I had a very frustrating 2-1/2 hr session called a Sentencing Hearing but frankly it felt like a lynching.

QUICK SYNOPSIS ON THE RULING:
Let’s get the details of the sentence over first - Let’s start with the good news

I was found not guilty on possession of cookies because the judge could not assume guilt because there is no definitive way to prove that the cookies had hemp oil of THC oil in them and there can be no presumption of guilt on the face value of the evidence, so the charges were dropped.

I was found not guilty of PPT [possession for the purposes of trafficking]
on the grounds that I had created sufficient doubt in the Judge’s mind to believe
that I had no intention of selling the 20 grams of pot on me.
THAT'S IT FOR THE GOOD NEWS
I was found guilty of simple possession of 20 grams of pot,

[at face value – uncontestable]. I defended that because of my medical need & that
- I had this great defense for this possession. it really was PRESCRIBED BY LAW for this judge to show mercy [under Sec 126CC] for the sick as a solid Sec 8[3] CCC - ‘necessity defense’ because I need this medicine to save my life, and ease my pain, and there are no cures for my Lymphoma.

- AND this merciless Judge handed me an $850 fine or 11 days in jail
in lieu of payment, and he said I had to pay it by June 30th, which means
I need to file something or pay by that date, or go to jail for 11 days.

Now the most important ruling: WHAT ABOUT THE MONEY?

The judge then ordered the confiscation of all the money,[$6750]
which he had no right to do, and he even kept referring to the fact that
at face value, the fact that he had no right to order the seizure but did it anyways.

AND he kept repeating this really twisted logic.
1] He agreed that there was no charge before him to keep the money, [the money was seized under proceeds of crime charge and it had been stayed –AND The only 2 ways he can seize 'anything' is under 490 or 491 CCC
- and in order to do this under Sec 491 CCC, he needs a conviction on the charge of profiting from the proceeds of crime, and iand their is only a stay
AND 490 CCC they just need any conviction and then they can confiscate the evidence, BUT the judge admitted that money is never called evidence
- So at face value IN LAW he should return the money

CAVEAT: The reason for a stay on this 'proceeds of crime' charge was because I had pressed a very valid claim that I would be denied the right
to a fair trial, if I didn’t have a jury. [within the 1st, 5-min of the trial]
- I was fraudulently denied this right back at the Arraignment over 2 years ago to elect to go before a judge and jury and now the Crown wanted to make me agree with this, so that I don’t have grounds for a mistrial. I don’t think so.
- l simply refused consent to the Crown to split the charge, and the Judge and Crown agreed that this charge was stayed. [not dropped] in order to avoid a jury trial.
In law, the judge has agreed to be directly prohibited to take the money without going to a jury trial - especially when I'm calling for a mistrial

BUT the twisted logic simply gets deeper: The Judge insists that he could not return the cash, because he would have to immediately arrest me under the Proceeds of Crime Act against. AND to this bullshit,
I said: fine charge me again & this time I’m get my Judge and jury trial to decide, if I get the money back and by now they know they have no case and they knew no jury would ever take my money
- he denied me this remedy. When he has no such right
- He said he didn’t like this solution [even tho he had no other choice]
– [because he wanted to rule on a proceeds of crime violation without a trial and without a judge and jury – when he really had no such right]

As I said to the judge: I need a judge and jury because it's self -evident that a judge simply cannot part with the cash and that's why i need a jury
- The Judge’s solution was he’ll rob my money
with a blatant violation of what is PRESCRIBED BY LAW and in this way I would need to file what he openly assumed would be a very expensive Criminal Court Appeal or Supreme Court Petition that would take years and years to get it back.
In law & in fact:: he decided that he had the right to break the law by using the law as an instrument of punishment,
and in so doing destroy a Free and Democratic Society [r v Oakes]

HE VIOLATED HIS OATH with what can be called CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST [Sec 336 CCC]
The basic perversion in law that the judge and Crown are presenting
is that they can seize the 'cash' from a charge that has been stayed.

They openly admit that they can only seize money after a conviction Under sec 491 CCC on the conviction that is before them. and there is no conviction the charge of ‘Profiting from the Proceeds of Crime, and
- There simply had not been a trial on this count let alone by my peers
BECAUSE: the charges that were stayed & never had a proper hearing
I have one week to file papers and act. or go to jail
.
WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN OLD ENGLISH LAW IS CALLED TYRANNY
John Locke - ON TYRANNY - starts this epic thesis with
" it doth not matter if tyranny is done by one or by many"
NOW how do you fight tyranny? -You deny consent to be governed.
The judge told me that I could leave the building, but I had to return to sign off on this ruling and I told him I would BUT I DID NOT CONFIRM WHEN
- I did not return to sign off. and I thanked him for this generosity.
- If they want to issue a warrant they can
BUT By not signing off means I MUST get my day in court for a mistrial
"May you live in interesting times" - it just opened another hornet's nest
______________________

DETAILED REPORT on my 2 ½ hour session.

