TURMEL: Ethier gets Discharge on Pot Possession but Pot-Impaired Driving suspension

[KingofthePaupers]

TURMEL: Ethier gets Discharge on Pot Possession but Pot-Impaired Driving suspension

JCT: After ruling he didn't see how reduced chances of
survival relate to the Right to Life, Ontario Provincial
Judge Keast dismissed his constitutional Mernagh Plus Why
Charter motion and convicted Mike Ethier of Possession of 3
ounces of marijuana.

But then said that given the state of the law and upcoming
legalization, he was granting an Absolute Discharge! He knew
that Mike had been exempted before but had lost his doctor.
No criminal record! How great! Mike's last conviction was in
2008 so he'll be past the 10 year limit that would bar him
from being a Designated Grower. He can now get into the
industry legally. After all, his conviction proves he's
experienced.

But Judge Keast also convicted him of pot-impaired driving,
gave him a $1,000 fine and had to impose the mandatory 1-
year license suspension for pot impairment. That's going to
hurt a guy who lives in the northern sticks half an hour
from town. Remember, if he drove in the manner testified to
by the delusional cop, it's hard to believe such a danger on
the road has never caused an accident!

The learned judge erred in presuming that someone who smokes
marijuana is therefore impaired, doesn't matter if he's
never caused an accident. Then again, he did have a demented
cop's testimony to convince him this guy who's never caused
an accident has been driving dangerously impaired all these
decades.

It will be a fascinating appeal. Anyone know anyone else
ever convicted of pot-impaired driving? I remember Rick
Reiber beat the charge in Pembroke in yesteryear. Mike
pointed it out but the judge still found that Mike had been
too impaired at the time to drive safely. Har har har.

The judge who could not see what was there, the flaws in the
ACMPR to render the regime constitutionally dysfunctional, but
now sees what was not really there, impairment. Har har har.

Anyway, Mike could have one of our last MedPot appeals to
the top and maybe the only "Pot-Impaired" appeal ever! And
by the time we get there, pot will have been legal and
accidents will have come down.

So, is Mike Ethier the only person ever convicted of pot-
impaired driving in Canada? He'll be the only such case ever
recorded in the Supreme Court of Canada. Guaranteed.

Then again, the hallucinating cop will be a stumbling block.
Maybe he was tired, rather than delusional or demented. But
following a driver for over 20 minutes before deciding he's
impaired seems odd. Wonder if he and Mike had a history?

Still, since cannabis enhances motor skills, the law itself
that presumes impairment is the problem, not just the cop
who, even if he had seen no impaired driving, could have
still laid the charge based on smell alone.

So a unique pot argument on the way to the top.

But we have to get a stay on the sentence and him driving
again as soon as possible. Remember, despite evidence of
never causing an accident, the judge can say: Sure, we now
know that cannabis enhances motor skills but the cop did say
that even with better motor skills, you crossed the line and
the shoulder in those 30 kilometers of driving.

But if the pot-mandatory minimum isn't there, the sentence
can be reduced. And if the pot-impairment isn't there, so he
wandered across a line. And there could be other reasons he
strayed. He could have been reaching for his coffee. Rather
than due to being high, it was due to him rolling a joint!

Final problem, I left Mike the money to order me the CD of
my testimony. They're telling him that he has to make a
motion to the judge and won't sell him the audio.

Don't forget, self-defenders, lawyers and reporters have the
right to tape the proceedings for our own notes. I've done
it since 1988, but I'm the only court-participant who ever
took advantage of that. No lawyers or reporters bright
enough to have caught on yet. So I've stopped telling people
to record their hearings because they can order them.
Quebec, same day. Nova Scotia, paid and mailed a few days
later. But I guess the Charter Right to equal treatment
under the law may not apply in North Bay or Ontario.

So maybe not just North Bay. Looking at the Audio Order
Form, it says that Crown Attorneys and media can buy a CD
but Litigants and Members of the public have to get an Order
from the judge! Right on the form.

I presumed that when a litigant filed the form, it would be
sent to the judge for his consent. But Judge Brown sent
Mike's form back stating he had to make a motion for an
Order!

Imagine. In Quebec, I walk over to the tape-recorder
department and fill out the form and walk out with the tape
half an hour later. In Nova Scotia, I filled out the form
and paid the $25 and they mailed it to me. But in North Bay,
or maybe Ontario, your lawyer needs to file a motion.

Now the form asks reason: to supplement personal notes, and
lays out the understanding of conditions and no-nos I have
to sign that I understand. It points out I'm subject to
Court of Justice Act Rule 136, the rules for self-taping
against broadcasting. I've abided by it for almost 30 years.

But they changed that rule. It used to say that litigants,
lawyers and reporters could unobtrusively tape record to
supplement their notes. I did that for years without even
telling the judges.

Then they changed it to say: may tape, in a manner approved
by the judge...

What does that mean? How many manners are there to
unobtrusively record? Something wrong with my phone? They
could have said: "after alerting the judge..." to let him
know, but no, "in a manner approved by the judge" lets him
say he doesn't approve of your tape recorder or phone.

And now the form says that litigants have to get the judge's
permission to get their audios but not Crown or reporters.

Almost begs for a constitutional challenge.

Since either the litigant or member of the public has to go
for the order, I decided I would file the motion for the
Order okaying selling me the transcript of my testimony. So
I wrote up a short Motion:

COURT OF ONTARIO
(Superior Court of Justice)
(Northeast Region)
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
- and -
MICHEL ETHIER
Accused

NOTICE OF MOTION

TAKE NOTICE THAT John Turmel, member of the public, seeks an
Order authorizing the sale of the audio recording of the
trial hearing of Michael Ethier before Judge Brown in North
Bay on Tuesday Feb 13 2018 to supplement my personal notes.
Dated at Brantford on Feb 16 2018.
___________________________
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,

To: Federal Crown Attorney
North Bay

So I faxed a completed form and the Notice of Motion to Mike
but the clerk then refused accept it because it wasn't
original!

That's a first. I've submitted faxes and PDFs before, but
that was the stall used. Love to check.

And the motion needed an Affidavit! An Affidait saying what?
That I make oath that I will abide by everything I agreed to
abide by on the form when I signed the form?

Imagine that, to order an audio, they want an official
motion with an affidavit explaining why. The cost of a
lawyer alone would dwarf the $22 cost of the CD!! While in
other provinces, pay the cash, CD in a flash.

Does that violate the Charter on Equal Treatment under the
law? Looks like it does.

Anyway, Mike will file his Notice of Appeal in Superior
Court next week and a motion to stay sentence pending the
appeal.

I think I'll mail them my original Motion for an Order
allowing me to buy an audio of my own testimony. I didn't
put a date on my previous motion, thought it was pro forma,
but maybe I should file this one for a live hearing date on
ordering an audio! Har har har har har har. Wasting
everyone's time time on a live hearing because the court
needs to be asked for an audio that is provided without such
supervision elsewhere.

Won't it then be fun complaining to the Ontario Attorney
General or Chief Justice and contrasting what I'm going
through to get a tape in Ontario compared to Quebec.

Or file some motion to declare the judge's okay a violation
of the Charter.