TURMEL: Crown staying Seegobin medpot charges to duck Krieger App.

1 view
Skip to first unread message

John Turmel

unread,
Jan 27, 2007, 11:20:08 PM1/27/07
to

JCT: In the last post, I mentioned how Crohn's sufferer Rudy
Seegobin received his exemption to use marijuana last Friday
19th! But instead of withdrawing the charges, the Crown was
still going on with his trial on Feb 5 because he had some
new kind of case law out of Toronto. I was stunned because
they wouldn't be able to duck Rudy's Krieger Prohibition
application slated for Friday Jan 26th. And Rudy elected to
have a trial by judge and jury, a very costly process for
the Crown! They were going to face their worst nightmare in
dealing with the Krieger invalidation of s.7 cultivation
prohibition and if they don't lost that one, a costly jury
trial for a guy who was qualified for a court exemption at
the time of the bust by just being sick even if he couldn't
find a doctor to qualify for a government one. Just as
Justice Doherty recommended in resurrecting the CDSA s.4
possession prohibition (because Parliament wouldn't do it),
to bust them all and the courts would let the sick guys go.

Doug and Laurie went down to witness the hearing before a
lady Justice. Name when judgment arrives. Seems she had read
the case but before they could proceed, the Crown jumped in
to say that they were going to ask to have the charges
stayed.

The judge accepted that having the charges stayed mooted the
motion to prohibit charges, (not really since they hadn't
been stayed yet), but also said that if the Crown uses its
option to bring the charges back within 12 months, Rudy
could bring his motion to prohibit back before her right
away.

So Rudy's charges are going to be stayed and in 12 months,
he's off the hook. But he won't be able to get his equipment
or marijuana back until then either. Only if the charges
are quashed or withdrawn is it over. This is just the
Crown's last flailing grab for some kind of punishment, even
if it's just not getting his medicine back and having the
threat hanging over his head for another year. There was no
new Toronto case law and

Fortunately, there is the R. v. Peddle case that may help.
From the http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.htm

>>
May 30 2003
JUDGE KENKEL SAYS QUASH UNKNOWN CHARGES, STAY UNFAIR
"Where an information on its face does not disclose an
offence known to law, can the Crown pre-empt a motion to
quash the information by staying the charge? In R. v. J.P.,
a decision binding on this court, Mr. Justice Rogin held
that simple possession of marihuana is no longer "an offence
known to law".
The accused/applicant has applied to this court to quash the
information alleging simple possession of marihuana. At the
same time, the Federal Crown has asked that the charge be
stayed... The Federal Crown submits that their motion to
stay the proceedings deprives this court of jurisdiction to
hear the motion to quash...
Proceedings stayed under s.579 may be recommenced without
laying a new information within one year. Thus, the accused
person remains in jeopardy of prosecution on the original
information until that period expires. The discretion of the
Crown under s.579 to intervene by directing a stay of
proceedings should not normally be interfered with by the
court. However, where the charge before the court is itself
a nullity, then in my view there is nothing to stay. It
would be wrong to keep a citizen in jeopardy of prosecution
for a period of one year on an information that does not
disclose an offence.
Conclusion: The information before the court will be quashed
as not disclosing an offence as required by s.581(1) c.c.
Hon. Justice Joseph F. Kenkel
R. v. Peddle, [2003] O.J. No. 2096 (Ont. Prov. Ct.).
<<

JCT: So with Rudy's application to prohibit charges hanging
like a Sword of Damocles over the Crown's head in Superior
Court, he can now apply for an Order quashing the charges on
the grounds of their being a nullity in Provincial Court and
the only way for the Crown to duck the Krieger invalidation
of the prohibition on cultivation is to withdraw, rather
than let the charges be quashed.

And Rudy can apply for his Section 24 Order for the return
of the marijuana which he couldn't do if the illegitimate
charges get to hang over his head for another year.

So his upcoming hearing on Feb 5 should be quite the show.
If the Crown doesn't withdraw charges, Rudy moves to quash
and, just like Judge Kenkel ruled, the stay doesn't stop the
"quash on a nullity" motion. So the Crown will have to do
the same for Rudy as it did for Derek Francisco: Withdraw
charges and return the stuff. If not, they're faced with the
a motion to quash, (rather than prohibit) charges in the
Provincial Court.

Stay tuned, only 10 days away.


w_b_...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 27, 2007, 11:34:46 PM1/27/07
to
"By the way, he thinks he's shaming me while I think
he's helping spread a message many people will
eventually thank me for. I couldn't ask for a better
plug to bring this natural miraculous healer to
everyone's attention, even if from a demented
lunatic. I'm so not ashamed that I even pee a mug
full and chug it in the DVD put out last year at
http://www.turmelmovie.com so it's not as if I'm not
happy to get the message out."
John "The Piss Boy" Turmel

sio-...@iximail.com

unread,
Jan 31, 2007, 6:03:28 PM1/31/07
to
pb...@lpart.fr

"John Turmel" <pb...@lpart.fr > a écrit dans le message de news:
eph89o$cgo$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...

w_b_...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 2, 2007, 9:39:59 AM2/2/07
to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages