FlashGordon
(old hand)
3/15/01 12:16 PM
Attachment
|
CONGRATULATIONS DAVID!
[Post#: 105521
/ re: 62343
]
|
|
|
The Laws For Possession Will Be Up For Review in Canada !
David malmo levines apeal to the supream court of canada which was already upheld by B.C. court of appeal has been accepted today by the supream court .
Reported today on cknw news
Details comming today on 420 news www.pot-tv.net
John Gordon http://www.bcmarijuanaparty.ca/c_john_gordon.htm Vancouver- Kensington .
|
twistinjays
(superposter)
3/15/01 01:39 PM
|
Re: CONGRATULATIONS DAVID!
[Post#: 105564
/ re: 105521
]
|
|
|
Was also mentioned on BCTV noon newshour. David is amazing! He's still handling his case himself isnt he?? Lawyers train for years for a chance to take cases in front of the supreme court, for them to grant David this appeal means they respect the fact that he is handling his case competantly.
|
twistinjays
(superposter)
3/15/01 01:40 PM
|
|
Re: CONGRATULATIONS DAVID!
[Post#: 105565
/ re: 105564
]
|
|
|
Well, maybe they don't respect his competence, but they can't ignore it!
|
talisman
(newbie)
3/20/01 06:22 AM
|
|
Re: CONGRATULATIONS DAVID!
[Post#: 106971
/ re: 105565
]
|
|
|
david:
here is the Church's website:
http://www.iamm.com
in potshot #13 Justice M. Drake states: "There's nobody who could give evidence on whether or not God is supreme in Canada"...on the surface of this Justice M. Drake seems to be in err. At least according to the Preamble of the Constitution and in the Letter of Proclamation of April 17,1982 in which it addresses:
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH as definitive recognition of the Queen's Authority.
Rationale: If, Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that RECOGNIZES THE SUPREMCY OF GOD (and the rule of law) and the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada
it stands to reason that the Constitution of Canada MUST RECOGNIZE THE SUPREMCY OF GOD and the rule of law as unwavering principles. ANY LAW THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO THE EXTENT OF THE INCONSISTENCY OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT. The Government cannot have it both ways...if that is the case then they are in effect...criminal.
also for what it's worth the findings in Clay re: the racist foundations of Cannabis Prohibition constitute Discrimination and can be demonstrated to directly impact upon the current legislation therefore by extension the principles of harm reduction.
all the best,
Wayne
============================================================
On another matter check out
Strawman Strategies UCC-1 in Yahoo search:
http://www.militia-watchdog.org/redemption.htm
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/2/strawman.htm
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
3/27/01 08:04 PM
|
|
Re: CONGRATULATIONS DAVID!
[Post#: 109616
/ re: 106971
]
|
|
|
Bumpin this thread to the top.........been directing people to read it.....
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/4/01 09:12 AM
|
|
Re: What I am trying to explain to the Supreme Court
[Post#: 112460
/ re: 62343
]
|
|
|
Bumpin......bumpitty bump bump. Top of the page....here we go.
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/11/01 10:22 PM
|
|
Re: What I am trying to explain to the Supreme Court
[Post#: 115520
/ re: 112460
]
|
|
|
Bumpin and grindin.
Attention! Anyone who wishes to help with the Supreme Court Challenge can just help me improve the following argument.....
Cannabis Harm Reduction. Does it exist? Does it mean that users, growers and dealers get sec. 7 and 15 protection?
All advice welcome - from critics and potheads, lawyers and lay people....as Chomsky says (serious paraphrase) - "as long as it sounds convincing, it doesn't matter how much 'education' the arguer has".....take me, for example. No degrees in anything (let alone law) and I get to the Supreme Court.
Fuck experts. And long live compelling argument from experience and insight.
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond TutuEdited by davidmalmolevine on 4/11/01 10:26 PM.
|
skellington
(enthusiast)
4/12/01 08:28 AM
|
|
Re: What I am trying to explain to the Supreme Court
[Post#: 115621
/ re: 115520
]
|
|
|
my opinion
i dont know anything about constitutional law BUT if possession is constitutionally protected then there has to be a safe way to acquire pot...it might not be a constitutional issue but real justice would protect the right of people to grow small amounts for personal use or turn to a safe outlet to purchase pot grown by third parties...otherwise, pot smokers would still be exposed to the potential harm of the black market and people would still be going to jail for growing flowers
since health canada is starting a grow room inspection department, it wouldn't be that hard for them to extend the inspections to authorized suppliers of cannabis cafes (to ensure a safe supply of organic mould-free herb)...no need to inspect personal grows or regulate the sale of small amounts of herb from a personal garden which is really more of a concern for revenue canada (hobby income)
i don't know how you would frame that as a legal argument or even if it would be relevant in court to discuss low level regulation of the market...but i think its good to address the judge's potential concerns about harm to society from 'relaxed' cannabis regulations
i know a constitional lawyer who might offer some free advice...he read your appeal already but didn't have anything constructive to say...gimme a couple of weeks to get back to you on this
in the meantime, could you post something here about sec 7 and sec 15 so i don't sound too stoopid when i ask him?
