
[Affiant signature]
[commissioner of Oaths signature]
The problem is that usually, the Affidavit of Service is attached
to the document you say you served. So you need one originating
Application Record for the court and another Application Record
to include in your Affidavit of Service, a truly silly procedure
for a mere technicality of helping lawyers charge commissioner
fees for what should be presumed to be truthful. But no, in
lawying, you're not punished for lying unless it was notarized.
So, starting with Todd first, I would call the court scheduler
for Superior Court, book an hour at the next possible hearing
with 30 days notice, add the date to the Notice, go serve the
Crown, go file the Record of Application.
Then another, and another, and another, and another.