FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering
TURMEL: Judge Doherty reasons for Noreen Evers convictions
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
w_b_ryan@yahoo.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 134

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:47 pm    Post subject: John Turmel drinks his own piss. Reply with quote

"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 "Piss Boy" Turmel
Back to top
John Turmel
science forum Guru


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 424

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:08 am    Post subject: TURMEL: Judge Doherty reasons for Noreen Evers convictions Reply with quote

JCT: I know it's a little backwards but it's constructive to
see how the judge misinterpreted the recent court rulings:

Quote:
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:06:28 -0700
From: willwrld@telus.net (Noreen Evers)
Subject: [MedPot-discuss] N's Judgment Comments appreciated

File No: 32837-1
Registry: Courtenay
In the Provincial Court of British Columbia
Regina
v.
EDITH NOREEN EVERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE DOHERTY

Crown Counsel: P. Riley
Appearing on her own behalf: Edith Evers
Place of Hearing: Courtenay, B.C.
Date of Judgment: March 23, 2006

[1] THE COURT: The accused, Edith Noreen Evers, is charged
on Indictment number 32837:

Count 1, on or about the 13th of May, 2004, at or near Black
Creek, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully
produce a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis
(marihuana), contrary to Section 7(1) of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act.

Count 2, on or about the 13th of May, 2004, at or near Black
Creek, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully
possess a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis (marihuana)
in an amount exceeding 3 kilograms, for the purpose of
trafficking, contrary to Section 5(2) of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act.

[2] The facts are that the defendant, who lives in a rural
area, called police to complain of a domestic assault. Upon
arrival, police spoke to the defendant's partner, who then
led them to a barn where the defendant had set up a
marihuana grow operation. These charges resulted.

[3] The defendant freely admitted being involved in a for-
profit commercial grow operation. She freely admitted that
she grew marihuana for sale to the local 'Compassion Club.'
She admits too that she is aware that the marihuana she
sells is, in turn, sold to the club members. Ostensibly, in
this manner, the marihuana grown found its way to those who
needed it for medical purposes.

[4] Ms. Evers comes across as a genuinely caring human being
who understands what she is doing is against the current law
of Canada

JCT: I'd bet that's not what she said in arguing the law is
dead. I guess the judge just wasn't listening.

but chooses to do it anyway for what she believes is a
higher purpose; supplying marihuana, as medicine, to those
in need.

[5] Ms. Evers went to a great deal of time, effort and no
doubt expense to persuade the court that the Canada's
marihuana laws could not stand in face of her Charter
arguments.

JCT: They fell before Parker's and Krieger's charter
arguments, why not Noreen's?

She was self represented throughout. Some of her arguments
bordered on the incoherent, some were directly on point. She
proved astonishingly adept at research and provided the
court and the Crown with up-to-date cases.

[6] To give some idea of the position Ms. Evers takes, I
will start with the Charter issue. Ms. Evers cites many
sections of the Charter but only one is fundamental and
relevant to the underpinning of her argument; s. 11(g),
which reads:
Any person charged with an offence has the right:
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission
unless, at the time of the act of 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

[7] It is from this Charter right that one must examine the
defendant's argument. Ms. Evers spent a great deal of time
trying to persuade me that, currently, no marihuana law
exists in Canada that would put her in legal jeopardy.

JCT: "Section 4(1) is invalid" is really hard to grasp, I'm
sure.

During the course of her submissions, and in order to fully
appreciate the argument this self-represented accused was
making, the court invited Ms. Evers to state in simple terms
the judgment she sought. Here it is: 'The Ontario Court of
Appeal in Hitzig v. Canada (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 449, had
no authority to reinstate an impugned statute, therefore the
medical marihuana laws of Canada are invalid.'

JCT: Not an impugned statute, a successfully impugned
statute, so successfully impugned it was repealed.

[8] In putting forth such a submission, Ms. Evers knows full
well the Supreme Court of Canada declined to interfere with
Hitzig on appeal.

JCT: The judge presumed that Alan Young and Paul Burstein
appealed against the resurrection of the law when we know
they appealed to have the federal ministry of health
supervised by the provincial courts. But filing this off-
target application fooled the judge into thinking they had
appealed the really objectionable point. Or maybe the Crown
fooled the judge.

[9] Ms. Evers was kind enough to provide the court and the
Crown with the cases of Kubby v. Regina.

JCT: Noreen introduced the Kubby case that hurt her?

These judgments from a chambers judge; Kubby v. Regina
(2005) B.C.S.C. 641, and on appeal; Kubby v. Her Majesty the
Queen (2005) B.C.C.A. 640, are binding authority on me, no
matter how much Ms. Evers may wish otherwise.

JCT: So Noreen presented case law to defeat her case?

[10] In the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Madam Justice
Rowles, speaking for a unanimous court, said at paragraphs
39 and 40:

In Parker, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared s. 4(1) of
the CDS Act to be invalid, but that declaration was
suspended for one year. The MMA Regs came into force within
the year, thereby addressing the constitutional deficiency
in s. 4(1) identified in Parker.

JCT: Har har har har. Everyone admits the MMAR didn't work
but this judge doesn't know.

In Hitzig, the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that
certain provisions in the MMA Regs were constitutionally
flawed, but the remedy granted was a declaration of
invalidity respecting those provisions only. The balance of
the MMA Regs and s. 4(1) of the CDS Act were not affected.
Appellate courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme
Court of Canada. Malmo-Levine and Clay held that it is
within Parliament's legislative jurisdiction to criminalize
the possession of marihuana should it choose to do so.

JCT: And she notes Malmo-Levine to mean "that it is within
Parliament's legislative jurisdiction to criminalize the
possession of marihuana should it choose to do so" but
there's no mention whether it did or did not since the
courts struck down the law.

Contrary to the appellant's submissions, the MMA Regs must
be taken to have effectively addressed the constitutional
deficiencies in relation to s. 4(1) of the CDS Act with
respect to the blanket prohibition against the possession of
marihuana.

JCT: The MMAR must be taken to have worked even though they
were ruled to have not worked. Typical brilliant legal
thinking, it just happens to be wrong. Har har har har. I
always thought Parliaments House of Comics provide great
humor but the courts of "justice" have their share of jokes
available too. If there weren't so many victims.

At this point, the MMA Regs and s. 4(1) of the CDS Act
constitute valid legislation.

JCT: Har har har har. Two years to late but not to a judge
who was ignorant that it had even died. Remember, Judge
Doberty has his share of bogus convictions during the two
years the law was dead and he did know.

That ends the matter as far as this court is concerned and
ends the matter as far as any argument to the contrary that
the defendant may advance on this point of law.

JCT: The incompetence of lawyers is a source of never-ending
amusement. Someday, someone's got to write a book. So many
judges reputations in the dump.

[11] Ms. Evers did her own research. She provided much case
law, most of which she understands even if she disagrees
with the conclusions reached by trial and appellate judges.
She knows full well that as a trial judge, I am bound by the
British Columbia Court of Appeal's pronouncement on these
issues.

JCT: Free to ignore the Supreme Court of Canada Krieger
decision?

Since there is no basis upon which I could conclude that the
marihuana laws or the underlying legislation is
unconstitutional based on the arguments before me,
presumably Ms. Evers simply wants to use this case as a
stepping stone.

[12] Even should I have been so inclined, based on the
evidence that I had before me in this case, I could not draw
the conclusion Ms. Evers seeks to have me draw.

JCT: Maybe he didn't read Krieger?

The medical marihuana provisions, the implementation of
which may well have gotten off to a rocky start, seem
perfectly adequate and functional at the moment.

JCT: Two years after the law died?

Indeed, Ms. Evers' main witness on this point confirmed as
much in his evidence. Therefore, there is neither a factual
nor legal underpinning to support the defendant's Charter
arguments.

[13] The division of powers argument was definitively dealt
with in Malmo-Levine v. The Queen; Attorney General of
Ontario et al, (2003) 179 C.C.C. (3d) 417. The Supreme
Court of Canada determined that the prohibition of
possession of marihuana is still a valid exercise of federal
criminal law power.

JCT: No, he earlier got it. Now he's perverted it wrong. He
ad properly said "Malmo-Levine and Clay held that it is
within Parliament's legislative jurisdiction to criminalize
the possession of marihuana should it choose to do so," not
that it had determined it was still valid, only that it
could make it valid. Neat to see judges contradicting
themselves in the same document. He knew the truth and then
perverted it.

[14] The defendant fails on the Charter argument. The
factual case was admitted at the outset of trial.
Convictions will be entered on both counts.

JCT: Another dirty deed by the Doherty clan of judges.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:11 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts TURMEL: Int'l Social Currency Conference in Germany Septe... John Turmel Engineering 1 Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:33 pm
No new posts TURMEL: British Legion to organize Timebanks!!! John Turmel Engineering 1 Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:31 pm
No new posts TURMEL: Parker's Canada Post Pot seizure Pre-trial John Turmel Engineering 1 Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:18 am
No new posts TURMEL: Virginia Livingston M.D. Cancer Quack or Genius? John Turmel Engineering 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:51 pm
No new posts TURMEL: Parker Crown ducks exam he said was needed John Turmel Engineering 1 Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:07 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0576s ][ Queries: 20 (0.0387s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]