Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4


The #1 reason for persecuting cannabis is basic: IT CAN CURE CANCER

CAVEAT: this article is written for Canadian case law Application, but it can apply to anywhere in the USA as well, because we are both using identical medical Institutional standards, and because they used the same 'old' excuses to entrench their present case law precedents.


it's a crime to promote any herb as being a cure for 'cancer' especially

1. All it takes to show the giant threat that all cannabis activists face is to take a sobering look at

how callously the CMA consistently destroys anyone who claims to cure anything with any herb

2. [case in point] For the past century, the RCMP [in Canada's case] has mindlessly enforced that it's a crime to promote [let alone act on] trying to cure cancer with anything but surgery chemo therapy, and radiation. This case law has been challenged 100s of times since its inception, and [as trophies] the CMA /CDSA eventually used brute force to destroy anyone who objected.

3. A fundamental change in law has occurred since then that changes the playing field NAMELY:

We can now hold Authority to explain: why they did it? and 'why they should continue to do it?

1. As we see it: Under the CMA's Hippocratic oath, they must justify: how they do no harm?

2. It's now 80-years after Canadian case law was established [detailed in APPENDIX 3], and we can now hold them accountable to explain why their 'do no harm' policy can continue to prohibit herbal remedies, because [at face value] it only harms these ill-begotten profits.

3. ON THIS: Parliament cannot pass a law that orders the CMA to change their policy; BUT a BCSC judge can mandate Health Canada [HC] to enforce the CDSA's trust /contract, when this Health Minister is duty-bound to protect the health of it residents, therefore can insist that this Corporation called CDSA cannot subvert their founding mission statement, in order to protect the profits of their harmaceutical shareholders, when it harms Canadians.

4. In order to address this complaint, Authority has established loose rules [that can be arbitrarily changed at any time, because it's a temporary exception to a bad law being fully implemented] NAMELY: Authority are given the discretion to look the other way, when the needs of a victim of [for example] 'stage 4' cancer cannot be fixed by chemo therapy radiation and or surgery, which to this day still have over a 90% death rate [aka: dying before 4 years since diagnosis].

5. ON THIS: Authority cannot continue to insist that these cancer victims must first go thru and

fail to be 'cured' by their surgery /chemo /radiation treatments.

really tragic examples of herbal healers being destroyed for servicing anyone who has not

been given up as terminal by their medical monopoly [aka: given less than a year to live]

In fact, there are all kinds of

1. IN SPIGHT OF THIS: all kinds of herbal /alternative medicines have cured over 70% of these stage-4 'cancer-damaged' victims they treat with herbs and dietary /lifestyle changes.

2. After a century of the CMA /CDSA failing to improve on their death rate, when herbal cures have such good survival rates, means we can challenge that it's a crime against humanity to perpetuate this Institution's domain that [at face value] harvests cancer victims for profit.

1. As we see it: The Minister responsible for HC cannot allow the CDSA to protect their UN /Agenda 21 obligations to do our share in reducing the world's population by 90%.

2. ON THIS: We have no idea how to protect growers and dispensers, who are not covered by our Sec 1 Charter rights; BUT frankly, if we don't take this Peaceful ways and means to recognize our democratic rights, means Democracy itself is destroyed

1. AND frankly, the Court's fiduciary trust is supposed to protect us from the Admiralty

6. HOW DOES ANYONE FIX THIS MESS? where their CMA /AMA cancer Institutions generate over $200 billion a year in revenue, by systematically 'culling' 50,000 cancer victims per year

LET's FACE IT: Historically in Canada anyone who attacks this cash cow is abused by RCMP who will destroy /confiscate property and press criminal charges for this legal malpractice [and/or] destroy anyone who cause a loss of their profits with outrageous Civil litigation costs.

7. IN THEORY, we're pressing a perfectly legal ways and means to fix this mess thru civil

obedience to what is actually prescribed by law, under our Sec 1 of the Charter guarantees.

1. Our Civil Claim addresses this legal 'bullet-proof' defence; regrettably we are not


By initiating this Civil Claim to keep the Peace and act civilly, under our

Sec 1 common law 'no jurisdiction defence', results where we cannot be charged criminally for violating any rule that the CDSA enforces, and be summoned to appear in any Federal Court,.

AS IN: if anyone really thinks their grievance is not frivolous or vexatious can file a Civil court

, ON THIS: The function of this Civil Court is to establish a set of positive law case precedents that can enforce common sense rules that protect: a 'do no harm' especially to others policy.

motion on this file #

and have a judge rule on dismissing your case or proceeding.

9. Under our Sec 1 Charter defence [by definition] we can stand-under the Elections Act and frankly [by doing so] it becomes the duty of any officer or agent of the Marijuana Party to fulfill our RUBRIC, and with this defence no Public Official can trespass our democratic right to protect our free and democratic society [which includes things like] We're protected by the legal certainty that we cannot be sued by anyone, when providing cannabis as medicine [as well as any herbal remedy] to any member /private individual of our Marijuana Party, because our Sec 1 defences requires Authority to respect and protect our 'free and democratic society'

1. We'll take our chances that [by this spring] the BCSC will uphold that no Federal Authority can trespass our Sec 1 Charter rights, in order to re-establish the public trust, by exercising the power to seize /forfeit the performance bonds of any Public Official, who [directly or indirectly] tramples-on or encroaches on our common law rights to protect our RUBRIC

2. Frankly without returning to a policy of forfeiting bonds of Public Officials, there is no Peaceful means to effect a civil remedy to the gross obedience of Police to use brute force, that is contained in the founding principles of Civilian Oversight [1998 Police Act], where [quote] Police must be authorized to do things that would be illegal for ordinary citizens, and police must not be unduly fettered in the exercise of those powers.

3. This ruling must address the fact [at the first appearance] that it might be too harsh to seize the bond of any Officer for violating a Sec 7, or 8, or 11 or 15 Charter right [for example].

1. BUT, as prescribed by law, [under Sec 1 of the Charter] the condign punishment for any Officer who tramples on or obstructs our democratic activities that we require to protect our RUBRIC, is actually done by seizing their bond; BECAUSE it actually works, and historically, it's proven to be the only civil way to convince officials to change their ways.

4. Everyone accepts that new legislation is necessary to fix this Constitutional conflict in law created by Law Enforcers acting like all the provisions of S-55 of the CDSA will be enacted,

1. BUT this court should address the fact that [at face value] Police / prosecutors act like they're addicted to 'those powers', and must show a conscience by placing some kind of moratorium [until there is real legislation passed] to cease the continuation of this seditious Federal policy of ignoring the Supremacy of the SCC, in order to raid grow ops /dispensaries that should be covered by this R v Smith precedent, because otherwise Canada's rule of law will effectively be destroyed, by enforcing provisions that will inevitably never be implemented into legislation, under this new Justice Minister.


1. Last spring, the SCC in a unanimous court ruling [R v Smith] did establish that the CDSA no longer holds jurisdiction to control or regulate the medical use of any form of cannabis, AND [as to the intent of Boris Laskin] this means the BCSC should act in one voice to protect us.

1. The CDSA's solution to this ruling actually was initiated /implemented over 2-years before this ruling, under S-55 of the CDSA [expanded in APPENDIX 2] – these measures actually supports their traditional legal position of never recognizing that herbs have medical value;

2. So, NATO is implementing this new offshore 'recreational marijuana industry' that legally should be enforced in Federal Court, in order to implement international trade standards that permit the export of marijuana to any participating NATO member, AND in so doing, we agree that this offer is a giant step forward in ending this world war on marijuana.

3. BUT, their one step forward is a big step backwards in being able to protect our SCC rights. AS IN: 99% of the medical cannabis growers want nothing to do with these CDSA rules;

4. AND: until there is actual legislation passed, means these S-55 marginal provisions are not enforceable, on a grower or dispenser who desires to be protected by this SCC /R v Smith ruling, yet will still remain a target, for promoting that cannabis can cure cancer.

5. Frankly their whole CDSA program [for all intents and purposes] is unenforceable unless the charges are pressed on those LPs who sign up to this Federal program, because they accepted that the liability and accepted the cost of obeying their regulations, and paying their taxes /fees, because it's worth the price of now having a BAR code that makes their product 'market ready' in Liquor Stores [for example] and eventually in any NATO country

2. WITH THIS CIVIL CLAIM: we're taking a step forward, and the worse the BCSC can do is:

[35-days from now – which is early spring, on how they count days] is to ignore our Sec 8 CC defence to seek a court order /injunction [with this fair warning] THAT [from now on] the courts may allow any victim of arbitrary use of power to seize the performance bond of anyone in authority, who imposes force or the threat of force, because it's a condign punishment for the obstruction of our activities that we require to protect our RUBRIC, because it's prescribed by law, as a valid civil way to deter officials from violating our rights, with 'a YES' or 'NO' ruling.

1. Under our Sec 1 Charter democratic common law defence, we seek the Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould to respect the fact that: 'no jurisdiction' means 'no jurisdiction'.

2. On the understanding THAT: The Admiralty took what no body doth have a right to take, BECAUSE, Sec 1 of the Charter clearly states THAT: [R v Oakes] The underlying values and principles of a free and democratic society are the genesis of the rights and freedom guaranteed by the Charter and the ultimate standard against which a limit on the rights and freedoms must be shown, despite its affect to be reasonable or justified.


it's actually a Sec 336 CC violation of these benchers of the SCC /BCSC to not

reign in the abuse of power that the 1998 Police Act /Civilian Oversight has implemented.

1. Frankly, to not fix this conflict in law of Police blindly obeying Federal intervention, by seizing performance bonds to protect our free and democratic rights, can only result in a green light that will only perpetuate this twisted NATO Civilian Oversight police state.

2. Ignoring this civil solution /remedy can only accelerate the total collapse of our Heritage


Shortly after New Years, we'll file this ripple in still waters. We offer this to inspire you to continue to have hope in your sole, instead of being subjected to soap in your hole [opps not politically correct]

The CIVIL CLAIM mentioned in this Appendix-1 has been ready for a month now; [i can't post it now – without minor editing] Appendix-2 is a variation of our Dec 4 th posting that is still an active file, and we will soon appear in chambers to address my 10-year old international gag order

[and i still really can't talk about it now]

[and i still really can't talk about it now] There is still the pressing of this
[and i still really can't talk about it now] There is still the pressing of this

There is still the pressing of this S-55 post of Dec 15 th that is our Appendix-3 defence

[that also needs just minor editing] and from this, we 'proceed'

We really do wish everyone a Happy New Year,

We really do live in interesting times, and that should inspire hope in the meek.

Click here to explore a list of articles that explain in detail what we are engaging.

marc boyer