The ReeveLaw Blog

Why do we just accept, without questioning, that the government should take over the existing cannabis industry, seize control and profit from its distribution and taxation? This is, after all, the same entity that conducted a war against it and is still today prosecuting, convicting and imprisoning us for using it. There already exists a complex, effective distribution infrastructure that has been developed over decades. We don’t need no government intervention.

Before premiers, liquor unions and corporations start falling all over each other in an effort to cash in on legal cannabis sales, let’s remember the real reasons we should be ending cannabis prohibition in Canada.

Source: Don’t Let Those Who Opposed Legal Cannabis Profit From It Now | Dana Larsen

“His DWI client insisted she consumed only a few drinks on the day she registered a blood alcohol level that was four times the legal limit. Marusak discovered a rare intestinal disorder called Auto-Brewery Syndrome in which ordinary food is converted into alcohol because of yeast in the digestive system.” I think the emphasis should be on the word “RARE”.

Lawyer Joseph Marusak decided to investigate after his DWI client insisted she consumed only a few drinks on the day she registered a blood alcohol level that was four times

Source: Lawyer gets client’s DWI charge tossed after discovering her rare affliction

King Alfred the Great (849-99) brought a degree of much needed unity to the disparate Saxon kingdoms he presided over when he became King of Wessex in 871. No sooner had he taken the throne than his Book of Laws made its appearance. The resulting Saxon Law was still going strong over 300 years later. In those Saxon times trial by ordeal was a standard way of establishing guilt or innocence in the days before trial by jury became the norm. Ordeal was the Saxons’ way of ‘letting God decide’, the judicium Dei. There were a number of options of varying unpleasantness, one of which was ordeal by iron. Naturally enough the ‘court’ was a church. Present would be a sheriff of the shire, representing the peacekeeping force of the land, and a bishop, representing the celestial judge on high. The trial took place during Mass but the large chalice of hot coals burning near the altar wasn’t to keep the congregation warm. A rod of iron was thrust into the fire, made red hot and planted firmly into the accused’s outstretched hand. Three marks had been made on the floor and the accused was ordered to walk a distance of nine paces, which he was allowed to complete in three large stride before dropping the iron and stumbling to the altar, probably screaming, to be bandaged. Part two of the trial took place three days later, when the parties reassembled for the ceremonious removal of the bandages. If the hand was cleanly healing the culprit was pronounced innocent by a cry of ‘God be praised!’ If it proved to be uncleanly festering then guilt was the verdict.

A variation on the theme was the ordeal by hot water, in which the hand was plunged into a boiling vat to retrieve a ring or coin. On other occasions the hands were spared and walking the distance on hot ploughshares was implemented instead. By comparison, the ordeal by cold water, reserved for the lowly, was a doddle. In this the accused was bound and suspended from a rope, then lowered gently into the village pond. The idea was that God accepted the innocent fully into the waters, so incongruously it was the sinkers who were pardoned and the floaters who were guilty.

Trial by ordeal was abolished by Henry III in 1219.

‘Law’s Strangest Cases’, Peter Seddon

Over the summer, the Texas Forensic Science Commission came to an unsettling conclusion: There was something wrong with how state labs were analyzing DNA evidence. At first they assumed the update wouldn’t make a big difference but it discovered the numbers changed quite a bit. It’s unsettling to find out DNA analysis can vary like this because it threatens to undermine the deep faith people have placed in the technology. If we now push this technology too hard — say, by prosecuting someone on nothing more than a genetic match — then DNA may also be headed for the kind of reassessment that has battered the reputation of older types of physical evidence.”

Experts say the field of forensic DNA is having a moment of truth about years of overstated claims, and it may tarnish its reputation as the “gold standard” of legal evidence.

Source: ‘Great Pause’ Among Prosecutors As DNA Proves Fallible : NPR

We’re rushing headlong into a Brave New World and Big Brother is already watching. Police already track you by wide-area surveillance, thousands of networked street-level cameras, auto-scanning license plates, drones, and spy planes, but that is primitive compared to what’s coming. Computerized face recognition is already extremely accurate and fast. You can be matched against a nationwide database instantly. This technology will be integrated with the body cameras police now wear. You will be cataloged and tracked by your Universal Control Number (UCN). Yes, that’s really what it’s called.

In light of recent mass surveillance leaks, this program will certainly upset privacy-minded Americans.

