John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E.
Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645
Email: turmel@...

BY EMAIL AND FAX

December 31, 2004

Nadia Loreti,
Director, Registry Branch
Supreme Court of Canada
301 Wellington St.
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0J1
Tel: 613-996-8666 Fax: 613-996-9138
Internet: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca
Email: registry-greffe@...

re: File No. 30570
John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty The Queen

Dear Ms. Loreti

In your letter dated today, you wrote:

"I wish to confirm that although Section 65.1 of the Supreme
Court Act allows for granting of a stay of execution by this
Court or a single judge once a notice of application for
leave has been filed, in practice these applications are
first dealt with by the Court appealed from. I therefore
suggest that you first apply for your stay to the Ontario
Court of Appeal."

After considering my greater responsibilities, I cannot take
your suggestion that I follow the accepted practice of first
applying for a stay in the court appealed from. I am not a
"practicing" lawyer, I am a "for keeps" engineer. Section
65.1(1) specifically states:

"Stay of execution -- application for leave to appeal
65.1 (1) The Court, the court appealed from or a judge of
either of those courts may, on the request of the party who
has served and filed a notice of application for leave to
appeal, order that proceedings be stayed with respect to the
judgment from which leave to appeal is being sought, on the
terms deemed appropriate."

In my argument to the Court of Appeal, I had explained how 4
known epileptics in Canada die each day because their
marijuana anti-seizure medicine is prohibited and how they
could end the genocide by admitting prohibition to be
invalid. They admitted it was invalid on Terry Parker Day
Aug.1 2001 as demanded but then also opined that their
operations on another piece of invalid legislation had
resurrected the prohibition.

Going below would allow the Crown to avoid filing their
explanations by Jan 3 2005 and I've already been generous
enough in waiting 10 days. Considering that genocide of
Canada's epileptics continues today and will only end when
the Hitzig decision is stayed; that the Crown are still
improperly charging 1000 Canadians a week under invalid
statutes; and that my request is being followed avidly in
the Internet Court of Public Opinion, I have no choice but
to seek my stay right where I am, not where I was.

If you want to change the practice directions, change them.
Any judge can change the court rules and if a judge of this
court should so order that I first go below for a stay of
execution, I will. Other than a direct Order to go below, I
must insist that my Request for a stay of execution be
signed off on by a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada as
the letter of the Supreme Court of Canada Act allows. I
cannot accept to just leave the highest arena of
adjudication when I really do not have to.

I choose not to deal with the judges who have the blood of
thousands of epileptics on their hands. The Act says I can
choose to deal with a judge who has clean hands. The Act
provides me with the right to have a judge sign off on the
request who is not associated with the judgment from below.
I must insist on that right.

You further mention:

"Furthermore, I wish to remind you that we have not yet
received the signed Order of Mr. Justice Lederman. You must
also file a motion for an extension of time and $50.00
filing fee."

As for needing Orders extending the time for my Applications
for Leave to appeal, Section 59(4) states that an Applicant
in forma pauperis does not need extensions of time when
late. Unless you inform me that Section 59(4) does not apply
to me, I will continue to presume that no such extension of
time is needed.

"Your application for leave to appeal and any related motion
will not be referred to the Court until you have complied
with these requirements."

Though I understand that the Application for Leave to Appeal
cannot be sent up to the panel until I have submitted the
signed Lederman Order, I am only delaying until I can also
submit the missing Order sought in Application for Leave
#30571 and with my two Replies for both applications and the
motions to extend time to file them late.

But this Request for a stay of execution is not a motion
related to the leave application which may be put off to the
leave adjudication. I'm not even sure whether a request may
be referred like a motion to the panel. What's the use of a
stay of execution pending a hearing if it's only decided at
the hearing?

There is no mention in the section that such request for
Stay of Execution has to be treated as a motion or an
application with service on the Crown. It's a request.
Though I did file my documentation in the familiar format
used for motions, it does not mean that I will be limited by
any rules that limit motions being adjudicated. But even if
treated as a motion, it is always a judge who decides if it
should be referred to the panel for final adjudication, not
the Registrar.

This is a request to the court of my choice prior to the
adjudication of the Application for leave to appeal. The Act
states a request must be signed off by the Court or a judge
before the application for leave to appeal is heard, not the
Registrar.

I think that the Request should have already been in the
hands of a judge in case the judge had wanted to order an
expedited hearing. I'm very disappointed to think this
hasn't yet made it to a judge's desk and an extra 28
epileptics have died during the week's delay if the judge
had been so inclined.

If the Crown have not provided a response by their 10-day
deadline next week, please submit myk Request for a Stay of
Execution pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court
Act along to the presiding judge for adjudication.

Yours truly,

John Turmel

cc: Croft Michaelson: cmichael@...
Department of Justice, Ontario Regional Office
130 King St. W. #3400 Toronto, ON, M5X 1K6
Tel: 416-952-7261 Fax: 416-952-0298


--
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

JCT: More twists and turns from the Supreme Court fax I got
a minutes ago:

Supreme Court of Canada
December 31, 2004

MR. JOHN C. TURMEL,
8-37 Colborne E.
BRANTFORD, Ontario, N3T 2G3

Dear Mr. Turmel

re: John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty The Queen
     File No. 30570

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your motion for a stay of
execution received by fax on December 24, 2004.

Further to our conversation of yesterday, I wish to confirm
that although Section 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act allows
for granting of a stay of execution by this Court or a
single judge once a notice of application for leave has been
filed, in practice these applications are first dealt with
by the Court appealed from. I therefore suggest that you
first apply for your stay to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Furthermore, I wish to remind you that we have not yet
received the signed Order of Mr. Justice Lederman. You must
also file a motion for an extension of time and $50.00
filing fee. Your application for leave to appeal and any
related motion will not be referred to the Court until you
have complied with these requirements.

Yours truly,
Nadia Loreti,
Director, Registry Branch

cc: Mr. Croft Michaelson
Mr. Christopher M. Rupar

JCT: How long is requesting a stay from the court appealed
from going to delay things? A week, more? How long can they
stall? But what new angles open up if I take one step south?


--
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

JCT: I got a call from a Supreme Court of Canada clerk
Lucille Bertrand who then put me through to the Director of
Something Nadia Loreti.

Before agreeing, I insisted on a letter detailing the
court's suggestion and I'm waiting for their fax to verify
what was said. I had hoped I'd get the Supreme Court's
position by today but now that it has to be officially sent
to the Crown too, maybe it will be transmitted tomorrow. If
not, I'll call to find out what's causing the delay.

I wonder how Lucille and Nadia are explaining what the court
wants me to do to the Frankel Gang of Crown Attorneys?
Especially since everything I get, they'll have to now get a
copy too!

You know I give up nothing without a fight. But, unusual
things that happen usually benefit me, haven't they? It
usually opens up new angles of attack that fit with my other
cards. Any breach or weakness they show gets focused on.

How can I turn this upcoming letter from the Supreme Court
of Canada to maximum advantage? To maximum pain for the
Frankel gang? By repeated assaults?

I'm almost feeling pity for the Frankel Gang knowing more
and more judges and courts are finding out how they kept
everyone in the justice system in the dark and they're going
to take the fall.

This letter opens up possibilities of the boldest thrusts
imaginable. There have been some breath-taking plays so far,
my favorite was coming up with the Section 65.1(1) Stay of
Execution; that had to be my flashiest hole card as yet.
Imagine something even more powerful than that! Even more of
a zinger than the S.65.1(1) Stay card? Something to really
really increase the pressure just at their weak spot. More
serendipity? Coming up right after the next response!

Tomorrow's letter is going to stun the Frankel Gang in ways
they just can't yet expect. Har har har har. And there's
nothing they can do about it but wait for their copy. It's
all between the Applicant and the Court. Har har har har.
Get ready, here I come.

That's all I'm going to say for now. It's the court's turn.



--
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

>Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:41:10 -0500 (EST)
>From: DKempGray@...
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Long-winded Timedollar questions
>To: Timedollar@yahoogroups.com, Biqu@...

DKG: Dear John, I had hoped you might hrow some light on
Brenda's reference to the "posting by Edgar that seemed to
attempt that. It was helpful, but not totally clear, and
could use some elaboration I think. His bottom line was
"Just make sure you do NOT assign a dollar value to a Time
Dollar."

JCT: Assigning $10 US Greendollars = 1 Ithaca Hour caused no
problems. All the Hour systems relate to the local national
currency with no problems. Except for taxation. When it's
taxable and when it's not. Even Edgar's way of an Hour for
an hour has to be taxable if the hour you serve is a
professional hour. Why shouldn't it be taxable like all
other hours served? There's also the worry that the Hour
will become worth more and more less- and less-valuable
federal dollars but that's never proven a problem either.
Just print both with the Time unit readily usable.

Let's say you see someone earn an Hour during a 1995 period
of 1 hour = $10US. Ten years later, you see someone earn an
Hour during a 2005 period of 1 hour = $15US. When the second
person presents you with his 1Hour=$15US note, you give him
$15 worth of goodies because that's what an Hour is worth in
this 2005 era, more inflated dollars. Say the other person
now approaches and offers you their 1Hour=10US from the 1995
era. Do you give him an Hour's worth of value and will the
rest of society follow in that valuation or will you give
him only the inflated $10 of value for his 1 Hour toil. I
think it's evident that reality is the time token and
inflatable dollars really don't matter much other than in
helping peg the hour's value to the era.

So it really doesn't matter how many variable dollars your
Hour is worth when the only way people have of coping with
the valuation is to resort to the Time Standard of Money. As
long as you print Hours on the note, you can't go wrong.
Including the dollars on the note may confuse but not steer
may wrong. The time value of the note rules, the dollar
value is actually rather unimportant other than in rating
the Hour in that community's era.

DKG: Maybe the answer to at least some of Brenda's questions
lies in the the ability of the Elderplan M2M T$ scheme which
includes a CreditShop catalogue which enables members to
purchase goods apparently sans tax. -- but equally may be my
interpretation is wrong.! Or maybe the answer to the
question might lie on the bosom of TBUSA  (as now labelled)
regards, david

JCT: I see no problem and see great power by Timedollars
linking to the Hour system. You'll simply have to start by
changing the relation from 1 Timedollar = 1 Hour = $10US to
perhaps 10 Timedollars = 1 Hour = $10US. Add a zero to
everyone's account and the link to the national currency is
accomplished with no deleterious effects.

>Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:29:35 -0800 (PST)
>From: kevinparcell@... (Kevin Parcell)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Long-winded Timedollar questions
>To: TURMEL@...
Hi Brenda... I appreciate your interest in these problems.
What you are describing as the problems (war and such) are
actually the result of the problem (irresponsible
exploitation). I recommend that you go to my website and
read my brief and coherent discussion, The Combination
Economy, which defines the problem and describes a solution.
This is a new strategy and I've gotten a very good response
from some of the top economists in the alternative currency
movement. I always appreciate a fresh pair of eyes looking
at it and asking questions and/or offering comments. Kevin

JCT: If it involves abolishing interest, the positive
feedback "instability" it will work. If not, it won't.
---

>From: Timedollar@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:57:43 -0800 (PST)
>From: Anne Rogers <dancing112@...>
>Subject: RE: Long-winded questions :)

AR: dear brenda,
we purposely stay away from the goods for time dollars
because i do not think there is a good answer to your
question.

JCT: And once the answer is acknowledged, then there's no
more need to stay from the unanswerable problem.

AR: the only way we trade goods for services is through the
arts which are really services also. if we do a mailing for
the orchestra in town they supply our members with tickets.
however many they feel they can. no bartering is ever
involved.

JCT: How to do reciprocal trading if there is no valuation
involved?

AR: the same way with the art museum and the theater. our
members trade goods between each other but we leave it
totally up to them.

JCT: So ask them how they did it and then copy them. They've
obviously figured out how, all you have to do is learn.

AR: the two parties involved work it out and as long as they
are satisfied we are. it makes it very easy and we have
never had a problem.

JCT: Why not find out how they did it and do it too?

AR: adam a. in colorado is interested in trying to "marry"
another more goods related system of currency with
timedollars and hopefully he will be able to give you some
good ideas. *if this is not correct adam please let me know.
i feel it is important to work out all the time for time
bugs in our programs before we start confusing the exchanges
with "goods" unless they are traded simply. anne

JCT: If the group can't manage it like two people can, then
don't expect the group to lead. Ask the two people.
---

>Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:06:49 -0800 (PST)
>From: Anne Rogers <dancing112@...>
>Subject: Re: interesting way to handle objects
AR: hi randy,
we have a few members in our exchange that are freecycler
members also and they do work hand in hand as you say.
We now have several more members from freecycling because we
just held our first "Abundance Day"  We had a wonderful day!
People from the community , members and non members
including many people from freecycle came to our auditorium
with three to five items they no longer had any use for.

we asked for new or nearly new useful or beautiful items
that they just no longer needed. they brought them put them
in the designated area and walked around looking for items
they could use for themselves or for gifts. it didn't matter
how much they brought or what they took home.

JCT: How did two people who wanted one thing handle it?
First come? Valuation permits pricing and auctioning. Just
everyone bringing their all to the group and everyone taking
what they need from the group sounds so perfect you'd think
it was communism. From each according to their ability, to
each according to his need. No incentive to excel, no
valuation of effort, no commensurate remuneration. This is
so naively simplistic, all you need is a population who
won't want the same resources. Everyone knows humans don't
covet the same things and humans will cede their own wishes
to satisfy someone else's. Not.

AR: It went so well that the 150 people were asking us to do
this every month.

JCT: The party went to well. Not the trading fair. Because
it wasn't a trading fair of things people value. It was not
a trading exchange. It was a gift exchange of things people
no longer value. A pleasant event, no doubt, but not a
trading event to replace the malfunctioning economy like a
workable timebank would be.

AR: Look out walmart! we plan to set up another Abundance
Day in the Spring! it was beautiful Anne

JCT: Not a chance that Walmart has to worry about a Gift-
your-junk party when they deal with valuable things people
want. As a properly functioning timebank could. Just because
the little gift party went off so well is no indication that
gift parties are preferable to trading parties.

Randy Walton <rwalton3@...> wrote:
The point of Freecycling is not to have a cost for an item
to move it -- it's to take something that would normally be
thrown out and let someone else have it.  Buying and selling
items for Time Dollars probably would not be received well
by the Freecycling community, since it creates a barrier
(cost) to recycling something.

However, the main trouble that Freecycling has is the
transportation of items.  If, say, person "A" is on the west
side of town and is offering an exercise bike, and person
"B" on the east side of town wants it, it is up to person
"B" to go and get it -- "A" doesn't deliver.  A
complimentary effect to the concept of Freecycling would be
to use Time Dollars to pay someone to transport the item
from "A" to "B," since that would lower barriers to getting
the item Freecycled. Randy

JCT: And if the person valuates the thing at twice the worth
of the transport costs, gee, they can then use Timedollars
to effect the trade and effect the transport.

CAtimedollar@... (Pat Hughes) wrote:

PH: cathy@... writes:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freecycleolympia/
C: I see the problem in this is that only things you don't
need would get "cycled" through a Time Exchange.  Someone
could join, take things and sell them elsewhere.

JCT: Great. As long as they honor their commitments to the
group when called upon, who cares what they do with what
they buy?

C: For Time Banks, the point is to create and use a new
currency.  But this the freecycleolmpia system has me
thinking that we can just have a set rate of XTime Dollars
for any sale of items. Some items would have more or less
value, but it would insure: the circulation of Time Dollars
in the "sale", only Exchange members would be purchasing
(insuring a circulation of items within the exchange),
members who needed or wanted to pass on an item would be
able to do that.

JCT: Fixing the price for all items seems silly.

Now, the other thing to work out:
The Time Bank would have additional "work" that must be
considered. Perhaps one of the Time Dollars exchanged on
items would go to the Bank? Somebody help with this point.

JCT: Nothing wrong with a service charge paid for the
system's service.

PH: I would really like for us to work this products cross-
over with the market economy thing out... even if it is done
in several different models. Who is doing another strategy?
Thanks, Pat Hughes

JCT: All you have to do is start with 1 Hour = $10 US
Greendollars and then think in dollars if time's unfamiliar.
People in casinos have no trouble thinking in casino
dollars, no one will have trouble thinking in time dollars
worth 6 minutes.

>Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:34:01 -0000
>From: "cool_lady2" <kmisc@...>
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Long-winded Timedollar questions

> So anyway, it's about goods and taxes. While I love the
> community-building aspects of Time Dollars, and how they
> put an end to 'throw-away people', the heart of my
> perspective is more about replacing the US dollar, to
> whatever extent we can.
> JCT: In the United States, Ithaca Hours and other Hour
> systems value an Hour $10 Greendollars. Just figure out
> how much cash you'd like for your sofa, divide by 10 for
> Hours.

Kathy: Although I understand JCT's point, I am in
disagreement with it in its application to Time Dollars.
The point of LETS tends to be more economic, whereas the
point of Time Dollars tends to be more in the area of
community building/strengthening.

JCT: And the arguments I have with LETSers and SELlistes in
France is that they want to say it's a community building /
strengthening system and I want to say LETS is a labor token
system. Community building it what is done with the tokens.
A Labor tokens system is what it is. It's incredible how
difficult this is to keep in mind. People look at the
results, not at the machine that brought about those
results. See that neat "move-mountains system" or see that
neat "bulldozer." There is a difference and I can't say how
many times I've had to explain it.

Kathy: Although there is / can be considerable overlap
between the two systems by way of philosophies and
methodologies, I think that the difference that I mention
above stands between them, and thus prevents a completely
apples-to-apples comparison.

JCT: It's not a difference between time tokens. It's a
difference in their use. LETS permits trading of services
and goods. Timebanks (without tokens) permit only trading of
services through their control of the registration at the
central computer. With tokens, there's no central control
and people can figure out individually, even if the group
can't, how many tokens something, good or service, is worth.
They used 6-minute time-tokens at the 2004 Timedollar
conference. At your next fair, bring along goods, let the
timebank exchange tiny tokens for a few big credits and let
the trading begin.

> Other postings have described how goods are priced
> elsewhere. Once it was claimed prices are negotiated
> between the parties. Does this not turn things into more
> of a marketplace, making it all more commercial rather
> than neighborly? Doesn't it spurn the hour is an hour
> concept?

Kathy: I would have to say "yes, it spurns the hour is an
hour concept." IMHO of course.

JCT: So if I go to a friend who butchered his cow and trades
a piece to me for my IOU, that's different from going to a
friend's store for the same thing? Yes, tokens create a
market no matter how much you want something non-commercial
to make you feel homey-greeney. Spurning the marketplace and
seeking friendly trading is nothing to be proud of. There's
nothing wrong with an honest marketplace that has to be
avoided.

Kathy: I think that part of the problem here is that people
want to do what Time Dollars aren't really set up to do, and
that's to put a price on goods.

JCT: Of course, they're set up to do it. Ithaca Hours do it.
The problem here is that people want to do what Time Dollars
could be doing but are not set up to do. Putting a price on
goods in time isn't all that hard. Timedollar traders could
do it too. So it's not that it isn't set up to do it, it's
that it isn't allowed to do it.

Kathy: Since Time Dollars are really just an accounting of
time, it is outside their scope to put a value on goods.

JCT: It is outside the cashiers's scope to put a value on
goods but it is within the cashier's scope to put a value on
the token. 1 Hour of pledged labor. Again, confusion between
the system and the users abounds.

Kathy: In order to begin exchanging goods as well within the
Time Dollar system, you have to do backflips to come up with
some kind of solution.

JCT: I see no flipping going on in Ithaca? Their Hours are
worth your Hours. Them doing more with their identical
system than you do with yours is not a function of the
system but rather a function of the competence of the users.

Kathy: Maybe you'll find a solution that works for your
group, but inherently it is arbitrary. <snip>

JCT: No, inherently, it is stable. Print 1 Hour notes, Half
Hour Notes, 6-minute notes, and lend them out to your
members and it's done.

> I think we need some clear guidelines to follow. There was
> a posting by Edgar that seemed to attempt that. It was
> helpful, but not totally clear, and could use some
> elaboration I think. His bottom line was "Just make sure
> you do NOT assign a dollar value to a Time Dollar."
>
> JCT: I don't see how it can hurt. David Williams in
> Hounslow put both 6 Cranes = 1 Hour on their money. No
> problem.

Kathy: Again, I feel that trading "things" for Time Dollars
is outside the scope of what they are intended as;

JCT: Outside the scope of what the controllers intend them
for. As I showed with the timetokens in Toronto, despite
what the controllers had ruled, that our time is all worth
the same, my accordion-playing scored almost 4 Hours per
hour and there was nothing they could do to stop people from
paying me what they thought I was worth. Just use tokens and
all the problems created by the central controllers
disappear.

Kathy: if I understand correctly, one of the primary
intentions of Time Dollars is to reach out to people who
have been marginalized, and to incorporate them into
meaningful exchanges with their neighbors. Although there
may be some economic benefits that they see from these
exchanges, this is not the primary goal.

JCT: Reaching out to people who have been marginalised
without any economic benefits? What's your purpose in
reaching out to people lacking economic benefits if
increasing their economic benefits through a reciprocal
trading system isn't the main reason?

> Ok, so certainly we're never going to do what they do with
> Ithaca Hours (and other systems based on that model) where
> they plainly state each Hour is equivalent to $10.
> JCT: Then your system will never survive. Everyone else
> links to the national currency, why not timedollars?

Kathy: I disagree with JCT's statement that Time Dollars
will not survive.

JCT: After 20 years, they're losing systems. After 20
years, they are not a force to be reckoned with. The reason
is the built-in weaknesses I've decried for 20 years.
Imagine, still full accounting of all trades, still parity
pay for doctors and dog-walkers, no goods, slow growth. LETS
have been called are "economic lifeboats" so why so is it so
hard to get them Timebanks going? When you hit on the
winning combination, growth will become exponential. But
maintain all the engineering weaknesses and malfunctions and
Timedollars will fade away with the high accounting cost
when the government cuts funding.

Kathy: Taken within the scope of what they are intended for
(community building, recognition of work done, etc), they
are a valuable tool to motivate people to get involved in
the world around them.

JCT: Taken within the scope of what they could have
accomplished if they'd been run right, they are a less
valuable too than they could have been and could be.

Kathy: To sort of get off the topic... Although Money claims
to be King, top contenders for the title of king are respect
and recognition from one's peers.  For example, there is a
whole world of top-class software programmers who produce
top-class programs... and don't get paid money to do it. The
currency in that world is respect and recognition from one's
peers.

JCT: Tell that to the landlord. "I have no money to pay my
rent but I have the respect and recognition of the world."
Please get real. Top-class programmers do get paid money.

Kathy: This currency is not linked to any national currency
and yet it thrives big time...

JCT: Sorry, I thought you'd said they don't get paid. Now
they do get currency to pay the landlord with. My mistake.

Kathy: among this group are people who write the software to
run the Internet. In fact, some of the very software itself
is written/fixed by people who aren't getting money for
their contributions. These aren't slackers, folks.  Sure,
they may also have a programming job that pays the bills,
but back home they funnel their programming passions into
pet projects that they share freely with others -- for no
money.

JCT: They "may" have jobs to pay the bills? I'd have said
they "must" because I don't see how they can pay the
bills without the jobs they "must" have.

Kathy: If you are interested in reading up on this type of
thing, I highly recommend the writings of Eric Raymond. See
especially the Cathedral and the Bazaar:
  http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

JCT: Is this another gift economy? Wish I could spend time
checking out another inferior banking systems engineering
effort but I already know UNILETS time-based banks are best
and need look no further.

Kathy: In addition to trading around "hours", those who
participate in a Time Dollars/LETS system are also affected
by this inherent need people have for respect and
recognition. A full roster of transactions shows the
community that you are invested and committed to the system,
that you work at making it work, that you are someone to be
trusted and recognized, etc etc.

JCT: Yes, your shingle is where you proudly display your
scores and your spendings.

Kathy: A person with few transactions may come under some
suspicion... why hasn't he done anything? isn't she
interested in the program? why has this person only done 3
transactions, and the last one from 3 months ago?

JCT: But when the system gets big enough so you know
everyone will take his note too and you can't get stuck with
a bad debt, why would you care? Caring about another's
trading record is a purely small-system consideration.

Kathy: The power of getting respect and recognition should
not be underestimated. Otherwise, why would Hollywood have
all those awards ceremonies?? Or the United Way for that
matter. <snip>...

JCT: The power of getting remuneration for food, clothing
and shelter should not be underestimated either. It's more
important than respect and recognition to most.

