 Click
Here
to get to read the 2-page Original word document
Here is a
pictograph presentation of this document
_________________________________________________
BASIC PREMISE FOR HOLDING A LEGAL RIGHT TO OPERATE
MY COMPASSION CLUB thru a Revenue Canada /Election Act Loophole
NOTE: all this documentation and my legal position was
filed from Jan 2005 to July 2005 and the Crown and the Judge’s
simply refused to deal with it.
What I’m pointing out is that this was an iron clad defense
that I created.
There really is no argument against it and the Judge
didn’t have an argument against it AND what it got me was
an international gag order /publication ban, a prohibition order
/ban from filing anything in any Supreme Court in BC and I then
got a rigged trial, and it just got from bad to worse. It proves
Jefferson’s lament on what occurs with a departure of principle,
and refusing to let go, simply cascaded into a very deep pit of
liability that simply cannot go away because I won’t let
it.
I just repeated this same impossible task of pressing
another iron-clad defense in Alberta, and I won a big victory.
Now at this sentencing in Alberta, I can file this same legal
paperwork /argument again, because it’s more than relevant
in proving my innocence of committing any crime. I’m showing
that I’ve done my homework and it’s my move. This
defense was originally written in 2005 and posted on my website
and I updated it for this court case and presentation.
- This TAX CODE /Elections Canada defense with this new
Alberta PRESCRIBED BY LAW defense makes it bullet-proof.
AGAIN THE COURTS JUST IMPLODED IN COURT
- THEY SIMPLY CANNOT ACT - They deliberately created
a mistrial, [just like the last time] rather than deal with it
This time the judge ruled that this great legal argument may legalize
what you do in a civil court, BUT He said: it's irrelevant
in a criminal court. until the criminal code was amended to say
that selling marijuana is legal means they must prosecute
 Now,
at face value that's LEGAL INSANITY: [Sec 16 CCC]
because all drug related charges are covered under a Statute called
the CDSA. - It's impossible to have a law written in the CCC when
there is no crime in the CCC for drugs [period]
FURTHERMORE: This judge is saying that
until it's directly permitted, it's a crime.
[which is the exact opposite of Freedom]
It destroys what a Free and Democratic Society is all about]
__________________________________________________
Preamble: They busted Al Capone on tax laws,
not any criminal activity that he was doing.
To avoid this criminal liability, some compassion clubs have been
applying for GST /PST tax numbers, and medical access providers,
(like growers), are filing taxes on their income, and Revenue
Canada seems happy;
- But, this status does not make them legal. As it was explained
to me, a bank robber could apply and get a GST tax number for
their business, but it doesn't make it legal, and tax evasion
doesn’t seem to be a crime because they never charge a bank
robber with tax evasion.
- BUT for drugs they confiscate cash and property as proceeds
of crime, and frankly the best way anyone can fight it is thru
the Revenue Canada, [which I did] and I dragged Elections Canada
into it, and then brought it to court.
In Canada, Health Canada simply insists that there is no recognized
way anyone can sell marijuana, legally. Their own MMAR program
does not sell you marijuana: when you look at the document they
attach with the delivery, you are actually paying for the paper
receipt, and the pot just happens to be there.
- And they insist that they under this bad contract called
the MMAR that they can change their minds at the drop of a hat
and enforce Orders in Council as being Supreme over Supreme Court
rulings, and it’s trashing the entire concept that the law
is Supreme in Canada
It's total hypocrisy, (but that's what this politician is fighting)
So I created my Catch-22 solution, where I get recognized rights,
by getting a rejection:
It started after my original bust on file # 157479C in Sept 2004,
I did this song and dance on Authority after my arraignment in
December 2004 AND In order to do this, I went to Revenue Canada
and filed very truthful answers to a GST license application form,
in January of 2005 <I filed as an EDA Official applying for
a GST tax #>, and after arguing [friendly debate] with the
head man of Revenue Canada, Vancouver, he told me flat
out that under Revenue Canada's regulations, he could not give
me a GST #, for a whole series of valid reasons, and I agreed
 -
I thanked him, and accepted his offer, which really upset him,
because that's not what he wanted to hear.
I asked him: Just because he could not collect taxes on my political
activity did that mean that I could not do my political activity?
He refused to answer this and refused to give a letter to confirm
that he refused to give me a GST tax #, because I insisted
that he would have to give me the reason for not giving me a GST
number, in writing. He simply refused to do it.
