Click here to get the 2-page word document
The presentation below is a pictographed version of this test
Click Here for a short video on our FREE PRESCRIPTION
- This fits in with my 'iron-clad' Supremacy of Parliament defense
and both together create a BULLETPROOF defense. But we are no
Click Here for a 2nd video reporting on our Supreme Court Petition
______________________________________

BASIC PREMISE TO SHOW THAT:
In law: a Marijuana Party membership is a PRESCRIPTION [under sec 39 CCC]
to defend the Peaceful possession of the articles of our rubric in a civil society

Note: in Canadian law it's spelled 'marihuana' not marijuana.
Marijuana is not defined; IN LAW Marihuana is not a plant; it's a dangerous narcotic AND it's every public Official's duty to protect its citizens from danger -[in law the legal definition of any word is important - law is nothing but words]

Just look up PRESCRIPTION in the DCL [Dictionary of Canadian law] [in law: if the word exists here - it's the only definition allowed]
- If a prescription for marijuana is not defined in the DCL then it's not 'prescribed by law' [therefore meaningless -does not exist] AND when this term ‘prescription’ is used as a condition in a bail undertaking [as in]
“The accused must not possess drugs or without a prescription “
- THEN the ambiguity creates a real threat to the accused because this word offers no protection and - THIS could lead to false arrests and when this occurs, the law becomes an Instrument of punishment
- What is needed is a clear understanding that clarifies what is meant by the term ‘prescription’.
- So that the accused can be saved from a bad decision by an uninformed law enforcer.

If you're charged under the CDSA [Controlled Drugs & Substances Act]
the Police /court often tell the accused that you need a PRESCRIPTION
in order to not be charged or as a condition of bail after you’re charged.
The wording for this undertaking is always the same therefore someone
gave it some thought. They never say 'medical prescription' - because
there's no such thing So what do they mean? Just look it up in the DCL

As defined in law:[in our DCL] there is no such thing as a prescription for marihuana

PRESCRIBED SUBSTANCES under the Atomic Energy Act is
defined as a permit to carry/produce uranium, plutonium, neptunium, etc
[so the term prescription does not apply to a substance under the CDSA]

a PRESCRIBER: is defined as a person who is authorized to give a prescription within the scope of any profession and in the practice of a health discipline. As prescribed by the CMA: there is no such thing as a health care profession that 'gives a prescription for marijuana'

BUT under this definition, an Officer of the Parti Marijuana Party can legally be called a PRESCRIBER because he is PRESCRIBED BY LAW under the Elections Act to protect our Party rubric and or his EDA's
prescribed platform of beliefs and activities.

PRESCRIBED DRUG is defined as a drug that may be dispensed by
a pharmacist upon the direction of a prescribers [note: not defined in an Act]
- There is no such thing as a pharmacist who can dispense marijuana

PRESCRIPTION has many definitions and
absolutely none of them apply to cannabis
There's one under The Dispensing Fee Act, one under the Practice of Physiotherapy Act, another under the Dental Technicians Act and an
anti-dumping definition for prescription under the Tariffs Act:

There's not even 1 definitions for PRESCRIPTION under the CDSA
and it's worth noting THAT: all 'drug' charges are pressed under the CDSA.

It’s also worth noting that since there are no definitions for prescription under the CDSA then their own MMAR card and form is not defined as a prescription, or its definition would be found here. So by definition there is no such thing
as a drug or medical prescription under the CDSA

- There's a definition under the FDA [Food and Drug Act of 1985]
that covers dispensing controlled drugs by prescribing a controlled quantity [not applicable] AND
- They still list a definition under the Narcotic Control Act, for a prescription for narcotics [even though this Act was struck down in 1989 as unconstitutional]
_____________________________________________________________

So that means there’s a PRESCRIPTION available somewhere
Otherwise the law is being used as a trap to screw you over &
- the law must never be used as an Instrument of punishment

THIS IS WHERE SANITY COMES TO THE RESCUE
There is a clear definition that does apply to a political Party
This is the definition for the term::PRESCRIBED BY LAW

- This definition starts by saying it protects Sec-1 rights in the Charter which states THAT
"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society
Sec 1 cover all sections - Sec-2 covers Fundamental Freedoms and Sec-3 covers Democratic rights

Under THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT - 'Democratic rights are "PRESCRIBED BY LAW" as exempt from the arbitrary use of power contained in Sec 33 - ORDERS IN COUNCIL and the only thing that keeps marijuana illegal is the abuse of Sec-33 [there is no real legislation to enforce cannabis regulations]

Under the SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, the only way anyone can defend themselves from a bad law is by being politically active and [that’s exactly how we are defending our rights]

- UNDER line-1 of the rule of law of Sec 133 BNA Act:
Supreme Court rulings [like the Longley decision / Parker /Hitzig decisions] bar /preclude the majority in power from using the force of
ORDERS IN COUNCIL on any private individual of especially the
PARTI MARIJUANA PARTY [under the Supremacy of Parliament]

As to this definition: The Elections Act clearly provides the Marijuana Party of Canada with the necessary terms and regulations for our operating requirements. This really is a Claim of Right thru an application of common law, which is exactly what the law is required to do,
Which is: offer a way to benefit from the law- Which has become an abstract concept in this perverted Sec 15 CCC de-facto court system

FURTHERMORE: It must be pointed out that this court stands-under
the SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT

THEREFORE this court cannot actually rule against this Petition.
As PRESCRIBED BY LAW this court can forward this decision to a higher court or it can just recognize that it’s not in this court’s jurisdiction to say no
BUT the form especially in The City of Vancouver does grace any
Judge with the right to recognize it.

ON THE ISSUE OF RECOGNIZING OUR PRESCRIPTION:
His Worship the Mayor Greg Robertson has prescribed a policy onto the police and the courts in His jurisdiction to the affect that they should show a more humane approach toward simple possession charges of cannabis.
- To show his general support, the Mayor has permitted several new Compassion Clubs and frankly all of us operate on different ‘prescribed platform of rules and activity’ that the prescribers provided,
as necessary regulations for its operating requirement
IN OTHER WORDS all these providers are all operating under the definition of ‘PRESCRIBED BY LAW

FURTHERMORE: This new policy was introduced in order to express the legitimacy of the first Vancouver Compassion Club, [now over 12 years old]
and it is now understood that its court rulings regarding peaceful trespass with their medicine [claim of right] are relevant to this court.
This Compassion Club has successfully defended some members in court and they have chosen not to defend many other members with less valid claim to peaceful possession AND
it should be noted that Judge Wally Oppal was Instrumental in this success

BECAUSE OF THE MAYOR’s PRESCRIPTION: It’s my understanding that none of the other clubs operating in Vancouver have had an opportunity to defend the peaceful possession of their members or have to defend their membership as a PRESCRIPTION for the responsible use of their medicine.

FRANKLY It’s just a matter of time before they come seeking remedy for a member. We have been giving this opportunity and we can expect this court to have a compassionate response because it really is PRESCRIBED BY LAW in Vancouver This Judge is being called to recognize THAT:
our Party membership as a PRESCRIPTION to cannabis
___________________________________________________________________

We live in a society where we are all supposed to benefit from the law
It's undeniable that it's being used as an Instrument of punishment
This WAR ON DRUGS in nothing but UNCIVIL WAR on your children

It rams it down your throat That to get aHEAD
that you need to be an asshole just like them...

They say if you legalize pot you have to legalize all drugs.
That's just a negotiating position with no one to negotiate with

The WAR ON DRUGS is a forever war - THERE'S SIMPLY NO ONE TO NEGOTIATE WITH

The Parti Marijuana Party by default is the only Officially recognised party who could negotiate any kind of peaceful 'agreement' and
constitutionally we have the right to Claim a right to protect our members

_________________________________________________________________________

This defense goes hand in hand with this 'iron-clad' Supremacy of Parliament defense
and with both of these defenses everyone really has a BULLETPROOF defense. But we are no
...