Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Thank you Cherie Say for your generous $200 contribution to the cause. This came at the most critical time for Amanda and I. In a cruel world such as ours it is hard to see the good of humanity sometimes. It is people such as yourself that truly make the difference in things such as this. We all appreciate this and you will never be forgotten. I am sure that when my final DMT trip comes around that the memory of how good this felt will come back to comfort me in my passing. I am still crying more than hour later as the picture in my facebook post shows.
There has not been one smidgeon of help from those who belonged to the UDS except John West who was the only one to show ups and help Amanda move me out of my apt when i was in Jail Mark Boyer actually moved in failed to pay rent and then didn't want to move . He swore at and obstructed Amanda while she brought her friends to move. In times like these you will find out who is all about. The Registrar swore at her and never ever lifted a finger stole a camera and accepted a wage. A true picture of a misogynist if there ever was one. I was ripped off while in jail by former supporters whom I trusted. No wonder most people think ill of drug using people.
Amanda has asked me to remove this video as she feels it has crossed her personal boundaries so I did
What you see in the video is an emotionally complex, perhaps bipolar man off his meds by court order and because he is too poor to afford them
Sunday, August 28, 2011
We need to loose our dual nature and become an invincible singularity as in the video below. Basically he is saying that we belong to a common mind and the more we give to others, to something, the less we remain mired in duality and the closer we get to be in the great One. This really does bring happiness and good Karma. Try it and you will see what I mean. Let the plant teachers touch you.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Has anyone ever noticed that there are no intelligent questions coming from the interviewers these days?
Drugs aren't bad because they're illegal, the reason drugs are illegal is because they're bad. ...
Are there no critical thinkers left in the news media? This is the most outrageous assertion anyone can make on behalf of the alcohol and tobacco monopoly. Are Alcohol and tobacco not mind altering substances that are often misused and kill people, Mr Harper? Are they not bad because they are legal drugs, Mr. Harper? Are these statements by Mr. Harper simply marketing poisons which have a defacto monopoly due the governments misapplication of the drugs and substances Act?
By making this false dichotomy and inaccurate statement (illegal and legal drugs is a concept not known in Law) Mr. Harper has likely condemned thousands to death or hardship of addictions to "legal substances" which by implication are not considered bad. I conclude that he will be directly responsible but never held to account for the misery of many who will die smoking tobacco and from alcohol addictionBy inference, this moron whom the people of Canada have elected as their dictator, has promoted the legal drugs over the "bad drugs." Is Mr. Harper on the pay role of these corporate manufacturers of poisons? Does the Prime Minister not have access to the myriads of studies since the times of alcohol prohibition in the 1930's, including the latest report March 2010 by the British Columbia Center for Excellence in HIV AIDS which concludes, as they all did, what is apparent to anyone who has eyes, ears and the ability to reason that:
…the existing evidence suggests that gun violence and high homicide rates are likely a natural consequence of drug prohibition and that increasingly sophisticated methods of disrupting Canadian gangs involved in drug distribution could unintentionally increase violence. From an evidence-based public policy perspective, gun violence and the enrichment of organized crime networks appear to be natural consequences of drug prohibition. In this context, and since drug prohibition has not achieved its stated goal of reducing drug supply, alternative models for drug control may need to be considered if drug supply and drug-related violence are to be meaningfully reduced.Not the use of substances which causes the problems but the laws
It is a no brainer that we the UDS came to this conclusions in our document LAD-00023 requesting a section 56 exemption from the Health minister:
Therefore, the inclusion of psychedelic drugs, to wit marihuana, psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide, dimethyltryptamine and analogues, salts and isomers thereof, is contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter as it infringes upon freedom of thought, but is such infringement within “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,” thus saving the scheduling by s. 1? The purpose of law is to promote justice, judgement and peace. The aforesaid academic, corporate study concludes that a likely natural consequence of your prohibition is homicide and gun violence. Therefore, this infringement of cognitive liberty is not reasonable, for it promotes gun violence, and violence is the opposite of peace and is the act of the unjust: it is injurious, and it is unreasonable for people to be injured by the acts of a purportedly free and democratic society.Wasn't Paul Martins Government trying to desperately create Folk Devils by promoting hateful lies and breaking the Hate Crimes Act as well as the Broadcasting Act in 2005 during the aftermath of the Mayerthorpe tragedy?
You better believe that I was smoking a joint and more alert than the government of Canada. I caught the Federal Ministers in an organized crime (2 or more)perpetrating a hate crime on National TV and they failed to hold themselves to account. CRTC file# 233039 At least the CRTC upheld the law but the gov of Canada excused itself with a retraction and an apology from the Commissioner of the RCMP. The government of Canada and its courts is a criminal organization which considers itself above the law. (I was the only one to complain and stop this overt propaganda blaming pot growers and by implication smokers for this dastardly crime) I seem to be able to say this, have proven it, yet not a single so called activist has stepped up and thanked me for stopping this crime. Not much help is forthcoming from any organization/growers/dealers which benefited from the fact that I stopped this defamation and likely enactment of severe penalties such as are coming now. No help from the executives in major media organizations who do drugs in their spare time. NADA!
