polcoa, PLOCOA POL-COA, John C. Turmel, R. v. Parker, prohibition laws,

 

POLCOA Explained

The POLCOA Proposition, by John C. Turmel

Windsor judges Phillips and Rogin dismissed the s.4(1)
marijuana possession charge against J.P. as "no longer known to
law" because, after the Parker decision struck down the
prohibition on possession of marijuana in CDSA s.4(1) because the
MMAR had failed to comply with the Parker ruling, they had to
follow Parliament's Interpretation Act s.2.2 which said that
struck-down laws were to be "deemed repealed."

Ontario highest Court of Appeal Justices Doherty, Goudge and
Simmons over-ruled them stating the struck-down prohibition was
not to be deemed "repealed" but only "absent" until they could
fix it, even after two years of absence.

There exists no provision for laws being absent sometimes and not
absent at other times but the court just made up whatever was
needed to trick Canadians into believing courts could bring laws
back to life. A Crown who decides to fight a POLCOA motion puts the judge in the difficult position of::

Obeying Parliament and disobeying the Higher Court, or,
Obeying the Higher Court and disobeying Parliament.

 

 

CBC Video Broadcast Sep. 4, 2002 Canada. The Special Committee on Illegal Drugs says pot smoking should be legalized, and wants amnesty for those already convicted.

 

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."

Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921

 
Make a Free Website with Yola.