> Consider some ordinary everyday services like knitting, or
> cooking. If Tina pays Jack Time Dollars to cook for her,
> he can't very well then eat the meal he made. He could say
> "She paid me to cook and I cooked." But that's obviously
> uncool. If you hire someone to knit a sweater, you expect
> to actually get the sweater. etc.)

Kathy: Yes, but who pays for the materials, like the yarn
and the onions? You could charge for materials some Time
Dollars amount, but then you'd have to come up with some
random exchange rate...

JCT: Tada. You have no choice but to link the Time Standard
to the national dollar standard. Luckily it isn't hard to do
since most pairs of traders manage to figure out what an
Hour is worth.

Kathy: or, simpler, you could reimburse the service provider
for materials the exact same amount they paid for them at
the store. <snip> ...

JCT: Not if it's wood he had to fell himself. Then he has to
price that wood with respect to his time spent getting it.

> JCT: Such egalitarianism is only for the worst. Doctors,
> professionals, people with time worth more than others,
> are excluded by egalitarian pay-rates.

Kathy: No, they aren't automatically excluded. They might,
however, exclude themselves.

JCT: When you create a condition that deters people, sure
you can say you have not excluded them. If they're stupid
enough to take less than they are worth, they can still
join. All you have to do find some that are stupid enough to
give more than they receive. They are not excluding
themselves, having a rule that makes them give more value
than they receive is what's excluding them.

Kathy: However, even that is not a given. They might feel
that investment in building / strengthening the local
community is worth more than cash, and therefore be willing
to provide their professional services at what might be
considered a "discount."

JCT: And I'd point out that if the doctor really wanted to
help, he'd be better of earning $80 an hour doing what he is
professionally worth and hiring 2 or 3 people for $20 or $30
in cash to send them to replace him in building /
strengthening the local community. Right? Getting less than
he is worth is never a good deal for anyone.

Kathy: Again, we must consider what Time Dollars are,
compared to other LETS systems.

JCT: Of course, Kathy really means what Time Dollars do
compared to LETS systems, not what Time Dollar are. They're
both tokens worth time. How they're used doesn't define what
they are. To you, a million-horse power engine is just a
lawn-mower. To me, it's a rocket to the moon.

Kathy: It's primarily about community building, right?

JCT: No, that's the result. It's primarily about helping
effect equitable trading of time between participants to
bring about community building through useful trade.

Kathy: Unless my understanding is way off, Time Dollars are
not intended to replace federal dollars in the way that LETS
units are.

JCT: You're right that the central controllers have no hope
of ever replacing federal dollars because they have not
aimed at the full panoply of functions that federal dollars
perform. LETS timebank do if Timedollars do not. They could
too.

Kathy: As the saying goes, it's a feature, not a bug. ;)
<snip>...

JCT: It's an engineering flaw, so it is a bug. ;)

> JCT: As soon as you have a currency similar to the one
> they are used to dealing with, it becomes more acceptable.
> Sure, most businesses in Ithaca take Hours=$10. But
> Timedollars have no businesses that take Hours=$?.

Kathy: As a replacement for federal dollars, Time Dollars
are inherently not well equipped.

JCT: Sure they are. Those time tokens used at the Toronto
Congress were inherently completely equipped to do the job.
Only the users were lacking despite my demonstration of the
non-parity earning possibility.

Kathy: I don't know how stores would agree to come aboard to
such a system.... But, again, it is my understanding that
that is not the point of Time Dollars.  If you want to
expand to stores and such, a LETS system is more
appropriate.  But it isn't fair to compare them exactly,
because they aren't exactly the same.
<snip>

> JCT: I'd be interested in what they eventually decide but
> would bet that it's going to be the same as everywhere
> else. If you have to pay tax in the cash world, you have
> to pay tax in the local cash world too. Flea market
> dealing is usually exempt in both.

Kathy: Flea markets are cash operated, and thus usually
under-the-table transactions. That doesn't mean that they
are actually legally exempt.

JCT: Professionals who sell their business wares at flea
markets have to account for it. It's not to do with the
token system, it's to do with the business done. Whether the
trade is effected in cash or Green, the taxation rules apply
the same.

Kathy: I have been thinking about starting a system myself,
but am uncertain exactly what form it should take. I am
leaning towards Time Dollars, because I like the community
building aspect. But I also wonder how to include the
exchange of goods as well.  I have come up with an idea that
I'll include in a later posting. Thanks. Kathy

JCT: Goods AND services trading parties don't foster
community-building too?



--
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

>Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:38:59 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@... (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: Crown Prosecuter Frankel should be cited for contempt
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

Dear Chief Justice McLachlin,

I am writing you this letter because of the severe
injustices being dealt out to the canadian public on a daily
basis by the corrupt Frankel gang. My name is Richard
Johnson and along with my wife Suzanne and my teenage
daughter Shaleen we have all been illegally arrested for
possession and cultivation of marijuana.

I was the one who was growing the pot to help alleviate
symptoms of my severe chronic pain, the more pot I am able
to smoke the less morphine and percocet I have to take.  Why
is it that the government made it possible to have my wife
and daughter arrested by the police and then to use those
arrests  to try and coerce me into a guilty plea.  This is
something that i thought only happened in communist
countries.

Being a Canadian citizen and being brought up in the
Canadian school system, I was taught that the provincial
courts of appeals was the highest court in any province.

Once a decision has been granted through a court of appeals
then that decision stands, unless said decision is appealed
in The Supreme Court Of Canada.Since the current marijuana
laws have been deemed of no force and effect in the ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEALS, and the ALBERTA COURT OF APPEALS, and the
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, I beg you as a Canadian citizen to
charge Mr. Frankel with contempt seeing as he totally
ignored the decisions made by the judges in the highest
courts in our country.  Mr frankels use of the lower court
decision in the hitzig mryden trial is totally bogus:

1. The Hitzig decision was only an opinon not a written
judgement

2. How can this decision be used when the ONTARIO COURT and
the ALBERTA COURT OF APPEALS both struck the law of being no
force and of no effect.

3. The SUPREME COURT OF CANADA on DECEMBER 23 2003 in the
WAYNE KRIEGER decision agreed with the APPEALS COURTS that
the current marijuana laws are of no force and effect.

Being the Chief Justice of the land, surely you can see the
great injustices committed against the Canadian public
by Mr. frankels decision not to inform us that the laws are
dead, Canadians are still being arrested and convicted.

When a law is struck down as many times as the marijuana
laws there must be good reason for it. I truly hope that
what i have learned in school is the TRUTH of CANADIAN
Justice, but untill you remove MR. Frankel from office and
have him cited for contempt for his part in covering up the
BIGGEST SCANDEL IN CANADIAN HISTORY, I will continue to
question the Canadian JUSTICE System.

I love MY country and I want to be a proud Canadian, please
stop Mr. Frankel and his prosecuting buddies from causing
any more harm to our great country! SINCERELY,  RICHARD
JOHNSON Elliot Lake,ONT. ( 705-461-8888 )
---

>Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:43:51 -0800
>From: muirhead@... (Michael)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] What about the rule of *law*?

Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin
Supreme Court of Canada
301 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1

December 28, 2004

Dear Justice McLachlin,

Back in 1978 when I became an adult Canadian, I was
privately displeased with some of the rules by which we
Canadians govern ourselves as a nation. Some of them were -
prima facie - plainly wrong, while others simply lacked good
sense to underpin them and didn't seem justified, especially
in light of the cost of enforcing them.  However, I let it
all be for the most part, because it rarely interfered with
how I did things.

Rarely has it happened (at least, it's never happened in my
personal experience,) that a Canadian law has managed at the
same time to be morally wrong, logically unjustified, *and*
prohibitively expensive to enforce and to perpetuate... but
our "Marihuana" statutes under the CDSA have done so, and
they have done so in spectacular fashion, if I may say so.

What's more, they have done so without the actual force of
law behind them, since there are arrests and prosecutions
under their dictates ongoing even now, despite courts in
both Alberta (R. v. Kreiger) and Ontario (R. v. Parker)
having struck them down as unconstitutional years ago...
*and* despite the Supreme Court of Canada having refused to
hear an appeal of the Alberta decision that struck down the
law.

How is it that police have been able to continue arresting
(and Crown prosecutors have been able to continue trying)
citizens who have not broken any existing law?

Ask S. David Frankel. He's the fellow currently sitting in a
position to tell *everyone* serving in Crown Counsel that
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act presently does not
pertain in any way to "marihuana". He's the roadblock (and
likely the scapegoat, if I may hazard a guess,) standing in
the way of the "administration of justice"... as in
"adherence to the rule of law".

There are monied interests (for instance, check out who
Cannasat's shareholders and representatives are...) looking
to cash in - very large scale - on the use of Cannabis as
medicine, and they're looking to do so by maintaining
Canada's general prohibition (complete with penal
sanctions,) of the cultivation, possession, and use of
Cannabis by ordinary citizens. This will allow them to
charge prices for their products which compete reasonably
with the "danger pay" being charged presently for black-
market marijuana... even though the black market is fraught
with risks Cannasat would never face.

For example... based on what I've been reading in the
pharmaceutical-market literature, it will be possible for
Cannasat to charge over $1000 (retail value) for products
extracted from a single gram of top-notch marijuana... the
entire gram of which anyone with a green thumb and some time
to spend can grow for themselves at a cost of $3 or so.

Maintaining prohibition thus serves only one purpose: it
grants (to a VERY few people,) a monopoly market for the
sale of cannabis-derived drugs... while making sure at the
same time that their only competitors are criminals...
criminals who charge extra for the risks they undertake to
supply consumers with one of the least toxic drugs known to
man... criminal competitors whom Cannasat can depend on the
RCMP and other police forces to arrest and prosecute on
their behalf.

If a law promulgated by Canada's legislature is going to be
enforced, it should be consistent, it should be logically
supported, and it should be fair.   Prohibition of marijuana
is none of these, and for all three violations, it has been
justly struck down in two provinces under two differing sets
of grounds.

Mr. Frankel stands in the way of all three of these
principles in his treatment of people who've been caught
"breaking" a law that doesn't exist anymore... and findings
against him for contempt for and abuse of process are
probably in order.   That's where you come in.

I have multiple sclerosis, diagnosed nearly a decade ago...
and on advice given me by my mother (who also has MS,) I
smoke marijuana to relieve spasms and spasticity in my legs,
and to provide me with restful sleep from which I can awaken
with energy enough to get on with my day.  It *works*, and
for the purposes for which I use it, it's considerably
cheaper and *vastly* safer than anything else I've been
offered by 10 whole years' worth of medical professionals.

There are many tens of thousands of others in situations
similar to mine. There are millions more whose use of
marijuana throughout their lives has done no one the
slightest harm.   There is *NO LAW* preventing them from
doing so, but they are being prevented nonetheless, by
ignorant police and by zealous advocates (and financial
beneficiaries) of a dead statute.

It's up to you and the SCC to inform them all - by way of
citations against Mr. Frankel? - that there *is* no law
which prohibits the use, possession or cultivation of
Cannabis in this country.   The old law died ages ago, and
until Parliament comes up with a new law, there is no longer
*any* law.

Sincerely,
Michael Muirhead
Queen Charlotte City, BC
250-559-9012

JCT: Thanks for getting this on the record in the Chief
Justice's office. Someday, historians will have access to
those records and will honor those with the gumption to have
spoken up. As for the others, remember my answer to those
who say "what can one person do?" "Obviously nothing if that
person is you. If it's me, my best."



--
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

JCT: It's the only way left to influence the motion to stay
execution of the Hitzig decision I triggered on Dec 24 2004.
The Chief Justice can grant the request, expedite a hearing,
wait 10 days for the Crown reply, then do something. All the
while, we have to be getting people to send in their
opinion. Where are all these "activists" who urge us to vote
in polls all over the Internet? Here's a opinion poll that
really counts and they're going to miss it because they
don't like the organizer who put the focus on 1 stake over
heart. Here are the first people to record their opinion on
whether the Hitzig resurrection should be stayed and
prohibition turned off and citing the Crown for abuse and
contempt:

>Orchidman
>Re: Mike South Uses Get Out Of Jail Kit & Gets Out
>Date: #1012239 - Sun Dec 26 2004 07:13 AM

O: Here is a letter I sent today.

JCT: Instant reaction. Thanks much.

O: Dear Chief Justice McLachlin,

I feel it is my duty as a Canadian to speak up when I see a
grave injustice in my country. In 1982 this country changed
from a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional
democracy. The constitution is now supreme. It is the duty
of the court to ensure that the constitution remain supreme.

If police violate anti-privacy laws they must be stopped. If
crown prosecutors prosecute in violation of the constitution
they must be stopped. If governments try to uphold laws that
are unconstitutional they must be stopped. The constitution
is now King.

When the court sees repeated violation of the constitution
in cases such as the abuse of process in the marijuana laws
they have a duty to put there foot down hard.

JCT: I sure hope so. If not to rein in an errant Sheriff,
who? The King of Parliament? The Court? Citing for contempt
has to be a useful tool here. Can anyone not say that
continued prosecutions under a statute they admitted was
invalid is an abuse of process and should be cited for
contempt for what they did and if they don't stop?

O: No law is better than the confusing state of the
marijuana laws today.

JCT: And no law is what it really happens to be.

O: As a citizen of this great country I am entitled to a law
that is clear and free of confusion and every person must be
treated equally. Many courts have ruled the marijuana laws
are too confusing and threw out the cases.

JCT: Some threw them out because the marijuana laws were
dead too.

O: Now the court has an opportunity to put things straight.
The motion coming before you from Mr John Turmel to cite the
Crown Prosecutors for contempt and abuse of process is your
chance to put your foot down hard.

JCT: Oh, is it ever. End the nightmare for the whole country
all at once. Make room in the jails to give serious
criminals some space. I can move on to bigger things at the
UN next. The U.N. marijuana laws are killing the Third World
too and The Engineer's job ain't over until everyone's got
access to the best herbal medication God ever gave us.

O: I have read every word of his motions and I think he is
absolutely correct. There is no marijuana law as we speak
and the police are still arresting people.

JCT: I'd bet they're going to have correct over 200,000
invalid convictions under the invalid statutes.

O: When the law was dead for the summer of legalization our
society did not fall apart. If you stay the Hitzig ruling
like John Turmel is asking our society will not fall apart.
If you uphold the constitution our society will not fall
apart.

JCT: Great point. If there was any use to the 26 months of
liberation from Terry Parker Day Aug 01 2001 to Hitzig-
Myrden Day Oct 07 2003 that's call the "summer" of
legalisation, it's that society did not break down. Thanks
much for bringing that to her attention.

O: And if you over-ride my rights with the cop-out clause of
"compelling public interest" it better be compelling.

JCT: And what they found compelling enough to beat
recreational use at 6:3 judges will certainly not be
compelling enough to beat medical necessity and medical
prevention uses.

O: I really do believe in the harm principal which states
that if I do no harm to others then I should be kept
harmless. How could the court over-ride that for the sake of
marijuana.

JCT: The Court has only ruled it's compelling enough to beat
the Malmo-Levine recreational use claim. The court has not
yet ruled on whether the need to protect society is
compelling enough to beat the Parker medical and Turmel
preventative medical claims. Can you not see how the Turmel
claim to increase protection for Epilepsy, Dystonia, MS,
Fibromialgia, and so many other diseases is much stronger
than the Malmo-Levine claim to increase his recreational
fun?

O: Even the most devious pedophile must be guaranteed the
rights of the constitution and his rights should not be
over-ridden except in the most compelling cases. To over-
ride my rights for the sake of a marijuana cigarette is
ludicrous.

JCT: I'm an adult with a Grade 17 in science and many more
years of post-graduate research and I say what I choose to
medicate myself with shall be my choice to the ends of my
forces.

O: According to the Leger and Leger poll a couple of years
ago 1 million people in Canada use marijuana as medicine but
the government has about 500 licenses for exemptions. With
the recent withdrawl of all major selling pain killers from
the pharma-monopolists I believe there will soon be a lot
more people using the safest pain killer, marijuana.

JCT: And Judge Lederman called that a success. 9 epileptics
out of 400,000 and this Gilligan of the Bench ruled that The
Taj Professor's math was "weak." Not wrong, weak. Only a
trained lawyer could think something right can be "weak."
But 9 epileptics protected out of the whole 400,000 Canadian
epileptic population, less than 1 in 40,000 and Justice
Lederman called that workable enough to pass constitutional
muster. The other 39,999 who don't qualify will have to do
without resulting in 4 dead epileptics a day who knew they
were epileptics and should have possessed a joint to stave
off their seizure.

And Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons agreed! Repeat:
Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons agreed that 9 out of
400,000 epileptics was successful enough to call the MMAR a
reasonable response! Only failure to provide supply at the
pharmacy was the problem and Alan Young's Hitzig case fixed
that up just fine.

O: The whole MMAR is an abuse of my rights. According to the
Parker ruling a patient in Canada has the right to the
treatment of their choice. What happened to the rights of
the 1 million Canadians. What was the compelling interest to
deprive them of their rights.

JCT: As Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons pointed out,
when the million sick-enough Canadians are dragged before
their tribunals, they'll be let off. Right. Justices Doherty
Goudge and Simmons said the cops bust everyone and those who
are sick get off. If they survive confiscation of their best
medicine. No kidding.

O: Everyone knows that the Hitzig ruling is a farce. The
court doesn't have the authority to re-write the law once it
has been declared unconstitutional. I think John Turmel's
request to stay the Hitzig ruling is correct.

JCT: They can reply, if it's dead, then there's no reason to
stay Hitzig. We have to answer "until it's admitted dead,
while they're still busting, there is reason to stay Hitzig.

O: This is the most confusing part because the resurrection
of a dead law is unconstitutional. Once it has been declared
unconstitutional it is of no force and effect. Period.
Immediately. Read the constitution.

JCT: Has the Chief Justice read it? Orchidman has.

O: In my opinion it has been unconstitutional since 1982 and
all charges since 1982 should be reversed.

JCT: I agree. It's one of the three alternatives I asked
for. All the way back to Mama Turmel's birthday 1982. April
17 1982. Just like the admission should have happened on
April 17 2002 at the Chapnik hearing before Crown Lara
Speirs got Parker stabbed in the back by a friend.

O: The court does not have the power to fix it up. I believe
it is your duty to stay the Hitzig ruling and cite the crown
for contempt.

JCT: I sure hope it's her duty.

O: Please give Mr Turmel's work the consideration it
deserves. Study it carefully please before you rule. His
arguments are irrefutable.

JCT: Sure seems that way. And the Crown's continual back-
pedalling and stalling have to point that way too. It's just
the magnitude of the abuse that's so startling as the stun
the mind. We understand.

O: If you stay the Hitzig ruling it basically means we have
no marijuana law again. That's okay because our society will
not fall apart and the law will once again be clear cut for
all to understand. No law. Constitution is King.
Respectfully, Orchidman Toronto

JCT: And yet, most of the press spokespeople for the Crown
keep saying that "no law" is muddy, confusing, hard to get a
handle on. Maybe they just can't cope with the job.

O: p.s
It is also the job of the courts to try and build a case law
that reflects the views of society. A recent poll that asked
what should happen to people found in possession of small
amounts of marijuana got a result of 55% in Canada and 68%
in Quebec saying they should be left alone. So when I come
before you your honour for possession of marijuana it is
your job to leave me alone in order to reflect the views of
society. Nice eh?

JCT: Thanks. Perfect gentle but righteous indignation. I'd
be asking if she'd consider grabbing Frankel's passport
before he tries to get out of town.

Doug and Laurie get on the record:

>Buds_4_Life  Post #83
>Dec 27 2004, 02:45 PM
>http://www.commongroundcommonsense.com

D&L: We need everyone to write to the Supreme court of
Canada whether you've been charged or not, & tell them to
stop the lies. Here's a snip from John's explanation & our
letter to the courts. D & L

JCT: "At least she'll get an idea of the kind of sad cases
that will be pushed through her court if she doesn't do
something now.
There aren't too many times for an ordinary Canadian to have
a big influence in changing the laws. This is one of them.
Now's the time to fax and email your letters demanding
justice from the Chief Justice and her court.
Just like Frankel's the lynch-pin that brings the whole
prohibitionist establishment crashing down, McLachlin is the
lynch-pin that can bring the whole 9 Big Bricks down on
Frankel's head.
Now's the time to send an email to your whole address book
urging them to strike while the iron is hot. And it's red-
hot now. It's hotter than it's ever been before. Strike the
match under Frankel's ass. Sumbitch David Frankel's coming
down."
Executive Assistant to the Chief Justice,
Wendy Shoenherr-Geoffroy
Tel: (613) 992-6940 Fax: (613) 952-3092
Email: eacj-aejc@...
---

Wendy Shoenherr-Geoffroy
Executive Assistant to the Chief Justice,

JCT: Actually, make sure to mention it's for the Chief
Justice, though I'd bet Wendy knows.

D&L: Dear Madame,

We're writing to you about a situation that is of national
importance, unfolding across Canada right now.

We had our door broke down by the police with guns drawn,
under the guise of a legal warrant & have been charged with
possession & possession for the purpose for a mere 20 grams
of marijuana. Our daughter was home that horrifying night &
was dragged in & charged along with us. We're just very
thankful that the youngest was at a friends house at the
time or her life would have been ruined also.

Now let to get to our point.
There are many sad cases like ours in the courts across
Canada right now. Thankfully we have a growing network of
people that know the truth & are challenging the validity of
the law as well as the negligence on the part of the crown
attorney's office as per John Turmel's motions.

In crown Frankel's memorandum of Krieger, he admits the law
would fall if not given leave to appeal & that leave was
denied; which means the law died & the Krieger order stands.
Frankel had an obligation to stop all busts & stay charges
under the fallen C.D.S.A. until Parliament could legislate a
new constitutional law.

JCT: That's the point to keep hammering home. If not
Frankel, the Crown who lost the case and has to explain it
to Minister Anne McLellan who then decides whether to
announce the invalidity of the statutes or whether she takes
advantage of the media misrepresentation to hide the truth
until she's shifted out of the Ministry and no longer
responsible. The new guy is, and he wasn't there and won't
know anything.

D&L: People are still being charged & shuffled through the
system as if the Supreme court of Canada has no power, only
opinions. THIS MUST STOP NOW!!!!

JCT: Righteous indignation for being embarrassed at being
dragged through the system for an invalid statute she
herself knocked down. Sad we have to explain Krieger to her,
it was her case.

D&L: Every person in Canada that has been charged under the
unconstitutional C.D.S.A. since Terry Parker Day August 1,
2001 should have their records wiped clean.

JCT: Give me an hour with the Government computer
programmers and I'll explain the code they have to write to
effect the desired output. I.e., if they can't figure out
how to do it, The Engineer can.

D&L: We're informing people of how their rights are being
stripped away from them & it won't be long before the courts
will be overloaded with motions to quash.

JCT: Motions appeals, applications for leave to
appeal, constitutional challenges, jury trials, release
motions, appeals and second applications for leave to
appeal, real guerrilla law warfare.

D&L: The following are the steps we're all willing to take
if needed to show the country the truth. We have already
been throughout the lower court & are now moving up to
Superior court, with many others following behind us.
1) Motion to Quash charges; done
2) Motion to Prohibit which stays proceedings below; this is
where we are
3) Appeal to the Court of appeal; next
4) Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court; if needed we'll be
there

JCT: I have no doubt the Nielsens will reach the top before
they have to start at the bottom again with those who did
not.

D&L: 5) Motion to stay for constitutional medical need like
Parker & Krieger; this is where we bring into play our
legitimate NEED for marijuana as per category 2 of the
unconstitutional MMAR.

JCT: Surprise, they qualify for exemptions except doctors
won't sign and the Pitt decision says that when the doctors
don't sign, the constitutionally acceptable medical
exemption is absent and the prohibition is absent with it
too!

D&L: 6) Only then do you have a trial
7) Appeal to the Court of appeal
8) Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court

As we said before there are MANY people like us that have a
legitimate need for the healing herb, but we won't use that
in court until there is no other option for us.

JCT: Imagine 8 steps to convict everyone they bust.

D&L: What crime did we commit in our own living room?
Smoking, buying & selling MJ is done between two informed
consenting people, what crime is there with no victim? MJ is
helpful, not harmful, at least not until you add the police
element to the equation. You see if a substance is legal,
there's no need for it on the black market, therefore
reducing any related crimes.

We urge you to take notice of the injustice that has been
happening & make right the wrong that continues to hurt
innocent people across Canada. Doug & Laurie Nielsen

JCT: Make right the wrong. What a way to end a plea. I'd
love to hear the Frankel gangs responses. Of course, if she
calls them on the carpet, your points may make a whole lot
of difference.

Frankly, I'm amazed that there seem to be so few people out
there willing to ask the Chief Justice to cite the Crown for
prosecuting under a dead law.

Count all the people out there pontificating that the law is
dead and then wonder how they can miss the chance to
pontificate to someone who finally matters.

I've put the stake over the vampire's heart but I might not
have to weight to push it through. But you sure have to
admit that the vampire knows there's a stake over its heart
and I'd bet the Frankel gang may already be packing their
bags and getting their travel papers ready for the big
escape.

Come on, admit it, staying the Hitzig decision destroys
their whole resurrection scenario. Applicant for leave to
appeal may request the Hitzig decision be stayed, I'm
requesting.

At the same time is the abuse of the her own court.

If you agree the Hitzig resurrection should be stayed and
the Ministry of Justice should be thumped, how can you sit
quiet with 1 day left to let someone with the power to save
us know how much we'd appreciate her saving us.

I think I'll have to split activists into two groups from
here on, those who struck when it counted and those who did
not. I know, this is such a spectacular positioning of the
stake over the heart that not even their deepest moles can
support it. It's our way of exposing those deepest moles. Or
densest morons.

Abolitionists of cannabis prohibition, this is your last
judgment day. If you don't get your say in to the person
with the power to do the coup de grace on the system that's
hurting you, I won't be able to call you an Abolitionist.

You've got 32 hours to help make a difference. Getting your
friends to make a difference is part of it too.


--
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

>http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/20/thread20042.shtml
>From: ron Comment #35
>Date: December 23, 2004 at 01:24:40 PT
>Subject: How Mike South got out of jail.

R: The Terry Parker ruling in 2001 struck down Canadian laws
against possession of cannabis. The Kreiger ruling in 2002
struck down Canada's laws against cultivation of cannabis,
but crown and media conspired to keep Canadians in
ignorance.

JCT: Actually, the Terry Parker ruling of 1997 may have
struck down S.7 too.

>Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:40:32 -0800
>From: wworld@... (Evers)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Fw: Question for Terry

N: Terry - according to the Parker Court of Appeal - Crown
only appealed the possession charge didn't they? Why did
they not appeal the cultivation charge? Wouldn't that also
make Judge Sheppard's ruling effective immediately?

JCT: It is funny that they only appealed the possession stay
and not the cultivation stay. Of course, the Court of Appeal
admitted that if the Crown had appealed against the
cultivation stay, they would have struck it down like the
possession offence.

So the question is: Is the possession offence struck down
because the Crown appealed their loss and lost again but the
cultivation offence is not struck down because the Crown did
not appeal their loss? That seems to be their argument. If
they appeal and lose, then it becomes binding but if don't
appeal and lose, they just give up, it is not binding?
Remember, these guys will argue any inane thing. We saw that
in the J.P. appeal where they argued that issue an MMAR that
intended to fix things keeps the law alive even if it didn't
fix things. DeFreitas argued wanting to fix it was as good
as fixing it for the purposes of keeping the law alive.

N: Sheppard:  It is ordered pursuant to Section 52, that
Section 4(1) and Section 7(l) of the C.D.S.A. be read down
so as to exempt from its ambit persons possessing or
cultivating Cannabis (a schedule II substance) for their
personal medically approved use. Thanx.  Noreen PS.  Merry
Christmas everyone. Dec 10 1997

JCT: Since they did not appeal Sheppard reading down S.7(1)
so as to exempt all sick people, then it must be so except
the media didn't tell us and so it maybe ain't so.

N: ONTARIO JUDGE SHEPPARD STAYS PARKER CHARGES
Judge Sheppard stays charges against Terrance Parker ruling:
"Mr. Parker will be granted immediate protection under
Section 24(l) of the Charter of a stay of proceeding with
respect to count I (cultivate a narcotic, Section 6(l) N.C.A.)
and the September 18, 1997 count (possession of a controlled
substance, Section 4(l) of the C.D.S.A). All plant material
(three plants) seized from him by the Metropolitan Toronto
Police Services on September 18, 1997 is to be returned to
him forthwith..."
"...It is ordered pursuant to Section 52, that Section 4(1)
and Section 7(l) of the C.D.S.A. be read down so as to
exempt from its ambit persons possessing or cultivating
Cannabis (a schedule II substance) for their personal
medically approved use.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/sheppard.htm

JCT: So by not appealing, they're claiming that Parker's win
isnt' official like his win over possession. It will be an
interesting thing to find out how S.7 was dropped off the
appeal. And if they're saying the S.7 win doesn't win
because they did not lose an appeal like the lost an appeal
against the S.4 win. A win isn't a win until the Crown loses
at the Court of Appeal seems to be their argument.

Of course, no one ever asked them to explain what happened
to S.7. Neat how they just ignored appeal it and then just
ignored obeying it. Seems more of the same contempt for a
court process that doesn't not react to being treated with
the contempt that just might be warranted. I know I feel a
certain contempt for courts that can't have their orders
obeyed. Seems kind of comical to have to lofty judges making
grand orders that are ignored as just so much fart gas.

R: In October 2003, the Hitzig ruling was falsely and
wrongly interpreted by press, police and courts as
reinstating the laws against cannabis.

JCT: They were all quoting Professor Alan Young who crowed
that "as of 9am this morning, the period of legalisation is
over." The media don't make up the lies, they need liars to
quote. Iovinelli had to state the big lie that Krieger did
not apply to all Canada for the media to quote him and Young
and to state the big lie that the provincial resurrection
did apply to all Canada. The presstitutes need a Judas Goat
to do the lawying they can then report.

R: Only parliament can resurrect dead laws.

JCT: We know that but after Young told them courts can do
it too, many Canadians put their brains in neutral and
simply believe. After all, it's a law professor telling the
big lie, that makes it believable.

R: The proof is in the pudding. Every time Krieger and
Parker are cited in cannabis prosecutions the crown backs
down.

JCT: Except they put up resistance in the Nielsen case
though we're only just now about to introduce the contempt
motion to their application to prohibit too.

R: Mike South didn't even get to open his mouth in court.
Once the prosecution realized what they had on their hands,
they waived any objection to his appeal to get out of jail.
And he had been sentenced for trafficking!

JCT: That's the neat part. He's arguing that the repeal of
S.4 and S.7 affected his charge under S.5. They could have
argued that they are orthogonal (mutually exclusive) and do
not relate to each other at all. Their acceptance of the
repeals of S.4 and S.7 as relevant to a S.5 charge is a key
error on their part. Or key cave-in.

R: Wardens will soon be besieged by inmates wanting to play
the same cards as Mike South.

JCT: Not if nobody knows. The Brantford Expositor has been
told about Mike being sprung and did not report it. They
reported his going in but not his getting out.

Similarly, the only reason Mike went to jail was because
editor David Judd decided not to report on the Nielsen
Krieger challenge. Everyone convicted like Mike will be able
to blame the Expositor for not informing them.

Mike owes me some hours and I'm going to stick him in front
of the court-house passing out quash kits announcing his
being on the outside is proof positive that no one needs go
to jail just because the Expositor hushed up the stay out of
jail quash kits and now the "get out of jail" Turmel grounds
clause. Think of the Turmel Clause as the Turmel Claws.

R: The defense played offense too. Mike also submitted a
Notice of Motion to Cite David Frankel, the Crown Prosecutor
who lost the Krieger case. Even though the law was dead,
Frankel told police and prosecutors to carry on with
business as usual. Because of him at least a hundred
thousand people have been arrested under a non existent law.

JCT: It's incredible when you think about it. Because of one
crooked Crown at the top, more than a hundred thousand
Canadians were deliberately abused by the courts.
Deliberately since he admitted knowing the hidden truth.

R: The Canadian media have been as silent or misleading
about this issue as the American have been about 9/11.

JCT: The Turmel blackout is incredible, isn't it. And
remember that there are almost 700 reporters that I
subscribed to my medpot yahoogroup for the past 4 years.
Reporters all over the country have been following what's
going on and know best they'd better shut up if the whole
country's major media can squelch a story about the Frankel
Gang's 100,000 Bogus Charges Scandal.

Even little papers like that in Elliot Lake and Cochrane,
Hearst and Kapuskasing have not reported on the Dynamic
Duo's Krieger challenge. So just like David Judd is
responsible for everyone convicted since he suppressed the
Nielsen Krieger challenge, I hope the editors in Elliot Lake
and Cochrane are soon confronted by the angry people they
let get convicted by not reporting on the truth. And
hopefully, those angry former inmates won't have taken any
laughing grass before the visit to the newsroom but more
likely some legal alcohol. I'd love to see some 300 pound
guy fresh out of Elliot Lake jail getting drunk and then
going to tell the editor how much his suppression of the
story hurt. Making the editor have to apologize to a bunch
of angry drunks may make him appreciate the advantages of
laughing grass over angry water. Har har har har. Payback.
Oh, and when Mike finishes his shift in front of the court-
house, he'll be able to picket the Expositor 2 blocks away
telling everyone how their suppression of the truth cost him
2 weeks in hell. Payback time for the presstitutes who
covered up the stay and get out of jail forms.

R: When the jails start emptying though, they might take
notice. Read the full story of Mike's release here:
http://yahoogroups.com/group/MedPot-discuss/message/8423

JCT: And we have to make sure to send those newly released
inmates to visit the newspaper editors whose suppression of
the truth is responsible for their incarceration. Maybe an
angry former inmate might be able to get the editor to
explain why he didn't think the Krieger challenges were
newsworthy enough to be printed. Starting with the
Expositor's cover-up artist next week.

Judd may have had a merry Christmas but he's going to have a
real unhappy New Year now that what he did has been exposed.
Ask Doug and Laurie, their reporter was there taking notes.
So the story deliberately squelched. Pay-back coming up.
Har har har har.



--
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

>Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:53:48 -0800
>From: wworld@... (Evers)
>Subject: Fw: Supreme Court of Canada 'dismissal'
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

-----Original Message-----
>From: Evers [mailto:wworld@...]
>Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:57 AM
>To: Ask the Chief Judge
>Subject: Supreme Court of Canada 'dismissal'

If the Supreme Court of Canada 'dismisses' an appealant -
but gives no reasons for the dismissal - would the decision
by the Court of Appeal still be valid?

>From: Ask the Chief Judge
>To: Evers
>Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:35 PM
>Subject: RE: Supreme Court of Canada 'dismissal'
Dear "Evers":
Thank you for your inquiry to "Ask the Chief Judge." This
site provides general information about the BC Provincial
Court and the BC justice system. Any responses are for
general information only and do not constitute legal advice
or authority for court proceedings or any other purpose.

The simple answer to your question is that if an appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada (or any appeal court) is
dismissed without reasons (usually this relates to an
application for leave to appeal), the decision appealed
from, that of the Court of Appeal in the situation you have
referred to, remains "valid," as if it had not been appealed
from.
We trust this is of assistance and thank you for your inquiry.
Ask the Chief Judge

JCT: So as Court of Appeal Justices Costigan, Wittman and
LoVecchio said, they dismiss the Crown's appeal against
Acton striking down Section 7 and Section 4 of the CDSA!

The Frankel Gang have no alibi except they thought that if
the media didn't report on it, it didn't count.


--
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

JCT: Boy do I feel like an idiot mis-writing the name of the
Chief Justice as McLaughlin when it's McLachlin.

The court isn't sitting again until Wednesday. Hope there's
a pile of mail urging the Chief Justice to stay the Hitzig-
Myrden Resurrection Decision (always include "resurrection")
and bring the Frankel Gang to Justice.

>breefairy
>Re: scc chief justice letters  [Re: elagabalus]
>Date: Sat Dec 25 2004 12:18 PM

Everyone take the time to write your local media and the
supreme court of canada, chief justice beverley mclachlin at
Supreme Court of Canada
301 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1
Telephone: (613) 995-4330 Fax: (613) 996-9138
E-mail: reception@...

JCT: True, those number and email should get to the court
but I think it's better sending them directly to the:

Executive Assistant to the Chief Justice,
Wendy Shoenherr-Geoffroy
Tel: (613) 992-6940
Fax: (613) 952-3092
Email: eacj-aejc@...

JCT: We've got until Wednesday to stuff her box with pleas
for justice.

For those of you who have been charged, the Nielsens, the
Johnsons, Pierre Drouin, Real Martin, Mike South, Noreen
Evers, do include your medical need while explaining you're
going to do the Turmel Eight-Step and only bring up the
medical need in Step 5 after attempting to down the law
first.

1) Quash, 2) Prohibit, 3) Appeal, 4) Leave to appeal,
5) Stay, 6) Trial, 7) Appeal, 8) Leave to appeal.

1) Motion to Quash charges already up at the mpforms site;
2) Motion to Prohibit which stays proceedings below;
3) Appeal to the Court of appeal;
4) Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court;

5) Motion to stay for constitutional medical need like
Parker/Krieger;
6) Only then do you have a trial;
7) Appeal to the Court of appeal;
8) Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court.

At least she'll get an idea of the kind of sad cases that
will be pushed through her court if she doesn't do something
now.

There aren't too many times for an ordinary Canadian to have
a big influence in changing the laws. This is one of them.
Now's the time to fax and email your letters demanding
justice from the Chief Justice and her court.

Just like Frankel's the lynch-pin that brings the whole
prohibitionist establishment crashing down, McLachlin is the
lynch-pin that can bring the whole 9 Big Bricks down on
Frankel's head. Now's the time to send an email to your
whole address book urging them to strike while the iron is
hot. And it's red-hot now. It's hotter than it's ever been
before. Strike the match under Frankel's ass. Sumbitch David
Frankel's coming down.


--
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

JCT: Today, I served and filed my request to stay the Hitzig
Resurrection Opinion pursuant to S.65.1(1) of the Supreme Court
Act and cite the Frankel gang for abuse and contempt of court.

File Number: #30570
Appeal Court No: 39740
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
         (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:
                          John C. Turmel
                                                         Requester
                                               Applicant for leave
                                               Appellant in appeal

                                and
                       Her Majesty The Queen
                                                        Respondent
                                              Respondent for leave
                                              Respondent in appeal

              NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
                     JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
      (Pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John C. Turmel requests pursuant to
Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act in forma pauperis:

1) an Order staying the Oct 07 2003 judgment of Justices Doherty,
Goudge and Simmons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig-
Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette #39740 on the grounds that the
Hitzig decision ruling on S.4 did not deal with the Krieger S.7
repeal but is cited as basis for continued prosecutions under all
sections;

2) an Order, in the absence of proof that all inmates convicted
since the marijuana prohibitions were repealed have been
released, citing the Ministry of Justice for abuse of the process
and in contempt of the Ontario and Alberta Courts of Appeal and
Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parker and R. v. Krieger on the
grounds Crown Attorney S. David Frankel acknowledged that the S.7
Cultivation and S.4 Possession prohibitions had been struck down
by the highest court in Alberta but did not dutifully inform
Canada's Law Enforcement to cease and desist arrests under the
repealed statutes.

3) an Order expediting any response from the Crown in order to
empty the jails by New Year and reduce future injustices on the
grounds the Crown has had months to ready for this adjudication
and will suffer no prejudice by such expedition.

AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT should a hearing of the request be
ordered, Requester seeks approval to turn on a portable tape
recorder pursuant to S.136 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act
which states that "nothing prohibits a party acting in person
from unobtrusively making an audio recording of the court hearing
for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing handwritten
notes in the manner that has been approved by the judge;" or for
any other manner of audio-taping deemed preferable by the court.

AND FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to form or
content of the application, or for any Order deemed just.

Documentation to be used:
                                                              Page
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4.........(A1)
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum on S.7...(A2)
App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article............(A4)
App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article...............(A5)
App.5: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause.......(A6)
App.6: 2003 May 14 Turmel holds back marijuana bill..........(A7)
App.7: 2003 Oct 07 Hitzig Ont.C.A. Order for MMAR fix........(A8)
App.8: 2003 Oct 07 Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for Parker Day.....(A10)
App.9: 2003 Dec 08 Turmel stays 4000 since Parker Day.......(A12)
App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order...(A13)
App.11: 2004 Apr 01 Turmel to A.G. for 100,000 more.........(A15)
App.12: 2004 Nov 22 AIDS Society decries exemption absence..(A16)

Dated at Brantford on Friday Dec 24 2004
_________________________________
For the Requester/Applicant
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.: turmel@...
8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645


           APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
                     JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
      (Pursuant to Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act)

OVERVIEW:

In the Crown Memorandum to the Supreme Court of Canada in
Krieger, Queen's Counsel S. David Frankel acknowledged knowing
that "[57 AS MATTERS NOW STAND S.7(1) HAS BEEN DECLARED OF NO
FORCE AND EFFECT BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN ALBERTA" and knowing
that the highest court of Alberta had struck down the marijuana
prohibitions, did not instruct Law Enforcement to cease charging
Canadians under the invalid statutes. Deliberately.

PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. On Aug. 1 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal's Parker decision
which ruled the prohibition on marijuana in S. 4 of the CDSA to
be invalid absent a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption
took effect when the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR)
failed to remedy that absence within 1 year.
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order on CDSA S.4.........(A1)

2. On Dec. 11 2000, Alberta Judge Acton in R. v. Krieger ruled:

"[44] I am satisfied that s. 7(1) of the CDSA deprives Mr.Krieger
and those who are similarly situated of their rights under s. 7
of the Charter to the extent that it prohibits these individuals
from producing raw cannabis marihuana for their own therapeutic
purposes. I am also convinced that such deprivation is not in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice...
[55] I am prepared to agree with the Applicant that s. 7(1) of
the CDSA should be struck down to the extent that it deals with
production of cannabis marihuana. If s. 4 were before me I, like
the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker , supra , would
strike down the prohibition against possession of marihuana
because to do otherwise would be, to use Dr. Kalant's word,
"inhumane" to Mr.Krieger under the circumstances."
Krieger Application for Leave to Appeal SCC #29569
www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf

3. On Dec 04 2002 the Alberta Court of Appeal sustained the Acton
repeal of prohibition in S.7 and Parliament has never since re-
enacted any new prohibitions.
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum on S.7...(A2)
www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf

4. The Calgary Herald and Sun reports misrepresented the striking
down of S.7 and S.4 as a personal victory for Krieger. Calgary
Herald's Daryl Slade wrote that "Krieger's lawyer, Adriano
Iovinelli, said outside court it was an important decision that
permits his client to continue to cultivate and use marijuana for
his own use to alleviate chronic pain caused by multiple
sclerosis. Iovinelli said, as it stands, it is status quo on
Krieger's charter exemption. But he suggested that would not
apply to the general public..
App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article............(A4)
App.4: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article...............(A5)

5. On May 16 in 2003, the Crown's Memorandum to the Supreme Court
of Canada in Krieger, Queen's Counsel S. David Frankel pleaded
for leave to appeal because "[57 AS MATTERS NOW STAND S.7(1) HAS
BEEN DECLARED OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN
ALBERTA." Crown Attorney S. David Frankel, Q.C., knew that the
marijuana prohibitions in S.7 (and by implication S.4) of the
CDSA had been declared of no force and effect by the highest
court in Alberta on Dec 04 2002 and did not so inform Canada's
police services.
App.5: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause.......(A6)

6. On May 14 2003, John Turmel holds back marijuana bill with 7
pounds of marijuana. S.7 nor S.4 were ever re-enacted.
App.6: 2003 May 14 Turmel holds back marijuana bill..........(A7)

7. On Oct 07 2003, the Hitzig-Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette
appeal ruling fix the repealed MMAR. No mention of CDSA.
App.7: 2003 Oct 07 Hitzig Ont.C.A. Order for MMAR fix........(A8)

8. On Oct 07 2003, the Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for the declaration
that prohibition was repealed on Terry Parker Parker Day
App.8: 2003 Oct 07 Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for Parker Day.....(A10)

9. On Dec. 08 2003, the Crown stayed the remaining 4000 pot
charges laid since Terry Parker Day till Hitzig Day.
App.9: 2003 Dec 08 Turmel stays 4000 since Parker Day.......(A12)

10. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the
Crown's application for leave to appeal the striking down of the
marijuana prohibitions by Alberta's highest court.
App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order...(A13)

11. On April Fools 2004, John Turmel demanded the Attorney
General redress the injustice done to those convicted under the
invalid sections with no result.
App.11: 2004 Apr 01 Turmel to A.G. for 100,000 more.........(A15)

12. On Nov 22 2004, the Canadian AIDS Society decried the renewed
absence of constitutionally acceptable medical exemption once
Health Canada had reinstated two of the constitutionally
cancerous conditions that had been struck down by the Hitzig
ruling.
App.12: 2004 Nov 22 AIDS Society decries exemption absence..(A16)

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

13. (1) Should the Oct 07 2003 judgment of Justices Doherty,
Goudge and Simmons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig-
Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette #39740 be stayed on the grounds
that the Hitzig decision ruling on S.4 did not deal with the
Krieger S.7 repeal?

14. (2) Should, in the absence of proof that all inmates
convicted since the marijuana prohibitions were repealed have
been released, an Order be made citing the Ministry of Justice
for abuse of the process and in contempt of the Ontario and
Alberta Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.
Parker and R. v. Krieger on the grounds Crown Attorney S. David
Frankel acknowledged that the S.7 Cultivation and S.4 Possession
prohibitions had been struck down by the highest court in Alberta
but did not dutifully inform Canada's Law Enforcement to cease
and desist arrests under the repealed statutes.

15. (3) Should an Order be made expediting the response from the
Crown in order to reduce future injustices and empty the jails by
New Year on the grounds that the scope of the tragedy warrants
expedition and where the Crown has had months to ready for this
adjudication and will suffer no prejudice by such expedition?

16. (4) Did the Supreme Court have a duty to speak up when its
affirmation and the Alberta Court of Appeal Order striking down
the cultivation and possession prohibitions were flouted by the
Crown by continued prosecutions under repealed statutes?

PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

(1) Stay of execution of Hitzig Resurrection Order

17. The Ontario Court of Appeal's Hitzig opinion that the
striking down of conditions which made impossible a
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption did resurrect
Section 4 of the CDSA has been misrepresented to courts in Canada
as resurrecting Section 7 which was struck down by the Alberta
Court of Appeal. The Court couldn't even resurrect S.4. A stay of
the Hitzig resurrection opinion would end the ambiguity.

(2) Abuse of Process and Contempt of Court

18. By dropping the charges for the pending 4000 charges laid
under S.4, the Crown admits they victimized Canadians after the
prohibition had become invalid. They have not corrected the
record for those convicted and still in jail. It is not right for
any Canadian to still be in jail having been convicted under an
invalid statute and the Crown has not sought to release any
improperly jailed Canadians.

19. The Crown continues to disrespect the Alberta Court of Appeal
and Supreme Court of Canada Orders by continuing to newly
victimize approximately 160 new Canadians every day on the basis
of the Ontario Hitzig-Myrden Resurrection Opinion.

20. Nothing but the threat of a citation for contempt of court
will move the Ministry of Justice to remedy their failures and
omissions.

(3) National importance and scope of tragedy warrant expedition

21. The invalid prosecutions, persecutions, of hundreds of
thousands of Canadians is so egregious an abuse of the process of
the court that instant reaction by the courts to such contempt is
mandated.

(4) Supreme Court duty to see its Orders obeyed?

22. When the highest court in Canada affirms a ruling of a
province's highest court which strikes down an unconstitutional
violation of a Charter right and the highest court then sees that
ruling ignored by the Attorney General and that invalid statute
enforced against an unsuspecting populace, it has to be the duty
of the highest Court to see that the Orders of the courts below
are obeyed? If not, who else can tackle such renegade elements in
the Ministry of Justice?

23. That the media, Crown and Defence misrepresented a general
striking down of prohibition for all Canadians as a personal
victory for Krieger does not make it so. The Attorney General for
Canada has known about the sections having been repealed since
the highest court in Alberta struck them down on Dec 04 2002. The
Ministry of the Attorney General is culpable of mischief and
genocide, after all, it did involve denying patients who needed
access to cannabis such access on the basis of the enforcement of
invalid statutes. 3000 extra dead epileptics since they could
have all had a joint to protect them from seizures.

24. This request is made for

1) an Order staying the Oct 07 2003 judgment of Justices Doherty,
Goudge and Simmons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Hitzig-
Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette #39740 on the grounds that the
Hitzig decision ruling on S.4 did not deal with the Krieger S.7
repeal but is cited as basis for continued prosecutions under all
sections;

2) an Order, in the absence of proof that all inmates convicted
since the marijuana prohibitions were repealed have been
released, citing the Ministry of Justice for abuse of the process
and in contempt of the Ontario and Alberta Courts of Appeal and
Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parker and R. v. Krieger on the
grounds Crown Attorney S. David Frankel acknowledged that the S.7
Cultivation and S.4 Possession prohibitions had been struck down
by the highest court in Alberta but did not dutifully inform
Canada's Law Enforcement to cease and desist arrests under the
repealed statutes.

3) an Order expediting any response from the Crown in order to
empty the jails by New Year and reduce future injustices on the
grounds the Crown has had months to ready for this adjudication
and will suffer no prejudice by such expedition.

Dated at Brantford on Friday Dec 24 2004
For the Requester/Applicant
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.: turmel@...
8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645

                   FAX COVER PAGE TO REGISTRAR

a) Document being transmitted: Request for stay of execution

b) Sender: John C. Turmel, B. Eng.: turmel@...
8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3 Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645

c) Party being served: Department of Justice, Ontario Regional
Office 130 King St. W. #3400 Toronto, ON, M5X 1K6
Croft Michaelson: cmichael@...
Christopher Leafloor: christopher.leafloor@...
Vanita Goela: vgoela@...
Tel: 416-952-7261, 973-0392, 973-9638 Fax: 416-952-0298

d) date and approximate time of transmission; Dec 24 2004 3:30

e) pages transmitted: 33 with fax certificates & cover pages

f) the fax number of the transmitting fax machine: 519-753-0645

g) For transmission problems: John Turmel: 519-753-0645.


JCT: So that's it. Didn't even have to leave the house.

1) The judge can stay the Hitzig decision which really throws a
monkey wrench into the Crown works if it's no longer resurrected
but dead again. Har har har har.

2) The judge can choose to expedite a hearing in which case the
Crown had better empty the jails of their victims pretty fast
because they don't need any left in chains when they show up for
their own judgment day in Canada's highest court.

3) Or the judge can just do nothing and in 10 days, the Crown
must reply and explain why Hitzig should not be stayed. The judge
can then a) decide or b) defer it to the whole panel who will
hear the application for leave to appeal.

But at least I've got the Frankel Gang cornered into having to
provide a written answer explaining that they need their Hitzig-
Myrden decision because it's what bringing the law back to life!
Har har har har.

They have to respond and explain their crimes. Har har har har.
10 days of delay maximum to Jan 3, or by next week minimum! Pay-
back time for the Frankel Gang. The Lone Ranger's coming to town.
It's silver bullet time for the Vampire of DEAth.

If anyone wants to let Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice
McLaughlin know that they think the Supreme Court of Canada's
Krieger Coram need to deal with the Frankel Gang of renegades in
the Ministry of Justice responsible for the Bogus Charges
Scandal, be polite but make sure to stress it is urgent her
Coram's Order and those of the Alberta and Ontario Courts of
Appeal be obeyed and enforced. The Supreme Court of Canada fax
number is: 613-996-9138.


--
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

JCT: It's when your opponent is down or in retreat that you
have your best chance to finish him off. Poor Christopher
Csomor is trying to finish his TURMEL documentary and new
big events keep popping up that he has to capture. When I
saw how quickly the Crown caved in when faced with Mike
South's signed Notice of Application to cite the Attorney
General's Frankel Gang for abuse of process and contempt of
court, I asked myself how I could increase their discomfort
by more than merely coming back at them again next week in
Ontario's highest court? How could I escalate the skirmish
to all-out end-game war? Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme
Court of Canada Act.

Coming back at them not only in Ontario's highest court but
also in Canada's highest court too? But who's got a ticket
to get in at the top? Oh. I do. I've got two. With Section
65.1(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act.

Their weak point is S. David Frankel. When Sumbitch David
Frankel comes down, the whole prohibitionist edifice comes
down with him. He's the lynch-pin. Knock him off his
pedestal and it's all over.

I'd been saving the Section 65.1(1) card for just the right
moment, the right event, and I think the time is ripe to
turn up my hole card and use Section 65.1(1) to sap the
Frankel Gang's King St. tower?

When Mike had come back for his last session after his talk
with the Duty Defence Counsel, he was so depressed at his
chances for release that he made a throat-slitting gesture
of despair. Imagine an out-of-town loner being thrust in
between a bunch of prison gangs. Imagine your walk into a
commons room with 30 guys grouped in gangs? Most not of your
color! Talk about scary. For handling herb?

The Frankel Gang put lots of people through the same hell
and they're going to have a lot of explaining to do to all
those lots and lots of Canadians really really soon. I can't
wait until lots and lots of Canadians are calling for their
heads in stocks. They'll be the patsies; certainly not
Minister Anne McLellan who'll probably beat the rap pleading
ignorance. Section 65.1(1)'s going to hit them where it
hurts.

Sitting there expecting to be sent back to hell, Mike says
Ms. Maunder then came over to tell him that the Crown were
suddenly giving up their objections to his release. He was
getting out. In an instant, he went from the depths of
despair to the heights of elation. So can anyone blame him
for not handing up the Frankel Motion now that he was being
told he was getting out and the nightmare was over?

And yet,the thrill of seeing this Crown cave-in still comes
second to the Crown's cave-in when they had to get Parker an
exemption before he could reach a judge in 2 hours. Talk
about hot-footing it from Ottawa to Toronto and the court.

And they are only delaying the judgment day. Till the next
person moves. Oh, right, now the next person is The Engineer
personally in an even higher arena! Section 65.1(1) lets me
do that!

My complaint is that:
1) they admitted they victimized Canadians after the
prohibition had become invalid and have not corrected it;
2) they disrespect the Alberta and Canada Court Orders by
continuing to victimize Canadians on the basis of an Ontario
Hitzig-Myrden.../Parker/Turmel-Paquette Resurrection
Opinion.

So, pending leave to appeal against the Hitzig resurrection
Opinion even being granted, what is in Section 65.1(1) of
the Supreme Court Act that I kept up my sleeve for so long
that I can trigger now? Merry Christmas, here's a motion to
empty the jails by New Year using Section 65.1(1) of the
Supreme Court Act, the only chance to drag the Ministry of
Justice before a Court of Justice over their admitted
injustice before New Year.

So what does Section 65.1(1) say?

"Stay of execution -- application for leave to appeal
65.1 (1) The Court, the court appealed from or a judge of
either of those courts may, on the request of the party who
has served and filed a notice of application for leave to
appeal, order that proceedings be stayed with respect to the
judgment from which leave to appeal is being sought, on the
terms deemed appropriate."

JCT: Who thinks I should go ask Doherty, Simmons or Goudge
of the Ontario court appealed from for a stay of their
Hitzig resurrection? Would be fun, actually. I could have
asked Goudge this week, Simmons last week, but I prefer
asking a Supreme Court of Canada judge next week.

What happens if a judge at the top stays the Hitzig
resurrection? Har har har har. What a predicament for every
Crown Attorney now using it to rationalize abetting their
bosses in the Frankel Gang. And they have to explain their
reasons why they don't want Hitzig to be stayed. The Crown
has to explain why they love Alan Young's Hitzig-Myrden case
so much!

And of course, in my Turmel v. Hitzig appeal #30570, I've
asked for an Order of Mandamus dropping all charges and
emptying all jails, so I'm now merely extending that thought
and reversing the onus by asking for a contempt citation
while there remain any victims of the Frankel Gang's Bogus
Charges Scandal in custody.

Mike South's trek through hell reminded me it was time to
focus on all the prisoners who pose no threat to me or my
society but who are being physically threatened by a
government-provided environment. Scares me almost as bad as
government-sponsored flu-shots.

Once again, "Surprise!": 65.1 (1) The Court may order that
proceedings be stayed with respect to the judgment from
which leave to appeal is being sought on the request of the
party who has served and filed a notice of application for
leave to appeal."

That's me. I called the Court Registrar and was told I have
until 5pm tomorrow evening to file my Record of Application
to
1) Stay the Hitzig Resurrection Opinion and
2) cite the Crown for contempt of the Supreme Court's Order
supporting the highest court in Alberta striking down the
S.7 and S.4 prohibitions against marijuana in the CDSA.

Har har har har. They ducked the beating by the kid or the
lawyer in Ontario's highest court with the Krieger Contempt
bat and now they're going to take their beating in Canada's
highest court by the Engineer who built the bat. Har har har
har. And who knows how to make it hurt the most. Nyuk nyuk
nyuk nyuk nyuk.

I can apply for an order that the Hitzig Resurrection
proceedings be stayed. Normally they get 10 days to respond
but I can ask the Court to expedite the hearing since
they've been up on the documentation longer than all of us,
since the first abuse. We all witnessed several of my
appeals all being expedited into the Big Five at the Ontario
Court of Appeal, it seems no problem if you've got the nerve
to ask.

Of course, this has to be addressed to Chief Justice
McLaughlin who was on the Krieger panel whose Order is being
personally disrespected by the Ministry of Justice. Perhaps
we can get the Krieger Coram of 3 judges to hear why the
Ministry of Justice has continued prosecuting Canadians
under these obviously repealed statutes?

I think the motion to expedite the end of the travesty of
the Frankel Gang's Bogus Charges Scandal should be granted
on the grounds of national importance. Of course, right now,
it's only me saying it is so with the mighty Crown saying it
isn't. No one else's voice has been raised on the matter in
her ears. Maybe some other citizens may also write the Chief
Justice urging her to consider the Bogus Charges Scandal a
matter of national importance too.

It's time for the Supreme Court of Canada to accept the need
for expediency to end any further abuse of the court's
process by renegade elements in the Ministry of Justice. The
Crowns who knew the law was dead with him should come down,
maybe even the Crowns who had heard and continued to abuse
the process without checking whether the law was dead. Most
are going to feel censured for being chicken but whether
cowardice merits being fired is not for me to determine. But
those who worked toward the ignoble ends of the Frankel Gang
may merit such punishment up to and including charges under
Criminal Code of Canada for "mischief" or "genocide." After
all, they improperly kept a life-saving medicine away from
people who needed it, didn't they? 3000 known epileptics in
the 2 years since Krieger Day on Dec. 4 2002.

Should the Frankel Gang walk? Not when bring the Frankel
Gang down is the new name of the game. I'm going to use the
exact same documentation as in Mike South's Application for
Contempt Citation. It's all based on S. David Frankel's
admission of culpability for knowing the statutes had been
repealed and failing to do his job of informing the Canadian
police services of that fact.

All those Crown Attorneys who read Krieger and now argue
against it become accessories after the fact. Realizing that
the Frankel Gang of top-court shysters and the media covered
it up from even them in the trenches, refusal to prosecute
is their only way out.

We need a revolt of Crown Attorneys who don't want to lose
their jobs just because they were lied by the pros. We need
honorable Crown Attorneys to refuse to abuse the process by
prosecuting marijuana cases once the Krieger and Parker
invalidations have incontestably rendered sections 4 & 7 of
no force and effect. Wouldn't a revolt of Crown Attorneys go
good now? Wouldn't a revolt by rank and file Crown Attorneys
take the Frankel Gang at the top of their King St. Tower by
surprise?

Time for a surprise strike while the iron is hot.


--
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

>elagabalus
>Re: Mike South Uses Get Out Of Jail Kit & Gets Out
>Date: Tue Dec 21 2004 11:24 PM

E: Finally, some details:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot-discuss/message/8423
(Thanks for that link, rtav). From the post:
"JCT: The hearing resumed and before Mike ever got to open
his mouth, the Crown indicated that they were going to
consent to his release pending appeal."

E: Why can't everyone else in jail file the same appeal
documents as Mike South, and "Get Out of Jail Now"?

JCT: Call them "appeal grounds." You only have to get 1
paragraph to any inmate to add to the documentation they
provide:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
"Parliament has not re-enacted the necessary S.4 possession
and S.7 cultivation prohibitions sustaining any imputed
improper purpose since they were struck down in Parker and
Krieger."

Call it the Magic 27 words of grounds. Keep in mind that
Mike wasn't convicted under Parker's repealed Section 4 or
Krieger's repealed Section 7. Mike was convicted under the
trafficking Section 5 and he's released pending his Section
5 appeal with Section 4 and 7 rulings!

There is now no doubt that we can empty the jails for all
marijuana charges, not just the Parker and Krieger sections
by filing their Inmate Appeals with only the same Parker and
Krieger grounds.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL, QUASHING, PROHIBITION,
"Parliament has not re-enacted the necessary S.4 possession
and S.7 cultivation prohibitions that sustain any imputed
improper purpose since they were struck down in Parker and
Krieger."