The people who work in the courts are unaware of the issues and complacent in their attitude towards justice. They walked by the illegal and offensive TASER warning signs in every court house in BC. Lawyers, Judges and Clerks demonstrated that they don't understand the law and are not concerned with the safety of the citizens whom they apply their warped sense of Justice too. Read the email (no hard copy was sent so that the facts will be lost) thanking us pointing this out to them by the head Sheriff to the Registrar of the UDS:
"Thank you for your e-mail of November 23, 2009 addressed to the Attorney General regarding the TASER warning sign posted at the Vancouver Provincial Court house. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Attorney General.Never heard a friggen thing in the propaganda press about this act of knowing the law better than those charged to dispense Justice. Why is that? Is it because we were on LSD when we saw this?
I appreciate your bringing this issue to the Attorney General’s attention. As a result of the Braidwood Inquiry recommendations, I have directed all sheriff offices to remove the TASER warning signs located in secure areas of British Columbia courthouses.
Executive Director and Chief Superintendent
Sheriff Services Division, Court Services Branch
Ministry of Attorney General"
Just search Canlii and you will see many examples of the lack of understanding supreme Court Judges have by constantly using the propaganda terms "illegal and legal drugs." Such incompetence in an area where precise language is critical shows me that law schools in the country rely on the monopoly lawyers have once they begin to practice law to make up for their incompetence.
The only logical rational conclusion I can draw from the Court's obtuseness and the Crown prosecutors insistence on painting me a delusional drug dealer is that the are consciously trying to implement tyranny of the executive branch of the Government. There can be no excuse for not seeing the facts and the results of their failed policy being perpetrated on the citizens of Canada. Mr. Harper is responsible ultimately for the misery of millions and murders of thousands to satisfy his perception of "Drugs are bad."
Here is someone who speaks the truth. In my Affidavit to the Supreme Court I describe myself as a shaman / scientist. Perhaps they misunderstand my gifts and call me deluded / mentally ill simply for my aspirations to make this a better world for all.
Monday, August 22, 2011
My condolences go out to his loved ones and his political friends and allies. Canada, IMO, has lost one of the last men of ethics that aspire to the grunt and grind of the nasty 'pit' of politics. The only one whose workers took time to address me on this critical drug policy which is killing Canadians daily. I mourn for all of our loss. Canada will be less without this man. Although he was a bit too left of center for me in some policies, I always respected his commitment and honesty. That is something I couldn't say for many other politicians today. Isn't it time for the sane in Canada to support more men like him no matter what political stripe? Thank you Jack Layton, you are a great man!
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Legal nuances necessary for understanding why the CDSA is being used as an instrument of state terror
Click title link for advanced legal search "Ministers have no power+The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act."
"The object and legal subject are joined together, the law regulates people (or is supposed to) but it was re-framed as creating an illegal object. The belief in an illegal object is what reduces all persons who once had legal rights to slaves to this Act!"
Parliament did not envision an illegal object, "use" is not in the Act, Parliament envisioned a regulatory system that would allow persons their rights to equality before the law. Conflating all use to abuse renders a person without rights and that person becomes an illegal object without equality with the majority of drug users. It's the same as if they said all women who wear make up deserve to be imprisoned even if acting peacefully but this was not written into law. It takes away their rights to equality before the law and makes them an object because if you don't have equality before the law you are an object. They might say well this is choosing criminality but it is government that has designated the criminality through a misunderstanding of what the law says about it.
An Osgoode law professor in 2004 said to my friend that there are five arguments... recreational and/or harm principle, autonomy, self expression, medical, spiritual.. All the arguments which were considered viable or had been tried were categorized. It appears the administrative argument has never been considered before. Does that mean that if Osgoode Hall hadn't considered it, it isn't viable?
Promulgate refers to the making of orders in council. The minister is charged with the duty of giving effect to the Act through an ongoing process of constant review and recommendations to parliament - they don't implement or regulate by themselves, but without their initiative, nothing can happen. This is a major flaw in the system as I see it. There is a gaping hole in the structure of the Act which allows politics to enter the field rather than encourages non aligned intelligent science and sober second thought to guide our social safety policies. That is why these positions must be filled with competent people not political hacks.
At first when I thought that I understood this argument, There were times I got a little perturbed with the over emphasis on repeating like a religious mantra: "the law regulates people not objects." This seemed as obvious as the large nose on my face to me. I figured the battlefield to be with Parliament, Justice or the medical systems. We all know the legal nuances but expressed them in plain terms. People use plain language but everyone knows what these laws mean or prohibit. So what? Why repeat this like rote doggerel?
The truth is I didn't understand what was being said although I thought that I did. The law is not built on Doggerel or even plain language. It must be as precise yet open to change as possible for the reason that is plainly obvious: you don't want a law left open to political interpretation in a democracy. You must also understand that principle in English law that says that if you are not harming anyone or their property, you are not committing a crime. There must not be a denial of someone's rights unless they actually commit a crime. And any law that makes someone a criminal simply for peacefully possessing a substance the government deems harmful, must be equally applied to the majority of people who may use equally or even more harmful substances. The Minister's duty under the CDSA is not to implement his party's political agenda at the expense of a minority who can't fight back, rather she must safeguard the public from dangerous substances.
NO EXCEPTIONS FOR POLITICAL REASONS NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTED FOR THEM EITHER. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW, EVEN THE MINORITIES, GUARANTEED BY THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS! THIS IS THE BACK BONE OF DEMOCRACY.
I was blogging and posting this opinion years ago.
Opinion: Our flawed drug laws are at heart of riots
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Chief's grandson, 5, shot and killed on Alberta's Samson Cree reserve: RCMP
So here we go again with the government pretending its the drugs that cause this. It is the law making people into criminals that causes the crime. People use these commodities peacefully for the most part which make these gangsters rich and dangerous. And we have the Justice minister trying to tell us his mandatory minimums are going to make us safer. Yeah right! It will make us less safe guaranteed as has been proven since prohibition was first conceived. The two most DANGEROUS DRUGS, ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO ARE GIVEN A LEGAL MONOPOLY AND WE WHO USE THESE SUBSTANCES ARE MADE INTO CRIMINALS AND FORCED TO SUPPLY FROM ORGANIZED CRIME. There are no shootings over the supply of these extremely dangerous drugs. The US government claims tobacco kills 25% of the people who die in America each year. Not even Heroin approaches those kind of fatalities. And it is all done with a slight of hand.
Here for instance are words that might come from the Minister himself:
"Now listen, we can ban you from having some drugs and not others, OK, that's it, do you get it now, what is all this nonsense that we don't have that power, don't you think society has the right to control what people can legally buy? well let me tell you we do have that right, and do we have to apply it equally concerning different substances? No we do not, we can target some and not others, and that is not the same as targeting people arbitrarily**. People make the choice of criminality and choose to get involved with drugs, we have the right to make those activities illegal and we do so, we target the users and their suppliers of certain drugs through their property."
The answer to this arrogant sod's words must be:
'well, what about the law, and what about the Charter? You see where I marked with**, the next sentence from there is highly misleading because the arbitrariness** referred to in the previous sentence is not connected to the criminality issue directly, that is the final outcome, what's missing is that we are talking about millions of people who by being users or small suppliers do no harm to anybody, and that the choice of criminality starts with the government, never the user and the individual being otherwise law abiding is induced to become involved in criminal possession and supply of controlled drugs. Do they have the power, yes to administer, but it's not unfettered as he suggests, the question of whether it is appropriate to maintain an arbitrary control over drug users under the Act is certainly worthy of examination.
Here are some words from some of our most famous "drug activists" from downtown Vancouver and our answers to them. (No wonder we still have prohibition)
The law is meant to prohibit drugs, not the misuse of them (Malmo-Levine argued this). Parliament is well within its rights to practice prohibition of drugs (or rather the possession, production or distribution of drugs).
There is no significance to unconsidered options, as there is no duty on parliament to consider all options.
Where is the equality issue here? There is no requirement that drugs be treated equally, nor is there any case law protecting choice of recreational drugs under equality rights. This is an assertion that is not borne out by law.
Here is our salvo fired right back at them:
The law is NOT meant to prohibit drugs, it is suppose to regulate supply to persons, the act regulates persons, not drugs.
It's not about Parliament. "There is no requirement for drugs to be treated equally!" DRUGS TREATED EQUALLY???? PERSONS ARE TREATED EQUALLY!!!
There is an expectation that PERSONS will be applied equally under the law UNLESS INEQUALITY IS EXPRESSLY STATED. (here a major inequality is being carried out by the failure to control and protect Alcohol and Tobacco users under the neutral act as the minister is required to do. There are no exemptions and these are the majority and most dangerous substances)
This arbitrary infringement into the rights of some people who use some drugs occurs at the administrative level and cannot be justified.
Once people get our argument there is no turning back because they see that the fault lies in the arbitrary administration of the law and the false belief that the CDSA mandates prohibition. It does not. There is not a mention anywhere in the act of anything but control and regulation.
To me its strange that the cops haven't found out who killed this gangster yet because they mention on a news video going to the HA 3 months before the hit on Juel Ross Stanton. It seems the man to question about whom he talked to in the gang is the Cop who asked them for their help to police the community.
Not a single charge for the CBC incited hockey riots yet either. Its OK as long as they were high on Alcohol, eh! No problem about their spirited behavior, but let someone sit on a park bench with a camera and a pipe full of pot. Now that is different!
The cops behavior in the video above is way less peaceful than my behavior below