Now I hope someone hears him!
Here is what I have blogged about the trial today and what others who saw it said.
The Honorable Judge Rideout was presiding in a very intelligent manner. He was respectful to me and the law at the same time.
Basically I had the feeling that he was on my side and understood that this was a political action from the beginning!
He would not entertain Jack and we proceeded to trial. I was very honest and direct and he was very fair and proper to me. With the cop witnesses he was to the point questioning them and then asking if I had any questions.
I didn't try to dick around and was honest AND AS DIRECT AS I COULD BE. I got the sense from what he said that he was in agreement with my stand and put it into my words distinctly when he summed it up.
At the beginning of the trial he asked me flat out if I had any intention of quitting SMOKING or selling marijuana. I said "NO."
In the end because, I had questioned the cop as to the second bust and what he purported I said "If you want marijuana you can buy it from me" (I don't think I said that.) the Judge just threw out the second charge.
The crown, because of my breaching of condition had wanted 3 months and a condition for me to stay away from alcohol and "drugs". He suspended my sentence, said I must report to the probation officer at least once a month ( he was very sticky about that) and looking directly at the crown said that I must stay away from alcohol and that's it.
This man understood what I was doing from the conversation. I thought that he might have visited my blog. When I mentioned R v Parker he said that he had reviewed it in preparation for this trial. I had told him that I continue to this day to sell marijuana when I had a chance during the trial, that I had sold it from the stage of all candidates meetings. This gentleman was as compassionate as the parameters of his job allowed.
The promises I made to this man I will keep! He is a fellow dog owner!
I told you that I was confident and felt that my Karma was good!
He mostly encouraged me to take the proper measures for a charter challenge next time (hoping there wouldn't be one--I hope the laws fall before that too) and that he appreciated my activism and concern for the community.
Edited by bud oracle ( 21 minutes 6 seconds ago)
Jack Roe's point of view:
Member
*
Registered: 10/06/08
Posts: 112
Loc: The Land
And here is how it went,
Bud appeared in court at 9:30 am, room 303 at the Provincial Court of British Columbia, Vancouver District before The Honourable Judge G Rideout. First, the Crown, a Ms. Merry, dealt with the matter of the warrant for Bud's arrest. He said that he hadn't checked in with his supervisor as he had forgotten. Fair enough. When asked if he was to retain counsel, he said he had someone for that purpose, and the Judge summarily denied his application to have me act as his counsel.
A couple of other matters were dealt with, and then Bud went up again, this time for the first appearance on Information 193452-2-C. The Judge had at this point engaged Bud in friendly conversation; Bud explained some of how he feels about the situation and so forth, and the Judge was very amenable to letting him say his bit. Through that, the Judge was able to have Bud admit that his purpose in bringing me along would be merely to assist with a charter challenge, which would make me a rather poor help, as, of course, one must give proper notice to the Attorney General of such a challenge, and no such notice had been given. Of course, as I understood it, the goal was not a charter challenge, but to help except to jurisdiction and to the form of the indictment. Bud did not correct the Judge, so, of course, I was not in a position to contradict Bud's understanding of his own position. The Judge did ask me what legal training I had, and I replied that I sincerely hoped all of my training had been legal, none of it illegal. He clarified his meaning, and I told him I'd had no training by the bodies corporate tasked with educating lawyers within the province. After which, he told Bud that he was doing such a good job without me that there was really no reason for him not to simply represent himself.
So, seeing that Bud was taken in and going along with their script, I decided to watch. The two arresting officers were sworn on the bible, and they gave their testimony. A final officer was qualified as an expert in the distribution, etc. of marihuana in Vancouver, and he gave testimony about inferences that might be drawn from the weight and packaging of the marihuana.
The crown closed its case without making any further submissions after that witness. Bud made a final statement wherein he reminded the Judge that the Judge's power descends from the Queen who takes an oath to uphold the bible and suggested that he threw himself on the mercy of the court.
As to the charges, he was found guilty on two counts, acquitted on one. The sentence, a conditional sentence of six months during which he is to stay away from two places whereat he was arrested, is much lighter than the three months in prison asked by the Crown. Further, the Crown asked that Bud be given a condition such that he is prohibited from possessing drugs or alcohol. The judge said "so ordered, he is prohibited from possessing alcohol," to which he added, rather pointedly, "Hear the Or, Ms. Merry? So, I've given you what you asked for" or words to that effect.
To sum up, nothing was made of the form of the indictment nor of jurisdiction. Bud also did not bother mentioning the Writ that had been placed into the file as of Nov. 16 2008. Of course, Bud was given every opportunity, and he decided, for whatever reason, to go along with the Court this time when in past he had refused to plead, etc. Somewhat puzzling to me, but, then, there is no accounting for taste or its variations over time. All in all, pragmatically, things worked out personally for Bud rather better than they might have. However, due to the execution of the House's Script, the day was a wash in terms of novel legal arguments that might be generally applicable.
Edited by Jack A. Roe (Today at 06:19 PM)
Edit Reason: added Judge's name
_________________________
vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas.
COR VNA VIA VNVM
and the odd Barnacle's point of view!
odd_barnacle odd_barnacle Online content
Stranger
Registered: 11/19/08
Posts: 10
A good outcome for Klaus "Bud Oracle" Kaczor
I watched the first hour or so and left to toil in the cybernetic salt mines.
The courtroom experience, a harrowing mix of tedium, tension, and the need to urinate. Worse than the airport to get in.
I'm very glad that I attended though. The first fourty minutes or so of back and forth between the judge and Klaus was something to see. I hope that he'll stay out of trouble for a while.
As a neighbour he's fair dinkum. I thought that he'd be a pain in the ass when he moved in, but he's actually been ok.
_________________________
tall, dark
odd_barnacle Online content
Stranger
Registered: 11/19/08
Posts: 10
Originally Posted By: davidmalmolevine
I must admit the strategy worked better than expected.
It could be part of a pattern I've noticed, that Judges are willing to offer a lighter punishment in exchange for being able to avoid having to address complex legal arguments.
I still say that arguments that go to the core of the relative harmlessness of proper cannabis use/growing/dealing or the harmfulness of prohibition are as useful as the ones talking about jurisdiction or other technical issues for avoiding harsh punishments ... plus those harmless/harmful arguments also contain the extra benefit of educating the Judges and any media to the ethical problems of prohibition.
I would say that the judge was genuinely sympathetic to the ideas that Klaus was presenting. The damage caused by prohibition etc.
The argument that Klaus used was pretty much what you're outlining above. The judge put the kaibosh on Jack Roe's involvement, and derailed the strategy that they had planned. And was quite deft in doing so. He put words in Klaus' mouth. Stuff that Klaus hadn't even gotten around to yet. After he'd established, on Klaus' behalf, what Klaus meant, he went on to give Klaus suggestions about how to get going with a Charter appeal. Then he let him right off the hook. Considering that they had dead to rights it was quite something. Funny.
I had been quite curious to watch how the "novel legal arguments" went over. All said and done I feel that Klaus did right not to labour the point when the judge steered things away from that. Perhaps the outcome bears that out.
Edited by odd_barnacle ( 22 minutes 51 seconds ago)
Edit Reason: to make edits
_________________________
tall, dark
bud oracle Offline
Stoner
*****
Registered: 06/05/08
Posts: 606
Loc: Vancouver
It turns out the esteemed Mr.Hogg was not there, but one of the young Ms Merry (quite nice looking I must admit. At one point before she asked for 3 months she referred to me as "My friend" ), whom he said wasn't even on the case was there and functioning as the crown. She seemed like she didn't want to be there trying to jail this grandfather.
Ms Merry reefered to me as "My Friend" in a sincere way. I was curious especially after she asked for a 3 month sentence shortly after. I understood why she had to ask but the My Friend had me wondering. It wasn't until a blogger who knows something of the law who said it was a term of respect. Also early in the questioning the Judge asked the officers to drop the accused label when refering to me. He was very proper in setting an precedent of good pronunciation of my name of everyone. I got that he had seen my blog and gave me the respect that he felt appropriate. I told him that all the appropriate government departments had been getting auto email updates every time I posted here. Judge Rideout wouldn't let me get into "an email can change the world" but said something in dismissing my attempt to think that he read it. I did enter it after the first appearance.
The Judge is also a CBC radio One listener like me and suggested I listen to the Saturday afternoon program on marketing for good ideas. (I told him it was a favorite of mine) It seems he must have been listening to the mothers wailing on the news too. I felt that he was in agreement that the Prohibition laws must go. The only reason couldn't was that it just was not in his jurisdiction to do that!
I have a feeling that I wouldn't mind meeting him in the dog park and talking about life. He would be an interesting treasure to mine.
Posts