NOTE: The Crown’s opening position was that he was looking for 3-6 months jail time for simple possession of 20gr of pot,
because of my un-repenting ways. He argued that because of all these trafficking charges that I needed a strong message to deter me from even smoking marijuana. [total time 3-minutes]

I defended myself on this issue of simple possession for an hour -I hit them from every way possible
1] my opening defense was that I had just beat the rap of PPT [possession for the purposes of trafficking] and this was done in spite of having openly admitting that I operate a compassion club in Vancouver, and he accepted my argument that because of a succession of Mayors that I may be in a grey zone, but in his zone I would still face a charged of simple possession.
- The Crown tried to convict me of PPT on the evidence in my Marijuana Party Pamphlet, and I was able to convince the Judge that this pot was not for sale,
it was my personal medicine. I explained to him that by acquitting me of PPT that he was expressing

T he quantity of pot seize was consistent with a man who had a genuine medical need AND by tossing this PPT charge he was recognizing that I held an implied color to be doing this lawfully in Vancouver because of the history of Vancouver Mayors using the prerogative powers of the Office to make it de-facto law in this jurisdiction

- He accepted that his court and Crown would prosecute everyone in Alberta, who did what I was doing and that I was not being charged for what I do in Vancouver.
- But the issue here is whether he would respect my PRESCRIPTION for my personal medicine as a lawful excuse under Sec 126 CCC? - Under the perogatory power of
- Sec 126 CCC the judge could give a slap on the wrist, or thro the book at me.

Furthermore, The underlying reason behind why I was given the benefit of the doubt to trafficking in marijuana in his jurisdiction, was because I showed a convincing defense to really needing it to live [I’m presently under full attack from my Lymphoma and I gave graphic detail of that morning ordeals – In order to justify why I may be showing signs of being very ill and not to be alarmed if all I do is pass out]

- so I pressed that there was a strong argument that under Sec 126 CCC
- I had [at sentencing a least] a very strong defense for leniency, and mercy from the courts on the grounds that there can be no stronger defense to a necessity defense than the right to life itself, especially in a Free and Democratic Society.

- I pressed that under Sec 126 CCC a Judge can and often do hand down very generous rulings,
because frankly I’m not mistaken to believe that I can medicate and doing my best to comply with the law therefore the victim of holding no mens rea
[aka: no guilty conscience under necessity defense]

But because of my status as a member of the Parti Marijuana Party, [let alone Officer] that he should respect the fact that I have a genuine right to break a provision of simple possession in a Statute that has been struck down by Supreme Court rulings
NAMELY: [r v Clay and Hitzig, and r v Oakes] - we- the victims of genuine need have nothing to lose in being on the front lines of what needs to be done, for all

– Under Sec 1 of the Charter, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW,
the Marijuana Party needs protection from recent abusive power grabs where Health Canada declares that they are in affect trashing all Supreme Court of Canada rulings, because they say they can

- The court’s nonfeasance in asserting its inherent power to over-ride an inferior form of law was destroying the very fabric of a Free and Democratic Society. [r v Oakes]
AND the Parti Marijuana Party needed the Court’s protection.

- I made it clear that I was offering the courts a real opportunity to strike down the abusive powers of Health Canada,
because under a twisted application of AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW - IN A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY the power of the courts were being raped, and he disagreed, and dismissed the entire train of logic and truth

- The Judge basically said [with the stiffness of the fine] that he personally saw no abuse of powers and no need to protect my medical rights.
-I was doing this activity in Vancouver that I had a very strong defense to peaceful possession of my medicine for being just a member with genuine medical need.
- In fact I need cannabis to live – and that is the strongest possible necessity defense of them all in a Free and Democratic Society,
- My medicine came from a jurisdiction where it’s PRESCRIBE BY LAW
as not being a punishable crime. And some consideration should be shown
[I got a $850 fine [no bail undertakings] or 11 days in jail in lieu of paying.
So much for Mr. Nice guy by not metioning one word on any medical need defense means this entire argument was not a consideration in his rulings.
- ignorance is no excuse
__________________
BOTTOM LINE: In old English law it’s called rape.