cannabisnews.com: Black Tuesday for Canadian Cannaphiles 





Black Tuesday for Canadian Cannaphiles 
Posted by CN Staff on October 08, 2003 at 07:50:58 PT
By Reverend Damuzi
Source: Cannabis Culture
Today Ontario's highest court, the Court of Appeals blew the drug war trumpet loud and clear in a series of much-awaited legal decisions including Rogin, Hitzig, Parker, Turmel and Paquette. The court opened season on Ontario residents who possess under 30 grams, who for the last few months have enjoyed relative immunity from the law. On a lighter note, the ruling also opened the way for compassion clubs to receive legal licenses.
Cannabis Culture contacted legal-expert and university professor Alan Young, who shepherded the Hitzig decision through the courts with the help of Leora Shemesh, a lawyer with Neuberger/Rose."I bet as I'm speaking to you right now some kid's being busted on the streets of Toronto," he said regretfully. "For about a week or two, it will be very dangerous to smoke pot in Ontario. Reassertion of power is always very overbearing."Lumping together appeals to a decision involving an unnamed young offender, which confirmed pot possession was legal in Ontario; the Hitzig decision, which declared medical marijuana access regulations (MMAR) unconstitutional; and a claim by Parker and Turmel that marijuana laws are genocidal; the Ontario Court of Appeals ruled that possession in Ontario is illegal, as of today's ruling. The crux of the complex multi-case decision was Hitzig et al, where the Ontario Court of Appeals ordered changes to the MMAR that would allow compassion clubs to get licenses from the government to grow for medical users, and to receive financial compensation for their efforts. Previously, licensed growers could only provide to one medpot user each, could only grow together in groups of three, and couldn't receive compensation for their efforts. The Ontario Court of Appeals also struck out MMAR requirements that forced applicants to get recommendations from more than one doctor, often making it impossible for sick people to find enough specialists to fill out their forms. The decision didn't address one of medpot advocates' most pressing concerns, however: sections of the MMAR that imperil doctor's licenses, leading colleges of physicians across Canada to advise against signing the forms.Alan Young, Terry Parker, John Turmel and Marc Paquette hoped that the decision would yield more fruit. They had argued that possession laws should be thrown out altogether. It all goes back to Parker's July, 2000 case, when the courts gave the government one year to change the drug laws to allow for medical access, or possession laws would be invalid - wiped out because they were unconstitutional. The government dragged its feet, but one year later published the MMAR, the medpot regs. Then, when the Hitzig decision declared the MMAR unconstitutional, the legal team argued that possession laws should be unconstitutional by default, since the government hadn't met its one year deadline in Parker.The court dismissed the line of reasoning as an "overly broad" remedy to the issue of sick people getting their medicine. Alan Young, who worked on the series of cases leading up to Hitzig for several years, was disappointed."I'm unhappy because the parts that they fixed don't solve the problem," he explained. "I could take the loss if the remedy pertaining to access to medical marijuana was more practical. All they've done is create a situation where we could start applying to run large grow-op compassion clubs. Well we are going to call the court's bluff and get compassion clubs to apply."Alan Young is also considering an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.Other decisions rendered by the Ontario Court of Appeals were equally unfavourable. The accusation that marijuana laws were genocidal, for example, brought by John Turmel and Terry Parker, was dispatched like a fly, smacked to death in one shot by a degradingly short ruling.The Ontario Court of Appeals today also dispatched the court case that had everyone in Ontario puffing phatties this summer - the case of a young person, argued by Brian McAllister. McAllister's argument was so successful in Ontario provincial and supreme courts that the province suspended possession charges under 30 grams. Nova Scotia, PEI and British Columbia followed suit.Like Alan Young's, Brian McAllister's argument was also based on the July, 2000 Parker decision - the one that gave the government a year to change possession laws to allow for medical use. When McAllister's case was appealed to the Ontario Supreme Court, Justice Rogin ruled that pot possession laws where utterly wiped out at the one-year Parker deadline on July 31, 2001, and needed to be reenacted by the government. The Ontario Court of Appeals crashed the multi-province pot party, however, ruling that no reenactment of the laws was necessary.In a strange twist, the Ontario Court of Appeals also ruled that pot laws were invalid between April 12 and today - April 12 being the date when the young person in McAllister's case was first charged. Anyone in Ontario facing charges incurred during this period should apply to have them dismissed.Canadians in the provinces of British Columbia, PEI and Nova Scotia may be still somewhat protected by the immunities afforded in their provinces, but judges there might also decide to follow this most recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeals, leading to a series of skirmishes in courts around the country.Meanwhile, the Malmo-Levine/Clay/Caine decision is about to be unleashed by Canada's Supreme Court, trumping whatever the provincial courts decide. Sources say the mammoth ruling is expected any day.Note: Canadian courts unleash a pack of anti-pot rulings.URL: http://www.hempbc.com/articles/3111.htmlNewshawk: VirgilSource: Cannabis Culture Author: Reverend DamuziPublished: October 7, 2003Copyright: 2003 Cannabis CultureContact: ccmag cannabisculture.com Website: http://www.cannabisculture.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmMarijuana Ruling a Victory For The Ill http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17498.shtmlCanada Court Eases Medical Marijuana Rulehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17494.shtmlOntario Court Reinstates Pot Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17491.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #12 posted by escapegoat on October 09, 2003 at 18:23:10 PT
Observations from Osgoode Hall
