Emery - grudgingly accepts plea bargain

Context, please. These links are to source material over two years old. Why dig this up now? What's the relevance?

Heck, here he'd already be out on parole by now.

I, too, would be incensed, outraged, and beside myself were the supplier of my garden vegetable seeds arrested and locked up.

That is what this is about, isn't it?

They're the people that were legally elected into office. Stop whining just because your candidate(s) didn't win and you don't agree with their decisions. You can remove them in the next election if you don't like the way things are being run.

"But along the way he has angered the anti-drug law-enforcement community -- the same gang that insists we must continue an expensive War on Drugs that has failed miserably for more than a quarter century and does more harm than good.

Canadian police grew so frustrated that neither prosecutors nor the courts would lock up Emery and throw away the key, they urged their U.S. counterparts to do the dirty work."

Why would he be subject to exatratidion OR facing a far more severe sentence in Canada?

I am talking about raiding your place of business, even though you are not there, arresting your coworkers and demanding your extradition.

Forgive me for thinking you spoke to me.

As I don't know about you or your business, of course the comment was hypothetical. Hypothesis works when in direct reference also.

"What if, 'you' were walking to work one day and got run over by a bus, would 'you' feel their insurance should cover it?"

'I don't walk to work.'

"So, what if?"

Are you checking back with yourself, or, instructing me in hypothetico-deductive methodology?

That was a PO'd conclusion from their own website. Of course I saw it and understood it before posting it. Inlike many here I do actually read my links. As this is about the forth post I've made on this story over several years, including the rginal police raid, I think it's fair to say I understand how it was executed. However, this is the first time the Canadian forces have even been mentioned as having a motive, even judges and lawyers that have responded to questioning on this case in the past explain that their hands were tied as they were urged by teh US DEA.

"Court documents showed that four American navy undercover agents were used to try to buy marijuana and then smoke it at the Cannabis Cafe."

"In November 2002, then US Drug Czar John Walters visited Vancouver to give a speech at a luncheon sponsored by the Vancouver Board of Trade. Emery bought a table for himself and other local cannabis activists, and heckled Walters [b]as he spoke about the need for Canada to embrace the "War on Drugs"[/b]

So the quiet, little old USA just sets their mind on their own business, not interested in Canadians until the Canadian government asks them to help? As if you are needed to help us enforce your own strict US laws that do not apply in Canada?

He was breaking any Canadian laws. Why would we need help? That's just the conjecture of a Vancouver Sun reporter. That same report also notes that: "Prosecutors in Canada have not enforced the law against selling pot" (They have actually, selling pot is a crime that is enforced constaltly with assigned squads, but not seeds). So the reporter again is a bit skewed in his 'facts'.

"Prosecutors in Canada have not enforced the law against selling pot "
They operate uncontested and they also ship to the US.

"Around the corner, you'll find more seed stores. You'll find the same shops in Toronto and in other major Canadian cities."

As you will in many countries worldwide that also ship to the US and Canada.

"The three were arrested in August 2005 [b]at the request of the United States[/b] and charged even though none had ventured south of the border."

If you like, I can offer a different source to the same issue, I just went with that one as it has been kept up to date regarding his extradition, while the more common news found that it just isn't newsy enough for them.

You read it, however rather selectively.

Of course it is a joint operation (not pun intended) and it took Canadian authorities to raid his store. but to suggest it was due to Canadian police frustrations is just naive on the part of teh Sun's reporter. the US has been on this one for years, and Canadian judge has never said no to an extradition, before. So obviously the Canadian court respects his rights to operate his business, as do the many politicians who have stood in his favour over the years.

This is a case of the US leaning on Canada for action. I understand they can, and it has been effective in the past for sovling murders and bringing people to justice on both sides of the border. This is just abusing that Canadian obligation though.

Are some of our own politicians responsible for cowtowing to the US? Yes, of course, and the DEA knew they would bend over upon request and took advantage of that. It was an action brought on by the US, not Canadian police.

I was wondering what the f' you were talking about.

I posed a hypothetical question, which you dismissed as inapplicable because it did not reflect your reality. When I mentioned it was hypothetical, as if you actually didn't get that in the first place, you questioned the first part references, which I just also explained to you.

As for wiggling, you have done all but reply to the question, and yet I am the one have offered clarity on my intent several times now.

So one more time, "IF you were in a position where, hypothetically speaking, Canadian police requested your arrest and extradition for breaking a Canadian law, that was completely legal where you were, would you think it was fair and just for US police to raid your place of business, arrest employees that had not committed a crime either, and ask for your extradition to be tried under Canadian law? And, if so, if that same law was broken by thousands worldwide, nay even much larger and publicly available than yourself, would you not suggest your were being victimized needlessly?"

I'll answer that for ,as it is clear by your character that your reply is "Of course not. They better not dare even try! Why are they making an example out of me when I am but a tiny, almost insignificant part of the problem?"

Funny but when I posted about his initial arrest several years ago, most in America that had replied, agreed it was wrong.

Now, because people simply must disagree with me for the sake of disagreement, I see people holding on to the weakest arguments to defend themselves. :D

You are simply laughable. You spew utter nonsense and then try to defend it by talking in circles and pointing a finger and blaming me for wriggling.

No wonder nobody takes American's seriously.

I had no idea of who or what this was about until you brought it up.

I do have an inkling of who, what, and how [i]you[/i] are about, to which I pay near all my attention, to near exclusion of your subject matter.

How it is that you contain the matter of a subject is therefore paramount to me. It's a double whammy when the very subject is your containment.

Container fractured, your matter runs out all over the floor, uncontained. In the case of containment itself being the subject, you run out all over the floor, uncontained.

Second thought, maybe you had better not relax.

They don't take American's what seriously?

to use apostrophes appropriately?

Well, more likely it's the caulkhead turned canuck who seems to have problems...

[i]Any American's ability to use apostrophes appropriately?[/i]

Unfortunately, you're correct more than not.