TURMEL: Todd LeClair in New Brunswick Court of Appeal

[KingofthePaupers]

JCT: Here's my points of reply to the Crown's Memorandum in Todd
LeClair's appeal today in New Brunswick. Hey, it it loses, he might
end up in the Supreme Court with the Magnificent Seven. Magnificent
Eight? I doubt Elisha McDermott's appeal in Alberta can get heard in
time time to be a Magnificent Nine! So my notes to Judy for her
hearing.

Jct: Key on CR Paragraph 42 with Parker and Doctors. Then hand up
the Parker Memo the Crown talked about.

DELAYS
20. The Court rejected the argument that the delays in
processing caused the MMARs to be unfair.
JCT: he rejected "manifestly" unfair." So they were unfair,
just not too obviously unfair.

LEAVE
29: Facing a criminal record by summary conviction shouldn't
have the same rights of appeal as those by indictment?

30. Significance of the legal issues raised
JCT: Given the mess of malfunctions across Canada, the
significance is obvious to everyone but the Crown.
18K dead epileptics and 1500 a year still dying. Know any
epileptics who are still unexempted for anti-seizure herb?

BENO
38. Appellant asserts Beren struck down all MMARs when they
only struck down S.41 and S.54.
JCT: Hitzig only struck down S.41 and S.54 to cause the
first Parker-Hitzig BENO period everyone accepts.

BEREN SAME AS HITZIG
39. In Beren, the Court held that the defect could be
corrected by severing the offending provisions and leaving
the rest of the MMAR in force.
JCT: Just like Hitzig did.

BEREN REPEALS DATES
The MMAR were amended on March 1 2010 to address the issues.
JCT: Actually, March 11 but Beren took effect when the
suspension of the decision lapsed on March 4. Important to
establish the courts had to "deem it repealed" on Mar 4 and
Parliament officially repealed it in print on Mar 11. It
establishes that courts repeal before Parliament prints it.

So on March 4 2010, the limit of 3 growers per garden was
struck down and on Mar 11 2010, it became official and they
put on a new cap of 4 growers, saying that if 3 was too
little, then 4 must be now just enough! Insulting isn't it?
Worth mentioning how they're laughing at the courts. Courts
strike 3 as too little, make it 4. Strike 4 as too little,
make it 5. Strike 5 as too little... Contempt of court.

BEREN SUSPENSION HAR HAR HAR
39.. The charge before this court was laid during the period
that the declaration of unconstitutionality was stayed to
allow Parliament to respond.
JCT: So the MMAR were not yet fixed while waiting for
Parliament to respond! Parker Memo 53 explains. Refer to it.

40. The MMARs were in force when LeClair charged.
JCT: No, he just explained how the Beren Fix hadn't taken
effect during the suspension. Dealt with in Parker Memo.

STAY SFET AND BEREN FLAWS
40.. He called the same evidence as in Beren,
JCT: To strike down limit of 4 as unconstitutional too

and obtained the same result, he too would still have been
convicted.

JCT: Two differences
- Beren didn't ask for No Offence when it was found Bad
Exemption as J.P. had asked for No Offence when Hitzig had
found Bad Exemption. Beren didn't make the JP link. You did
and asked. Parker Memo 42.

- this court didn't rule on limit of 4 despite the same
evidence and with no declaration of MMAR invalidity, how
could there be a declaration of CDSA invalidity as in
Mernagh?
Thanks to the Crown for pointing out you had the same
evidence Beren had that 3 was bad to show that 4 was bad and
the issue of 4 was not addressed! Har har har har.
So Beren didn't ask for BENO; your judge omitted ruling on
BE (4 limit) and Crown admits you used the Beren evidence
and it should have been ruled on!

PARKER DOCTORS
42: Ontario Court of Appeal addressed doctors saying Parker
had no evidence. Here's the Parker Memo showing how they
missed the 431 doctors out of 27,000 in evidence. If they
notice the similarity in the documents, mention the BENO
resistance is going on in 8 provinces: BC, AB, SA, ON, QU,
NS, NL, and New Brunswick.

HITZIG 170
47: An established medical need does not by itself
constitute an exemption to a charge under S.4.
H170: Those who establish medical need are simply exempted
from it.
JCT: Parker established. Krieger established. Dupuis
established (Parker Memo par. 64 and your Factum 34) If
you're sick, you have right to your medicine, not to a right
to exemption to your medicine.

POLCOA
48. S.4(1) is no longer invalid
JCT: S.43(1) Int Act says courts can't revive CDSA by fixing
MMAR!

BACKWARD ANGLE
51. While Canada is obliged to provide access to marijuana
for medical purpose
JCT: No, Canada may not prohibit access for medical
purposes. But it they want to keep denying access to all,
then oblige to provide access... There is a precondition
that they omit to mention.