The ruling clearly outlines that I have a court ordered right to sell cannabis illegally. The Crown is either saying it's a crime to uphold God's rule of law as Supreme (or) THAT you cannot directly probitit but you can imply that upholding God's rule of law is a mistake My Synopsis of the ruling handed down on my REASONS FOR SENTENCE
The importance
of this phrase 'illegal means' as opposed to 'legal means' to
my interpretation can only mean THAT the Crown stands-under, “ The only logical conclusion that can be derived from being from prohibited from buying possessing, and selling grow op equipment' is that this Court ruling recognizes THAT:What is not directly prohibited cannot be implied” is a cornerstone of law, therefore in order to properly promote the legalization of cannabis
My next point: 16] Mr. Boyer testified that he has a serious medical condition that is helped by marihuana, and thus uses it for strictly medical purposes himself, and I accept this evidence for the purpose of sentencing.
File
No: 157479-2-C - Registry: Vancouver - In the Provincial
Court of British Columbia Crown
Counsel: F. Polak Appearing
on his own behalf: M. BOYER Date of Judgment: December 5, 2005[1] THE COURT: I have read the Lucas decision, and I have read all of the other decisions that were cited to me. These are my conclusions. [2] First of all, Mr. Boyer, you were found guilty of possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking. In both cases, the amount of the drug was less than three kilos. [3] Mr. Boyer opened a storefront in Vancouver, which he advertised on the internet as a constituency office for the Marihuana Party of Canada. he is also purported to be a candidate for election sponsored by the same party. Part of his campaign for election was the promotion of and the legalization of marihuana for medical use. [4] Heartened by the Parker judgment in Ontario, Mr. Boyer and his followers believed that marihuana would soon be available to him and others who suffered from ailments that could benefit from the drug. Unfortunately, the government's response to the judgment created a process by which an exemption could be attained for possession of the drug without creating any reasonable means to obtain a supply by legal means. [5] As a consequence, a number of compassion clubs were formed to help people obtain marihuana for medical purposes without having to go to the black market, or to street traffickers. [6] Mr. Boyer purported to set up his own compassion club, which operated under the rubric of the Marihuana Party of Canada. He did this for a number of reasons. [7] First, he mistakenly believed that the Elections Act would give him immunity for selling marihuana as part of the political objectives of a registered party. [8] Second, his own belief was that the law prohibiting the sale of marihuana was unconstitutional. [9] Third, he wanted to make money for the party to ensure that they carried out its political objectives, which included the legalization of marihuana. [10] The storefront was thus open for business. It sold marijuana and food products containing cannabis and cannabis resin. When a search warrant was executed, the police found cannabis and cannabis resin valued at between $3,500 and $9,500, depending whether it was sold at the gram, the ounce, or the pound level. Prices were somewhat lower than street level prices, but according to Mr. Boyer, the quality was far higher. [11] It is apparent from the evidence led by the Crown that Mr. Boyer would only sell people marihuana if they agreed to become members of the compassion club. Further, this involved filling out a number of forms, and making disclosures about the nature of the illness or injury sought to be treated by the drug. [12] Although there is evidence that Mr. Boyer tried to restrict membership to those with genuine medical needs, his standards were clearly not exacting in that regard. Members did not have to provide a physician's prescription, nor a letter from their doctor confirming their illness, or that marihuana would be a benefit to them. [13]
An undercover officer obtained a membership and a supply of marihuana
by producing a prescription bottle for anti-inflammatories that
she asserted were for a neck strain injury. No attempt was
made to verify the injury or her identity as a means of checking
whether it was her prescription or not. [15] It is also apparent that Mr. Boyer was not selling marihuana as a non-profit business. He gained financially from the sales, and so did the political party he supported. [16] Mr. Boyer testified that he has a serious medical condition that is helped by marihuana, and thus uses it for strictly medical purposes himself, and I accept this evidence for the purpose of sentencing. [17] The range of sentence for this offence in similar circumstances broad. An absolute discharge as well as a conditional discharge have been imposed in circumstances where the court is satisfied the accused is genuinely involved in a bonafide compassion club that has its sole purpose the supply of marihuana to critically ill people who would not otherwise be able to obtain the drug. Conditional sentence orders and probation have also been imposed when these motives have been present, along with personal financial gain. [18] In the case at hand, I find discharge would be contrary to the public interest because Mr. Boyer is not just making a real, albeit misguided, attempt to supply marihuana to seriously ill people. He is also promoting his own political objectives through illegal means. He is making money through the unlawful sale of marihuana to promote the political objectives of the Marihuana Party of Canada. He also says he has continued to sell this marihuana despite these charges and his conviction. [19] Further, Mr. Boyer has not been careful to confine membership in his club to those who genuinely have a critical medical need for Marihuana contrary to the cases that I have read, particularly the Phillip Lucas. In that case, it was clear that the discharge was premised on the fact that Mr. Lucas was only providing marihuana to people whose physician had recommended that marihuana be used as a part of their treatment for a medical condition. This is simply not the case in Mr. Boyer's circumstances, obtaining a membership in the club is just a short step up from buying the drug from a street dealer. [20] Having considered the relevant sentencing factors, I find a criminal record is necessary to act as a deterrent to Mr. Boyer. He must recognize that despite his position as a political candidate, he is not above the law and cannot therefore justify illegal acts as a means of achieving his political objectives. [21] While making marihuana legal in Canada is a proper political purpose for his party, it cannot be done by illegal means without being sanctioned by the justice system. [22] Given that Mr. Boyer has no past criminal history - if you could stand please, sir - I find that a suspended sentence and 12 months probation is the appropriate disposition. [23] You will keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You will not be found in possession of any hydroponic equipment, fertilizer products or any other material used in the growing of marihuana. You will not sell such equipment or products. You will report to the probation office at 275 East Cordova Street on or before four o'clock tomorrow, which is the 6th of December, and thereafter as and when directed by your probation officer. [25] You will perform 50 hours of community work service as directed by your probation officer, and you will complete such hours on or before April the 30th, 2006, to the satisfaction of your probation officer. [26] I don't know, Mr. Polak, whether there's any other terms that you might recommend? [27] MR. POLAK: No, Your Honour, thank you. [28] THE COURT: Thank you. There will be an order for forfeiture of all monies, materials, goods and equipment seized from the shop upon execution of the search warrant because I am satisfied that they were all used in connection with the growing and the sale of marihuana products. [29]
There will be, because it is mandatory under the Criminal
Code, a weapons prohibition pursuant to section 109 for a
period of 10 years. I am not going to waive the victim fine
surcharge, but I will give you three months to pay that fine,
and if you could then attend to the registry, Mr. Boyer.
|
This
judgement has all the elements for Criminal Insanity, & by
definition it's also contains all th elements for Criminal Breach
of Trust [s-336] 
I
was found guilty of possession for the purposes of trafficking,
while operating a Marihuana Party store that sold hydroponic equipment
as a store front and sold cannabis to members in the back The
key to this sentence is 
in [7] thru [20]
