Bill-c10........canadians suk!

http://justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2011/doc_32636.html

Annexe B
OFFENCENOTES
w/ Aggravating Factor List A¹w/ Aggravating Factor List B²w/ Health and Safety Factors³
Trafficking
Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking
Importing
Exporting
Possession for the Purpose of Exporting
Production
6 - 200 plants
Production
201 – 500 plants
Production
more than 500 plants
Production
oil or resin

[TH="colspan: 4"]MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTY[/TH]

[TD="class: alignCenter"]1 YEAR[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]2 YEARS[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"] Offence would have to involve more than 3 kg of cannabis marijuana or cannabis resin [/TD]

[TD="class: alignCenter"]1 YEAR[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]2 YEARS[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"] Offence would have to involve more than 3 kg of cannabis marijuana or cannabis resin [/TD]

[TD="class: alignCenter"]1 YEAR[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"] Offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking [/TD]

[TD="class: alignCenter"]1 YEAR[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"] Offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking [/TD]

[TD="class: alignCenter"]6 MOS[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]9 MOS[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"] Offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking.
Maximum sentence will be increased to 14 years imprisonment [/TD]

[TD="class: alignCenter"]1 YEAR[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]18 MOS[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"] Maximum sentence will be increased to 14 years imprisonment [/TD]

[TD="class: alignCenter"]2 YEARS[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]3 YEARS[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"] Maximum penalty will be increased to 14 years imprisonment [/TD]

[TD="class: alignCenter"]1 YEAR[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]n/a[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"]18 MOS[/TD]
[TD="class: alignCenter"] Offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking [/TD]
 
sorry buy i cant read that. My 6 Year old Niece has better grammar than that. Maybe if i could read it, i could retort.

Have you ever thought of taking an English Lesson? Here's a Test you can use to see if you ARE actually Verbally intelligent.... http://corporate.psychtests.com/sample_reports/report_verbalIQ.html

P.S: The use of language is a direct connection to the level of understanding an individual has, with the Language you have exibited, any expert would agree that it would be Fair to Assume you are of the Lower Intelligence population.....

Sitting here, Trying VERY hard to understand what you wrote......

#1. BC and Quebec did Strike down the GST.... its Called the HST, and we made that system.... BC recently struck down the HST and implimented the GST again, but this time we put it at 6%....

#2 The only reason we have a Federal Government is the same reason England has an Ambassador of Nations.... International Relations. Internal relations are governed by the PROVINCES.... wow, isn't that amazing....

#3 The COUNTRY was New Caledonia before it was British Columbia...... go back to school?
 
Federal authority covers matters that are national in scope and includes:
• criminal law
• immigration law
• governance of banking
• income tax
• divorce
Laws made under federal authority apply equally to everyone in Canada.

2
THE COURTWATCHER'S GUIDE, Community Legal Information Association, CharlottetownProvincial authority covers matters which are more local or private in nature and
includes:
• education
• family law
• property law
• employment law
• health care, including hospitals
• regulation of motor vehicles
 
Laws made under federal authority apply equally to everyone in Canada.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to actually understand now..... there's 1 FACT you don't get: People do WHAT THEY WANT TO. Judges in BC have been PROTESTING marijuana laws, and don't enforce them.

Maybe if you were a little older, and actually understood the REAL WORLD you might actually know these things.....

http://www.meetup.com/leap-canada/ <--77 out of 102 of BC's sitting judges are part of LEAP. as well as close to 30% of the BC police force (Municipal police forces)
 
Your so dumb you don't even know what HST is? LOL its harmonized sales tax dumb dumb.Meaning they harmonized(merged) the gst with the pst.You have always paid your gst just like every other province.

British Columbia combined the 5% GST with a 7% PST and implemented the HST at a rate of 12%
Click to expand...

Actualy we voted to FORCE the HST on the federal government. the GST used to be 7.5% meaning we Cut the GST from 7.5% to 5%..... and if your to young to remember that, it just proves my last point.

