In court for cannabis production

Need help and support? Post here and we will do our best.

Re: In court for cannabis production

Postby enegiss » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:21 pm

a friend of mine in canada, a freeman, Uploaded by budoracle on 11 Sep 2011

The Supreme Court hearing has not been adjourned as I was hoping. The Crown seems to be obstructing the hearing of my argument the oral submission is below

Your honor I truly believe that the CDSA would be a wonderful and beneficial instrument to control and regulate all persons with respect to the misuse of all dangerous and harmful substances if it were applied as it was meant to be.

Your honor, I do allege the unlawful administration of the CDSA and I ask you now does this court have jurisdiction?.....................Yes or No

If No: Then I submit in the interests of Justice and benefit to all British Columbians that Honor adjourn this hearing until such a time as a jurisdictionally competent court can be assembled.

If Yes: Your honor I believe that there are a series of conceptual fictions that result in a maladministration of the Act and this misunderstanding is rooted in the Minister's predetermined policies that result in a failure to give effect to the Act. If we look closely at what the Act actually says we can comprehend that the Act is being misused..

It is this maladministration which is the issue that I wish to address before a jurisdictionally competent court as it affects all citizens of British Columbia in a harmful way.

Your honor I believe that there is a misunderstanding of the term "controlled drugs" that disregars persons equality before the law

Your Honor I believe that the term "Controlled drugs" cannot mean that the drug is illegal. Drugs have no agency before the law. This is not an Act of prohibition, "Use" is not in the act. The act regulates persons and their activities with respect drug property. Persons have rights to equality, drugs do not. The Minister misunderstands that the subject is the person, not the substance. Evidence of this misunderstanding of the Act is that it is maladministered in such a way that the Minister fails to give effect to the Act by excluding the majority of the users, and these are the users of the most harmful drugs.

Your Honor it is of utmost importance to first construe the neutral Act. The government (not Parliament) fails to understand the Act. Again I must stress that this is not an Act of Prohibition. Drugs in and of themselves are not illegal. Again this is of essence: the law regulates persons with respect to their drug property. The enabling clauses of the Act give the MINISTER full powers to add, regulate, exempt, in order to give EFFECT to the Act and this is an ONGOING DUTY. It is true that the Minister can do whatever she chooses, but ONLY if they understand the Act. The Act was created to protect public health. The Minister excludes with no written exemption in law the majority of users (alcohol and tobacco) and these are users engaged with the deadliest substances while failing to distinguish between peaceful USERS and MISUSERS of harmful substances. These are the two primary inequalities that arise in violation of the Rule of Law principle of equality of persons before the Law. This is NOT a political argument as in Malmo Levine. The applicant objects to the political interference by the Minister.

Further your Honor, there is a violation of freedom of thought at its most basic level. By limiting the access of altered states to only those brought on by Alcohol and Tobacco the Applicant cannot access modalities of thought that are only available through other substances. The Minister cannot claim good faith to ride roughshod over my rights, she simply is acting unlawfully through her belief that the Act justifies or mandates policies, when in reality it does not. A high threshold is owed by the decision maker to justify policies that effect a war on all citizens through the belief that some altered states of consciousness are culturally acceptable, and that access to all others be not only illegal, but as harmful, frightening and unacceptable as possible. Your Honor, I believe the honorable judge in the case of Malmo Levine made a fundamental error: there are NOT two classes of drugs. There is only ONE class of persons and their drug property. This case is entirely distinguished from Malmo Levine, your Honor, the Minister treats "controlled drugs" as a is a verb concerning the subject.... PERSONS, who should be equal before the law.

Therefore your Honor I seek a remedy in common law: That the minister apply the Act as it was written to give equal protection to all users of dangerous substances which would result in the Applicant, and ALL concerned with the use of these substance, receiving Equal treatment before the law
there are very valid concepts in this written submission, peace and light
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm


Return to Help Wanted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest