PURSUANT TO THE SCC ORDER TO HEAR

R v TIM FELGER IN THE SCC

WE HEREBY ARE TELLING ANY POLICE OFFICER
TO STAY AWAY FROM OUR PREMISES
AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW [Sec 1 Charter
To get a backgrounder on this above notice read this short article by the Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Supreme+Court+Canada+grants+oral+hearings+bong+shop+owner/10117855/story.html
This story is right it's highly unusual far his case to be reviewed, especially after they already served
their sentences. This defence is that he had a sign saying cops are not welcome and stay away, and SCC
wants to elaborate on this ruling by asking for verbal presentations to be made. This means at face
value! that until told otherwise, hanging a sign like above at the front entrance of any dispensary is a
good idea, "#C$%S# until this ruling is clarified, it's safe to assume that Tim &elger's defence is now a
legal way to protect your dispensary from police raids and stings.
'n Vancouver this is important because cops are shaking down clubs on a regular basis $() it's basically
highway robbery, and slushed under the carpet as *no comment, because it's under investigation+
The last shake down had a warrant that read that they were there to investigate a claim of there being
stolen property on the premises which simple was not the case! then the cops stole about ,-.,/// of
inventory and cash, and told them to have a nice day, thank you for not resisting, we'll get around to
eventually charging you and! this legally gives them one year before the dispensary can start to make a
claim to get at least the money back. This sign might not stop the cops but it definitely will make them
think twice, because most of these clubs have a good lawyer to take on a case like this.
This case gives V012 an opportunity to file our claim to legitimacy by seeking to have our verbal and3or
written defence for why this hearing can rule on our present 'C4. 567 business model "#C$%S# as we
see it the similarities between Tim &elger's situation and our present business model are so obvious.
-. T8'S (##)S #92:$'('(;< To the best of my knowledge at the time of the arrest, Tim &elger was
the C#= of a 1ari>uana 2arty #)$ , and he had his dispensary listed as his =ffices. This means his
'premises' were covered under a 'Constitutional blue ?one because of the #)$ status'
@ premises is a trick word in law it's -
st
and foremost an idea 3belief, and 5
nd
it's a building! @
5. 't's our contention that 8ad Tim &elger been using our 'C4. 567 protocol that he actually would
have been -//A lawful for his #)$ to protect their beliefs, because he would have been able to
give taB credits on part of the sales of cannabis "#C$%S# this taB credit by itself! makes the sale
of cannabis to members, perfectly legal, and frankly no one can hold it against him for not knowing
this loophole, it took us -/@years to figure it out. $() now we get a chance for Custice to rule on it
D. Eith this new hearing, the worse that can happen is that *The Honourable Madam Justice Garson
will say no to our offer to make a submission for Her to review, and rule on AND we are 'banking'
on the fact that [at face value] She might have done what She did to accommodate our submission
-. Time will tell. One way or another VQMP will be in the SCC sooner than later, by pressing for
this opportunity to legalize our venture with an SCC case-law ruling, just might makes it sooner