#A Crown Factum for Terry Parker's Seized Pot Claim
 
JCT: If you'd like to read the Crown's Factum without my
comments, it's will be posted at
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/files/tprepcm.txt
 
The Crown's Factum starts with a virtual rehash of their
arguments below at
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/messages/2233
Parker's eventual Reply with our trump arguments are at
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/messages/2238
But, once again, this is the main ongoing challenge to the
Hitzig decision and for the upholding of
the Parker and Krieger invalidations of the possession and
cultivation prohibitions until Parliament, not judges, bring
back new prohibitions once old once were knocked down, the
POLCOA issue. POLCOA is an acronym which can be googled
explaining how Parliament Only Legislations, Courts Only
Abrogate. It's the main argument being raised here.
So here's the Crown's Factum for the appeal against the
Clements decision refusing to return pot seized by Canada
Post to Terry Parker. The hearing will be slated by Justice
Durno on Aug. 8 2008, 10am in Brampton Court.
 
File No. #SCA(F) 2484/08
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(Criminal Division)
Between:
Terrance Parker
Appellant
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
 
RESPONDENT'S FACTUM
 
PART I - RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT AS TO FACTS
 
1. In this proceeding, the appellant, Terrance Parker, seeks
to challenge the Order of Justice Clements which denied his
application made, pursuant to Section 24 of the CDSA for the
return to him of marijuana that he claims is his and had
been discovered by Canada Post and seized by the police. The
Respondent opposes this application.
 
1. RESPONDENT'S POSITION ON APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF FACT
 
2. The Respondent disagrees with the allegations of fact
contained in the Appellant's Written Representations.
 
2. ADDITIONAL FACTS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT
 
3. The Respondent relies on the following facts.
(a) R. v. Parker (Ontario Court of Appeal)
 
4. On Dec 10, 1997, Sheppard J. stayed proceedings..
concluded Appellant required marijuana to control epilepsy
and the prohibition against marijuana infringed on the
Appellant's rights under section 7 of the Charter. The judge
read into the legislation an exemption for persons
possessing or cultivating marijuana for their "personal
medically approved use."
 
5. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded...
Appellant needed marijuana to control his epilepsy and that
prohibition on the cultivation and possession of marihuana
was unconstitutional... The Court disagreed with Sheppard's
remedy of reading into the legislation an exemption for
medical use, stating that this was a matter for Parliament
to resolve. The Court, therefore, declared the prohibition
against possession of marijuana in subsection 4(1) of the
CDSA to be invalid, but suspended the declaration for one
year to provide the Government with an opportunity to
respond. In addition, the Court ordered that Parker is
"exempt from the marijuana prohibition in s.4 during the
period of suspended invalidity for possession of marijuana
for his medical needs. The Appellant knew that this
exemption applied for only twelve months.
 
(b) Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR)
 
6. In responding to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision
in R. v. Parker, it was necessary for the Government of
Canada to strike a balance between the need to provide
authorized persons with access to marihuana for medical
purposes and the need to recognize existing federal
legislation and United Nations drug conventions and the lack
of evidence-based information as to the efficacy and safety
of this unapproved controlled substance. Accordingly, the
Government of Canada enacted, on July 30 2001, the
Government enacted the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
(MMAR). The MMAR provided seriously ill persons with a
process by which they could obtain an authorization to
possess marijuana (ATP) and a personal-use-production
license (PPL) to permit the production for medical purposes
or a designated-person production license (DPL) to permit a
designated person to grow for an ATP holder. An ATP is
issued to persons ordinarily resident in Canada who, with
the advice and support of their medical practitioners, can
demonstrate medical need. A PPL or DPL permits the holder of
the license to, among other things, produce marijuana in
quantities up to a specified maximum.
 
(c) Health Canada's efforts to assist the Appellant
 
7. As noted above in R. v. Parker, the Ontario Court of
Appeal provided the government with twelve months, until
July 31 2001, within which to rectify the constitutional
invalidity identified by the court
 
JCT: And if they failed, what?
 
and provide the Appellant with a twelve-month exemption from
the prohibition on the possession of marijuana. At the end
of this twelve-month period, on July 30 2001, the MMAR were
enacted so as to cure the constitutional invalidity
identified by the Court of Appeal.
 
JCT: And if they failed, what?
 
The following day, on July 31, 2001, the Appellant's
constitutional exemption expired.
 
JCT: And the moment they failed to Parker from the
prohibition, the Order of invalidity took effect. On the day
after they failed, 12:01am Aug. 1 2001, TERRY PARKER DAY.
 
Thus, as of July 31 2001, the government and the Appellant
believed that the Appellant was once again subject to the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana.
 
JCT: Thus, as of July 31 2001, the government and the
Appellant believed that the Appellant was once again having
his rights violated by prohibition on the possession of
marijuana!!
 
8. Commencing on July 23 and Aug 8 2001, the Appellant began
to take steps to ensure that he would not be charged with
the offence of possession of marihuana. In particular, the
Appellant's counsel wrote to Health Canada to request that
the Appellant be granted an extension of his exemption from
the offence prohibiting the possession of marijuana.
 
JCT: Appellant's counsel didn't realize that when they
failed to protect Parker within 1 year and the Order
invalidating the possession prohibition took effect, Parker
didn't need protection. He only needed an admission that
they had failed to fix the flaw within the year.
What's fun is that George Soros funded Parker getting the
law declared invalid but then gave up before collecting the
pot leaving getting over 4000 people off the hook leaving
that honor to me, the King of the Paupers, for free.
 
9. On Sep 14, 2001, Health Canada notified the Appellant
that he had been granted, pursuant to S.56 of the CDSA, a
six-month exemption from the laws that prohibit the
possession of marijuana to give him an opportunity to apply
for an ATP exemption to expire on March 14 2002.
 
10. On Nov 14 2001, his lawyer Aaron Harnett reported to
Health Canada that Parker had found a neurologist and would
file. On cross-examination, Parker claimed the neurologist
was located not in Toronto but in Vancouver.
 
(d) Hitzig et al. v. Canada (Ontario Superior Court)
 
11. On March 13 2002, the day before the expiry of his
exemption, Appellant commenced an Ontario Superior Court
application requesting a continuation of his "constitutional
exemption from the offence of possession of marijuana and an
order "declaring prohibition of marijuana in the CDSA to be
of no force and effect."
 
JCT: They always omit the most important end words.
 
On March 15 2002, Pitt J. granted the Appellant his
requested extension of his "constitutional exemption" as
granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
 
JCT: For the record, the exemption granted by the Court of
Appeal was against criminal court prohibition and the
extension by Pitt of a criminal court remedy. was also a
criminal court remedy. Not civil. Keep this in mind.
 
The federal Crown then moved to set aside the order of
Justice Pitt. On April 19 2002, Chapnik J. set aside the
Order of Pitt J.
 
JCT: Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. civil court!
 
The Appellant then sought to appeal Chapnik and sought a
stay pending appeal. On May 3, 2002, Feldman J.A. refused
the request for a stay. On Feb 13 2003, the Supreme Court of
Canada dismissed the Appellant's application for leave to
appeal. On cross-examination, however, the Appellant stated
that he still believes that the Pitt J. decision continues
to authorize him to possess and cultivate marihuana, for the
reason that he believes that Chapnik J. did not legally set
aside the decision of Pitt J.
 
JCT: You can't set aside Superior Criminal Court remedy in
Superior Civil Court, only by 3 judges of the higher Court
of Appeal. You'd think judges would know this. Har har har.
 
12. The substantive issues raised by the Appellant's March
13 2002 application were heard together with two other
applications, one of which had been commenced by John Turmel
and Marc Paquette, and another which had been commenced by
Hitzig and others. In the fall of 2002, these three civil
applications concerning marijuana for medical reasons were
heard together by Lederman J. of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice. On Jan 9 2003, Lederman concluded absence of
legal supply for authorized persons was inconsistent with
fundamental justice. Lederman declared the MMAR to be
unconstitutional and invalid on grounds the framework failed
to adequately resolve issues related to source and supply of
marijuana. However, Lederman J. suspended the declaration
for six months so as to permit the Government of Canada an
opportunity to amend the MMAR or otherwise provide for a
legal source of supply of marihuana for those persons
authorized to possess under the MMAR..
 
13. All parties appealed the decision of Lederman.
 
(e) Hitzig et al. v. Canada (Ontario Court of Appeal)
-----------------------------------------------------
 
14. On July 8 2003, pending the appeals of Lederman, Health
Canada developed policies to ensure the MMAR remained valid.
The MMAR provided an option for obtaining access to seeds
and dried marihuana.
 
15. While the parties waited for the appeals, Health Canada
continued to grant the Appellant, pursuant to S.56 of the
CDSA, exemptions so as to provide further opportunities to
apply for an ATP. On Oct 4 2002 Health Canada granted an
exemption from Oct 4 2002 to March 4 2003. On February 28
2003, Health Canada wrote to the Appellant to inform him
that he could apply for an extension of his exemption
pursuant to s.56 of the CDSA from the prohibition offence.
On March 23 2003, Health Canada wrote to the Appellant and
confirmed that Moldaver J.A. had ordered Health Canada to
provide the appellant with an extension of his s.56
exemption under the CDSA and accordingly Health Canada had
now granted the Appellant and additional exemption under
S.56 of the CDSA until May 30 2003. On May 23 2003, Health
Canada granted the Appellant an additional exemption
pursuant to s.56 of the CDSA from May 31 2003 until May 31
2004.
 
16. The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in the
Hitzig matter on Oct 7 2003. This decision contains rulings
in regard to three related appeals, one of which was
concerning Lederman J.'s ruling in respect of the
Appellant's March 13 2002 application (docket C39738). The
Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal and thus denied
Appellant's request that the court continue his personal
exemption. In addition, it dismissed the Appellant's
attempt to review the April 19 2002 decision of Chapnik J
(docket number 38113). The Court of Appeal determined that
the MMAR were constitutionally defective and insofar as they
did not provide for reasonable access to a legal source of
supply of marihuana for medical purposes, as some authorized
persons were dependent on illegal sources to obtain the
marihuana that the MMAR authorized them to possess. In
addition, the Court determined to be unconstitutional the
requirement for some applicants to have the support of a
second specialist to establish medical need. The Court
remedied the constitutional deficiencies it had
identified by declaring the following provisions of the MMAR
to be invalid.
a. the prohibition in subsection 34(2) against compensating
the holder of a DPL for growing marihuana and supplying it
to the holder of the ATP;
b. the provision in subsection 41(b) preventing a DPL holder
from growing marihuana for more than one ATP holder;
c. the prohibition in section 54 against DPL holders
producing marihuana in common with more than two other DPL
holders;
d. the provisions in paragraph 4(2)(c) and section 7
requiring a declaration by a second specialist.
 
17. As the Court remedied the deficiencies, the MMAR
continued to be constitutional
 
JCT: I'm sure I had a lot of fun in my other reply with
their saying that when the MMAR went from unconstitutional
to constitutional that it "continued to be constitutional."
It takes a legal education to get your brain to accept that
though it went from off to on, it "continues to be "on." Har
har har har.
 
and thus the prohibition on the possession of marijuana
under section 4 of the CDSA continued to be constitutional
as well:
 
JCT: Going from "off to on" is continuing to be "on."
 
[166] The declarations of invalidity we propose remove the
single unconstitutional barrier to eligibility and
sufficient barriers to supply that ATP holders will be
reasonably able to meet their medical needs from licit
sources. As a result, the MMAR as modified become a
constitutionally sound medical exemption to the marihuana
prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA...
 
JCT: Becoming sound means "continuing to be sound?"
 
(f) Hitzig et al. v. Canada (Supreme Court of Canada)
-----------------------------------------------------
 
18. Hitzig and others sought leave to appeal. On May 6 2004,
their application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the
Supreme Court of Canada.
 
19. John Turmel's application for leave to appeal was
dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
 
JCT: Their version of facts omits "as abandoned," "never
adjudicated." Hitzig was thrown on on the merits, never us.
 
20. On Nov 25 2005, the Appellant applied to the Supreme
Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Oct 7 2003 decision
of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On April 6, 2006, the
Supreme Court dismissed his application for leave to appeal.
The Appellant then requested a reconsideration of this April
6 2006 decision and on July 5 2006 the Supreme Court
dismissed the application for reconsideration.
 
(g) The Government's response to the Hitzig decision
----------------------------------------------------
 
21. The Government responded to the Ontario Court of Appeal
decision in Hitzig by amending the MMAR and continuing to
provide authorized persons access to marijuana and seeds.
22. During the period from July 1st 2005 to Nov 3, 2006, the
Marijuana Medical Access Division received, on average each
month, 75 new applications for authorization to possess, as
well as 78 renewal applications, for a total of 153
applications received every month. The average processing
time for an application is approximately 8 weeks inclusive
of follow-up with applications to complete and clarify
applications. As of Nov 3 2006, 1603 persons in Canada had
an ATP under the MMAR. Of these persons, 701 ordinarily
reside in Ontario and are supported by 431 practitioners
registered and entitled to practice the profession of
medicine in Ontario. Also, as of November 3 2006, 989
persons hold a Production license and 136 hold a DPL.
 
JCT: The odds against finding one of the 431 doctors out of
the more than 27,000 doctors in Ontario is about 1/62,
 
23. Over that same period, the Marijuana Medical Access
Division received an average of 37 applications for supply
of marijuana per month - approximately 21 of which are for
dried marihuana, 6 for marihuana seeds, and 10 for seeds
plus a four-month interim supply of dried marijuana. As of
Nov. 3 2006, 330 persons were receiving dried marijuana
under the provisions of the Supply Policy, and 243 persons
have received marijuana seeds. An additional 115 persons are
receiving a four-month interim supply of dried marijuana
pending harvest of their first crop from the seeds they
ordered from Health Canada. During the operation of the
Interim Supply Policy and the Supply Policy, only 85
authorized persons who have received dried marijuana from
Health Canada have returned product.
 
(h) The Appellant has not applied for an ATP under the MMAR
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
24. The Appellant has not been examined by a medical
specialist since 1997 and claims that he cannot "trust
neurologists when all they're interested in is lobectomy."
The Appellant has not approached any medical specialist for
assistance since 1997 but the Appellant unsuccessfully asked
his family physician for assistance. The Appellant has made
no attempts to find another doctor to support his
application to receive an ATP under the MMAR.
 
25. After the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision
in Hitzig, the Appellant's exemption under s.56 of the CDSA
was due to expire on May 31 2004. Although the Appellant's
affidavit asserts he had not received notice that his
exemption would expire, on cross-examination he acknowledged
that he had been informed earlier that his exemption would
expire in May 2004. In anticipation of this expiration of
his exemption, on Feb 19 2004, the Appellant telephoned
Health Canada and indicated that he refused to find a doctor
to sign his application for an ATP. On cross-examination,
the Appellant stated that he could go to see a doctor, but
that he does not "want to worry about my brains coming out"
and objects to having "to go back to criminals to get
further assaulted," and objects to the MMAR requirement that
he provide medical authorization for the following reason:
"Well, I am upset.. As you can see, I've been kicked out of
school, college, jobs, got these seizures and now, I've got
to go back to these - these monsters for doctors to get
permission that they won't provide me. I mean, I'm sorry,
but this is disgusting."
 
3. DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW
 
26. The sole issue before the court below was whether the
Appellant was lawfully entitled to possess the marijuana
seized by Canada Post. The Appellant argued that he was
lawfully entitled to possess marijuana for the following
reasons:
1. The constitutional exemption granted by Justice Sheppard
in 1997 remains valid;
2. Justice Pitt J. granted an extension of constitutional
exemption granted by Ontario Court of Appeal and that
extension remains valid despite the Orders of Justice
Chapnik and Justice Feldman;
 
JCT: Twice, it's not Feldman, it's the whole court. Here's
how I had claimed it:
"Pitt J. criminal extension of constitutional exemption by
Ontario Court of Appeal remains valid despite being set
aside as a "default judgment" pursuant to the Rules of Civil
Procedure and for improper service to a court which may
dispense with any service at all.
 
3. There is no valid prohibition against possession of
marihuana because the provision, once declared invalid by
the Parker Court of Appeal in 2001, remains repealed
pursuant to section 2.2 of the Interpretation Act despite
the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hitzig.
 
