\medpot\drou22
>Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:04:08 +0000
>From: dpeted@... (petesrecycling)
>Subject: marco renda the owner of treatingyourself.com has
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

PD: because of taking a plea bargain marco renda the founder
of TY has lost his permit to grow his meds for the next 10
years.
he pleaded guilty to one count of exportation and possession
of hash.
hell canada has taken his permit to grow,he is wearing a
bracelet and will be sentenced on mai 6th .

JCT: I had told Marco Renda to not get involved and let
Parker win it for us but instead, he financed Alan Young and
joined the Hitzig Applicants to fix the MMAR and bring
prohibition back to life on Hitzig Day when the court first
admitted it had been struck down on Parker Day. So I'm not
going to cry too many tears over someone responsible for
financing the return of the law after Parker had had it
struck down. How many people would rather have had Marco
keep his nose out of it so there wouldn't have been a Hitzig
case to bring the law back to life? How many people think
the movement would have been better off without Marco Renda?
I do.

PD: i told this man not to take any deals and he was
laughing at me for being in the Turmel clan talking, all
kinds of shit about John, well look who's laughing now. now
he can't have a permit for the next 10 years like that's any
smarter.

JCT: He could have quietly stayed legal but he had to
traffic. I think the guy from Alan Young's Hitzig-Myrden
team has a hidden agenda behind this.

PD: a couple months back this man was laughing at me because
i was saying how John was doing thousands of $$ in paper
work for all of us and that i had asked a lawyer how much a
case like mine would cost for what i was trying to
accomplish and i was told in the 20 000$ and that he would
need at least a 5 000$ retainer.
well today am reading on his site that he needs 50 000$ to
get out of this one, pretty funny stuff.

JCT: Maybe he's paying Alan Young again, after Young did
such a good job countering Parker's victories in the courts?

PD: well can't say i didn't tell ya so Marco.
so another activist wanna be going down.

JCT: Good riddance. Marco Renda was the former professional
fighter who tried to pick a fight with me in the Lederman
court-room with the cops waiting outside to grab me.
http://yahoogroups.com/group/medpot/message/564
---

>11199 From: "doug_laurie_nielsen" <buds_4_life@...>
>Date: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:46am
>Subject: Re: marco renda the owner of treatingyourself.com
has lost his exemption doug_laurie_...

D&L: Good to hear from you Pierre....we've been doing alot
better since we saw you last!!! Many thanks!! We had the
same argument on many web sites with many people about John
& Marco was one of them. We put our faith in John because he
is true to the movement, no side line agenda's like Young or
Emery have. They laughed at us too, but just look at the
results Ed has gotten & look at what John's done. They don't
even give John the credit deserved for the 4100 stays.
You have to wonder why people are not happy when John makes
real headway in this fight, after all we're all supposed to
be working for the same thing. We joined the best because we
didn't want to go down with the rest!!!
Many thanks to John for everything he did for us & everyone
& is still doing. Without his involvement Doug was expected
to do jail time, beyond a doubt. Thanks John D & L

JCT: Alan Young called me a paper tiger. Har har har. Paper
claws worked for you too!
---

>11200From: "Marc Paquette" <paquettemarc@...>
>Date: Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:17am
>Subject: Re: marco renda the owner of treatingyourself.com
has lost his exemption paquettemarc

MP: Hi Doug and Laurie! :) Like anyone else on earth, John
has done both good and bad deeds. Nobody is perfect. For the
good John has done, he surely deserves the credit! :) THANK
YOU John!! I don't think it was necessary to compare John's
accomplishments versus Ed's accomplishments.

JCT: The only thing Ed can boast it slowing me down. He
helped the Crown in their appeal against us, helped scuttle
the Johnny Dupuis Krieger challenge, and like my "social
credit" nemesis William B Ryan w_b_ryan@... can't get
piss off his mind, Ed couldn't get shit off of his. But he
sure managed to scuttle some of my moves and cause me much
trouble, more than most, that I do grant his success.

MP: And the 4,100 Canadians who got their marijuana charges
drop had to do with our government's "indirect" admission
that they didn't comply with the Parker ruling by August 1st
2001, and that the law became unconstitutional. The same law
was resurrected in "Hitzig" by the Ontario Court of Appeal
on October 7th 2003. So it's clear that it was the Parker
ruling that made it possible for 4,100 Canadians to get
absolution from our justice department. It had nothing to do
with John. Have a nice day! Marc
P.S. THANK YOU Terry!! :) Marc

JCT: Yes, it was the "R v. Parker" ruling that declared the
prohibition in Section 4(1) to be invalid but it was the
Parker v. HMTQ ruling that declared the prohibition's
invalidation to have taken place on Terry Parker Day that I
claim resulted in the 4000 charges dropped.

Yes, Terry Parker did ask that. But so did I and another
guy. There were three of us who filed our appeals against
the Lederman decision erroneously refusing to grant that the
invalidation had taken effect on Terry Parker Day. We three
appealed, Terry, me and the third guy, and the Court of
Appeal did finally grant our requests in the appeal of Terry
Parker and the appeal of me and the third guy.

I've even used the official Court of Appeal Order from the
appeal of me and the third guy in our Prohibition Kits at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmelo1.jpg

There it is, Turmel and the other guy also requested that
the court declared the law died on Terry Parker Day. Not
only Terry was in on the kill. I and the third guy were too.

To demean our contributions to Parker II by saying and and
the third guy nothing to do with it is unfair. I happen to
know that the third guy was sick and suffered much to make
his appearances in court. All to be forgotten, all to be
ignored because you think only Terry should get the credit.

I don't think Terry worries about not getting credit for
killing the bad law so I don't think he feels bad about
sharing any credit for organizing the funeral.
---

>11204From: "Terry Parker Jr." <terryparkerjr@...>
>Date: Wed Apr 26, 2006 0:18pm
>Subject: Re: Re: marco renda the owner of
treatingyourself.com has lost his exemption

Hold on here. No need to be negative. Alan Young's betrayal
has had a significant effect on marijuana freedom, and put
us back to square one as a result. John has been
exceptionally effective in recognizing this
misrepresentation in law, and taking action, with the
application to dismiss forms.
No need to undermine John when there has been no other
lawyer to take up where Alan Young left us. Yours, Terry

JCT: Like I said, I don't think Terry's worried about
sharing the credit for the funeral, not one's trying to take
credit for the victory in the legal arena.
---

>11205From: "Marc Paquette" <paquettemarc@...>
>Date: Wed Apr 26, 2006 0:25pm
>Subject: Re: marco renda the owner of treatingyourself.com
has lost his exemption paquettemarc

Hi Terry; True, but where the heck did I undermine about the
good John has done? I thanked him, didn't I. And I still
admire the good he's doing, and when he wins for us. Hold on
your horses Terry, I'm not against John..never have been
either. Who else but Terry Parker himself deserve the credit
for the Parker 2000 ruling? Marc

JCT: I'm not being criticized for taking credit for the
Parker 2000 ruling killing the prohibition. The criticism is
about credit for the Parker 2003 ruling ordering the funeral
by me and the third guy. Your criticism is that Turmel and
the third medpot musketeer don't deserve any of the credit
for the 4100 stays. There wouldn't have been any stays if we
hadn't fought for the funeral. They had not admitted that
the Parker I ruling had taken effect. That was the purpose
of Parker II, to say Parker had taken effect.

Anyway, I think denying me and the third guy any recognition
of our contribution to getting those charges stayed is mean.
Especially the third guy who's contribution hurt more than
most.
---

>11206From: "Marc Paquette" <paquettemarc@...>
>Date: Wed Apr 26, 2006 0:45pm
>Subject: Re: marco renda the owner of treatingyourself.com
has lost his exemption paquettemarc

Oh, I see what you mean Terry. It's because I implied that
John wasn't perfect! LOL Perfect would have meant "no flaws,
errors or mistakes" that would have made John win all his
cases and those he helped, but unfortunately, it wasn't the
case all the time.

JCT: I couldn't always beat the stacked deck so I'm flawed
for trying.

There were both victories and defeats.

JCT: So why must you stop me from claiming 4000 more
victories that me and the third guy have a share in?

MP: So what's wrong in admitting that Terry? Marc

JCT: What's wrong with admitting the contributions of me and
the third sick guy weren't completely valueless with it?
---

>Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:38:18 +0000
>From: paquettemarc@... (Marc Paquette)
>Subject: Re: marco renda the owner of treatingyourself.com

MP: Please don't compare me to anyone else Doug and Laurie.
John wasn't helping Terry when the invalidation of the law
took place.

JCT: No, he laid it out to be officially dead if he remained
unprotected within 1 year. But then we had to prove it
hadn't been saved. Two different issues. But it wasn't the
original appeal that resulted in the dropping of charges
like in R. v. J.P., it was the second Parker et al appeal
with Turmel and the third guy.

MP: the Crown's decision to absolve 4,100 cases has to do
with the Parker ruling..nothing else.

JCT: No, it had to do with our applications to have the
invalidation take place on Terry Parker Day by Terry, John
and the third guy.

MP: For more details, please scroll down our home page at
http://medpot.net and read below the following title:
Everyone claiming the / Tous proclament le "COUP DE GRACE"
of / de Terry Parker
It was composed by John Turmel himself, and not "1" single
word has been changed since it was posted. Marc

JCT: I'm not even going to go look because an egoist like me
would almost never fail to take credit for any legitimate
win I participated in. No matter how much I laud Terry's
contribution, I doubt I fail to mention the contributions of
me and the third sick guy.
---

>Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:00:21 +0000
>From: buds_4_life@... (doug_laurie_nielsen)
>Subject: Re: marco renda the owner of treatingyourself.com
has

D&L: You sound just like Ed right here; he didn't like to
give credit to John either.

JCT: Ed was busy trying scuttle everything I was doing. I
didn't need him giving me credit, I needed him to stop
interfering and causing me to lose.

> So it's clear that it was the Parker ruling that made it
> possible for 4,100 Canadians to get absolution from our
> justice department. It had nothing to do with John.

D&L: It sure as hell wasn't Ed or Young that proved the law
dead & we don't see either of them trying to prove it still
is only John.

JCT: That's right. Parker made it dead. Parker and Turmel &
pal proved it was not alive.

D&L: We are just simply telling it the way it is Marc. John
has been up front right from the start, posting everything
he's doing for all to read. Our opinion of Ed is based on
his actions & what we personally know of him. We had many
words with Ed back in our early days, on this site, other
sites & a lot through our email. This was because of how Ed
had tried to manipulate & worry us into thinking John was on
the wrong track. He even tricked us into submitting some of
his work in with John's. Thank goodness it didn't screw
everything John had been working for up. Ed was always very
quick to jump into John's business & bad mouth him. So our
opinion is that John is a doer not a sayer & you can't get
shit done by just talking it. D & L

JCT: You were real fighters. You loved it and the opposition
could tell. I don't think Ed had much of a chance of
dissuading you from going for the kill like he dissuaded
Johnny Dupuis, a medical user/grower, who would have been
our first perfect Krieger section 7 challenge in Quebec.
It cost the movement a year. Thanks Ed.
---

>Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:45:03 +0000
>From: paquettemarc@... (Marc Paquette)
>Subject: Re: marco renda the owner of treatingyourself.com

MP: P.S. Doug, Laurie and Friends; If you or anyone still
doubts my words, you may read the following article that was
posted on one of John's web pages.
Ottawa stays pot charges in 4,000 cases
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm

Note: this article ends at: "We estimate there are about
4,000 pending files," Ms. Boulay said.
The comments below are from John: What about the 100,000
Canadians convicted while the law was invalid?
Have a good weekend! :) Marc

JCT: Again, I can't believe I gave all the credit to only
Terry and didn't proclaim out loud the contributions and
sufferings by me and the third guy.

http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmelo1.jpg is proof that
the request to have the Parker invalidation declared to have
taken effect on Terry Parker Day was made not only by Terry
Parker in his appeal but also by John Turmel and the third
sick guy in our appeal. It was a two-appeal claim and I
claim some two-appeal credit for the 4000 legitimately. If
not the third guy whose contributions you, Marc, may choose
to ignore.


--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics