TURMEL: Sam Fragomeni gets discharge in Sudbury.

Skip to first unread message


Jun 15, 2012, 11:39:49 PM6/15/12

JCT: It was Sam Fragomeni's trial before Justice Fitzgerald
yesterday for possession of 6 grams (counting bag and joint
filters) of medpot. They had raided his home over an illegal
web site and found the pot.

So he filed a motion to Quash which was dismissed last
January. And he filed his motion for a Constitutional Stay
because of the flaws in the MMAR as a threat to the Right to
Life with me testifying on the odds of survival and Derek
Francisco, Mike Spottiswood, Rob McCrady, Michael Ethier,
testifying to the flaws in the MMAR. The Crown had prepared
an Application Record in response, with a Factum and a 2-
inch book of authorities with all the relevant cases.

The first think raised was objection to the tape recorder.
The Crown had the Turner and Parker decisions where the tape
recorder were originally refused but didn't include that
Judge Clement had given Parker a free transcript in lieu.
Sam tried to hand up the Practice Direction of Justice
Howland but the judge wouldn't take it. He refused to allow
taping and when Sam asked for free transcripts, he didn't
see why he should (not knowing the full story of Parker).
Too bad. It ended up being a great show.

Crown Bradley then moved to quash my subpoena on the grounds
I had nothing relevant to say. Granted. And then the judge
said there was no reason to hear from the medical witnesses!

So getting on with the plea, the clerk read the charge, Sam
stood mute, the judge ordered the clerk to enter "not
guilty," and then the Crown put on his case. One officer who
testified he found the marijuana during the raid, short and
sweet. So was Sam, surprisingly, he asked a few questions
but didn't waste any time. Then the Crown rested his case.

When the judge asked Sam for his defence, he called Derek
who could have testified to the flaws in the MMAR but had
nothing relevant to the grams found in the home. So I waved
him off and advised Sam to say: Defence rests.

He has no defence if the law is alive and should be alive.
We're appealling everything else and I wasn't going to look
like a court clutz by having Derek thrown off for not having
anything relevant to respond. There is nothing to respond
here since Sam can't claim medical need, just preventative
like me and that doesn't work, yet.

And, it doesn't look like the judge signed off on the motion
to stay! I thought that would look bad on appeal.

So Sam informed the judge that the defence rests. You could
sense a palpable sigh of relief from both the judge and the
Crown that they weren't going to be spend their day on some
amateur waste of time.

So on to sentencing. The Crown wanted a find of $300-$500
and wanted to introduce Sam's criminal record for other
stuff into the record as a mitigating factor. Sam responded
this was his first drug charge and the other stuff had
nothing to do with it.

The judge asked the Crown if that was so, it was his first
offence (6 grams made me feel like laughing). Yes. So Judge
Fitzpatrick said he wasn't going need the criminal record.

He then asked what Sam thought might be a reasonable
punishment. Sam said he's like to be ordered to donate $200
to some charity.

The judge said no, if I order you to pay any cash, that
gives you a criminal record. I'm suspending your sentence
with a conditional discharge upon no breach of the peace for
1 year!

Wow! No criminal record. Maybe the judge appreciated Sam not
wasting his time. And no appeal.


Jun 16, 2012, 11:20:37 AM6/16/12
More good news in a way. 6 grams! What a waste of time for everyone.

Samuel A. Fragomeni

Jun 16, 2012, 2:08:56 PM6/16/12
Hi John

I'd like to say that it was a privilege to meet all you guys in Sudbury and thank you all for participating.

In all fairness though, it hasn't been determined whether the website or the search warrant was illegal as of yet. As you know, since July 2011, the Crown has been unjustly denying me any disclosure relating to the other charges that were laid as a result of the warrant and website. That's why the one officer who testified did so "short and sweet".

As you know, the Quash Motion was served to both Crown's (Federal and Provincial) on May 23rd/12. Both Crown's acknowledged receiving the Quash by stamping, signing and dating the motion. So when the Crown said that the quash motion was argued earlier in January 2012, I asked the Crown to show me the copy they received in January. Conveniently enough, he didn't have the January motion in his file or any idea where it might be. Like I told the judge I did not argue a quash motion earlier in January and in front of the judge identified by the crown . Earlier, I filed a complaint filed against this judge and would have asked him to excuse himself. Personally? I think the crown was hallucinating in January!

Transcripts and recording court proceeding have been an issue in Sudbury since 2004. I've had to argue with most judges and crowns in the NE Region about my right to record and also used independent court reporting services because court transcripts I had ordered in the past were not accurate. The judge must have been aware of the Howland ruling during his 30 plus years as judge or from Sudbury's legal community. The Howland ruling and other landmark decisions such as Stinchcombe, O'Conner, Parker, etc establish the rights of the accused and direction for the presiding judge to make his ruling. People are being denied the right to medicine or harmless recreation, the right to record their own court proceeding and the right to make full answer and defence.

I.m happy with the outcome yesterday and maybe the judge was genuinely appreciative that I didn't waste his time or appeal. However, that's not the case for Ontario's CAS court...where time spent in court and breaking up families translates into more government funding and fundamental rights are violated everyday.

Hope to see you all soon and thanks again and sorry if I wasted your time.



Jun 16, 2012, 3:01:37 PM6/16/12
On Friday, June 15, 2012 8:39:49 PM UTC-7, KingofthePaupers wrote:
Legalizing pot for adults and medicinal purposes is by no means the same at all as condoning it. I dont condone or promote the use of tobacco or alcohol etc which is used recreationally today.


Jun 16, 2012, 5:15:54 PM6/16/12
> Legalizing pot for adults and medicinal purposes  is by no means  the same at all as condoning it.  I dont condone or promote the use of tobacco or alcohol etc which is used recreationally today.
Jct: I promote and condone laughing grass for adults and children
alike (given they're going to get even more Fukushima cancers than
adults will).
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages