JCT: Most people didn't notice that when the Sfetkopoulos
decision ruled that the MMAR had been flawed since 2003 that that
meant the marijuana possession prohibition had been invalid the
whole time and is still now until they fix the flaw according to
Alan Young's on-off theory of penal statutes. Here's some
discussion about the Russell Barth's bone-headed move:

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:37 am
"John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win

JCT: Anybody here cheering for Russell Barth to get Health Canada
to comply with the Sfetkopoulos ruling to fix the MMAR so the
Crown can say that the prohibition that's been dead since 2003
has been oopsed back alive?
Anyone disagree that we're better off without Barth's boner move?
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:16 am
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win

--- In MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Paquette" wrote:
MP: I found out recently (from a reliable source), that our
federal health minister Leona Aglukkaq wrote a letter dated April
24 2009 (after the SCC decision) to a licensed medical marijuana
grower - stating the following;
I regret the delay in responding... the Government of Canada will
not be issuing licences allowing a designated person to produce
marihuana for medical purposes for more than one authorized
person."... Thank you for writing. Sincerely,
<Signed> > Leona Aglukkaq "Minister of Health"

JCT: I need to get that letter to Justice Tulloch proving that
they are not complying and so the MMAR is flawed and the
prohibition is invalid.
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:25 am
"Marc Paquette" <paquettemarc@...
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win
MP: I would get banned from this group for privacy violation if I
would give you more details John, but I believe that such HC
correspondence is available with an access to information
request. You have a letter date, and you know it regards the
MMAR, so that's a good start. Marc.

JCT: I'm sure I can find the time to dig it up to help get
prohibition declared of no force and effect.
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:28 am
"John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win

--- In MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Paquette" wrote:
> By the way John, I found you pretty rough on Russell Barth.
MP: Russell got over 800 letters against prohibition published in
many Canadian newspapers in the last year, and he's one of our
most active members in the MedPot.net Forums.

JCT: What do you think moles and saboteurs do to establish their
bona fides? Of course, he'd be most active before he oopses the
law back alive. I'm going to do a post re-reading the Ontario
Court of Appeal's JP ruling where they keep saying the the
prohibition is only valid with a valid MMAR. Barth's trying to
get it fixed and bring prohibition back alive. I want to keep it
unfixed and the prohibition still dead.

MP: Like I said, you can't blame ANY MMAR Exemptees if the
prohibition of marijuana is withheld by these regulations.

JCT: Just because you're an exemptee doesn't mean you can't be
working against the abolition of prohibition. Look at Allison
Myrden, one of the Hitzig crew who brought the law back alive.
And keeps dissing POLCOA, a 100% Alan Young supporter no matter
how many oopses and knives he's put in people's backs.

MP: You and many other of our current forum members should also
participate in our GREAT MedPot.net Forums - now with 351 members
and more than 121,000 topics and replies...allot of work! :)

JCT: I've never posted there because the moderator said he
wouldn't let my rough stuff through.
Anyway, all Barth's got to do is admit trying to fix the MMAR to
bring the law alive is a true boner move and he's happy to know
that an unfixed MMAR means that there's an unfixed prohibition.
After all the narc moles we've dealt with all these years, how
can you judge by what they say and not by what they do. Judge the
tree by it's fruit, not by its look. Sure, he's an active writer
but why doesn't he argue POLCOA or Sfetkopoulos that the law
remains invalid instead of presuming it's alive and working
within it. If he's a narc mole, I've blown his cover. If he's
just a court clutz, he can apologize and get out of our way if he
can't join the charge for repeal since 2003 or 2001 or even 1983.
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:03 pm
"John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win
--- In MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Paquette" wrote:

MP: Russell Barth didn't have anything to do with Alan Young's
Carasel case, so he's not the one responsible for trying to fix
any parts of the MMAR - he's not to be blamed.

JCT: I didn't say that. Trying to get Health Canada to comply
when they are not complying right now is an error. I judge by the
errors.

MP: Anyway John, Health Canada will not be fixing these
deficiencies in their MMAR regulations, and if they can afford to
ignore the SCC without any consequences, they can also afford to
ignore Justice Tulloch's decision..if positive for Terry and all
of us! Remember that the MMAR were declared unconstitutional once
in Ontario (which was suppose to invalidate marijuana prohibition
within the CDSA law), but they were still arresting and
persecuting marijuana users. If Justice Tulloch declares the MMAR
unconstitutional again, I'm afraid that our medias won't be clear
about it (like the last time), and this absurd and unjust
marijuana prohibition within the CDSA law will continue. :(

JCT: We're not asking the judge to declare the prohibition
unconstitutional, that was done by Parker having the exemption
declared unconstitutional. We're asking the judge to declare the
prohibition of no longer known to law since at least "stupid
gimme" day if not Terry Parker Day.

MP: If fixing these regulations really do keep marijuana
prohibition alive, it's not our fault.

JCT: Don't you see how pushing to get them fixed when the
prohibition is invalid while they are not fixed isn't smart?

MP: You need solid evidence when you say that someone is a
"saboteur" or a "narc" mole, and Russell Barth certainly does not
fit this description!

JCT: He's pushing to have the MMAR fixed now that we have the
admission that it doesn't work. That certainly does fit the
description. Why don't you ask him what's wrong with having the
prohibition invalid while the MMAR is invalid? Why fix the MMAR
when its flaws make the prohibition void?
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:49 pm
KATHY LEWIS <kathylewis@...
Re: [MedPot-discuss] Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect
medpot prohibition after Sfetkopoulos win

KL: I find this talk, especially about Russell Barth, to be
intimidating and discouraging.

JCT: I know that dealing with people who are hurting the abolish
prohibition movement is intimidating and discouraging. The best
moles always our greatest heroes.

KL: Russell writes a lot of very good letters and keeps on
writing when many have stopped.

JCT: What's what a good narc mole would be doing.

KL: Also, I find it unfair to attack Russell or anyone who is
questioning the validity of the MMAR and/or the governments
intransigence on prohibition.

JCT: I attack anyone who is going to hurt the abolish prohibition
movement no matter how lovable or misguided they are. When his
questioning results in the voiding of our victory, it is fair.

KL: Mistrust among exemptees and other drug anti-prohibitionists
is rampant by nature.

JCT: What do you expect? Are the Feds going to infiltrate bridge
clubs? Auto clubs? Pro-marijuana clubs? And their purpose is to
foment dissension. Allison Myrden cozied up to many of my medpot
warriors trying to get them stop. I identify them when I find out
they're still Alan Young supporters.

KL: It comes with the territory of being in this murky world of
illegality vs legality.

JCT: Yes it does. We've seen it all. And when they go after
things that are going to cost us our wins, I get brutal. I did
title my page MedPot Combat Engineering. People's lives are at
stake and I'm going to thump both morons and moles.

KL: Yet, there is a black and white kind of judgment happening
here that is polarizing, ramps up fear, and discourages people
from entering into open dialogue

JCT: Right, it's pretty white that with the Sfetkopoulos flaw in
the MMAR, the prohibition is not valid; and trying fix that flaw
to bring the prohibition back to life is pretty black.

KL: and asking questions that require answers so that we can act
according to what we believe is right and true.

JCT: I'm open about everything. We haven't heard from Russell
Barth. We've only heard from his friends who thinks he's a good-
natured court clutz who wants to take away our victory.

KL: Being accused or suspected of being a 'saboteur" is a
conversation stopper.

JCT: If he's successful, can the Crown say the law's back alive
pursuant to Alan Young's Hitzig resurrection precedent? Do you
want that? Or are you happier knowing that when the MMAR is
flawed, the prohibition is invalid?

KL: It's like being labeled a racist. Once that happens, anything
"the accused" says will be wrong and will give the label even
more credibility.

JCT: Being labeled a moron or a mole saboteur is not like being
labeled a racist. All he has to do is admit that trying to fix
the flaw in the MMAR is a boner of a move when that flaw is
what's making the prohibition dead. He has a fair out and if he
doesn't take it, then it looks more and more like mole over
moron.

KL: Then the accused is "outsidered". It's like maoism. It pits
us against one another and discourages critical debate which i
believe is necessary for us.

JCT: No, it challenges Barth to stop his detrimental action to
fix the MMAR and push to use the flaw in the MMAR to attack the
prohibition. If not, he's a moron or a mole.

KL: Personally, having committed myself to learning and doing
what I can about this murky mess of laws and SC decisions and
what they mean and what we can and can't do about them, has been
a huge, exhilerating. but often terrifying, challenge. I've
asked many many questions and probably expressed opinions that I
held in ignorance. But if I hadn't asked stupid questions or
risked expressing opinions, then i wouldn't have learned anything
or been able to formulate a stance.

JCT: Why the dread? Admit a mistake, change direction, get on
with it.

KL: How conscious can people be of the possible consequences of
their every word action or word? Those with conspicuous power
should be under the magifying glass.

JCT: Barth wants to be a leader, be right.

KL: But most of us have no power in the way society defines that.
Many many of us have made mistakes we've lived to regret. For
some people, those mistakes compromise them because they or their
families are vulnerable to threats by the truly powerful. But
days that i feel terror at reading my e-mail for fear that I will
be accused of some dastardly deed, and "outsidered", are not good
days.

JCT: Sorry, made a mistake. What's next?

KL: This fight we are is between anti-prohibitionists and those
who personally or financially gain from maintaining prohibition.

JCT: I don't know what Barth has to gain from maintaining the
prohibition by fixing the MMAR.

KL: Asking the question "who benefits?" is always in my mind. But
i would hate to stop trying to change things for fear of my peers
turning on me if I utter one word that could be misconstrued as
"narcish" and stand in the way of ending prohibition.

JCT: That's why I don't care what anyone thinks of what I do or
say as long as they can't bet I'm wrong.

KL: Yet that could happen to any one of us because words get
twisted and distorted and threats get made in back rooms by law
enforcement or government. We can't fortell the future or know
what cards the 'other side' holds Nobody will ever do anything
risky or public if we continue this accusatory practise among
ourselves. Everytime we risk being public, as Russell has, we
risk danger both from the law or the accusations from peers that
we are "on the dark side'. I can't see that Russell has great
power in the world, so I don't think he's out to get me by
perpetuating the MMAR.

JCT: If he's not working to perpetuate the MMAR to get you, why
do you think he is working to perpetuate the MMAR? Anyway, all
he's got to do is admit fixing the MMAR is a boner move and he
will have found the right direction to lead again.

KL: I think that everytime one of us batters away at the MMAR, we
are bringing the end of prohibition closer.

JCT: Closer? It's here! He's not bashing away at the MMAR,
Sfetkopoulos did that. He wants to fix it to bring prohibition
that is now dead back to life.

KL: But we can't always know that because we are not the ones in
power. Those with guns and money are in power.

JCT: We don't need guns and money to know, brains will do.

KL: So...my opinion is that if we want to be allies in the fight
to end prohibition, we should be open to critical debate,
questions and open dialogue amongst us without fear of being
labeled a traitor.

JCT: There's nothing wrong with a fear of being labeled a traitor
when you sabotage our win. I'm going to label them traitors. Get
used to it. Until they admit their error and switch, let them
fear The Engineer.

KL: Otherwise, we're just bullies. Sometimes you guys really
frighten me. Fear = silence. Silence = the reign of
authoritarianism. Isn't that what we're fighting?

JCT: When they have no response, when they fear to respond, it's
not a reign of authoritarianism, it's a reign of being right.

KL: If you want newcomers like myself to get scared, silent and
isolationist, then keep up trashing people trying to work things
out, and discourage free exchange of ideas and information and
working collaboratively in open debate.

JCT: I don't work with saboteurs and and I want people with
sabotage on their minds to stay scared, silent and isolationist.
I never met a saboteur I wanted to keep around. The fight over
legalising the world's best medicinal plant is a war with real
victims. You either join the charge to repeal the prohibition or
I bulldoze you if you are in the way. I haven't been called a 1-
man wrecking crew for nothing. No one with honest intentions has
ever been abused by me in our discussions. Only the morons who
won't listen and the moles who aren't listening.

KL: then keep up trashing people trying to work things out, and
discourage free exchange of ideas and information and working
collaboratively in open debate.

JCT: If that's the result of my trashing the traitors, fine. What
do you hope a free exchange of ideas and information and working
collaboratively in open debate will do? The strategy is clear.
POLCOA based on Parker, Krieger, Sfetkopoulos. Discuss tactics
all you want but when some leader is leading them away from the
right strategy and sabotaging our cards, expect war.

KL: The government machine wants to silence the true activists
against prohibition We're not them, are we?

JCT: Doesn't look like Russell's a true activist against
prohibition of Barth's Boner Bring Prohibition Back to life.
--

Date: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:27 pm
"John C. Turmel" <johnturmel@...
Re: TURMEL: Russell Barth to resurrect medpot prohibition after
Sfetkopoulos win

--- In MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Muirhead" wrote:
> > JCT: He's pushing to have the MMAR fixed now that we have the
> > admission that it doesn't work. That certainly does fit the
> > description.
MM: No... he's pushing to force Health Canada and the AG to admit
that prohibition is *illegal*...

JCT: No he's pushing for Health Canada to make the MMAR
constitutional and you know the Hitzig Court said that as soon as
it's constitutional again, the prohibition is valid again. So
tell me again what possible use it is to work on a flawed MMAR
when it us that flaw that's making the prohibition invalid?

MM: and his successful argument will be one more nail in that
coffin.

JCT: Parker put the nail in the coffin. We're trying to get the
funeral over with. We don't need more reasons it's
unconstitutional, Parker and Krieger provide that.

>> Why don't you ask him what's wrong with having the
prohibition invalid while the MMAR is invalid? Why fix the MMAR
when its flaws make the prohibition void?
MM: Nothing's wrong with it - and I'm sure that Russell's answer
would be the same - but you can't crush a police state with one
gun, and you can't stop a legal juggernaut with one argument.

JCT: Alan Young said he derailed Parker's case because he thought
Parker's 2 Aces weren't enough. And he was wrong. How many
arguments do you think it takes if one won't do? Three? Six?
Anyway, fixing the MMAR now that it has been declared invalid
making the prohibition invalid is sabotage. I've got no other
word for it. Another a la Young resurrection attempt.

MM: I'm *not* saying you're on the wrong track, John... yours *is*
the ultimate argument for Canadians' freedom to choose - but it's
been plain for years now that the Feds are not playing this game
by the short rules: they're going to obstruct every single
argument with bulshit untill they run *out* of bullshit... and
every single argument that might *prevent* them continuing with
this tactic has to be considered a good one until it fails.

JCT: And I've finally got them with their own words. Your
pessimism is irrelevant. Quitters don't win and winners don't
quit. We've got a new Sfetkopoulos Ace in our hand and we're
going for the pot no matter how many cards less-trained
strategists think that the Great Canadian Gambler needs more than
one Ace to win the pot against the juggernaut's cards. The bigger
they are, the harder they fall.