Justice Peter Tetley’s “Reasons for Sentencing” Michael Schmidt posted

Michael Schmidt raises a glass of the good stuff after sentencing Nov. 25th in Newmarket.

Thanks to Karen Selick for the link to Justice Tetley’s “Reasons for Sentencing” (Nov. 25th) on the Canadian Constitution Foundation website. We’ve also added it to the collection of permanent links on the top right of the home page.

Also added to that permanent linkfest is the link to Justice Tetley’s “Reasons for Conviction on Appeal” from September 28th, 2011.

23 Comments

Filed under News

23 responses to “Justice Peter Tetley’s “Reasons for Sentencing” Michael Schmidt posted

  1. I don’t have to read the swill of the criminal judge Tetley.

    Mr. Schmidt must be sentenced because he questions the state. He is an uppity slave and that can not be allowed. The state is our God and not to respect it is blasphemous.

    Mr. Tetley knows what is best for us the chattel slaves. Bow down and lick his boots. If you do not perhaps you will the next to feel the wrath of this psychopath.Do not be misled as that is exactly what he is.

    • Peter

      You appear to judge Mr.Tetley without reading his reasons for his determination. A good Judge always makes every effort to understand the position of the person to be judged… Your comments suggests that you are not necessarily objective in your perspective…

      • Peter unless the judge apologized and reimbursed Michael for his time and expenses – I had no reason to read the judges statement. No – not even that would satisfy me. The judge should also spend time in jail for violating the rights of Michael. We actually have such laws in the US thought they are never used as they should be.

        As Rainhard states no crime was committed. Every thing that Mr. Schmidt did was well within his inalienable right to contract and to choose what he puts into his body. Everything he did was “lawful” whether or not a psychotic societal parasite like this judge call it il-“legal” because of the actions of a few other psychotic parasites called a legislature.

      • Peter

        Who do you believe should be in charge of the administration of justice / violation of rights?
        I appreciate that you have an opinion on the subject matter. But I hope it is, to some degree, self evident, that you lack the basic qualifications to judge and sentence someone… In my opinion, your blatant unwillingness to read Tetley’s reasons is enough to demonstrate the lack of objectivity.

  2. rainhard pitschke

    Well ‘ablewright’…I did read the swill just to understand what went wrong. Of course it’s all wrong anyway since there was no crime, only no seeking of permission. Actually there is active avoidance of legislation…circumvention. From the outset Mr. Schmidt has declared himself competant to produce and distribute raw milk…to whoever he wants. This was a charter challenge right from the beginning and should have been persued that way to the exclusion of all other motions. The charter is the supreme law and all other inferior legislative instruments have ‘no force or effect’ if they vioate it. Thus, I have to agree with his assessment as noted here:

    iii) “Test Case” Exemption”

    [14] I am not persuaded that moderation of the otherwise appropriate monetary penalty is warranted here on the basis that this case has been brought forward as a test case to determine or clarify a principle of law or fact. This is not a circumstance warranting a stay of proceedings or relief from the imposition of an otherwise appropriate fine or sanction such as Regina v. Dwyer 1999 CanLII 1535 (O.C.A.) or McNaughton v. The Queen [1976] Q.J. No. 187; R. v. Turmel [1995] O.J. No. 1302; R. v. Stewart (No.2) Ontario High Court of Justice 45 O.R. 185.

    [15] This submission might have greater currency but for the respondent’s previous violation of the same legislation in 1994.

    [16] The fact the constitutional validity of the applicable legislation was not chal-lenged at that time does not create a circumstance that amounts to this case being brought forward, for the purpose of determining a point of law. The respondent’s “cow-share” arrangement was in place for many years before prosecution was instituted. The challenge to the constitutionality of certain aspects of the H.P.P.A. and the Milk Act was in response to that prosecution with many other issues being raised in defence of these charges. Accordingly, I am unable to conclude that these circumstances meet the criteria referenced in the cited cases for a “test case” exemption from the usual sentencing criteria and process in the absence of cooperation by the respondent in defining the legal issue involved in this prosecution in a more direct manner.

    • Peter

      Your comment: “From the outset Mr. Schmidt has declared himself competant to produce and distribute raw milk…to whoever he wants.” cause me to ask the question: Who is to qualify him as being so competent? If I declare myself competent to give legal advise, does that make me competent?
      You suggest that this case is a charter challenge issue (to the exclusion of all other arguments). I would be interested to hear what you suggest the principle charter argument would/should be?

      • rainhard pitschke

        The referral of satisfied customers establishes his competance. Lawsuits lost because of damage or harm shows incompetence. But those courts determining that would have to be ‘dejure’ trials made up of ….what else….other dairy farmers or milk drinkers…..or just sensible people who aren’t professional liars…er…lawyers.
        My ‘charter challenge’ is against the entire charter. It’s a jurisdictional challenge too. Except that dealing with some woman in a foreign country who presumes to bestow, assent, grant charters, title, etc.,one must use her own words against her. I don’t need to be told I’m a free man with rights. And I know what they are and where they end. I am fully capable of making contracts with individuals and groups and claim the right to do so. This ‘charter’ being part of a ‘constitution’…an invisible body or dead corporate entity, has validity only to it’s own employees and agents…….as it specifically states here:

        Application of Charter

        32. (1) This Charter applies

        (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

        (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

      • rainhard pitschke

        “If I declare myself competent to give legal advise, does that make me competent?”
        you would never ever be competant to do what my friend did as I mentioned earlier and you didn’t appreciate the validity of. All your ‘legal’ advice would be useless to have charges withdrawn…which is what I would want…..unless…I was some kind of real criminal wanting to get out of liability for a real crime…then I might call you to ‘work the system’. So, I guess I’m saying that competence has nothing to do with expedience and everything to do with morality. It is, in effect, the manifestation of morality and depends on it rather than being ‘declared’ or ‘assigned’ with credentials. This is of course the entire issue here where justice is secondary to logic and morality.
        I would respect someone who has gone through training for a trade, and this can be presented to me as evidence of ‘intention to be competent’…but not as a particular reference. I would want to see his work.

      • Peter

        I believe one would be hard pressed to make a charter challenge against the charter… I would suggest that the political channels, not the courts, are the way to change the charter.

  3. rainhard pitschke

    So, all the evidence presented to validate the safety of the milk is irrelelevant. Other country’s laws too. Numbers of people supporting him and agreeing also. Michael is well aware of sovereignty issues and stands as a ‘sacrificial example’ for all still sleeping, nice people who follow legislated rules of business practice and still think it doesn’t negate their absolute inalienable rights. It does….slowly, gradually in the same way as accepting tiny ‘tips’ from the mafia. They are bribes. They make ‘rights’ into ‘priviledges’.

    • Peter

      I’m not saying one way is right, and one way is wrong… But my question is: Is it a right to sell our wares to the public without government regulation/permission/interference? If that is the case, then all business licenses are null and void, including the business license Monsanto has. And if it is a right, but business licenses are somehow justified, at what point do we need to obtain permission, and at what point is it a right?

  4. Syd

    To the Bovine,
    Thank you for posting this , and listing it in the top right, along with the rest of the court procedings. I was wondering if my request had been ignored. I appreciate your response.
    Syd

    • We are also having a transcript prepared of the entire day in court. Many observers found Justice Tetley’s oral comments (which don’t appear in the written decision) to be of interest. When the transcript is ready, we will let people know.

      • rainhard pitschke

        They may be ‘interesting’ in the same sense as an employee handling a complaint at a counter. Sympathetic, yet of the same fundamental flawed justification. “I didn’t make the rules….I just work here and am trying to do a good job.” It’s not true. If you work enforcing what you yourself in any other capacity, ie. as an ‘ off duty civilian human’ would object to, then you do make the rules, even more so than the ones who just invented them. This judge works at the ‘counter’. He’s a server just like at Timmy’s. He can ‘opinion’ away orally but his judgement and transcript is the official record of the ‘order placed’…..’double-double’….(yuk, yuk !…toil and trouble). At the counter (the bar),the server may say…”Yes, the medium coffee is now the same size as the small used to be…and costs more….I agree, it’s not fair…shrugs…go talk to the management or ‘buy the company’…..would that be all sir?….that’ll be $10,000 plus tax (victim surcharge)…or shall I call the imprisoners now…seeing as you refuse to pay….even though I haven’t given you your raw milk with your reciept.”

      • rainhard pitschke

        As a side issue…a public ”calling out” if you like of your presence here, Karen, I’m wondering why none of the active defenses of our constitution your outfit is engaged in is about the greatest violation ever seen in this country. Over 1,000 people were illegaly detained and abused at the G20. I was one of them.
        ??????????????

  5. rainhard pitschke

    “This is of course the entire issue here where justice is secondary to logic and morality.”

    That’s not what I meant. Justice, logic and and morality are all three not regarded in this issue. There is only one issue present in this case and according to legislative law, Michael is guilty and should be fined to the hilt to show the futility of defying corruption. They should probably kill him because he’s giving ideas to many who are weaker and may gang up on guys in black dresses….who serve a woman with a metal thing on her head.

    • Peter

      Before commenting on whether there was justice, logic and morality in this issue, I believe we first need to ascertain the question: Is it a right to sell our wares to the public without government regulation/permission/interference?

      • rainhard pitschke

        Ech! We already went through that including the ‘safety’ and protection of the not so bright. Do you actually not see what’s been going on?? Privitization of all our resources and infrastructure. For profit and in service of criminal offshore international banks and corporations. They sold us out…they are not working for us! They abused the trust relationship and as beneficiaries of that trust they are accountable to us not the other way around. They now allow us to be poisoned with chemicals in every goddamn ‘grocery product’ but seek to keep us from buying natural food. The 407 super highway is my favourite sell-out example. Electricity is another. Your vision is myopic and conservatively capitalistic. All your arguements are from a perspective of needing protection when mine are from the understanding that there’s been a crime of deception in the name of protection. Everything should be easier and better. We pay 160 million per day on interest to a fraudulent debt. What for? Oh…I know…because we went bankrupt in 1933 along with america, and now our children are surety for these slave-traders. We should all have a massive monthly shareholder’s dividend check….tha’ts the function of government ‘for the people’!

      • Peter

        I hear your frustration. And I do believe that, in large part, I see what is going on. And I can relate to your general perspective, for I used to be very stooped in that perspective myself.
        I do appreciate your commentary. However, you appear to be avoiding the question. I will ask it again: Is it a right to sell our wares to the public without government regulation/permission/interference? Again, I am not making the answer one way or the other right or wrong. But it might be a starting point from which we can begin to contemplate the ramifications of the answer, one way or the other…

      • rainhard pitschke

        “for I used to be very stooped in that perspective myself.”
        “stooped’….?….do you mean stupid or steeped like a tea-bag? A very nice play (implication) in any case. If you actually mean stooped it refers to a crippled old condition so I will take in that context since you ‘used to be’ that way and now are upright…yes? How did you regain this ‘uprightness’, righteous, ‘recto’ (refering to anal orifice) ….we can go on and etymologically parse related latin roots of ‘re’….regal, regis, etc…….condition? Was it through the products of the Monsanto company you refered to earlier as possibly having even their sacred ‘business licence’ revoked? (In answer to that, I say it’s not as important as immediately arresting the entire management for bio-weapon war crimes against humanity.) But I certainly am interested how you processed ‘that perspective’. My strength is rather limited in restrainng sarcasm at the moment….I’m doing my best, but I suffer from ‘stoopidity’. It’s apperantly genetic since, although I am ambidexterous now, I began as a ‘lefty’. In early schooling this was brutally discouraged till I began stuttering and an enlightened ‘speech therapist’ ‘fingered’ the source and straghtened ‘them’ out….something I continue to attempt in larger ways.
        That being said….the answer you seek from me is Yes….they have an obligation to ‘regulate’, enforce, etc….IF…they are a legitimate government. But they aren’t. They are pirates operating a franchise called Canada. Political (never mind judicial) change is impossible under these conditions. The owner(s), Mrs. Windsor first, should be arrested immediately.
        ***These comments are not to be construed as advocating violence, treason, conspiracy to foment rebellion or constitute what may be taken as ‘hate crime’…..they are personal opinions in a discussion and I do not consent to them ever being used or copied by any government agents, departments or it’s agents….including you ‘peter’.****

      • Peter

        My sincerest apologies. And I mean that. Totally!!!
        I meant absolutely no disrespect with the word “stooped”. I intended it as “being engulfed, or very much with or in that perspective”.
        It is very possible I do not have the correct understanding of the meaning of that word. Again, my apologies. I meant absolutely no disrespect.
        Blessings…
        (I will go and look that word up to ensure I use it correctly in the future… Perhaps I am making a spelling mistake… Hmmm)

  6. Peter let me ask you a serious question in response to your question:
    “Is it a right to sell our wares to the public without government regulation/permission/interference?”

    I ask you: Is it a right to wipe your posterior without government regulation/permission/interference?

    Most people today would not think so. But what others THINK or do – do not effect my inalienable rights.

    • Peter

      My answer to your question is: Yes, it is my right to wipe my posterior without government regulation/permission/interference.
      Might I have your answer to my question? Namely: “Is it a right to sell our wares to the public without government regulation/permission/interference?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s