I tried my best to explain to the media, while John Turmel and Terry Parker were ranting away (Terry about his unauthoized medical experiments -- rapes, as he terms them, and John about how the OCA did not follow a strict interpretation of the law) that there are very profound differences of opinion in legal strategy, but we all want the same thing: the end to prohibition.I tried to explain to Turmel that Alan Young was not a "rat" by invalidating Terry Parker's so-called "Pitt Protection" but was simply acting as an Officer of the Court, pointing out that the application was made under less than legal procedural means. He decided to keep ranting.I even told him that the fallout from his 7 lbs. stunt on Parliament Hill was BS...that they underweighed him so the Crown would go summary and he would be denied a jury trial...and he shot back "No! they undercharged and overweighed me!" By the look on Brian McAllister's face (who was standing beside me at the time) it seemed he had been through this with him before.Sigh. I don't know. I don't have very warm feelings toward him (because of his treatment toward some medical users who are my friends) but it would still piss me off if Turmel ended up in jail because of his (perhaps misguided) activist stunt if the government didn't play fairly.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Richard Lake on October 08, 2003 at 17:20:59 PT:
mea culpa
Marc, I am sorry that I got so upset. I am glad to hear that you are continuing to keep your distance from Turmel, and that you had not wanted to make a big fuss about the article.What I suspect happened is either (1) the Reverend and Alan, in what had to be a phone conversation, resulted in the Reverend thinking you were not happy, or (2) the Reverend seeing all the news stories, both in print and on TV, thought you were among those who was not happy. Either way I don't think he was trying to put words in your mouth. I suppose I could ask, but unless you think it is important, I am not sure it is necessary.I completely agree that Terry Parker should be honored and get the credit he has earned.Forgive me for thinking the case name change may not have been real. It was Turmel who was crowing about the change, so I had to wonder what was real.When the majority of what was put out was from Turmel, who as you know cuts, pastes, hacks, spins and attacks anybody who does not think he is the god of pot in Canada, presenting so much that is clearly untrue on all the lists he SPAMs, is it really any wonder that folks can not separate the fact from the fiction?I am really sorry about how things have gone for you, Marc!Indeed, I have it in my heart to even be sorry for John Turmel, who well may now be in real legal trouble, but has burned all the bridges to anybody in Canada who would likely help him.Richardp.s. FoM, yes, Marc Emery has been interviewed in a number of U.S. TV shows over the years, and has had a variety of press, including a rather long Wall Street Journal article. Marc gives freely of his money (just like Alan Young does of his time) towards the cause. He has provided plenty of funds to U.S. efforts. I hear that he was the fourth largest funder of the Nevada campaign, at the $60,000 level.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Marc Paquette on October 08, 2003 at 14:17:46 PT:
Let's have a laugh
To Erik;Thank you for letting me know about what Marc Emery has the intention to do and I will tell Terry. As for John Turmel...well let's say that he's not on my side anymore and surely not a friend..long story..very costly story.Oh yes, about the laugh. When the Crown and the Court of Appeal decided to change the name of the whole group from Hitzig et al to Parker et al, the Crown forgot about it and one of the last times they sent everyone some court books (about 2,000 pages worth of them), the blue covers were saying at the title "Hitzig et al" and then our names underneath. When Turmel saw that, he called the Court of Appeal and complained that the books were not properly titled. The Court then reached the Crown and ask them to send everyone in the cause some new books with the proper Parker et al titles. And if anyone doubts my word, please let them reach Terry or anyone else that was in the cause to confirm that I'm telling you the truth. Anyway, it has no importance anymore because we lost our appeals...for now. And Eric, please tell Marc Emery that I was joking about the selling more magazine thing..the only way I meant it was because it had my name. But some other person took it seriously. If you see the ending to my response to Reverend Damuzi, do I sound like someone mad or disrespecful? Nah..I was just adding at touch of humour because yesterday's outcome stressed me so much that I'm drained and depressed since. But, if Marc Emery wants to help for our cause at the Supreme Court of Canada, tell him to reach Terry and talk about it. I don't mind talking to Marc either..but the "Poster boy" in all this story is Terry.Peace,Marc
Mark Paquet
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 08, 2003 at 13:31:33 PT
Virgil and Erik
I haven't watched the shows but will later on when I have a little more free time and can concentrate. I think Marc would be a great spokesman for ending CP. Has he ever been on American TV News? That would be great if he could get air time like on CNN or MSNBC or even go up againt Mr. O'Reilly. He'd meet fair and balanced if he took on Marc Emery in my opinion.PS: Virgil I hope you got your rest.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Virgil on October 08, 2003 at 13:13:49 PT
link in comment7
 http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2240.html - this link introduced in comment7 shows the importance of having pot-tv advocating the demise of CP. It carried a stunning message that should be seen by everyone and get Emery exposure on national media in Canada and the BBC. He would be the man to talk to about yesterday's rulings even above Young.The maturity of pot-tv shows in the theater presented in the other video from yesterday concerning the ruling- http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2238.htmlI would like to see a contest for simulated commercials for the medical aspects of MJ or even imaginary coffeehouses or compassion clubs. I agree with the thought that it will be art that destroys CP. Let there be art.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by ErikGhint on October 08, 2003 at 12:13:44 PT
Mark Paquet
I am sure you have already heard, but in case you haven't tell your friends Terry and John that Mark Emery wants to fund the appeal of this decision.
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2240.html
In this video Mark explains how the courts overstoop their authority. He explains how courts are aloud to strike down laws, not put laws into place which is what they did.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Marc Paquette on October 08, 2003 at 09:38:22 PT:
Black Tuesday for Canadian Cannaphiles 
First line, 7th paragraph Richard..it does mention the name of Marc Paquette..hope that the decision would yield more fruit. Alan Young, Terry Parker, John Turmel and Marc Paquette hoped that the decision would yield more fruit. They had argued that possession laws should be thrown out altogether. It all goes back to Parker's July, 2000 case, when the courts gave the government one year to change the drug laws to allow for medical access, or possession laws would be invalid - wiped out because they were unconstitutional. The government dragged its feet, but one year later published the MMAR, the medpot regs. Then, when the Hitzig decision declared the MMAR unconstitutional, the legal team argued that possession laws should be unconstitutional by default, since the government hadn't met its one year deadline in Parker.Peace,Marc
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Marc Paquette on October 08, 2003 at 09:24:15 PT:
Sorry Richard but
Hi Richard;Sorry, but Turmel hasn't been in my picture since last April 2003 and will never be back in my picture either. In my last cases, I had the kind and free help from Mr Ed Pearson (73 years old) which used to be a lawyer in a big Montreal firm for 35 years. I was representing myself in writing at the Court of Appeal in Toronto because the 1000km return trip could have killed me in my condition..almost did last time. The fact that I was refused access for video conference with the court and the fact there was no one to represent me in person was discriminating my person. Personally speaking Richard, I have nothing against you. Real lawyer costs money and on a disability pension..it's an impossible achievement. I tried to get Legal Aid. I was eligible and accepted for a 2 hour consultation with a lawyer for a case which had over 6,000 pages. I had a year to take advantage of the Legal Aid certificate and after 2 months, I received a letter from Legal Aid telling me that my certificate was cancelled. Anyway, I tried and called for the best lawyers and they were either not competent in the subject, or they were not interested of getting paid the Legal Aid's low salaries they offer to lawyers.Peace Richard..and please don't be unkind or hold anything against me because I don't hold anything against you>Have a nice day!Marc
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 08, 2003 at 09:15:22 PT
A Request
I don't want fighting so please take issues to a private e-mail. Thank You.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Richard Lake on October 08, 2003 at 08:52:41 PT:
HUH? Marc Paquette, WHERE does it say
anything in the article that would have anyone believe that Reverend Damuzi talked to you???The article made clear that the Reverend had talked only to Alan Young.The result of your appeal was nothing, a one page nothing, that can be seen athttp://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/parkerC39653.htmPerhaps if you and Terry had listened to the real lawyers the results would have been different?The Reverend's analysis is the best seen so far, and your comment about selling magazines just a cheap shot.There is no doubt that Terry deserves recognition, but the idea that the name had been changed was something John Turmel pushed, but clearly was not recognized by the court like most everything else he did - or has said he did. It is just sad that you and Terry went with the wrong "lawyer."Richard
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Marc Paquette on October 08, 2003 at 08:18:18 PT:
Dear Reverend Damuzi
Thanks for talking for me in your article. I cannot recall of having a phone conversation about it with you though.
This is upsetting..inducing the public in error like that..just to sell magazines.Reverend;First, let me clear up a thing with you. The Hitzig, Parker, Turmel and Paquette group had the name of the group officially change by the Court of Appeal for Ontario
many months ago as the Parker et al case. When Brian McAllister joined our group, he was included in the name of our group. Why did the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the medias and magazines induced the public in error remains an unfair mystery for Terry Parker which was and still is "Poster boy" #1 for waking up our government for the need of medical marijuana. This action by the Court and medias was misleading towards his person and achievements.My name and my case wasn't medtioned in any media except for Cannabis Culture. Thanks Reverend, but next time, before you tell the public that I expressed an opinion...please phone me before. And yes, I am very upset that full marijuana prohibition was fully reinstituted in Ontario. By the way, please tell Marc Emery that there is plenty of free advertising about Cannabis Culture, Pot-tv, and Marc Emery's Seeds on my website. I hope it's appreciated. And, I wish him the best success also :o)..and P.S. Marc..Don't you dare come and smoke a joint in public in Ontario now! Peace,Marc Paquette 
http://www.medpot.net
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on October 08, 2003 at 08:11:17 PT:
Let's hope the Canadian SC is less politically
motivated than the US Supreme Court is. Bceause down here, it's so blatant that in earlier times, they'd have been run out of town on a rail for the obvious political favoritism as they've shown the Republican Party...
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment