science forum Guru
Joined: 07 May 2005
|Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:
TURMEL: Judge Doherty reasons for Noreen Evers sentence
File No: 32837-1
In the Provincial Court of British Columbia
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
EDITH NOREEN EVERS
REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE DOHERTY
Crown Counsel: B. Macdonald
Appearing on her own behalf: Edith Evers
Place of Hearing: Courtenay, B.C.
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2006
 THE COURT: Before the court for imposition of sentence
is Edith Noreen Evers. She was charged on Indictment 32837:
Count 1, 13th 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 the same date and at the same place did
unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: Cannabis
(marihuana), in an amount exceeding three kilograms, for the
purpose of trafficking, contrary to Section 5(2) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
 At the conclusion of trial Ms. Evers was found guilty on
both counts. I heard submissions as to sentence on 20th
April, 2006, and reserved to this date.
 This was an unusual case with an unusual defendant.
Ostensibly, Ms. Evers conducted a commercial grow operation
to provide medical marihuana to the 'Compassion Club' in the
Comox Valley. She candidly admits that she generates part of
her yearly income from the marihuana grow operation,
declares this income, and intends to continue to grow
 Ms. Evers is oppositional to the point of defiance. She
believes the marihuana laws of this country are wrong-
headed, morally and legally. She fought hard during the
course of the trial to persuade me to adopt her position, in
the face of case law to the contrary. In response, my
judgment following trial speaks for itself.
 Crown acknowledges that the range of sentence available
to me is wide, from a suspended sentence to actual jail time
and some options in between. Crown seeks imposition of a
Conditional Sentence Order of between nine and 12 months.
 Mr. Riley, appeared for the Crown throughout. He was
exactly the type of personality suited for this case with
its attendant difficulties including an unrepresented, and
occasionally difficult, accused. He notes that Ms. Evers has
no previous criminal record. Mr. Riley acknowledges this was
not a commercial enterprise, in the normal or strictest
sense of the term, as we have come to know it and see it.
Nonetheless, he says, the offence ought to attract a jail
term even if it is only by way of a CSO.
 Crown counsel says the court ought not to ignore three
essential, even elemental, factors about this case. This
was a commercial enterprise from which Ms. Evers derived
part of her 'farm income.' Depending on what aspect of the
expert evidence one is prepared to accept, a crop of 274
plants might have been worth tens of thousands of dollars to
Ms. Evers. Mr. Riley also points out a health issue. Ms.
Evers says that she was growing marihuana for the Compassion
Club but there was no guarantee of quality and she was
certainly not growing under licence. She might have made
people, who were already ill, even more ill by putting them
at risk by providing a drug that lacked quality control.
Finally, argues Mr. Riley, the rule of law must factor into
any consideration of an appropriate sentence. Of these
factors, it is the rule of law issue that concerns me most.
 Marihuana is illegal to possess and grow.
JCT: I guess Parker and Krieger have been rejected.
The medical marihuana issue, of which so much was made
during the course of this trial, has been resolved.
JCT: So if the law were still alive, it would not be
constitutionally valid. If it had not become repealed at an
Indeed, one of the central witnesses called by Ms. Evers
said that after the initial kinks were worked out of the
programme, it worked and works just fine for him.
JCT: The MMAR works fine for him? 99.99% of Canada's
epileptics still at risk and it working fine for him makes
it workable? Like Judge Lederman said: it's functional since
it works for some. Functional to a low-tech judge, maybe,
but no one holds them to very high standards.
This is contrary to the position put forward by Ms. Evers,
namely that the programme works so poorly that she had to
provide marihuana to people who would otherwise not get it.
JCT: Har har har.
 Mr. Riley says, and Ms. Evers would agree, that she has
no respect for the marihuana laws. Indeed, Ms. Evers is not
only not remorseful about breaking the law; she is defiant
and promises to continue to do so. She all but told me
during the course of her submissions that even bound by a
CSO, she intended to continue to grow marihuana, although
later she seemed to qualify that by saying she would only do
so under licence.
 To Ms. Evers, this grow operation and subsequent trial
is not only a means to provide the so-called Compassion Club
with product; it also gives her an opportunity to protest
what she deems to be an unjust law. From her submissions at
the sentencing hearing it became apparent she is prepared to
obey only those laws with which she agrees; the road to
anarchy in any society.
JCT: The glass being half full. Instead of half-empty which
would have read: "she is prepared to flout those laws with
which she disagrees;" which is not only NOT "the road to
anarchy in any society" but Blackstone
on Jurisprudence recommends a proper way to resist when you
have nowhere to escape to by flouting and taking the
consequences of the bad law.
I was many times convicted of playing cards for money. I was
many times repudiated my debt service, slavery, and taken
the consequences. This is only the road to anarchy when the
law is good. It is the road to justice when the law is bad.
Judge Doherty doesn't care whether it's bad or good, he's
got his Nuremberg defence to explain to his grandkids
someday with the grand-kids of the other Justice Doherty who
tricked several thousand epileptics to death by telling them
he had resurrected the Criminal Code prohibition on their
medicine. Civilization condemns an ordinary person taking
the law into their own hands when it should be left up to
the justice system. How much worse when it's the judges
taking the law into their own hands?
 Although she herself ran as a candidate for the
Marihuana Party in the year 2000, she has little faith in
democratically elected politicians changing the law to one
that would suit her, presumably abolition. Therefore, she is
not prepared to obey the law.
JCT: She is prepared to challenge and take the consequences
of the perceived bad law, Blackstone's proper way to
challenge bad laws in the face of bad politicians.
 Ms. Evers, in response to the rule of law argument, put
forth selective examples of laws that she did in fact obey
and was prepared to obey. So long as the law fits within her
reality, she is prepared to abide by it; when it does not,
she is prepared to disobey. Moreover, somewhat
astonishingly, she says she would be happy to replace
elected politicians with unelected judges making decisions
about marihuana. I would add, so long as those judges agree
JCT: Her attitude is irrelevant to the goodness or evil of
the law. Blackstone advises flouting law you disagree with
if politicians do not until they get puked out at
victimizing you in public and end the bad law.
 Here is what she told me during the course of her
submissions. "I intend to grow marihuana. I will look at
the order the court pronounces and I will decide whether or
not I will follow it. I intend to continue to traffic
marihuana to the so-called Compassion Club."
 As she put these positions before the court, I reminded
her that she was narrowing, considerably, any sentence
options that I might have. I believe she does this on
purpose. She believes that the marihuana laws are unjust
and she is prepared to continue to defy the law of
parliament and any order of the court today pronounced. She
wants, in other words, to be a martyr for her cause. I
think she savours the publicity that would ensue. Publicity
that would put her front and centre as a sympathetic figure;
a woman taking care of a disabled husband, growing marihuana
for a Compassion Club. She sees this as a way to contest
the marihuana laws in the court of public opinion.
 History is replete with individuals who are prepared to
spend time in jail for a cause. Ms. Evers however wants,
perhaps demands is more accurate, an absolute discharge.
She recognizes that such a discharge is not available for
offences of this nature under the conditional discharge
provisions of the Code. Possession of more than three kilos
of marihuana exposes an individual to a sentence in excess
of 14 years. The provisions of section 730 do not permit a
discharge, conditional or absolute, to be granted in those
circumstances. Not unexpectedly, Ms. Evers would have this
parliamentary-passed law struck as well under the Charter.
 Cited by her is R. v. Small  B.C.J. No. 248, 2001
BCCA 91. This cased can be distinguished on its facts.
Small, himself, had a medical need for marihuana and the
court was persuaded that in growing marihuana he was
motivated entirely by altruistic concerns because he was
providing it to a Compassion Club. Ms. Evers provided no
support, other than her own evidence on the point, that she
requires marihuana for medical purposes. In addition, Ms.
Evers, supplied product for the local Compassion Club for
profit. Her motives were not entirely altruistic. The
appellate court did what Ms. Evers seeks to have done in
this case. I decline to follow Small. In my view, it is
simply another case of the old adage being confirmed; 'hard
cases make bad law.'
 In any event, I would uphold the limits to the
discharge provisions of the Criminal Code and they apply to
the case at bar. They are, in my view, reasonable limits
imposed by law and not contrary to any Charter protection.
 In the alternative, Ms. Evers seeks a constitutional
exemption from the limiting provisions of s. 730 on the
basis that it precludes a sentencing judge from imposing a
just and proportionate sentence. That assumes that the
sentencing judge thought a conditional or absolute discharge
is appropriate in the first place. I do not.
 Ms. Evers provided me with R. v. Lucas, BCPC 0268, upon
which she relies and from which I quote at paragraph 47:
This case must be viewed in a broad context, in which to
date, the combination of federal regulations and College of
Physicians trepidation has made it extremely difficult for
applicants to obtain approval to use marijuana. Further, the
federal government has so far been unable to ensure any
legal supply of marijuana to those whom Health Canada thinks
need it as a therapy. This is a particular hardship for
those who cannot grow it.
That case has been overtaken by events. The medical
marihuana regulations, and indeed Ms. Evers' own witness,
confirmed that the new regulations are working. Lucas may,
in any event, be wrongly decided.
 I am not going to satisfy Ms. Evers' desire to become a
martyr for her cause by sentencing her to a term of
imprisonment behind bars. At least, not yet. In fact, I do
not believe in the circumstances of this case that Ms. Evers
need be jailed, conditionally or otherwise.
 In my view, in the circumstances of this case, it is
appropriate to suspend sentence and place Ms. Evers on
probation. To remove some of the so-called 'farm income,'
gained through the sale of marihuana, a fine should also be
imposed. I fine her the sum of $3,000.00. The victim
impact surcharge will apply. Given what I know of her
financial circumstances, she has eight months to pay the
 Sentence is otherwise suspended for 12 months. She is
placed on probation for that period of time and ordered to;
keep the peace and be of good behaviour, to report to a
probation officer forthwith, not to change her address
without first notifying the probation officer, not to apply
for a medical marihuana growing permit during the course of
her probation. Once a month she is to permit the probation
officer or his or her designate, or any peace officer, to
inspect without notice the interior and exterior of her
property between the hours of eight a.m. and seven p.m. She
is not to possess those items that might assist in a grow
operation, namely grow lights and hydroponic equipment.
 There will be a mandatory ten year firearms
prohibition, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code. I
have considered Ms. Evers' argument on this point and do not
find it persuasive. Ms. Evers does not now own and does not
permit weapons on her property. Despite her position that
she may need a firearm in the future to protect her
livestock, I would only note that she has not had need of
weapons in the past and there is no indication that she will
need them in the future.
JCT: And of course, Canada spent a colossal waste of fortune
in the time of the police, bailiff, Crown Attorney, judge,
Probation Officer, Community Service case worker for what
beneficial result to Canada?
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
|Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject:
John Turmel drinks his own piss.
"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
The time now is Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:51 pm | All times are GMT
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums |
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group