JCT: The full cast of characters were there. Co-Appellants
Pierre Drouin and Real Martin, former co-appellants Doug and
Laurie Nielsen, Terry Parker, Steve Coroza for the Crown and
a French Crown in case. I referred to a two-page summary of
topics to be covered in my 40-minute presentation on
Prohibition of the charges due to Krieger. I'd received a
letter saying I'd be allotted zero minutes to argue my
appeal against conviction!

Court File No.
M33601: Crown motion to quash,
C44684: Real Martin appeal for Prohibition of S.7 charge
C44683: Pierre Drouin appeal for Prohibition of S.7 charge
C44587: John Turmel appeal for Prohibition of S.7 charge
C44588: John Turmel appeal for Certiorari for jury
C45295: John Turmel appeal for Quash and against conviction.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
PIERRE DROUIN and
REAL MARTIN and
JOHN C. TURMEL
Appellants
Respondents on Motion To Quash
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Applicant on Motion to Quash

FEB 23 2007 AUDIOTAPE-AIDED NOTES

Justices Labrosse, Sharpe, Blair

JCT: Before it got started, Crown counsel Steve Coroza
wanted to discuss how we were going to handle the argument
in my appeal of my conviction for "possession of marijuana
for the purpose of trafficking" to Prime Minister Chretien
et al at the House of Commons bust in May 2003.

I pointed out our recent Court of Appeal letter indicating
that zero time had been allocated to argue this appeal. He
hadn't noticed that we weren't going to have any time to
argue that appeal against conviction.

When it got started, I first asked that I be allowed to use
my tape recorder. Long-time readers will remember that
during the Court of Appeal hearings while consolidated to
the Hitzig cross-appeal, I'd gotten to make tapes pursuant
to S.136 for my personal notes and thus transcripts of every
single hearing. Except one, before Justice Labrosse, so I
hoped I wasn't going to lose an invaluable record of the
case by catching the only judge who erred on the tape issue
the last time around. But he asked Coroza if he had any
objections, Steve said no, and I was granted the privilege
of taping.

TURMEL: Just a couple of procedural items for a moment. The
style of cause. There are three procedures going on here
today. One, an appeal for prerogative remedy of prohibition,
which was originally filed by Mr. Drouin, and then a couple
of weeks later, Mr. Martin filed an application for
prohibition and then later, I filed an application for
prohibition, all based on the same Krieger case in Alberta.

JCT: I forgot to ask why they had allotted zero time for me
to argue conviction appeal with the 40 minutes for the
Prohibition appeal.

TURMEL: The second issue is that when I was charged with
possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, I
had over 3 kilograms of marijuana which meant that a
provincial court judge did not have absolute jurisdiction
over me and I had to get an election. And the Crown, on the
indictment, charged me with possession for the purpose of
trafficking of "less than 3 kilograms" and I made an
application to correct that and put "more than 3 kilograms"
and we are now here on a certiorari to remove the case from
the lower court where they had no jurisdiction to the higher
court.

Finally, the third issue is my conviction for possession
with the intent to trafficking. And I'm going to argue that
I did not get the opportunity to present the constitutional
argument that, like Terry Parker who won the right to use
this herb to prevent epilepsy for medical reasons, I, a
healthy person, want the right to use this herb for
preventative medical reasons. And I say that since I can
show many different diseases where I would not be exposed if
I had this herb, my chances of dying are reduced, and
therefore, prohibiting the herb which would reduce my
chances of dying has to have an effect on my right, as it
did on Mr. Parker's right.

So those are the three issues. Prohibition on the ground the
law was struck down by Parker, Section 4, and by Krieger,
Section 7, with Section 4. That's an issue of Prohibition
where I'm joined with the other two. And there's the
Certiorari for being charged and tried in the wrong court.
And then there's the conviction without the chance to argue
about the constitutional motion, or put in a defence.

So, on that basis, those are the issues and I want to point
out in Appendix 9, there's the situation where "Ottawa stay
pot charges in 4000 cases" in December of 2003 after the
Hitzig Court of Appeal said that the MMAR (Marijuana Medical
Access Regulations) had failed to save the CDSA (Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act) prohibition.

At about 5000 busts a month, that means that when they
dropped the last 4000 charges, that was the tip of the
iceberg, they should have pointed out that all the people
who were convicted while the law was invalid should have had
those convictions erased since they could all apply for an
extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal to argue before
you that the Court of Appeal struck down the law, said it
had been struck down for 2 years, after they'd already
pleaded guilty and didn't know the law was dead. (1)

So there could be a lot of people coming up here and I call
those "victims of the Krieger scandal", I mean, "of the
Parker scandal." And finally, that's over 100,000 people
convicted, the last 4000 off the hook. And they didn't erase
the convictions?

And finally, we're going to argue that the Hitzig court did
not have the power to resurrect the Section 4 prohibition on
marijuana; that the "J.P." judges Phillips, Rogin, Chen in
B.C. were correct in saying that the Interpretation Act
should be....

LABROSSE J.A.: But the decision in R. v. Turmel of this
court in 2003...

TURMEL: That was an application for prohibition on the basis
of Parker. But then we found out about Krieger. And they
said that they struck down the prohibitions, also.

LABROSSE J.A.: But we're bound by the 2003 Turmel decision
of our court.

TURMEL: Oh, I applied to have 5 judges, because I knew I was
going to need five judges...

LABROSSE J.A.: Yes,

TURMEL: And to now say that I didn't get five judges, so I
can't win...

LABROSSE J.A.: (JCT: more about only jurisdiction at Supreme
Court of Canada

TURMEL: Yes, I might end up there anyway. But the Hitzig
Court reversed the Parker Court...

LABROSSE J.A.: (JCT: he wanted to talk about my conviction.)

JCT: I'm not there yet. First of all, I'm dealing with these
two people.

LABROSSE J.A.: You're not, you're dealing with your own
case.

JCT: On the Prohibition.

LABROSSE J.A.: On everything, you're dealing with your own
case.

JCT: I want to establish.

LABROSSE J.A.: You're not acting for Mr. Drouin and Mr.
Martin.

JCT: But I want to prove the "law is dead" for all three of
us.

LABROSSE J.A.: Well, prove the law is dead but prove it for
your own case.

TURMEL: But I've got to start by proving Section 7 and
Section 4 are dead before I extend the argument to Section
5(2). Because Justice Earle-Renton at one point said that
possession is not illegal, intent to possess can't be
illegal. I think so too. So that's fine but the Court of
Appeal said no.

Again, yes, I'm going to be asking for a decision different
from that handed down, but isn't that what they did to the
Parker Court? The Parker Court said.... let me give you my
presentation and I'll cover all these things in my story.

LABROSSE J.A.: The Parker Court is the Alberta decision?

TURMEL: No, that's the Krieger decision.

JCT: Not knowing the Parker Court is the Ontario decision
out of his own court indicates he may not have read my
material or he read it and forgot.

LABROSSE J.A.: The Krieger decision?

JCT: Tough to get it all done in 40 minutes if he hasn't
read about the Krieger invalidation of Section 7 prohibition

TURMEL: It starts with Parker. So, I mean, I'll work through
my timeline and lay all my bricks and my stones in order to
build my edifice and go as fast as I can. Okay? And I would
like to mention one thing.

In the application for prohibition, when the application
comes down in the decision of Drouin, Martin and Turmel,
could the style of cause please reflect Drouin, Martin and
Turmel because chronologically, alphabetically, he filed
first. Right now, for some reason, they put Martin, the
second case, in the head of the style of cause and I'd like
very much if the court could please put, chronological and
alphabetical, the first person, Pierre Drouin, to head the
style of cause. And that will keep separate the Drouin case
from the Turmel cases.

So, all right, in 1997, I'm going to quickly explain the
story, Justice Sheppard exempted Terry Parker saying that
sick people will get an exemption from Section 4 possession
and Section 7 cultivation. The Government appealed, not the
cultivation exemption, just the possession exemption. And on
July 31 2000, in Parker One, Justices Rosenberg, Catzman and
Charron said that it's up to Parliament. They're striking
down the Section 4, they would strike down Section 7 if they
could but it hasn't been appealed so they can't. So they
strike down Section 4, make it invalid, but suspend their
decision for a year to give the government the chance to
craft a remedy which would allow epileptics like Terry
Parker to get their medicine.

Parker used to have up to 80 seizures a day, had two
lobectomies done before he found out that marijuana ends
seizures. And he then convinced the court that marijuana is
an effective anti-seizure remedy.

Well, unfortunately, the Court of Appeal, when they
suspended their decision for a year, then exempted Parker
from prohibition but then did not exempt any of the other
four hundred thousand epileptics in Canada, 1500 of whom,
unluckier than Parker, died in the next year and would not
have died if the Court of Appeal had simply struck down the
unconstitutional prohibition.

On Sep 15 2000, I came back to Canada after a United Nations
stint on another issue and started helping exemptees, or
people who wanted to get exemptions, to fight Health Canada
and overturn their refusals.

After it was declared in Parker that they had to provide
some sort of access, they jury-rigged a Section 56 procedure
and then imported all their narc pharmacists from the
Ministry of Justice over to the Ministry of Health so they
could then reject all the doctors' applications for
marijuana as "insufficiently proven" and demanded more proof
from doctors to pharmacists. And I did overturn five, I did
have five judicial reviews of refusals for marijuana
exemptions which were overturned, two guys with AIDS, one
with Dystonia, one with epilepsy, and finally, those abuses
were all coming to an end in the Federal Court of Canada in
the Supreme Court of Canada building in Ottawa, all decrying
their lousy conditions with insufficient access due to the
marijuana regulations as they stood, and then the Parker
decision came down and then the government issued the MMAR
on the very last day. To try to save the CDSA prohibition.

So Parker couldn't have complied on time, nobody could. And
in Brampton, just a month ago, Justice Clements noted: how
could anybody apply on time if it was issued on the last
day? And that's true.

So eventually, two years later, after Parker made an
application.... let's get back to the story. On December 11,
after the Court of Appeal had made their decision and they
say: the remedy crafted by Sheppard in granting exemptions
is wrong. It's not for us to do that, he should have just
struck it down, so that's what we're going to do. We're
going to strike Section 4 and give them a chance to fix it.

In Alberta, the Krieger case makes an application to strike
down Section 7 cultivation, for medical reasons. Justice
Acton, right after the Ontario Court of Appeal, said: I
agree that this is the way to do it so I will strike down
Section 7 cultivation prohibition and suspend my decision
for a year. Until they fix it.

On November 18, the Crown gets the Appellant's stay of the
Acton decision in Krieger, pending the appeal on the ground
that they were the Appellant. And they got their stay.

Six weeks after the government fumbles and doesn't protect
Parker within a year, they then say: "We're sending you an
extension of an exemption." Six weeks too late. "For six
months to get a doctor because all exemptees are having
trouble, we're giving them all 6 months."

Six months later, before six months, Parker seeks an
exemption extension from the Ontario Court of Appeal: They
granted me an exemption to protect me until they fix it, I
make an application to declare that they failed and the law
is invalid on Terry Parker Day 2001 or I want an extension
of my protection please.

He got a letter back from the Ontario Court of Appeal saying
they're "functus officio," the court case is closed and he's
got to go get his remedy below. Can't go back to the Court
of Appeal when the file is closed.

Parker goes below to the Superior Court, on short notice
because the decision came back on the 6th of March and his
exemption expired on the 15th of March, so Parker, on March
13, files go below on short notice for a declaration that
the prohibition died on Terry Parker Day when it failed to
work, the MMAR, or b) an extension of his exemption.

Now the Crown doesn't show up, snafu in the Crown's office
but Justice Pitt, on short notice and ex parte, issues an
order not saying that the law is invalid since Terry Parker
Day, the big decision, because the b) remedy. He said: I'm
extending the protection of the Court of Appeal until the
government has complied with the Parker Court's ruling.
Well, there's proof, the first Superior Court opinion that
the MMAR hasn't complied with the Parker Court's ruling if
Parker is unprotected.

So Parker is now protected. Then, the Crown, instead of now
stopping all prosecutions once the Superior Court opined
that prohibition is no longer valid, what do they do? This
is a criminal court remedy, against the Criminal Code. They
make a motion under the Civil Rules of Practice to set aside
Justice Pitt's decision because they weren't there. And, at
the hearing, a judge is persuaded to set it aside as a
default judgment, and that was appealed and eventually ended
up at the Court of Appeal.

Parker makes a motion, his motion to have the law declared
invalid on Terry Parker Day is adjourned. Then eventually
there was a new application, the Hitzig application which
started, and then it was consolidated with the Parker
application and I had started an application with Marc
Paquette, Turmel-Paquette, to strike down the law as well,
and we were all consolidated together under Parker and
others. Parker, Hitzig, and Turmel... This was styled by
Justice Weiler. So let's call the first case Parker One
where he gets the law declared "invalid" and the second
attempt is Parker Two where he's trying to get it declared
"invalid after the year because they screwed it." And it's
mixed in with the Hitzig which is trying to get the MMAR
declared invalid when we know it didn't work already. What's
fixing it going to do?

So Parker's now *** the Pitt decision set aside. In a case
I'm connected with, I can testify to, Health Canada admits
they've got 94 "dormant" files. These are people they can't
find alive anymore, people their pharmacists stalled to
death. And my point is that all epileptics should have been
protected the next day and were not.

So finally, on December 4, 2002, up comes the appeal of
Krieger in the Alberta court of Appeal and the court
dismisses the Crown's appeal and says: look, you say she put
conditions on you, she didn't. All she did was strike down
Section 7. And that's what she did, strike down Section 7
and we're dismissing your appeal.

Now, they had an option, the Crown, at that point, to apply
for a Supreme Court of Canada stay under the Supreme Court
of Canada Act Section 65 which would have then stayed the
Acton decision from taking effect invalidating Section 7.
And the Crown admitted that by implication, Section 4
possession because if cultivation isn't illegal, possession
isn't illegal. And the Crown twice admitted in its
Memorandum that, by implication, possession is associated
with the invalidation of cultivation.

Now the Court of Appeal has struck down the prohibition
against cultivation and possession, in Alberta! As high as
your court in Ontario when Parker struck down Section 4. And
when the government eventually dropped all the charges, they
dropped all the charges across Canada, no matter how many
times the Crown is going to argue that it only applies in
Ontario and we have to go strike down the law in all
fourteen jurisdictions. (JCT: Provinces) So the Alberta
Court of Appeal, equal to yours, struck down Section 7
cultivation, and possession too.

JCT: Now that I think about it, Supreme Court Act Section 65
says someone who has filed an application for leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court has the status to get a stay and
they have 30 days to do that. So perhaps there's a good
argument that the Krieger Court of Appeal invalidation took
place when the period to file their application expired, on
Jan 4, 2003, sandwiched right between the Windsor J.P.
decision on Jan 2 and the Lederman decision in Parker Two
for Terry Parker Day in 2001 on Jan 9 2003.

Turmel: Now we're coming up to 2003, the Windsor decision:
J.P. Justice Phillips says that, not because the MMAR didn't
work, the Lederman decision on that hadn't come down until a
week later, he said that because they didn't enact the
legislation right, the law was not there on time, and
therefore, according to the Interpretation Act Section 2(2),
a law that's been declared of no force and effect is to be
deemed repealed.

So on Jan 4, the Krieger Crown fails to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada within the allotted time. So Section
7 has been struck down, they say "only in Alberta," I say
everywhere too. And they don't change the Criminal Code to
reflect either the Parker invalidation or the Krieger
invalidation, not a word about that in the Criminal Code.

And finally, the Lederman decision happens and he says: yes,
the MMAR failed to work on time and save the CDSA but I'm
suspending my decision for six months which, I don't know
what that means but that happened.

So Parker then appealed, Terry Parker, and me and Paquette,
we appealed for the Parker Day Declaration that the law died
in 2001 which we eventually got. The Crown and Hitzig cross-
appealed. And of course, Justice Weiler styled it Parker,
Hitzig and the other cross-appellants.

And then on May 15, why didn't the Krieger Crown change the
Criminal Code, why didn't they stop prosecutions? Because
the Ministry of Justice were going to be introducing new
"recriminalising" legislation on May 15 of the next year. So
on May 14 of that year, one day before they were going to
officially introduce the new legislation to make criminal, I
went on the Hill with my seven pounds of marijuana to incur
a life-sentence and to show that possession prohibition was
invalid at the time, and I was right. But I had too much so
my intent now mattered.

But, I've run for Parliament 25 times, mayor of Ottawa
umpteen times, MPP in Ottawa, so I'm known in the Ottawa
area and you can see the picture of my arrest, at the back
you can see the Member of Parliament for Ottawa East, Eugene
Bellemarre, and I'm sure that he ran in there and told Jean
Chretien that Turmel was at the door being busted and he's
mad and we'd better call off the new law. And "Ottawa holds
back marijuana bill." It worked. They didn't introduce the
new law, they prorogued Parliament, and they never brought
back a new prohibition since, which is why all these people
are here saying: "We ask show us a new law" and you show us
a Hitzig decision. "Show us new legislation by Parliament,"
you show us a court order. And that's not the way it's
supposed to work.

So Parliament holds it back and the very next day, Justice
Rogin, Superior Court Rogin, is the third Superior Court
judge to agree that the law had been repealed because the
MMAR didn't save the CDSA prohibition, not because the MMAR
didn't work but because it hadn't been legislated properly,
but the effect is that it was repealed and it was proper to
call the charge a nullity and let the kid go.

And then finally, four days after I stopped the Minister of
Justice, because that would have solved the Crown's
headaches. If I hadn't stopped the Ministry of Justice from
bringing in the legislation, they wouldn't have needed to
appeal Krieger because they'd have their new Section 7 back
in operation and nobody would have known about the four
months glitch when the law was dead.

But I show up on the Hill, scare off the Minister of
Justice, and now they're stuck with no valid Section 7, so
now they apply, Krieger, to the Supreme Court of Canada. And
in their Memorandum, Crown, in two spots, says that the
court have struck down Section 7 cultivation in Alberta and
all he's got to do is lift the stay and cultivation is no
longer illegal.

Now what's this "lift the stay?" The Crown's argument is
that, when O'Leary J.A. extended the suspension for the
Appellant's motion until the appeal or until further order
of the court, but after the Final Order closed the case,
they said that the "Final Order" isn't a further order of
the court and that interim appellant's stay is still extant
after the file has been closed. But all he's got to do is
make an application to lift the stay and cultivation's legal
in Alberta.

But guess what, you can't make an application to the Court
of Appeal, to a closed file, once it's functus officio. The
Parker court, they said you can't do that. So here's the
Crown telling the Supreme Court of Canada that the law,
Section 7 is struck down except for this stay, this
imaginary stay, and all he's got to do is make an imaginary
motion to the Court to get back in to get it removed.

Otherwise, everybody busted since then was improperly
busted, three years worth. So that's an even bigger scandal
than the Parker scandal's 100,000 bogus convictions not
corrected. This is 150,000, 5,000 a month easy, bogus
prosecutions on the ground that the Crown says the O'Leary
Appellant's Stay is still alive. The only argument they had
for the Supreme Court of Canada that Krieger was not valid
was that this old Appellant's stay, when the appeal was
dismissed and the leave to appeal was dismissed, is still
alive.

Now, they argue in the same sentence that "by implication,
Section 4." So the Crown admits in their Krieger application
to the Supreme Court of Canada that if Section 7 is
invalidated, Section 4 has got to go with it.

So here we are with the Supreme Court of Canada note at
their web site which encapsulates the whole case and it's
part of our Appendix 10, and it explains Acton struck down,
declared it inconsistent with the Charter, suspended for one
year. Court of Appeal appeal with respect to Section 7 by
the Crown dismissed. And no word about any stay extant
barring the Acton decision from taking effect. And finally,
leave to appeal dismissed. On the very day the Malmo-Levine
case came down.

Then May 28, I made my first application to quash my
charges, which, my appeal, was converted by the Court to an
application for prohibition so it could be dealt with. Which
is why we've done applications for prohibition based on
Krieger since then. Justice Aitken said no, then on May 30,
in R. v. Peddle, Judge Kenkel told the Crown that you don't
stay charges which are a nullity, you must withdraw them.
It's unfair to hang a nullity charge over people's heads for
an extra six months. That's an important point later.

June 11, Pierre Drouin is charged under Section 7(1),
cultivation, for his medical need and possession for the
purpose of trafficking. Real Martin, June 18, one week
later, is charged Section 7(1) and 5(4).

June 25th, Judge Carthy does not extend the Lederman
suspension of the declaration that the MMAR did not work,
and there it is. In Parker Two, Terry Parker, then Hitzig,
and then Turmel. He said that the Crown can't complain that
they didn't do it right, they didn't get it done on time,
and therefore the MMAR strike-down took effect 6 months
after Lederman said so.

So the CDSA which was supposed to be saved by the MMAR,
we're saying that the MMAR didn't work so the CDSA died, and
later on they said: guess what, the MMAR didn't work and
it's dead too. Well, at this point in time, between July 9th
and October 7th of the Hitzig case, what's going on?
Everything's dead.

So, July 29th, that's the Parker Two appeal for the Parker
Day Declaration to say it was dead in 2001, lumped in and
consolidated with Hitzig and Turmel. Heard by Justices
Doherty, Goudge and Simmons. And just before that, out in
B.C., where Judge Chen repeated the same logic as Judge
Phillips and judge Rogin in Ontario in the J.P. case, that
once a statute has been declared of no force and effect, it
becomes a nullity and cannot be resuscitated.

The very next day, the Hitzig Court resuscitated the law
that the Interpretation Act says is repealed. The very next
day the Court of Appeal comes back. Yes, they do say that
the MMAR failed to work on time which then compelled the
government to drop the remaining 4000 charges. But they
didn't say it in the Terry Parker case who asked for the
Terry Parker Day Declaration. They stuck it in the Hitzig
case, the guys who asked to have the MMAR declared dead.
Not the CDSA. Then unfortunately, after taking away the
credit from Parker for asking to have the law declared dead
on Terry Parker Day, they then changed the style of cause
from Terry Parker et al demanding Terry Parker Day to Hitzig
et all demanding Terry Parker Day. And giving credit for the
Terry Parker Day declaration to Alan Young and his Hitzig
case.

But in reality, in the Hitzig case, the court then says:
Ignore the Interpretation Act, this is in the J.P. case but
it's the same argument quoted in Hitzig, in J.P. they say
Phillips and Rogin were wrong when they said that the
Interpretation Act says you have to treat it as repealed
when it's been declared of no force and effect, we're
telling you it ain't repealed, it's only absent until we fix
it.

They said: "The Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker said "We
declare the law to be invalid absent a constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption." They added the words "absent
a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption." The Parker
Court of Appeal didn't say absent anything. They didn't put
on a switch on and off. The Ontario Court of Appeal in
Parker said: Section is declared to be invalid. And the
Court of Appeal in Hitzig added a switch: "absent an
exemption" and now we're going to fix the exemption and turn
the prohibition back on.

Courts can't do that. Only Parliament can turn it back on
according to the Interpretation Act pursuant to Phillips,
Rogin and Chen out in B.C. But every judge in the country,
starting with R.v. Stavert in P.E.I. start saying: okay, the
law was struck down by the Parker Court of Appeal and it was
put back up by the Hitzig Court of Appeal. And we've been...

LABROSSE J.A.: Did you appeal in 2003?

JCT: Yes I did but unfortunately, there was one unsigned
Order and Justice Binnie dismissed the whole application as
abandoned. I was late getting the signed copy of an Order in
so he threw out the whole thing as abandoned. Same thing
with the appeal of the Hitzig decision. We were in that one
too and we appealed that one as well and it had a glitch in
it too and it was thrown out for the same reason.

So the Court of Appeal on Oct 07 2003 took Parker Two and
called it Hitzig, took Parker Two's remedy of the Terry
Parker Day Declaration that the law died in 2001 and it in
Hitzig. In J.P., they said: Ignore the Interpretation Act,
consider it absent so courts can fix it, not just
Parliament. In Turmel, I said: hey, you didn't know the law
was dead in 2001, 2002 an 2003, if you did...

LABROSSE J.A.: I have to remind you only have 10 minutes of
your 40 minutes left.

TURMEL: Gee, you know, 4 dead epileptics a day, 10,000 dead
epileptics in the last 7 years, are we really going to run
out of time?

JCT: I'd pointed out my two-page summary and I was half way
down the second page with only half a page to go before he
interrupted again. To remind me I had to drop some of my
presentation since he'd wasted so much of my time. Once I
realized he wasn't following my story but focusing on the
rush to lunch, my only out was to throw a little blood on
the proceedings. He's responsible for 4 dead epileptics a
day from now on too. But, after constantly interrupting my
presentation, he then orders me to finish on time!! I take a
few moments to decide which bricks in the construction the
judges won't get to find out about. Jugular time to a
hostile audience.

[continued...

--
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