>Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:11:06 +0000
>From: robert963963@... (robert963963)
>Subject: Turmel at SCC
>To: turmel@...

R: I read the post at the yahoo news group where you are
about ready to submit your paperwork and asked if anyone has
anything to add. I do. I've taken a few notes and I'll pass
them along to you. I hope you can make some sense out of
them. Sometimes I think faster than I type and some thoughts
are lost once I get to writing them down.

Issue 3: Resurrection of S.4 by Hitzig court
You have to ask the question; which rule of court allows the
OCA to resurrect laws? Just like the Nielsen's judge did. I
call them the lunch questions. I like this question and I
like seeing the crown twist in the wind answering it.

JCT: But Nielsen judge Gehan Edward was satisfied with the
Crown's answer that they wouldn't have done it if they
didn't have the power to do it so they must have the power
to do it even if he couldn't find where they had the power
to do it.
This is being raised in my appeals. Only the Section 7
cultivation strike down is being raised in the Drouin and
Martin appeal. So this question can't go in the last kick at
the can. And we're lucky that the Drouin Section 7
invalidation has nothing to do with the Hitzig resurrection.
All the action happened before Hitzig and besides, Alan
Young says his Hitzig case resurrected the possession
offence, not the cultivation offence. No one knew about the
cultivation offence having been struck down in Dec 2002 by
the Krieger Court of Appeal until I heard about it in the
Dec 2003 refusal of leave to appeal by the Crown. Only then
did I check into what had gone on and found out how the case
had been misrepresented in the press as a personal victory
for Krieger rather than the general strike-down of section 7
cultivation offence for all Canada.

Issue 1:
60. The problem is that access isn't a function of being
sick but of finding a gatekeeper! The Crown cites paragraphs
138-9 of the Hitzig decision:
AND
63. The exemption scheme remains ineffective as long as
Government cannot provide a list of physicians who will
participate with the exemption system.

R: I'd like to see this issue expanded upon. The federal
government created a MMAR that does not meet the minimum
standards for writing prescriptions established by the
College of Physician and Surgeons (the governing body with
jurisdiction over medical practitioners).

JCT: But Alan Young got Judge Sidney Lederman to rule that
since a few of Canada's millions of sick who could benefit
have actually overcome the hurdles to exemption placed
before them, it cannot be said to be impossible. So Alan
Young's Hitzig case proved the MMAR can work. Like I joke,
lawyer-judges deem failing 99.9% the time a success but most
of the rest of sentient humanity do not.

R: The government calls them QUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
but there is no governing body to license doctors who are
qualified to prescribe cannabis. Which doesn't matter
because there are no accepted standards for becoming
qualified to prescribe cannabis.

JCT: Luckily, since cannabis is non-toxic with even the US
government statistics admitting there has never been a
fatality due to marijuana, what kind of preparation do they
need. What have they studied to be able to prescribe "rest
and chicken soup."

R: For example, a dr has to take extra courses before he
becomes qualified to prescribe heroin. (Have you ever heard
of Dennis Lillico? He won a BC Human Rights Tribunal case
that touches on this issue. He managed to get the BC College
of Drs to provide a resource of cannabis studies to Drs. so
that they can make informed decisions.) Link to College's
resource;
https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/medmar\
ijuana

AND
67. Fifteen hundred exemptions out of a population of
several million who need it for medical use may qualify as
"working well" for a lawyer but protecting less than a tenth
of one percent isn't what could be called success in the
real world.

R: Can you ask the judge exactly what the number is that
makes a medical program effective?

JCT: No, you can't force them to answer anything. They're
specialists at closing their eyes and seeing "no evidence."

R: Medical research scientists may have a different number.
(If you're an abortion doctor and only 10% of your
procedures results in termination of pregnancy, the other
90% carrying the baby to term, then can you call your
procedure effective?

JCT: You can't say it's not since sometimes it is, the
Lederman judicial reasoning.

R: If you are an executioner and 90% of your procedures
results in mere injury rather than death then can you call
your procedure effective?)

JCT: Again, the Lederman Hitzig decision says it only
"doesn't work" when it "never works."

R: The problem with this argument is that there is nothing
in the Charter, BNA Actor anywhere that says the government
is obligated by law to implement effective policy. As a
matter of fact the Malmo-Levine decision mentioned that the
government is not obligated to implement good policy. (If a
policy is constitutional it does not matter if it's
ineffective.)

JCT: So there's your answer. What do you expect from the
judicial "bottom of the barrel" crowd? Logic? Success? Har
har har har. Lawyers, rejects from math class leading
society. Har har har. Sob sob sob sob.

R: Is there a role for MMJ in family practice. Pro and con
debate. This might piss you off.
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2006/Dec/vol52-dec-editorial-debates.asp

JCT: I think kids who are ordered to be sedated in order to
attend school should be able to choose between the Ritalin
and Prozac chemical drugs they are now offered or a natural
herbal marijuana muffin.

R: Issue 2
Since July 2005 the streamlined MMAR application requires
that physicians sign a form confirming the diagnosis, the
symptoms, THE FACT THAT PRIOR TREATMENTS HAVE BEEN TRIED OR
CONSIDERED, that the use of cannabis has been discussed, and
that cannabis is not an approved drug. (my emphasis)

JCT: They've had these conditions from the beginning. But
before, the doctors had to not only confirm they thought
about all other possibilities but also had to give details.
To pharmacists! Har har har har.

