Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

DEFENSE UNDER SEC 126 CCC Defence to break a Statute with a lawful excuse NAMELY:

(1) Every one who, 'without lawful excuse', contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. - THEREFORE with a lawful excuse you can break a statute AND frankly the PARTI MARIJUANA PARTY has more than an excuse - We have a lawful defence to protect Democratic rights under the Election Act which by definition is greater than what the SCC calls an unconstitutional Statute. NAMELY: the CDSA Its understood that the CDSA is just a Statute that has had all its marihuana provisions of enforcement struck down as being of no force and effect by the Supreme Court of Ontario, under the original 2001 Clay /Hitzig ruling, which states that the marijuana provisions of this Statute are unconstitutional and of no force and effect, THEREFORE it's inevitable that there should be many lawful excuses filed under this ruling that prescribes THAT: there can be a personal need for medical access to cannabis, that exceeds Health Canada's perceived risk that any easement on drug prohibition is too dangerous to society, AND this policy is enforced by ORDERS IN COUNCIL IN FACT [just like Hitzig and Parker] The recent R v Mernaugh case clearly indicates that Health Canada's [HC] twisted logic on implementing a workable solution to medical access is based on 'a necessity defence' provided by Sec 126 CCC, as a lawful excuse to break a statute that has had its punishment section stripped by the Supreme Court, because they must protect society from any harm that they insist is real - It's SELF EVEDENT THAT: The MMAR program has been successfully challenged by Health Canada [HC] with this 126 CCC defence and this has resulted in a never ending series of non-cooperative compliance with half-backed measures that they defend as necessary to enforce their fiduciary trust of protecting society from what they arbitrarily perceive as harmful to their agenda.

- These half-backed measures are enforced with new ORDERs IN COUNCIL, and

in fact Council and/or the AG creates a new one every time [after the fact under 126 CCC] when someone finds a new creative way to attack this prohibition law AND what happens is we end up being governed under laws that are not yet passed, let alone published. - IN LAW AND IN FACT any Order in Council [whether or not it's unconstitutional] applies to everyone as having the same effect as properly legislated law under what's called quasi legal authority and Authority uses the blanket excuse of being under foreign contractual obligations to justify the total abuse of power contained in OCs because under Sec 126 CCC, anyone acting under the AG's authority can break a statute with the lawful excuse that he's just following his directives This kind of power falls under the maxim of absolute power corrupts absolutely and this becomes self evident when you read Sec 126(2) CCC, which brings up this total denial of the obvious, [Sec 16 CCC] and this has created this elephant in the room syndrome. This law has been there for centuries and it's never been abused like it is now AND this is because in 1993, in Canada, the BAR secretly voted to change their Oath of Allegiance They've now returned to being 'submissive to the Crown'. Prior to this [for the last 430 years] they had to be 'respectful to the Crown' because the law was Supreme over the Crown

The BAR has returned to being submissive; & in so doing, destroyed Democracy

The entire notion of 'THE PUBLIC TRUST' of the people being protected by the law is subverted when lawyers MUST be 'submissive' to the Crown rather than being 'respectful' to the Crown, is self evident, especially when Sec 126 (2) CCC states THAT: The Attorney General of Canada [AG] may act (2) in Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government. [Harper created Contravention Courts] NOW at face value this is convoluted language and in reality it means: any AG can use arbitrary power to break any law in order to force official government policy on any proceeding. AND by definition: 'all pretrials' are a proceeding and now under Sec 126 (2) any AG has a lawful excuse to fix a trial's outcome at pretrial and the lawyer defending a client MUST be submissive he can negotiate a deal, but he cannot challenge the AG That's just the way it is.

IN OTHER WORDS every court case that has a clever defence on any

medical marijuana case [for example] is rigged at the Pretrial / Confirmation Hearing because of an excuse that the AG must under foreign obligations, under a necessity defence, under Sec 126 CC protect society from harm.

This creates an incredibly huge elephant in the room NAMELY:

It's understood in law THAT: 'never ever get caught at rigging trials because if you get caught, society will revolt every time. Sec 11 of the Charter says everyone is guaranteed a fair and impartial trial and presumed innocent until found guilty only after all the evidence has been entered at a trial BUT ask anyone, we accept that the trial is nothing but a stage for what was agreed upon at pretrial in back room deals, with a lawyer. In 2004, I was found guilty of operating a Compassion Club under the Parti Marijuana Party At pretrial, the judge asked why I refused to have a lawyer represent me. I told her that I wanted a fair trial that was not predetermined at pretrial and the only way I could protect myself was to not have a lawyer who MUST submit to the deal the AG tells him to take. - It took me 3-years to get to the BC Appeals Court where I was handed a ruling saying that this case was not an appeal: Because I was found guilty 3 weeks before going to trial - By definition If it's not an appeal means it's a criminal charge. Its taken me a total of 7 years under publication bans to get to my Supreme Court of Canada Mandamus 'parked' indefinitely - because the Attorney General can actually block the proceeding at the gate because it would mean he would have to charge himself - and by definition: that's the law under Sec 126 (2) ccC [quote] Consent of Attorney General (2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada. Shortly thereafter, I get an unofficial response that it's inappropriate to file with the SCC so I went to Ottawa and filed a Mandamus with the Federal Court which is specifically created for arbitrating Parliamentary matters Its got to be appropriate to file here BECAUSE I'm challenging that it's directly prohibited for the AG, under the Supremacy of Parliament to rig the pretrial of a Loyal Opposition that's protecting our Party members Democratic rights, BUT all this filing proved is that The AG will suppress any motion that would mean that he would have to charge himself or any other Provincial AG of a crime

Freedom of Expression is only for those who have nothing to say My solution is to be found In the

jurisdiction of the Municipality of the City of Vancouver. I've been pushing the right buttons here without success - Without someone pushing a similar legal defence, in some other provincial court case, means my efforts will fail

As Jefferson warned: Due to a departure of principle that are being driven through Orders in

Council, has resulted in Parliament wilfully subverting the foundation of the Supremacy of the law, and converted our Constitutional form to the Supremacy of PARLIAMENT and in so doing destroy the very foundation of Canadas well defined rule of law - which prescribes that the law is Supreme over its governors, and private individuals in order to bar this abuse of power that exist with Orders in Council and the reason the abuse is so pervasive is this new oath to the BAR

Under the Supremacy of Parliament the only way to fight a bad law is thru political activity
which is exactly how the PARTI MARIJUANA PARTY is fighting the abuse of Orders in Council 'The BAR changing their oath' really is the reason for all bad laws, because this perverted power permits them to submit to all laws that are never passed and never could be passed as Legislation just because an AG says so - AND under this total abuse of power every lawyer judge police officer can say it's their job to destroy the Supremacy of the law with the excuse that their AG says so.

OUR PARTY claims a legitimate lawful right under the rule of law to oppose Parliamentary decrees that affect marijuana rights, AND this defence holds a glorious tradition in English case law. In fact, history will prove that claims of right simply cannot be construed without the government first being so terribly wrong In fact the use of Orders in Council as a solution has resulted in what happened in King Henry 8th reign: it was called: highway robbery, which has resurfaced and thriving again, in a fascist attempt to fund the misery of our economic slavery PROOF OF THIS CRIMINAL STATUS CAN BE FOUND IN OUR NEW CONTRAVENTION COURTS

The very nature of Contravention Courts is repugnant to a lawful society


Our present perverted Prime Minister converted our archetypal form within the 1st 100 days in Office by giving all Maritime jurisdiction from sea to sea to sea to NATO and in this way comply with the Sunset Provisions of the 1985 Bank Act. In order to impose the Continuity of Government with our American partners, under foreign obligations, directed by NAFTA - In less than one term this pervert of the law called Harper has digressed our society to the point where our Maritime jurisdiction courts are by definition operating exactly like a King Henry 8th slave courts, except under the Supremacy of money and bankster world rule. under an Official policy of "By the people for the Economy" under foreign treaty obligations [not agreement] thru total perversion of law - in 2009, our 'Federal Court of Canada' [FCC] was reinstituted as just "the Federal Court" and this perverted NATO crest now hangs in this court room - This perversion in law created by an unconstitutional Bank Act has resulted in Ottawa being made into a District [like Washington DC] where a full colour crest of the Order of Canada hangs in Ottawa courts - AND the full colour Order of the Garter's crest that used to hang in our courts is now gilded in gold in some Ontario Supreme Courtrooms [like Mernaugh's case] These conversions are not just 'superficial' changes - They are all direct attacks on the Supremacy of the law AND this Constitutional expert, called HARPER, insists that since the courts and the people are not objecting too much means he can do anything he wants under the Supremacy of Parliament and ORDERS IN COUNCIL AND none of this total subversion of Democracy

itself would have been sustained without 1 st converting the oath to the BAR in 1993

UNDER this NEW WORLD ORDER no court decision can negatively affect the economy of any Corporation doing business in Canada because under NAFTA [foreign obligations]

this Corporation can sue the government for lost income, and win THEREFORE in law the AG MUST eventually over-ride any law that protects 'by the people for the people' due to foreign contractual obligations, even tho, doing so literally rapes the rights of all Canadians. IN FACT and in law - No one can defend any point of law let alone right and wrong in any court, because business law simply does not recognize any right or wrong issue [period] AND because a defence attorney can now be told what to do by an AG means nothing good will ever happen In this Official policy of "by the people for the economy" every court ruling MUST first protect the profitability of any foreign or domestic business interest. or that CORPORATION can sue them. and win Frankly voters ask for this abuse of power BECAUSE we'll only elect politicians who promise THAT: They will make those tough economic decisions on your behalf, when called upon. - NOW that this pervert in law has a majority he decrees in the Thrown Speech that he is in essence obligated to uphold the Continuity of Government in order to benefit the ECONOMY because we elected him on this promise to protect the economy first -[not human rights] To paraphrase Jesus: You simply cannot uphold Freedom and the ECONOMY at the same time - NOW THAT HARPER HAS A MAJORITY he passed 10 totally unconstitutional crime bills, by rolling them into one OMNIBUS CRIME BILL and frankly he had to, because they were already being enforced as law, under old OCs. We have 'yet' to see whether the courts will strike down this criminal society that corrupt politicians have created, because the Senate just loves their share of the power grab, by endorsing its passage AND it's inevitable that the police will choose new case law indictments that challenge the law. It's just a never ending macabre game they play It's now standard practice to break this maxim of law: NAMELY: Never use the law as an instrument of punishment - This new OMNIBUS BILL replaces Trudeau's OMIBUS BILL and we start a whole new round of sweeping changes on the onslaught of our God given rights, back to feudal times. After all, why else did the BAR change their oath of Allegiance, back to King Henry 8th rule, if it wasn't for the re-implementation of court upheld slavery? - I reiterate the obvious, to any cannabis rights Advocate, you desperately need good & fresh legal defences to fight this law - Read the writing on the wall of delusion that never speaks the truth - The only way to successfully fight this bad law under THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT, if/when you get busted is with a lawful defence that as an officer or member of a recognized federal party holds, under Sec 126 (1) CCC. You need a well-defined defence that is PRESCRIBED BY LAW, under Sec 1 of the Charter before you get busted OTHERWISE your case will be rigged by the AG under Sec 126 (2) CCC

Constitutionally, the only way to protect your lawful descent to cannabis laws is by being a member in the only Official federal party that will endorse your activity

The leader of any other Official party will veto any EDA political challenge to cannabis laws - The Marijuana Party of Canada holds a SCC ruling that we are an Official Party, and we hold a prescribed official policy of non-interference with any political experiment of any EDA

BOTTOM LINE - Anyone can take their chances and be fed to the lions OR you can place your faith

in our solution and never be put to shame for upholding a Free and Democratic society. [R v Oakes] We at the Marijuana Party have a plethora of new creative defences, AND any EDA can do whatever political experiment your members want Our defence is Bulletproof regrettably we are not

Under a necessity defence, we stand-under a CLAIM OF RIGHT in a land where everything is so wrong