Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FREE Marijuana Prescription

FREE Marijuana Prescription

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 491 |Likes:
Published by Marc Boyer
It never hurts to have too many good legal defenses - Print this pamphlet and use it in order to protect your rights.
It never hurts to have too many good legal defenses - Print this pamphlet and use it in order to protect your rights.

More info:

Categories:Types, Brochures
Published by: Marc Boyer on Sep 06, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/22/2014

pdf

text

original

 
BASIC LEGAL PREMISE TO SHOW THAT:
In law:
 
This
Marijuana Party Membership is a PRESCRIPTION
to defend the Peaceful possession of the articles of our party rubric in a civil societyUnder Sec 33 CCC and the Elections Act to protect your right to a God given plantNote: in law the legal definition of any word is important – law is nothing but words
Look up PRESCRIPTION in the DCL
 
[Dictionary of Canadian law]
[in law: if the wordexists here - it's the only definition allowed] If a prescription for marijuana is notdefined in the DCL then it's not 'prescribed by law'
[therefore -does not exist]
 - When any authority uses this term ‘prescription’, as a condition of not being arrestedfor possessing contraband [for example] means:
THIS ambiguity creates a real threatbecause this wording offers no real protection, because it's not understood in lawTHIS could lead to false arrests and when this occurs, the law becomes anInstrument of punishment -
What is needed is a clear understanding thatclarifies what is meant by the term ‘prescription’, so that an accused with alawful defence [such as ours] can be saved from a bad decision made by anuninformed law enforcer
[in order to not face charges in the 1st place]- Under the CDSA
[Controlled Drugs & Substances Act] the courts insisted thatthey created the MMAR program and under this ruling anyone can be inpeaceful possession of cannabis, as long as they have a PRESCRIPTION-
They never say 'medical prescription' because there's no such thing
So what do they mean? Just look it up in the DCL
-
IN LAW
[as to our DCL]
 and you'll find there is no such thing as a prescription for marihuana
BUT [as you will see in this pamphlet] the definition of PRESCRIBED BY LAW fits.
a PRESCRIBER
:
is a 1`person who is authorized to give a prescription within thescope 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 legallybe called a PRESCRIBER
because he is PRESCRIBED BY LAW under the ElectionsAct to protect our Party rubric and or his EDA's prescribed platform of beliefs.
PRESCRIBED DRUG
is defined as a drug that may be dispensed by a pharmacistupon the direction of a prescribers [note: not defined in an Act]- by definition - There is no such thing as a pharmacist who can dispense marijuana
PRESCRIPTION
has many definitions & absolutely none of them apply to cannabisThere's 1- under The Dispensing Fee Act, 1- under the Practice of Physiotherapy Act,1- under the Dental Technicians Act & other industrial uses of the word.
NOTE:
 
There's not even 1 definition 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 underthe CDSA - then their own MMAR card is not a prescription,
 
or its definitionwould be found here.
The MMAR card is a permit that can be revoked or ignored byany officer at any time
 
for no real reason.
It's so restrictive & only good for 1 year at atime, therefore arguably a greater liability than an asset, because of traps within traps.
So by definition there is no such thing as a medical prescription under the CDSA
- There's a definition under the FDA [Food and Drug Act in 1985] - It covers dispensingcontrolled drugs by prescribing a controlled quantity [not applicable] AND They still list adefinition under the NCA, [Narcotics Control Act] for a prescription for narcotics [eventhough this entire Act was struck down in 1986 as unconstitutional - [under R v Oakes]
So that means there’s a PRESCRIPTION available somewhere
Otherwise thelaw is being used as a trap to screw you over & - the law must never be used asan Instrument of punishment – it’s a cornerstone of good governance
- THIS IS WHERE SANITY COMES TO THE RESCUEThere is a clear definition that does apply to our political Party.This is the definition for the term: PRESCRIBED BY LAW in the DCL says:
"The limits will be prescribed by law within the meaning of Sec 1 of the Charter if it is expressly provided for by statute or regulations, or results by necessary implication of a statute or regulation or from its operating requirements.The limit may also result from the application of common law" 
 
[R v Therens 1985]
 
At face value it does not look like it would apply to a prescription for Cannabis, but it really does- BECAUSE all common law defences that protect Democratic guarantees are under Sec-1- This definition starts by saying it protects Sec-1 rights in the Charter which statesTHAT
"
1.
The Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms guarantees the rights & freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits 'prescribed by law' as canbe demonstrably justified in 'a free and democratic societ
'
[the case precedent for thislast term is R v Oakes [1986] - this case is all about having a medical cannabis defence]
- Sec-1 'prescribes by law' to directly prohibit trampling on Sec-3 of the Charter- NAMELY: Democratic rights, under what's called the Supremacy of PARLIAMENTwhich prescribes that the only way to protect yourself to fight a bad law is thru political activityWe are an Official Party governed underTHE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT and and our Party can protect our beliefs as PRESCRIBED BY LAW that the majority inpower consider wrong or false - FURTHERMORE even in this uncodified form of order, it's directly prohibited from using the arbitrary use of power contained inORDERS IN COUNCIL[Sec 33] or Sec 126(2) against another political party
The only thing that keeps marijuana illegal is the total abuse of Sec-33 of theCharter, and Sec 126(2) CCC &
AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW,
the only way anyone canlawfully defend themselves from a bad law is by being politically active under anecessity defence and - that’s exactly what we have a right to do.
UNDER Sec 126(1) CCC - Any member of the Marijuana Party of Canada has more than just a lawful excuse to break any marijuana provision of a the CDSA,
because the Hitzig/Parker ruling ruled the enforcement those marijuana laws to be of no force and effect
 
FURTHERMORE:
Canada's rule of law of Sec 133 BNA Actsay Supreme Courtrulings are Supreme over Parliament
especially when the party in power isabusing the guarantees of another political party thru ORDERS IN CONCIL thatdeprive our members right to Peaceful possessions of Articles of our beliefs
-
SCC rulings like the Longley decision - Parker /Hitzig decisions & especially thisOakes decision] bar /preclude the majority in power from using the force of ORDERS IN COUNCIL [OC] on any member of especially our federal Party becauseit's 'prescribed by law' as the only thing the majority in power cannot suppress with the use of OC's.- The use of any arbitrary power by the majority in power on any Loyal opposition member is directlyprohibited under the rule of law & Sec 1 and 3 of the Charter and especially the Elections Act
To paraphrase this definition of PRESCRIBED BY LAW to show it's relevancein law:
The Elections Act,
[which is the cornerstone that protects Democracy withmore authority than a statute called the CDSA]
clearly provides this 'prescribed bylaw' defence, to any member of the Parti Marijuana Party, with the necessaryterms & regulations for our operating requirements. under a necessitydefence, by standing under the same 1981 SCC ruling that the ConservativeParty Caucus got that paved the way to abuse the overt powers contained in Sec 33 of the Charter
Under the Supremacy of Parliament, the only lawful way to fight a bad law is thrupolitical activity,
OUR PARTY and its members claim a legitimate Sec 8 Territorialright under the rule of law & Sec 126(1) CCC [a lawful right to break a statute] tofind remedy under Sec 39 (1) CCC in order to defend our Peaceful possession of ourarticles of belief, [in our case marijuana] under jurisdictional issues AND bydefinition the AG cannot apply Sec 126(2) - BUT then they are the criminals
This defence holds a glorious tradition in English case law.
[Sec 8(1-2-3) CCC]Under England case law, history will prove time and again that claims of right simplycannot be construed without the government first being so terribly wrong 
IN FACT
 
at face value, no one can get an unprejudiced fair trial in a court underSec 126(2) CCC – In law, if Sec 126(1) applies means Sec 126(2) cannot be used to suppress the rights of our party.
FURTHERMORE:
 
In BC we have a unique situation and the rest of Canada cantake a lesson in how we are politically effective
- The Insight Program and our compassion clubs operate openly
WHY IS THAT? It's because 4-previous Mayors went to the SCCand under oath testified that it would be impossible to beelected by its citizens if they opposed compassionate access
Our Mayors have used their Office's Colonial rule powers toPRESCRIBE BY LAW their support for local compassion clubs & anycommunity can safely operate a compassion club by getting itsMayor and Chief Constable to approve it, before you open.
Any Mayor can actually exercise jurisdictional authority underthe 1931 Colonial Rule Act to uphold the Constitution of Canada in his Community, on any issueBOTTOM LINE
: Mayors know they would gain lots of voter support by permitting dispensaries, so getpolitically involved and motivate your Mayoral or Council to support you, in order to get re-elected 

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Brauns Orig Libau Tālis added this note
437 views @10:28 21.8.14
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->