R: This bugs me because it still puts the decision in the
dr's hands. The dr is the one who will decide if what I've
tried was safe and effective which is contrary to the case
law that says I have the right to choose my medical
treatment even if everyone else thinks its foolish.

JCT: Does your objection apply to heroin too? Or just herb?
Of course, heroin is physically addictive while marijuana is
just a little less psychologically addictive than chocolate
ice cream. If it's there, you want some, if it's not, you
don't suffer withdrawal.

R: Regardless of the case law, for the gov't to expect me to
try every combination of prescription medication available
to me is unrealistic.

JCT: No, they're asking your doctor to confirm that he's
considered all other combinations. Of course, this is
insulting because it's part of a doctor's profession to make
just those kind of decisions. That they have to sign a
redundant form confirming that they did what they're
supposed to do only indication more clearly that the purpose
of the access regulations is to puke doctors out so they
don't want to participate. And it has worked.

R: I take three medications daily. There are approximately
621 different combinations of these three medications
between the minimum therapeutic dose and the maximum
allowable dose. Let us assume that three weeks is an
adequate period of time to determine if a particular
combination of drugs and dosage is safe and effective. It
would take almost 36 years to satisfy THE FACT THAT PRIOR
TREATMENTS HAVE BEEN TRIED OR CONSIDERED.

JCT: Again, it's to confirm the doctor has done what he's
supposed to do, take everything into account. Not actually
try everything. Just think about everything.

R: Issue 4:
Hammer home the timeline and its importance. The timeline is
so clear I'll bet ya all it takes are for a few SCC clerks
to sort out the mess officially once and for all.

JCT: I know the Crown and the Appellate courts have done
their level best to not keep things in chronological order,
switching events or leaving readers with erroneous
impressions, but it can't be ignored, it's really all we
have. The cultivation and possession offences were never
officially re-enacted by Parliament after being officially
struck down by courts of competent jurisdiction no matter
that a trio of power-mad rejects from math class have
over-reached they judicial power to bring a repealed statute
back to validity without legislative input.

R: Quote the court orders and rulings directly. The crown
has a nasty habit of re-phrasing the court orders and
rulings to change their meaning.

JCT: It's funny but should a court ever cite a false quote,
they'd be laughingstocks. No, they won't cite the Crown
errors as part of their rulings. It doesn't matter. The
Supreme Court doesn't say why they reject applications for
leave to appeal which is why Crown misrepresentations don't
get remembered.

R: No court order can be inserted prior to Terry Parker Day
or Grant Krieger Day that can change the facts or procedural
history of their cases.

JCT: It's the Hitzig and Malmo-Levine Orders after Terry
Parker that caused problems. Fortunately, Pierre and Real
were charged with cultivation after the Krieger invalidation
of the cultivation and possession offences but before the
Hitzig resurrection(?) of the possession offence! Perfect.

R: I can't buy alcohol before I reach legal age and no court
can issue an order today that can be inserted prior to
reaching legal age that changes the fact that on December
25, 1987 I became legal to purchase alcohol. In other words
the timeline was satisfied at the time and it cannot be
changed.

JCT: Actually, at this stage, the problem is to convince the
court that the issues raised are of public importance. The
bogus convictions of 200,000 Canadians in the past 4 years
on the basis of a non-existant Appellant's stay surviving
the appeal, is of such a magnitude as to warrant the highest
scrutiny. Because my Hitzig and Turmel appeal losses were
both entered into the Criminal Code, that fact makes their
complete adjudication by the highest court important. After
the national importance gets us in, then we go into smashing
the Crown's alibis.

R: I have to follow the procedure/timeline and so does the
government. I can't vote the day after Election Day. There
is no mechanism for voting the day after Election Day.

JCT: And there is no mechanism to file an application to a
closed appeal file to lift the stay that the Crown says must
be lifted before the Krieger invalidation takes effect. If
they're wrong, that's 200,000 bogus busts.

R: The returns officers will not even issue me a ballot on
which to vote the day after Election Day. And even if I
found a ballot that had fallen off a truck it would still
not be counted.

JCT: The Court clerk won't let you file a motion to a closed
file either. Of course, the Supreme Court may choose to "see
no evidence" that this is so.

R: Anyway, enough babbling from me. I think I told once
before that the only time I've ever been to court was for 5
minutes to plead guilty. I don't have much to offer by way
of advice other than keep at it. Some day they'll crack.

Baclofen; minimum therapeutic amount is 40mg/day. Maximum
allowable dose is 80mg/day. Tablets come in 10mg and 20mg
doses. Recommended dosage increases in 5mg steps. 9 doses
Clonidine; 0.2-0.6mg/day but can go as high as 2.4mg.
Tablets come in 0.1mg, 0.2mg and 0.3mg doses. Recommended
dosage increases in 0.1mg. 23 doses
Ditropan; 5-15mg/day. Tablets come in 5mg doses. Recommended
dosage increase in 5mg steps. 3 doses
621 drug combinations multiplied by 21 day trial period =
13041 days (almost 36 years) before the dr says I'm allowed
to try cannabis.

JCT: Isn't "smoke as much of this non-toxic herb as you need
to achieve relief" easier for your doctor to think about
than all these combinations?


--
Abolitionist Debt 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 USENET blog: alt.fan.john-turmel