With this GST application rejection, I then filed this IC706R5
form
I file this 1 page form
on Feb 21st, & this 1-page
form on Feb 22nd 2005
- I waited the 3 months till June to reply. I never expected one
and frankly I probably never will get a reply. So, I filed for
a ruling In BC Supreme Court on April 20th [4:20 2005] and this
Application ended after a week of short court sessions
What happened is Chief Justice Brenner deliberately error
and
he told me he did so in order for the case to go to BC Appeals
Court.
- He knew he had a hornet’s nest because he didn’t
want to say yes and
he knew that he could never say no, without violating his oath
of Office.
My contention is that I had won with this Supreme
Court ruling by default,
because this Judge refused to rule on it too. AND that’s
because of ‘the nature of the beast that inherently
exists’ in this IC706R5 Revenue Canada form,
This
form is a corporate tax lawyer’s best friend. I
knew about it from my business dealings in the USA and I simply
walked in with a 1-page question, walked up to the first tax man
and he handed me this form by simply asking for its equivalent
form in Canada. So I asked a simple one sentence question that
needed a yes or no answer and in law they simply could not say
no, and a yes was simply too controversial, so they just dodged
the bullet, by refusing to reply…
I
handed in a 1-page form, and I paid $100. + GST= $107 AND filed
it with Revenue Canada and Elections Canada
AND neither Elections Canada nor Revenue Canada responded to this
file and until they do they simply cannot say what I’m doing
is illegal.
That’s the nature of the beast contained in this form. If
they want to address this issue they can pick up the phone call
me in and discuss it. BUT until they actually close this file
with my consent – by answering the question, I can legally
carry doing what I proposed was reasonable requirements under
a necessity defense as prescribed by law as Essential Elements
in protecting any Marijuana Party members’ rights in a Free
and Democratic society [period]
–
So, when the BC Supreme Court does not want to answer
the question, then what am I supposed to do? Frankly
he can ask me to go the Appeals Court, But why would I? Frankly
by refusing to answer the question means he answered it.
It’s a perfectly legal trap that empowers me with a default
judgment.
In my case, the BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Brenner refuses
to answer the question, and this simply means I am not bound to
stop this activity, unless he answers the question and he refused.
– As PRESCRIBED BY LAW until this IC706R5 form is closed,
my activity that I’m proposing in this form is legal until
told otherwise, and it must be a written response - after some
kind of negotiation.
- If no one wants to answer the question why would I object? Really
think about it. That Judge had every right to ask me to take it
to a court of Appeals.
But I’m not a lawyer and I simply have to respect the courts,
- Catch-22 by
not challenging this decision I really am respecting this ruling
for what it did at face value. Frankly, especially with this IC706R5
form, by not ruling against it means that “what it not directly
prohibited cannot be implied” especially when all parties
in this undertaking have been given this notice on every document
handed in.
- As prescribed by law there is no other explanation needed; with
this IC706R5 form I can assume that: nonfeasance means compliance
especially in a FREE and DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY [r v Oakes] which
protects Sec-1 Charter Guarantees.
THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO MY CASE NOW BEFORE ALBERTA.
Because, I actually have proof that what I’m doing for the
past 5 years cannot be called illegal. AND as prescribed by law
until Revenue Canada and Elections Canada work out a deal with
me means this judge cannot take a dime of my money because this
failure to rule is a ruling in and by itself.
The only real conclusion to refusing to address an answer to this
ruling means THAT: 1) Under Freedom of Association
- It's legal for any private individual [Officer] who is affiliated
with a compassion club can sell cannabis (as medicine, at an arm's
length agreement with my EDA)
under the Elections Act, as long as it’s done within a structured
private membership compassion club, because a political party
has an express guarantee that is obviously prescribed by law to
form an association inside the Party that attracts social and
political participation, and this guarantee extends to 'protecting'
minority beliefs, under FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION DCL
 2)
Under FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION – DCL
- Authority cannot interfere with the 'activity' of any member
of the Parti Marijuana Party who provide medicine to the Association,
and especially for using his medicine, in order to protect a FREE
AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY [r v Oakes]
- This activity is protected under sec-39 CCC DEFENSE WITH CLAIM
OF RIGHT, and all members have the right to trespass on Crown's
domain in peaceful possession of personal property
* Frankly this case raises all kinds of issues that cannot be
answered
by this Judge. But how he rules is very important
- In law, this case will result in what’s called CIVILIZATION,
which is taking a case from criminal court to civil court
|