Q and A format on understanding how cannabis
can be sold bought and grown legally. under the Elections Act, the Law and Equity Act, and our Constitutional rule of law
- I'm the first to admit that if I sold cannabis to protect our beliefs
thru any other method other than raising awareness and funds
for the Parti Marijuana Party that I would be doing criminal activity. 
- Also, I admit that if the Marijuana Party were not an Officially recognized party,
that my fund raising activity would be illegal.

Furthermore, in law and in fact, [under the Elections Act]
if this venture weren't making a profit, than it would be illegal. 
Ps: Political Parties are covered under the Societies Acts, our 'arm's length activities' are protected, under Freedom of Association, but it's illegal for a co-op, a charity, (and so on) to be politically active, and yet political parties can make a profit and are covered under this same Act

A political Party (Association) holds a Constitutional guarantee " under the Supremacy of Parliament and Freedom of Expression to protect beliefs the majority considers wrong or false, & so do Associations under the Societies Act and the only way a political party can make money is by promoting & protecting our beliefs." Associations share this profit with its members & political parties must spend its profits in politics. under Lord Brighton's Mandate [It prescribes the limits for common law rules that protect Democracy in any Commonwealth Government]

Excuse me, but I run for the Parti Marijuana Party;
What beliefs am I supposed to protect? [obviously marijuana beliefs]
There's so many ways to show this status of really being able to benefit from being politically active that it's hard to know where to start,

But it all begins with taking your head out of the box
I need to present ideas that the government does not want you to know, because it might inspire you to be free, as well.  So I will proceed on different themes to show you how they 'all' get to the same point of legality. 
Ps. - In criminal law cases, all you need is one argument to stick to win
The defense of benefiting from the COMMONWEALTH under the Law & Equity Act and The Elections Act are guarantees of Freedom of Expression

To start, I'll point out a basic cornerstone of law and Democracy
 We are all supposed to benefit from society, from exercising our FREEDOM of EXPRESSION, and this Charteright, for a politician of an Officially recognized party is elevated to a Sec 1 Charter EXPRESS GUARANTEE.   Our political activities are prescribed by law as the only way to fight a bad law - I most definitely can legally express and defend our legal law dictionary definition of a:

FREE SOCIETY: A free society is one, which aims at equality with respect to the enjoyment of fundamental freedom, and I say this without reliance upon section-15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   Freedom must surely be founded on respect for the inherent dignity and the inviolable rights of the human person. - [this definition is from r-v-Oakes - a landmark ruling for our party]

Catch-22: There is a political excuse to use ORDERS IN COUNCIL on Hitzig & Parker But ORDERS IN COUNCIL simply cannot encroach on the guarantee that the Parti Marijuana Party can demand in court by standing-under R v Oakes as case law, especially when Oakes was about the medicinal use of cannabis, AND especially when the SCC uses this ruling to 'recognized' Sec 1 Charter rights that are specifically there to protect a Free and Democratic Society AND Democracy is governed under the Elections Act

For a provincial courts to rule that an Officer of a Federal Party cannot get protection under the fundamental principles of 'a Free and Democratic Society' is criminally INSANE: [Sec 16 CCC]
As prescribed by law: under the Supremacy of Parliament their own rules say that the only thing they can't use the arbitrary use of power on is on any loyal opposition party who is protecting our SCC upheld rulings.
- It's simply impossible to deny me my Sec 1 and Sec 3 Charteright because it constitutes a direct attack on our democratic function.   Under the Supremacy of Parliament, Orders in Council cannot over-ride Marijuana Party rights that are upheld in landmark Supreme court rulings like the Longley decision, which specifically gives us a right to make a profit by protecting our beliefs and especially the Oakes decision, which protects Democratic guarantees [under Sec 1 of the Charter]
[this case is about a man who had a medical defense for having lots of hash oil -[This connection to cannabis makes this Sec 1 precedent very important to our party, especially because of it directly enshrines our politcal guarantees]

IN LAW - it's the Law & Equity Act that protect us from the Supremacy of Parliament, because we are an opposition to the majority in Parliament.
[Therefore treated as equals] There is no such thing as absolute power to do anything, as an order of council seems to project.  It's called inferior law.
The Constitution directly prohibits any use of arbitrary power on any Loyal Opposition and it's simply a total criminal abuse of power to rig anyone's trial
Sec 1 protects the genesis to real change that I am denied by rigging my trials
IN LAW: When I'm charged as a Officer of the Marijuana Party means that they are saying that this WAR ON DRUGS has no peaceful Democratic solution

Constitutionally, no one can have these absolute powers, but 'this system' is in no way obligated to tell anyone how to challenge it. This is where what is not directly prohibited cannot be applied comes to the rescue.
The rule of law, [which is Supreme] encourages creative activity to protect normative order, and Sec-11 Charterights says we can seek remedy through any creative lawful means, of our choice, (not authority's) AND Sec 126 CCC says we can break a law in this statute with our lawful excuse that the CDSA simply has no jurisdiction to enforce any of its laws against our Party under Sec 1 &3 of the Charter.

Normative order [aka: Just application of laws] is abandoned by the abuse of AUTHORITY that is omnipresent in an ORDER IN COUNCIL
- It's a direct assault on 'the rule of law', to impose 'rule by bad law' & in fact, it's a direct violation to the PUBLIC TRUST for Authority to even try otherwise
- It's my duty, to oppose by any lawful means, this arbitrary use of power that so directly attacks our party. This power is 'vested' by the ruling party, under the Elections Act, and this term 'vested' is all about ESTABLISHING A CLAIM OF RIGHT
- This REMEDY definitely exist in the Law and Equity Act; Because Authority is pressing their own claim the right under CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT THEREFORE: If they can now make one then so can any political party

This power-grab by Authority, in law & in fact, establishes the right for any Official party to make a CLAIM of RIGHT, to keep a balance in power
By standing under the Law and Equity Act, any Official opposing party to make a CLAIM of RIGHT to create equity in a democratic society As a politician of 'an' official opposition party I have an EXPRESS GUARANTEE to challenge an ORDER in COUNCIL that directly suppresses & denies sec 1-3 7- 11 & 15 Charterights to our members, on the absolute grounds THAT: We have an EXPRESS DUTY to protect our members of our Party by peacefully upholding the Constitution & the Charter, & especially the rule of law, [under Sec 8 - common law] It's 'an offense unknown to man' for a politician to fight a bad and unconstitutional law too effectively

Using ORDERS IN COUNCIL against any opposition party , in law and in fact, creates a necessity defense to make a CLAIM of RIGHT - under Sec 8 CCC
A CLAIM of RIGHT is protected under sec- 8 (1) CCC, because there's never been a Claim of Right recognized in Canada. Even UNION rights are not recognized as won by Canadian efforts [they were won in England]
and CLAIMS of RIGHT are recognized and upheld by Sec 337 CCC
This CLAIM of RIGHT was duly filed in Supreme Court in April 20, 2005 with Revenue Canada and Elections Canada, & on 1-page contained an offer to negotiate, & a notice to respond, to a pre-allocated time-frame of 3-moinths time-frame, to a yes or no statement, so I filed a civil claim against them

They failed to respond, so I brought it to the Supreme Court, who sent me packing to the BC Court of Appeals You can take as a certainty THAT if they could have objected, they would have, so the Appeals Court passed it on, by handing me a Reasons for Judgment that clearly states that the majority in power decided that I was guilty 3 weeks before going to trial.
For 4-years now, I have been told by every Authority that is bound by oath to charge the Attorney General who ordered a Judge to find me guilty before going to trial THAT: they simply refuse to do their duty

UNDER Sec 11 of the Charter [quote] Any person charged with an offence has the right (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; - [it then says] - This right has generated some case law, as courts have struck down reverse onus clauses as violating the presumption of innocence. This first occurred in R. v. Oakes (1986) in respect to the Narcotics Control Act.This was also the case in which the Court developed the primary test for measuring rights limitations under Sec 1 of the Charter.
Frankly if I'm not entitled to a new trial at the SCC under Sec 11 D,
then 'under equal treatment of the law' no one is entitled to a fair trial BECAUSE of my case law precedents. they can say that under Sec 1 if my case is not demonstrably reasonable enough to over-ride the unconstitutional & criminal powers of Sec 33 Charter powers then nobody can ever expect a fair trial

In law and in fact they are using 'a not withstanding clause' on this politician when Sec 1 & 3 [under political Democratic rights] under the Supremacy of Parliament says they cannot use this power against a political party because our function in a fair and democratic society is to protect the PEOPLE from this overRULING party's abuse of AUTHORITY, in order to protect DEMOCRACY.
Under Sec 1: a Political Party must be protected for creating the genesis for upholding our political rights, under a common law application of the necessity defense

Frankly everything I've done has failed in getting the majority in power to respect our Democratic rights - so they really give me no choice but to exercise My Denial of Consent to be Governed, [which I filed back in 2004] to remove my PERSON from retaliation by AUTHORITY, self defense s-8(3) -
I did this back then In order to be EXILED or VANQUISHED, as a political refugee, on the absolute grounds THAT I need to invoke the ultimate tool of CIVIL obedience to protect myself from persecution for opposing the total criminality of the majority in power from exercising my Freedom AND freedom is not just some lofty undefined notion - In Canada it's clearly defined

FREEDOM (as clearly defined in case law in the DCL)  means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to the beliefs of his conscience
- [lofty words] - BUT It must be noted that this decision came from
R v Big M Drug Mart. 1986. It was called a landmark decision because a CORPORATION was given these rights of a human being, too AND in less than 20 years of we human beings protecting those greed values of a Corporations [under Sec 1 Charter], has resulted in a situation where all case law reflects the fact that human beings have no right to interfere with a Corporation's right to profit

FREEDOM denied to one is JUSTICE denied to us all
There's all kinds of case law to support that if the truth is in contradiction of Official POLICY, then policy over-rides the truth. AND at face value under Sec 1 of the Charter that's been ruled to a reasonable limitation on our freedom. BUT Official policy is based on a "what if" big fat lie
"If the platform of Democracy was By the people for the Economy, then the good of the people is to serve Corporations
Democracy is a 3000 year old foundation of modern society that is supposed to uphold & protect 'by the people for the people'
- It is not a tool for upholding a controlled market ECONOMY,
It's what John Locke called "a total violation of a Higher Order"

FURTHERMORE: Not withstanding this ugly reality , and to further this common law necessity defense I need to point that the POLICE are correct in saying that at face value THAT: I'm violating the CDSA, & we agree that under common law necessity defense that going to court really is the only place I can expect to get a bad law over-turned. BUT the prosecutor & judges face serious liability, for rigging my trial when they see that it's the only means to get a prosecution,

BECAUSE with my iron clad defense it's impossible for a judge to find me guilty without using those arbitrary powers when nobody actually has such a right because it's directly prohibited under the Supremacy of Parliament. & Sec 1 of the Charter
TREASON in Canada is defined as trying to kill the King, BUT under the Supremacy of Parliament they are actually committing TREASON by trying to kill Democracy

IN LAW and in fact a CLAIM of RIGHT does not require the abandoning
of any legislation, in other words, the CDSA is left intact, IN FACT it permits the CDSA to be even tuffer on drugs & on anyone who is not protected from possession of their drugs. BUT It does mean that they have to leave our Party members alone for Peaceful possession of the articles of our Party under Sec 39 CCC.
A Claim of Right doesn't need new laws. It CREATES a private social-political club that upholds our members' Charterights - It requires the CDSA to recognized that it has no TERRITORIAL jurisdiction under an EXPRESS GUARANTEE of our

My DEFENSE is fundamental: I am protecting minority beliefs, & values
which the majority regard as wrong or false [line 1 of the rule of law BNA Act]
Politicians of any opposition party definitely don't need to ask permission from the ruling Authority to challenge their unconstitutional AUTHORITY
IN FACT: It's our political function in society to make claims of right that oppose the arbitrary use [let alone abuse] of AUTHORITY, I hold a clear defense for acting out of necessity - sec-8 (3) CCC), to protect the PUBLIC TRUST from further abuse. The only way to legally fight a bad law is thru political activity AND

i'M USING A BAD LAW TO ATTACK A MUCH LARGER SOCIAL 'DIS'EASE - THE WAR ON DRUGS became the WAR ON TERROR which is nothing but forever uncivil war against the poor the diseased and this disenfranchises everyone in society
DEMOCRACY is a platform designed so that politicians can defend and uphold the civil rights of the PEOPLE,
and EXPRESS opposition to arbitrary rule, without having to resort or face violence, by upholding a peaceful resolution with words, in order to challenge AUTHORITY,
So that the people don't need to bare arms to fight

My contention is fundamental THAT: Tommy Douglas was a much or even a more serious threat to the status quo, then I am - He ENJOYED this right because AUTHORITY back then, although still brutes, had a fundamental respect for the democratic process. He never had to ask for the right or get charged for defending Medicare or Pensions or Unemployment Insurance, which authority opposed
It's irrefutable that (at least in my case), AUTHORITY has no respect for democratic rights.  My PUBLIC TRUST CHALLENGE is necessary to make a wake up call that AUTHORITY has simple gone too far in pursuing a path of total POLICE STATE control, which simply cannot be in the PUBLIC's best interest.

THIS NEW WORLD ORDER IS FACISM POLICE STATE CONTROL
THAT SERVES A CONTROLED MARKET ECONOMY
Human beings are the only resource left that CORPORATIONS can make a killing from

In the event that you want this to happen, then don't do anything.  
It will inevitably happen, without a challenge.
i simply refuse to sit quietly by in this world without love

Dead things called CORPORATIONS rule the world
- as to prophecy it can only go from bad to worse
- It's self-evident that I'm using a bad law to show the utter hypocrisy of the BIGGER PICTURE "He who calls what I'm doing evil is evil"