TURMEL: MedPot Michael MacDonald Nova Scotia Preliminary Hearing

[KingofthePaupers]

JCT: Michael MacDonald is an exemptee who was charged in
Nova Scotia for cultivating 100 plants and 1100 dried grams
was charged with Production of Marijuana for the Purpose of
Trafficking, Production of Resin for the Purpose of
Trafficking. His doctor had signed before the bust, he
didn't want to wait for his medicine and started taking it
right away, and got his exemption 6 weeks later. He had not
been trafficking, there were no baggies, scales, nothing
like that, but the amount led to the presumption of
trafficking... Big mistake for the Crown!

May 13 2011:
MM: Hi John, I am Superior Court Monday. I stood mute last
week and then asked to challenge the search warrants and
evidence. Charged with Production for the purpose of
traffickign, got MMAR card afterwards, have 3 specialists on
paper supporting my MM prior to bust. I turned down a
cultivation plea, now they changed charges to OVER 3KG...

JCT: So now you get a jury trial! Har har har har har har.
Nothing Crowns hate more than self-defenders doing their own
jury trials!

MM: My question is this... This inquiry is to show all the
evidence from crowns side, as I understand it....and to see
if it justifies a trial. Since it is only about crown
evidence and not my defence, is there any way I can show the
judge my paperwork of the specialists and my exemption
papers and explain that I will file quash motion and
constitutional? I was thinking on asking to see the judge
before I go in in private?
I tried calling crown to give them a chance to back out but
they wouldn't call me back even though I am repressing
myself. Getting this chucked would set a good precedent back
east. THX!

June 25, 2011
Hitzig 170
Hi John, I am using Hitzig 170 as my main argument in my
case here in NS. Crown is going to bring in "Experts" who
will testify that I had "too much" and it would take me 5
years to use it all so I must have been growing for the
purpose of trafficking. Although they found no evidence of
that. I had less dried grams than I was later approved for
as well.

JCT: Exactly the same situation as Mike Spottiswood, except
his doctor signed after.

MM: Any thoughts on how I could counter the claim of "He
must have been growing to traffics, he had too much."
In reality, they got a seed garden of total 64 plants: males
and females, which only a few were being selected for
breeding, the others would have been destroyed (weak genes)
but they came before that.... I got busted in August, some
hadn't begun to bud or show sex. And an indoor of 22 plants.

June 25, 2011
Jct: Could they say "He must have been growing to traffick,
he had too much" if they found someone with 300 pounds of
coffee? No, since it's not illegal to possess coffee, they'd
guess "he must have gotten a bulk discount." Besides, it
sounds like you didn't have all that much anyway. I don't
think you have much to worry about.

August 22, 2011
Jct: Say you were trying to grow enough for a few years so
you didn't have to be a criminal full time.

MM: That it what I am saying. With my health failing as
well, that could have been the only grow I was ever able to
do. They are bound and determined to set an example out of
someone who dares fight back for some reason. New
prosecuting team around here. Crooked..
I threatened my BENO/ POLCOA defence... got them thinking
now. Next appearance I am trying to have my restrictions
lifted, then after that preliminary inquiry was granted to
me to fight the evidence prior to setting trial date. Should
be interesting soon, I'll post to the med-pot forums when
things start rolling again. Thanks again as always JCT!

November 28, 2011
MM: I had a guy from NORML representing me as my agent. He
took ill, BUT the judge also DENIED him as my councel. I
submitted a record to the judge stating I had no faith in
praticing lawyers and that I found the justice intimidating
and did not feel I could represent myself properly with an
agent. NOPE, not in NS apparently!
SO, they set a date for prelim for april and I have to get a
lawyer for that.
John, in my case....it took me 3 years to get legal access
through the MMAR because of having to get a specialist,
having to go through a pain clinic etc etc. My arguement is
this:
I couldnt wait any longer for red tape, my health failing, I
grew my own. I have 3 top pain docs in the country on paper
signing my approval to MM, The MMAR is un-constitutional to
have me go through a 3 years process for access. I want to
bring this up and have others testify or submit inter-
provincial supeonas.
Is this the correct way to raise the constitutional argument
or should it be done seperate from my trial??

November 28, 2011
Jct: It has its place in the constitutional challenge for
the stay. After you've finished the S.601 challenge for the
quash because the law remains dead from Parker, Krieger,
Sfetkopoulos, Beren, Mernagh. Then, if not, you can say why
the MMAR should be declared fatally flawed again and that's
where you bring in your headaches with the MMAR (which fits
into one of the 26 grounds raised which you can personally
testify to). And if the judge says it's workable, then you
present your medical file at your defence to plead the
Hitzig 170 (establish medical need to simply be exempt) like
Johnny Dupuis in Quebec. Then appeal all three moves, like
LeClair in New Brunswick still out on reserved decision 5
months later. Then again to the top. Same process for
everyone. But you should get it all stayed until after the
decisions of the Magnificent Seven in Ontario's highest
court.