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/12/01 02:08 PM
|
|
Re: What I am trying to explain to the Supreme Court
[Post#: 115728
/ re: 115621
]
|
|
|
Canada's Constitution
(an excerpt)
Part I Schedule B
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
Democratic Rights
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members. (2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.
Mobility Rights
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and (b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services. (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; (g) not to be found guilty on acc ount of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if found guilty of the offense and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speathe language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
Shade
(journeyman)
4/13/01 11:02 AM
|
Harm Principle v. Cannabis Harm Reduction
[Post#: 116004
/ re: 115520
]
|
|
|
The courts found the "harm principle" as something they must look at in analyzing section 7 cases in determining the issue surrounding fundamental justice. I don't see where they take it beyond that to a Cannabis harm reduction principle, except for the purpose of mitigating sentencing. But it is an excellent issue to explore. See Marcus Richardson case.
I assume you to mean, "must the court consider a defendant's harm reduction techniques as part of his defense?"; and if so "where does this fit in the section 7 analysis equation?"
From Clay:
"The harm principle as a principle of fundamental justice
evokes many of these concerns when it is taken out of the context
from which it is derived. While it is a good basis for
legislative policy, a helpful guide for the exercise of
discretion by prosecutions and an important principle for judges
in exercising discretion in sentencing, it is a difficult
principle to translate into a means of measuring the
constitutionality of legislation. For example, how much harm is
sufficient to warrant legislative action? And, can the harm
principle be applied outside the mens rea area in a manner that
yields an understandable result?
[26] In R. v. Malmo-Levine, [2000] B.C.J. No. 1095, the British
Columbia Court of Appeal was presented with virtually the same
arguments made in this case. In a thoughtful treatment of this
difficult question, Braidwood J.A., speaking for himself and
Rowles J.A., concluded that the harm principle is a principle of
fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7. He concluded,
however, that the marihuana prohibition in the former Narcotic
Control Act is consistent with the principles of fundamental
justice.
[27] Braidwood J.A. described the harm principle at para. 138 as
“whether the prohibited activities hold a ‘reasoned apprehension
of harm’ to other individuals or society”. He also held that the
degree of harm must be neither insignificant nor trivial. He
rejected a higher test suggested by Prowse J.A. in her dissenting
reasons. She held at para. 177 that the harm must be of a
serious, significant or substantial nature.
[28] I am prepared to accept for the purpose of this appeal that
a harm principle is a principle of fundamental justice in the
terms suggested by Braidwood J.A. I do not agree with the higher
test propounded by Prowse J.A. which, in my view, could lead to
an unjustifiable intrusion into the legislative sphere.
Moreover, the principle, as derived by Braidwood J.A., appears to
be consistent with the argument made by the appellant in this
court, which in turn was based on some of the language from R. v.
Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452. In that case, Sopinka J., in
applying s. 1 to the alleged violation of freedom of expression
from the obscenity prohibition in the Criminal Code, held at p.
504 that a rational connection between the impugned measure and
the objective of the legislation was made out if Parliament had a
“reasoned apprehension of harm”. Later he held at p. 505, in
applying the minimal impairment test, that it was sufficient that
the prohibited material “creates a risk of harm to society” and
“that it is sufficient in this regard for Parliament to have a
reasonable basis for concluding that harm will result and this
requirement does not demand actual proof of harm”.
[29] Finally, it seems to me that the test, as articulated by
Braidwood J.A., is consistent with Sopinka J.’s discussion in
Rodriguez about the principles of fundamental justice. Sopinka
J. held that in determining whether the legislation was
consistent with the principles of fundamental justice, it was
necessary to consider the state interest and at pp. 593-94 he
referred to the reasons of McLachlin J. in Cunningham v. Canada,
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 143 at 151-52:
The principles of fundamental justice are concerned
not only with the interest of the person who claims
his liberty has been limited, but with the protection
of society. Fundamental justice requires that a
fair balance be struck between these interests, both
substantively and procedurally… [Emphasis added.]
[30] In Cunningham at p. 151, McLachlin J. had also held that the
“Charter does not protect against insignificant or ‘trivial’
limitations of rights”.
[31] Finally, the harm principle as articulated by Braidwood J.A.
is not unlike a principle of fundamental justice described by
Sopinka J. at pp. 594-95 of Rodriguez. He held that where the
“deprivation of the right in question does little or nothing to
enhance the state's interest (whatever it may be), it seems to me
that a breach of fundamental justice will be made out, as the
individual’s rights will have been deprived for no valid
purpose”. Similarly, if the marihuana prohibition, which risks
depriving the appellant of his liberty, does little or nothing to
enhance the state’s interests because there is no rational basis
for finding that marihuana use is harmful, there is a breach of
fundamental justice.
[32] As Sopinka J. said at p. 596 of Rodriguez, the determination
whether substantive legislation is consistent with the principles
of fundamental justice requires “an analysis of our legislative
and social policy … to determine whether fundamental principles
have evolved such that they conflict with the validity of the
balancing of interests undertaken by Parliament.” I need not
engage in an extended discussion of this issue since I agree with
the findings of McCart J. at trial and much of the analysis of
Braidwood J.A. in Malmo-Levine.
|
|