JCT: Here's how I'd put it:
3. S.4 possession prohibition remains repealed pursuant to
the S.2.2 of the Interpretation Act once declared invalid by
the Parker Court of Appeal in 2001 despite S.4 being
resurrected by the Hitzig Court of Appeal for only being
being absent, not repealed, once being declared of no force
and effect by the Parker Court.
 
4. There is no valid prohibition against cultivation, and by
implication possession, because the provision, once declared
invalid in the 2002 Alberta Court of Appeal decision in
Krieger, remains repealed pursuant to section 2.2 of the
Interpretation Act despite the decision of the Court of
Appeal in Hitzig.
 
5. "With the MMAR failing to mandate that Parker's doctor
participate in the government's exemption program, S.7
cultivation and S.4 possession prohibitions cannot apply to
Parker because he grandfathered exemption for the sick."
 
27. Justice Clements rejected each of the argument made by
the Appellant in the Court below:
 
JCT: Actually, several times he pleaded he was bound by the
higher-ups in the Hitzig decision so he didn't actually
reject the arguments, he just dismissed due to legal
doctrine of "stare decisis," "Obey higher orders."
 
(a) Justice Clements found that "there is no subsisting
Sheppard exemption, so-called, under Section 6(1) of the
Narcotic Control Act, which obviates the necessity for the
Applicant to comply with the MMAR.
(b) Justice Clements found that "the decision of Justice
Pitt was set aside and approved of on appeal. The Applicant
submissions amount to a collateral attack on the various
decisions that set aside and confirmed the setting aside of
the original Pitt order.
(c) Justice Clements found that the "Court of Appeal in
Hitzig determined that the prohibition against possession of
marijuana was, indeed, in full force and effect and the
ruling is binding on this Court."
(d) Justice Clements found that "the law in Ontario
 
JCT: The "judge-created" law in Ontario...
 
prohibits either the cultivation or possession unless
Applicant can bring himself within the criteria of those
regulations which have been constitutionally approved." He
stated "accordingly, I reject the argument that the judgment
in Krieger provides the Applicant with access to marijuana
without compliance with the MMAR.
 
JCT: If the law is gone, no need for an MMAR exemption.
 
(e) Justice Clements found that the Applicant was not
"grandfathered" into the MMAR, nor is he exempt from
complying with the MMAR. He found that the Applicant's
argument with respect to the access to physicians was based
primarily on anecdotal evidence whereas the Respondent
provide statistics indicating that the MMAR were working
well and effectively providing ill persons with the
marijuana they needed.
 
28. Justice Clements also considered the impact or import of
the decision of Judge Borenstein in R. v. Long [2007] O.J.
No. 2774 on the application before him. In Long, Justice
Borenstein found that Health Canada's Interim Supply Policy,
which is integral to the MMAR, was not sufficient to correct
the constitutional inadequacies identified by the Ontario
Court of Appeal in Hitzig because, in his view, a "policy"
is implemented at the discretion of the Minister, and may be
discontinued at the Minister's discretion.
 
29. Justice Clements accepted the Respondent's argument that the
decision in Long was wrong and should not be followed.
Justice Clements stated:
"The decision in Little Sisters supports the proposition
that the implementation of legislation may be
constitutionally accommodated by Ministerial discretion. It
would appear to follow that the implementation of a scheme
for access to licit supplies of marijuana could be done by
policy approved by regulation. That appears to be a
reasonable inference, given the fact that the supply of
licit marijuana must be maintained whatever the modality the
government chooses, otherwise the entire scheme becomes
unconstitutional for the reasons set out in Hitzig.
In the context of Hitzig, a permissive policy of supply
authorized by regulation is for all practical purposes
binding on the government unless or until they implement
another scheme providing for the licit supply of marijuana.
The obligation of the government to supply licit marijuana
must be distinguished from the methodology used to implement
the scheme. If the government fails to provide for the licit
supply of marijuana, then they arguably have contravened the
ruling in Hitzig with the result that the MMAR is likely
unconstitutional. The evidence in Long indicated the
government is maintaining a reasonable supply of marijuana
under its current policy.
 
PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE
-------------------------
 
30. According to the Appellant's written submissions, the
following are the points in issue in this appeal:
(a) Did Justice Clements err in denying the Appellant the
opportunity to tape record the proceedings?
(b) Did Justice Clements err in finding that he was bound by
the decision of Justice Feldman of the Ontario Court of
Appeal to conclude that the Order of Justice Pitt had been
properly set aside.
 
JCT: It wasn't one appeal judge who screwed up, it was 3!
 
(c) Did Justice Clements err in finding that the possession
prohibition which was declared invalid in Parker was valid
following the Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig?
 
JCT: Yes, can a law that's been struck down and abrogated by
the courts be struck up by the courts or does Parliament
have to do it? (c) is our POLCOA issue.
 
(d) Did Justice Clements err in finding that the cultivation
prohibition which was declared in invalid in Krieger was
valid following the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal
in Hitzig?
 
JCT: POLCOA again. The bad law that the Alberta Court of
Appeal killed, could be be fixed and brought back to life by
the Ontario Court of Appeal? Keep in mind, B.C. Provincial
Court Justice Chen agreed with Ontario Provincial Justice
Phillips backed up by Ontario Superior Court Justice Rogin
that the Interpretation Act says that once a law is
abrogated by a court, it was to be deemed repealed and could
not be resuscitated other than by Parliament. POLCOA is the
acronym of the principle of Canadian jurisprudence these
justices seem to have not well learned or too easily
forgotten.
The Hitzig justices of the Ontario court of Appeal have now
ordered courts to consider that it the struck down
possession offences were not to be deemed repealed but only
deemed "absent" until fixed and resuscitated by the courts.
So it's lower-court "Obey the Interpretation Act" judges
Phillips, Rogin and Chen versus higher-court "Don't obey
Parliament's Interpretation Act" judges Doherty, Goudge and
Simmons and the bottom feeders who obey Hitzig and not
Parliament.
 
(e) Did Justice Clements err in rejecting the Appellant's
argument that the MMAR were ineffective due to the lack of
physician participation.
 
JCT: 1 in 60 doctors participate. If 1 in 60 bridges fell
down, engineers say "failure." When 1 in 60 patients find an
amenable-to-government-stress doctor, judges say "success."
 
31. The Appellant does not take issue with Justice Clements'
findings with respect to so-called Sheppard Exemption, nor
does he take issue with Justice Clements's decision not to
follow the decision of Justice Borenstein in R. v. Long.
 
JCT: I just wanted to know what was wrong with it. Remember
how the re-instatement by Health Canada of two of the
conditions struck down in Hitzig were hailed as a great card
until we heard the arguments trumping it in the Cornelssen
battles in Alberta.
 
PART III - SUBMISSIONS
 
32. The position of the Respondent in regard to the issues
raised by the Appellant are as follows:
 
1. DID JUSTICE CLEMENTS ERR IN FINDING THAT HE WAS BOUND BY
THE DECISION OF JUSTICE FELDMAN OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF
APPEAL TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDER OF JUSTICE PITT HAD BEEN
PROPERLY SET ASIDE.
 
33. Justice Clements had the authority to deny the Appellant
the opportunity to tape record the proceeding if he believed
the method of recording would be obtrusive.
 
JCT: That's not what he believed. He believed he had the
right to say no period because we got transcripts. No
arguments were made as to substituting any objectionable
method of taping with a less objectionable method. There was
no mention of the method of recording at all.
In any event, the Appellant has not demonstrated that he
suffered any prejudice as a result of this ruling,
 
JCT: It's obvious that having the information for immediate
discussion while everything is fresh in everyone's mind
would help.
 
and this Court cannot grant the Appellant any meaningful
remedy for the alleged error, and therefore the issue is
effectively moot.
 
JCT: Despite any meaningful remedy for the "alleged error,"
if the error is more than "alleged," a declaration that the
Judge Clements erred in refusing follow Section 136 of the
Courts of Justice Act so it does not happen again would be
remedy enough. Something so that tape-recording cannot be
banned unless it's somehow a bother to the administration of
justice. Otherwise, instant replay should be available to
everyone, even if I told lawyers about it 20 years again and
I'm still the only one doing it.
 
[continued...
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]