November 28, 2011
MM: the NS crown already shot down the quash arguement here
with Steven's case in Amherst though I thought?? So, I go to
prelim and IF it gets a date for trial, I then file quash
motion? Sorry for being confusing.

November 28, 2011
Jct: The highest court of ontario reserved decision on the
BENO quash argument as well as Superior Court in New
Brunswick. Why decide before to avoid looking silly by
deciding now and maybe being contradicted by a higher court
right away. These are quality arguments or they wouldn't
keep getting reserved decisions and sneaky escapes.
(Besides, I urge people to argue that Turmel losing means
nothing, Turmel's not a lawyer! Godfrey losing means
nothing. Now it's your chance to try to explain BENO to a
recalcitrant court.

JCT: And as long as you can look the judge in the eye and
say "Interpretation Act S.43(a) says Hitzig repealing the
flaws in the flaws in the MMAR cannot revive the invalid
offences in the CDSA" and make him look down as he says he
has to obey his superior judges and not Parliament.

PRELIMINARY HEARING
We were in court 9 hours! (took 2 breaks)...

Jct: After the Preliminary Inquiry,
1) the police "expert witness" won't be allowed to testify
on marijuana cultivation!
2) The Production of Resin for the Purpose has been quashed.
3) Michael's travel restrictions have been lifted.
4) Amount presumes purpose so June 14 to set a date for jury
trial for only Production for the Purpose! 1Kg! Har har har,
less than he's now allowed to possess!

MM: That's the update... it's not over yet but today was win
as far as I am concerned. They can't prove production for
the purpose.. I think they'll fold when we go again June
14th to set judge and jury trial date in supreme. After all,
wouldn't that look bad on them? I'll keep you posted. Thanks
for giving me the tools to fight back John, you are a real
Godsend in my books man! Hope you are well and sorry for the
long note here...
I was Hitzig 170 at the time too, doctor already signed and
whatnot.

August 2010 busted with 100 plants, combination inside and
out on my property, plus 50 clones, 1100 grams dried.Got my
exemption 6 weeks later, had doctor approval prior to
bust.Going to file for return of pot yes.BUt, they said they
destroyed it. BUT, they put a value of 10 bucks a gram, so
I'll go after the value. 11grand..

Jct: Correct! Yes, S.7(2) cultivation for the purpose was a
mistake. S.7(1) cultivation would have been a tougher fight.
But "for the purpose" when your exemption allows you more
than that, like Mike Spottiswood in London, your situations
are analogous except your doctor signed before, but he can
establish medical need years before too. Why would they
presume trafficking when the presumption is now discount
buying? They made a big mistake and, given the judge told
Mike they had little chance of convicting him for the
Purpose of trafficking because his common law defence was
medical need, I'd bet your judge thought the same way.
So you aced the combat in your first guerrilla law battle.
You sure cheered me up.

MM: hahaha, awesome, glad it put a smile on your face John.
A friend came and my fiancee to take notes and they couldn't
believe the show I put on. Cant wait to be able to tell it
all.

Jct: Yes, it'it'll make a great chapter in the story of our
battles to legal;ize the Great Herb. Keep great notes. Can
you use tape-recorders for your notes like we can in Ontario
and Quebec? (In QC, they'll sell you a tape). Check it out
and report back. I'm off to write the gist of your story.
I'm going to explain the publication ban and your official
situation going in and your official situation coming out.
Those charges being dismissed is on the official record. Too
bad you hadn't applied for your Return within the 60 days to
its return would be cinched. But it can't hurt to ask for
your medicine back as we're challenging the 60-day rule in
Ontario. Derek got his back after 7 months! .

MM: Thx, and I will go after it, regarless of the time. How
bout 2 years later almost now... gettin my 11 grand!? HAR
HAR HAR. and equipment back too.

Jct: Just like Derek got it all, you should too if there's
the same justice in N.S. as in Ontario. It's not as if it's
going to cost you anything to ask a judge for a S.24 order
for your pot back and then a S.24(5) order for the 11Gs. You
don't mind asking yourself, do you, since criminal court is
free. No more intimidation, eh? .

MM: right!

Jct: My Team's winning!!!!!.

MM: indeed John... indeed. Take care, long day, time to
medicate..

Jct: Good night. Sleep tight. I'm going to have a