Source: You might end up in the FBI’s face recognition database, even if you’re not a criminal | VentureBeat | Security | by Harrison Weber

“Merriam-Webster defines crime as “activity that is against the law.” Law is defined as a “set of rules made by the government.” Thus a criminal is someone who breaks government rules. The law as a whole is an ever-expanding collection of rules that politicians (“lawmakers”) decree and occasionally repeal. Laws are as moral as the politicians who make them. Simply put, laws are the rules politicians make up, and criminals are people who break them. “Criminal” is a government-defined standard imposed on us, the governed. Virtually any act you can think of has been criminalized by one regime or another. Being a law-abiding citizen only means you comply with whatever rules politicians have imposed on you.”

In a world of mass surveillance politicians have used law to make us criminals. David Montgomery on how to cut the mass surveillance noose from your neck.

Source: You’re a Criminal in a Mass Surveillance World – How to Not Get Caught

DRUG WAR AND ADDICTION – The war on drugs is built on the idea that chemicals cause addiction, and we need to physically eradicate the chemicals from (society). It’s not your morality, it’s not your brain, it’s your cage. Addiction is an adaptation to your environment. If in fact the driver is isolation, pain and distress, then a policy that’s based on inflicting more isolation, pain and distress on addicts is obviously a bad idea. The goal of the Portuguese decriminalization was to say every addict needs to be given a purpose in life. João Figueira, who led the opposition to the decriminalization as the top drug cop said, “Everything I said would happen didn’t happen. And everything the other guys said would happen did.” In Vancouver 10 years after opening a safe injection room “overdose is down by 80 percent. Average life expectancy in that neighborhood is up by 10 years. Those are figures you only get when a war ends.”

As President Obama seeks $27.6 billion for federal drug control programs in his new budget, we talk to British journalist Johann Hari about the century-old failed drug war and how much of what we know about addiction is wrong. Over the past four years Hari has traveled to the United States, Mexico, Canada, Uruguay and Portugal to research his new book, “Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War of Drugs.” His findings may surprise you — from the U.S. government’s persecution of Billie Holiday, to Vancouver’s success in addressing its heroin epidemic, to Portugal’s experiment with full decriminalization of all drugs.

Source: Johann Hari: Everything We Know About the Drug War & Addiction is Wrong | Democracy Now!

Forty-three years after the LeDain Commission said laws against simple possession should be abolished, recognition of pot’s reality has arrived. However, legalization is of so little importance it is relegated to the back shelf. “There’s no timeline on lifting the prohibition. Other Liberal justice issues – notably the implementation of physician-assisted suicide, the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, and criminal justice reforms – are more urgent priorities.” When they get around to it the government itself will probably become the “pusherman” and monopolize distribution. “In Ontario, Premier Kathleen Wynne suggests provincial liquor stores could start retailing government-certified – and taxed – ganja.” Trafficking otherwise, by your established local supplier/friend, will remain a crime.

Justin Trudeau says his government will do what his father’s would not by legitimizing simple possession of recreational marijuana and regulating its sale, like alcohol

Source: Public hearings, two Trudeaus and ‘reefer madness’ fear-mongering: The long war over marijuana legalization | National Post

Is it sexual abuse of animals? Does the law exist to protect the rights of animals? Is the animal a victim? That’s what our Supreme Court is being asked to decide. “What makes this an interesting animal rights case is that the Court is also being asked to consider the effect on the family dog.” If the animal is considered to be a victim does that raise it to the status of a person? Will the services of the Victim Witness Assistance Program will be made available? Will animal services and protection organizations have access to the funds collected as mandatory Victim Fine Surcharges? Will animal victims enjoy the rights and benefits afforded to human victims of criminal acts? Can the accused by sued on behalf of the animal? Let’s see what the court has to say.

Essentially, the top court is being asked if non-human animals enjoy the right not to be sexually abused.

Source: Supreme Court bestiality case could boost animal rights: Walkom | Toronto Star

“Hundreds of innocent people have been convicted by bad science, permitting an equal number of perpetrators to go free. None of the traditional forensic techniques, such as hair comparison, bite-mark analysis or ballistics analysis, qualifies as rigorous, reproducible science. An overwhelming majority of wrong decisions resulted from flawed science-related procedures, such as eyewitness errors, faulty lab procedures and false confessions. But it’s not just forensics: bad science is marbled throughout our legal system, from the way police interrogate suspects to the decisions judges make on whether to admit certain evidence in court.” A particularly offensive example is the false confession inducing Reid method of interrogation.

Source: Time to clean all the junk science out of our courtr…