JCT: Archives of all court battles can be found at
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/medpot/messages

Recall in Jan 2003, one week before the Lederman decision on
Terry Parker's application to declare that the Parker I
Invalidation Order of the possession offence had taken
effect on Terry Parker Day Aug 1 2001, there arose out of
Windsor Brian McAllister's J.P. case where the Justice
Phillips found that the Parker I Invalidation Order had take
effect on Terry Parker Day.

Not because the MMAR had failed to comply with the Parker's
court's ruling that Parker be exempted but that, whether it
had complied or not, it had not been legislated properly, a
technical argument which eventually lost at appeal. But J.P.
still got off even though McAllister's technicality lost
because Parker's "fail to comply on time" won. And even
though Brian's J.P. case got credit for all the charges
dropped during 2003 despite his losing argument and Parker
didn't despite his winning argument.

Then when the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the Terry
Parker Day Declaration of Invalidation had taken effect, it
switched the name on the decision from the Appellant "Parker
et al" to the Respondent "Hitzig et al" so the credit for
could be given to the Respondent who had not asked for the
Terry Parker Day declaration and taken from the Appellant
Terry Parker who had asked for the Terry Parker Day
declaration. The court actually did that. It changed the
style of cause for no reason but to steer credit for the
Terry Parker Day declaration away from Turmel's Parker
appeal to Alan Young's Hitzig appeal. When have you ever
heard of a case cited in the name of the Respondent who did
not win and not the Appellant who did!

When they're going to lose, they don't want the guy who won
it to get it so they dismiss his play and then lose it to
another guy. Or, just before dismissing his play, losing it
to the other guy, often on a gimme,

Again on Oct 7 2003, the day of the Parker, Turmel-Paquette,
Hitzig decision, the court summarily dismissed Parker's
appeal for a declaration that the Parker Court I Order of
invalidation had taken effect after the Marijuana Medical
Access Regulations did not comply with the court's ruling to
exempt Parker from the prohibition by July 31 2001. Then the
court admitted that the MMAR had not complied with the
Parker Court's ruling in the Hitzig ruling. So Professor
Alan Young now claims credit at his York University site.
for the Terry Parker Day declaration that got 4000 people
off the hook that Young didn't ask for and that Terry Parker
did ask for.

The Ontario Court of Appeal did do that. It switched the
name of the case from the guy who appealed for it to a guy
they wanted to steer credit to. Remember, when they're going
to lose, they they lose it to another guy before they can
lose it the they guy who really who won it.

Now I think Pierre Drouin's case has suffered the same fate.
Here's a guy who was as sick as Grant Krieger, who qualified
as sick enough for a Health Canada exemption, arguing that
the law against cultivation and possession have been
unconstitutional due to the the Krieger invalidation since
Feb 2 2003. Now they lose the fact the possession offence
has been unconstitutional since not February 2003 or Aug
2001 but December 3 2003 to this new Long decision won on
the "gimme" of government putting back two already-banned
provisions for access.

Is it just another case of them knowing they were going to
lose to the Krieger argument and be forced to admit to four
year's worth of bogus busts so they're making sure they lose
it to a Judas Goat and not lose it to Pierre Drouin and Real
Martin who sought it by summarily dismissing their
Applications for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada on July 12 2007 and then having Long win a
declaration that the law's been dead since 2003 the next
day.

It sure feels the same. When they're going to lose, they
don't want the guy who won it to get it so they lose to
another guy on their narc mole team, their Judas goat.

And of course, who's back with to take the credit for
showing that the law's been dead since 2003 due to a
technicality but Brian McAllister who showed it was dead
since Terry Parker Day 2001 due a technicality. But was
wrong then and would have lost had my Parker case not won.
Wonder if he's wrong again now?

Keep in mind though that McAllister was first to convince
Windsor Justice Phillips and Justice Rogin that Section 2(2)
of the Interpretation Act applied when the Terry Parker Day
took effect so that the marijuana prohibition on possession
had been repealed and had to be re-legislated into
existence.

The Court of Appeal contradicted this righteous argument and
ordered courts to deem laws that have been struck down as
unconstitutional not repealed until re-enacted by Parliament
but only "absent" until fixed by the courts. No more repeals
of laws that can't be fixed by courts. They could unrepeal
capital punishment in the same way.

Though McAllister's reason for why the Parker invalidation
had taken effect, that it had to be enacted in law, not in
policy, was eventually thrown out because policy that works
counts, the fact the MMAR did not work to safety Parker on
time did win.

Finally, McAllister was first to bring to our attention that
the Supreme Court of Canada had noted that the Section 7
cultivation prohibition had been struck down in Krieger! He
then never used the Krieger Ace leaving the honor of first
playing the Ace Brian discovered to Pierre Drouin and Real
Martin.

So I don't know if he's really a Judas Goat or whether he
just fluked getting credit for all dismissals due to Parker
since 2001 and may now get credit for Drouin's eventually
dismissals in 2003.


--
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