P.S: BAHAHAHAHA i Decided to check your account history.... EVERY post you have is from the Treyvon thread? LMFAO.

https://www.rollitup.org/search.php?searchid=20253552&pp=&page=20 Bye Bye troll.

have a good sleep under your troll bridge, eating your trollbootsoup.
 
Corbat420 said:
Actualy we voted to FORCE the HST on the federal government. the GST used to be 7.5% meaning we Cut the GST from 7.5% to 5%..... and if your to young to remember that, it just proves my last point.
Click to expand...

It used to be 7.5% and it was lowered federally and had nothing to do with HST.You have always paid gst at the national rate just like everyone else.You didn't force hst on the feds? LOL more talking from your ass.BC wasn't even the first to implement HST.
 
Ok back on topic.I hope the supreme court of canada strikes down the mandatory minimums.Courts have the power to crush existing laws if it violates our charter rights.It has happened before with gun laws.
 
cliffey501 said:
Ok back on topic.I hope the supreme court of canada strikes down the mandatory minimums.Courts have the power to crush existing laws if it violates our charter rights.It has happened before with gun laws.
Click to expand...
...yes the Judge can refuse to sentance if he believes the wording is vague to "him" he may also refuse to sentance if he beleives federal "criminal code" is against our charter of canadians rights and freedoms.This has been done recently in the past because of the wording in the recent bills at the time..but for a judge it could be suacide for his career and he will be hesitant to defy the federal rulings.....to put it simply........also to add to that the origonal intent of the thread was to get opinions from ppl not lectures in how unintelligent i or we are, what i want to convey is the FACT that u get more time for growing six plants as u do for sexually interfering with a minor...its written and its fact.......but prob woudnt apply to repeat offenders. or would it...i wonder how this will play out in the courts .anyway......corbut, your really a true egotist, and should verse yerself in the spectrum of dissabilities ppl may have before U spout your crap.
 
@corbut...u have hyjacked this thread, u have insulted the very ppl u are here to befriend, u are a no it all in your own right ...could u please take your intellect to a place it has a use and leave 'MY' thread...thank you for your cooperation.
 
richinweed said:
...yes the Judge can refuse to sentance if he believes the wording is vague to "him" he may also refuse to sentance if he beleives federal "criminal code" is against our charter of canadians rights and freedoms.This has been done recently in the past because of the wording in the recent bills at the time..but for a judge it could be suacide for his career and he will be hesitant to defy the federal rulings.....to put it simply.
Click to expand...

Yes this is true.Im hoping that a judge will find mandatory minimums as "cruel and unusual punishment".I a recent case involving gun laws a mandatory minimum sentence was not given because the guy was not a threat.So the judge found that to sentence him to jail would be violating his charter rights.I believe the case is currently being appealed by the feds.If the feds lose the appeal the gun law will be scrapped and it will be re-written.

There have also being rulings like this with marijuana.I don't recall the exact specifics but I believe the marijuana laws were shot down.It brought about a defense known as POL COA.Here's copy and paste so you see what I mean.

Understanding POL<>COA
The fundamental rules that Canadians live under are really very simple when it comes to how laws can be created, changed and/or set aside, and there are two aspects of "the law" which ought to be almost as simple to apply in any case of alleged crime...
1) Canada's Constitution Act (the most basic law in the land, which lays out the rules under which every law in the nation must come into being), and the Interpretation Act (which lays out the rules under which judges may and may not interpret and apply legal statutes) both state very plainly that the enactment, amendment and repeal of laws (that means *all* laws) is the duty and sole jurisdiction of Parliament... not of "Government" (the party/parties holding nominal power over policy and its implementation), but of "Parliament" (the entire elected legislative body which represents every voter in every electoral riding in Canada).
POL* Parliament ONLY has power to Legislate:

2) Courts may strike a law down entirely if there's a reason in law that they should do so, but they have no power to enact or to substantively amend any law... and both the Constitution Act and the Interpretation Act are very clear about this.
COA* Courts may Only Abrogate a law they have the authority to judge.
GOVERNMENT vs. THE LAW
These two fundamental rules look simple and obvious (and they're also THE LAW in capital letters), so the acronym "POL-COA" really ought to be simple enough to remind all prosecutors, judges and legislators of their duties if they care to hear its truth. Even so, after several years of having ordinary citizens who do understand it drum it into their heads, it still seems that this POL-COA idea is a very difficult concept for our judges and legislators to grasp in any practical sense &#8211; *despite* all their experience and training. However, if you're a defendant in a cannabis case, your defence is really as easy as A-B-C:
A) Cannabis prohibition laws in Canada (specifically about possession and by implication cultivation) were declared unconstitutional when Ontario's Court of Appeal last adjudicated Terry Parker's original case in July 2000 and Canada did not appeal that decision.
B) Only hours before the end of the ONE year suspension of that judgement (suspended to allow time for Government to craft and Parliament to enact a new law/amendment allowing the use and possession of Cannabis as medicine), Parliament still had not yet been offered a new Bill to consider, let alone passed a new law.
Instead, Canada's Government (Paul Martin's Liberals at the time) announced and put into force an Order In Council: some regulations (The Marihuana Medical Access Regulations) that modified the unconstitutional Cannabis prohibition law &#8211; but the MMAR were only a set of unlegislated regulations trying to fundamentally alter a dying law. Government did this with neither the consideration nor the assent of Parliament.
No new law has been enacted yet to replace what has been struck down by the Parker decision.
C) No Crown Prosecutor is permitted under the Constitution Act to charge or prosecute (and no Judge in Canada has authority under the Interpretation Act to *try*) a case of "Cannabis possession": there is no law under which they're authorized to charge, prosecute or try (but the Criminal Code has not been reprinted, so there is also unfortunately no clear directive yet for police not to arrest) anyone for "Cannabis possession"... it is not a crime because there is no criminal law that concerns itself with it.

http://www.ccldr.net/
 
yep i did download that but to hell if i can remember the file name.....im also hoping the gun laws will relax.I was a victim of them and lost my fac evan tho the cops admitted they were in the wrong the judge still gave me a 5 year prohabition ...under current law i cant own an fac because of the past prohabition..evan tho i did nothing wrong....so now again they make me a criminal by having to have a stash of illegal weapons....its crazy.
 
richinweed said:
yep i did download that but to hell if i can remember the file name.....im also hoping the gun laws will relax.I was a victim of them and lost my fac evan tho the cops admitted they were in the wrong the judge still gave me a 5 year prohabition ...under current law i cant own an fac because of the past prohabition..evan tho i did nothing wrong....so now again they make me a criminal by having to have a stash of illegal weapons....its crazy.
Click to expand...

Ya that sucks man.Just lay low for a bit.Only 3 more yrs. until election time.Hopefully people have opened their eyes sinece the last election.I mean how do you get found to be in contempt of parliament,lose a vote of confidence and then win a majority government? Makes absolutely no sense.People need to pay more attention to this stuff.
 
richinweed said:
under bill c-10 if u get nabbed with 1 mary-jane cigarette...u can never get a student loan or government grant or a pardon....rape a kid and you get grants and student loans to help you..put in place to rehab your perverted ass...thanks fellow canadians ..u had the vote...hope u feel safer...fukin sheeple/again...fukkin sheeple !!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

i once new a canadian dude who i thought was cool , then he complained about me having a pit bull and got me kicked out of my apartment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
'It was terrifying': Teen who collapsed after vaping nicotine is now warning her peers Social Sharing
Replies
1
Views
519
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
VIANARCHRIS
Feds hint at amnesty on marijuana charges, but not until after legalization
Replies
11
Views
774
ANC
ANC
G
"An Open Letter To The Canadian Senate On Cannabis Legalization"
Replies
14
Views
1K
gb123
G
G
Senators take aim at homegrown cannabis in Canadian legalization bill
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
VIANARCHRIS
VIANARCHRIS
G
Are Constitutional Challenges the Future of Canadian Cannabis Litigation?
Replies
3
Views
703
buckets
buckets
Back
Top