Almost exactly the same grounds as in the TO Trio except
they mentioned Parker and Krieger. By now, they all know.

E: And if they can "Get Out of Jail", like Mike, why can't
they use the same tactics to thwart all prosecutions?

JCT: They all can. How about someone arming the guy in BC
who's been in jail for a few months how to use the Krieger
card to get out.
---

>davidmalmolevine
>Date: Tue Dec 21 2004 11:44 PM

Frankel was the crown in my case, too.
Much about him that is contemptuous.

JCT: I wonder if he meant "contemptible?" Still, nice to be
sure the Frankel brothers are the big boys at the King St.
tower.
--

>ron  Post #76
>Dec 22 2004, 01:02 AM

R: Finally, an account of Mike South's day in court!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/message/2606

Sounds like the Persecution Army is in retreat, and is still
holding its lines together, but cracks are beginning to
show.

JCT: Mike's the first chink in the Section 5 armor ever. The
Crown says the Krieger card has no merit but consents to his
release pending on a Section 5 case that argues it links to
Krieger's S.7 and Parker's S.4 repeals. That's the real
bonus this time. Everyone can get out, S.5 traffickers too.

R: I had hoped Mike South's challenge yesterday would have
blown a hole through the shameful wall of lies that protects
these sadists. These are the perverts who think it's okay to
terrorize some people who like some plants.

They managed to stave off this first thrust, but more and
more are coming.

JCT: From now on, everyone is raising the Frankel contempt
of court card.

E: "The hearing resumed and before Mike ever got to open his
mouth, the Crown indicated that they were going to consent
to his release pending appeal." Turmel2606

What will happen as word of this "Get Out of Jail Card"
spreads?

JCT: How can it spread when no media will run the story? Did
anyone see a story about South getting out? Did anyone ask
their favorite reporter what happened? Remember, I'm
completely black-listed by the media. Only other medpotters
can break through the media so if none others try....

>JCT: The Crown and Defence seemed both intent on keeping
the Frankel Fork out of court.

JCT: I think I misconstrued Ms. Maunders every move once I
was under the impression she was upset about what I was
about to do to the bad guys. It's actually quite exciting to
think her consternation was at having the Krieger trump
cards taken right out of her mitts. I wonder how a lawyer
would feel holding the Krieger Aces in the biggest pot in
Canadian history and have to hand them up to an amateur? But
how "unserendipitous" if I took the bat our of her hands
when she was willing to put the bat to the Crown. Arrrgggg.

Plus, keep in mind, she was ready to present the Krieger
argument with The Engineer of the artillery in the room.
That shows supreme confidence. I'd be an idiot to not send
in a vengeful angel who has seen so many sad kids being
trampled under the system first hand. Payback time for the
Defence when she uses her newly-engineered offensive
artillery.

And with our first guerrilla lawyers going in only in mid
January, it leaves plenty of time to file Mike's motion and
then let the pro finish the job on the Crown. She'll be the
lady who empties the jails the moment Frankel's Justice
Ministry is threatened with contempt for misleading the
nation. And I engineered the new photon torpedoes she's
going to use to sink the Prohibitionist ship! What a rush
watching one's engineering put to the trial.


--
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

JCT: I'd called the Court of Appeal Registrar's office to
ascertain what time Inmate matters start. I was told it was
10am again. We left a quarter hour earlier than last time
and were lucky because there was an obstruction on the
Gardiner Expressway in Toronto and we got into the court at
quarter to ten.

Presiding today is Justice Goudge! He was one of the trio in
the Hitzig Resurrection non-Order. It could be good news. He
had never been nasty and there was no reason he should start
now. At least he knows who he's dealing with. Especially
with my side-kick Terry Parker back with me. Judge Goudge
must have thought it was deja vu, especially if he noticed
the tape recorder on the front table. Last week, Justice
Simmons out of 15 judges and now Goudge. (3/15)*(2/14) =
(1/5)*(1/7) = (1/35) --> 34:1 against catching back to back
Resurrection Judges.

I'm thinking back to how fluky this really turned out to be.
Mike is a friend of Chris Csomor, one of the two brother
videographers who've been following the Turmel story for the
past 6 months for their wholly_mackerel@...
documentary. Chris had tried to talk Mike into moving for
leave (after plea) to quash his charges based on Krieger.
But the kid was under the impression that he was going to
get 3-months probation or house arrest and decided to go
with the lawyer, John Renwick.

Doug and Laurie Nielsen were in Brantford court at 9am to
get a date and Mike was in judgment court at 10am to be
sentenced. I had called Chris the night before to remind him
of both hearings. Chris hadn't arrived by the time Doug and
Laurie's number came up and we were out in minutes. With
some photocopying to do, I had left with them and wasn't
intending on going back for the sentencing of another of
Shyster Renwick's victims, even if it was a friend of
Chris'.

But when I got home at 9:40am, I got the message that Chris
had called and since the courthouse is 3 blocks away, I went
down and first met Mike and his girl-friend Melissa for a
few minutes before court. I told him I understood his being
willing to take an easy out if he could handle it. I guessed
staying home with the girl-friend for a couple of months
couldn't be so bad.

Later in the court, when this horrible pre-sentence report
was read in about Mike's non-repentance over smoking
marijuana, about his doing it again, about his not being
serious about his girl-friend, about his personality
disorder, I wondered how the lawyer could have let this get
in. I'd worry more about the personalities of those who bend
to this crooked world rather than calling those
personalities trying to stand up straight "disordered."

But when Mike heard the Crown say that Renwick had agreed in
their "joint" submission for 3 months in jail, he left the
court livid. It must have made it that much easier for Chris
to convince him to file an Inmate appeal on the Krieger Ace
when he visited him in jail later that very day! And he did.
But staying on defence with the lawyer instead of switching
to offence with The Engineer cost him his a taste of
government hospitality at Toronto's Dangerous Don Jail.

I wasn't too worried about Mike getting out. He had a Duty
Defence Counsel helping him promise to be good to get out.
Unfortunately, Offence Counsel didn't get to participate.
By turning it to the offensive first so Mike demands the
Attorney General apologize for misleading and abusing the
courts with his knowingly improper imprisonment may help
obviate the need for Mike promising to be good at all to get
out of jail.

Offence played first obviates the need for defence when it
wins. Quashing the charge obviates the need for defending
against it if quashing wins. First things first. And as soon
as Mike hands up his offensive motion and asks that it be
dealt with first, it switches the onus to the Crown. Har har
har har.

The only question was how to get his contempt munitions,
oops, motions to Mike. He would have to ask the judge to
accept his short notice pre-emptive application and then ask
if I can give them to him to sign and then hand in. Pretty
tough when he couldn't get to a phone long enough to call
me. (non-bosses have last priority in a cell block).

But Mike's mom had told him that he was going to have to
sign one thing (the Notice of Motion to cite Frankel for
Contempt). The problem is that when we entered, I saw that
Mike was in the prisoner box and the proceeding had already
begun. I'd been misinformed by the Registrar's office about
the 9:30 start time. Arrrgggg. I'd even left 15 minutes
earlier just to make sure.

Duty Counsel Leslie Maunder was just finishing and looked to
the back to see us come in with Mike's mother in time to say
"his mother has just arrived." So Justice Goudge stood the
matter down for her to speak with Mike and his mother. Whew,
we made it just in the nick of time to get the contempt
motions in! Mike only needs to sign and serve them for the
fireworks to begin.

Later, Mike told me that the Crown did not have their
materials prepared and they were discussing coming back on
Thursday. Then they would have the info from Brantford and
that would if, stronger chance if he waited.
No reasons on why Judge Stead had decided to imprison him.

Imagine poor Mike. His surety guarantor had not shown and
they were going to send this nefarious herb-peddler back to
one of Ontario's toughest jails for another 3 days. Seems
they talk about putting things off with no concept of the
dangers they put people through for a formality! Inmate
appellants must give themselves up to the jailers on the eve
of the appeal! They must give themselves up to the jailers
on the eve of any bail extension! Sure sounds like sadists
had a hand in the regulations.

Anyway, we walked in serendipitously just on time. Leaving
15 minutes early to arrive only 15 minutes late but just on
time, Is the bottle half empty or half full? Wham, Mike's
not going to be sent back to the Don Jail until Thursday
when his paperwork can be fully prepared for the courts to
make an enlightened adjudication on the dangers posed by
this herb smoker to the other citizens of his town. What a
close call. I tell you, we walked in the door just as the
Defence was searching for an out and then "oh, his mother
has just arrived" kept him around. His surety showed up. The
game goes on.

It certainly seems to indicate that getting the bail hearing
paperwork ready takes longer than I'd thought and Mike's
squeaking got fast-tracked for the grease.

As Maunder went by to see Mike, I handed her the three
copies of the Frankel Contempt Application and said he was
expecting them. A quarter hour later, we saw her going by to
the cells having had plenty of time to read all about the
Frankel Gang's Bogus Charges Scandal. (Roger's description)
Every Crown, every attorney, who abets the Frankel gang from
now on is an accessory after the fact to the biggest abuse
of process in Canadian history! Har har har har. When did
the lawyer who should know better find out about Krieger and
why didn't they stop it? Har har har har. And it's coming
out. Most can answer "when I heard Turmel screaming it."
That's usually their K-slab judgment day.

I then approached the front of the court to set up the tape-
recorder for Mike's hearing, chased by a security guard who
was convinced it wasn't allowed. I explained to the clerks
and guard that Goudge had already permitted me to tape
before him last year and would be used to it. But they
insisted that it not only be left off but that it not be
plugged in. (Har har it had batteries anyway) So when Mike
asked to turn it on, someone would have to now go plug it in
AND then turn it on too. Dense!

Mike had a young lady Crown, Ms. Parker, who told me that
she was going to object to the taping of the proceeding and
I just informed her that Goudge had permitted it before and
I'd bet he permit it again. Har har. Handy having Goudge as
an easy trump on the tape-recorder issue.

I also told her a short-notice application was on the way.
She said she'd object to it being heard and I told her it
wasn't up to her, only the judge. With that, she took off
into a corner of the lobby to call someone.

When Maunder returned, When she came into court later and I
reached out for the motions, she handed them to me
brusquely, almost exasperatedly, visibly upset. Whose side
is she working for? No more herbalist inmates left to
counsel bothers her?

No. Later, Mike told me that she had told him that if he
filed the Krieger motion, it would not hurt his other chance
at getting out. How honest of her. She even told him that
despite the Crown telling her they were going to argue that
the Krieger argument had no  merit, she'd present it for him
if he insisted! I didn't know. Maybe she wanted to present
the Krieger argument that she was upset that I was taking
the motions back? Maybe I should have let her introduce
them? Arrggg.

At the next break, I served Ms. Parker with a copy of Mike's
signed Frankel Notice. She immediately took off to report.
Then I approached the court clerk to hand in the motion so
he could give it to Goudge. There would be no need for Mike
to ask to turn on the tape, Turmel Notices now ask
automatically and I'd bet he'd say yes just as
automatically. How much do you think the average kid in a
prisoner's box remembers when it's all over. Imagine now
asking for the right to tape.

His Majesty the Clerk refused to accept it. I told him we
were asking the judge, not him, to decide on whether it
should be heard on short notice but HMTC said it didn't
matter, there would be no additions. A first. Boy, if Leslie
was hungry to kick ass with Krieger, did I ever blow it
taking the papers back. She'd have gotten them in for Mike
and he had said yes. Arggg.

HMTC ordered me back behind the rail separating public from
lawyers' benches. This was while court was not in session!
Another first. If I hadn't been on probation with a roomful
of cops, I'd have stayed and asked what he was going to do
about it? But I backed off just in case this was their third
attempt to have me arrested for something. Remember the
Feldman hearing and the last day of the Lederman trial? But
he did say to give the Notices to Mike to hand in. So as I
passed the prisoner's box, I handed the last two Frankel
Motions to the bailiff who gave them to Mike. Then I shouted
just two instructions to Mike:
1) ask to turn on the tape;
2) ask to hand in your motion.

Just before we got going, Ms. Parker turned to me and said
that I'd be needing an Affidavit of Service. Har har har
har. A newbie. As if that might stop Mike's paperwork from
getting to Goudge. "I know" I responded with a smug smile.
Maybe she didn't see the recent addition to the back of all
our documents with the required "Affidavit of Service" under
the caption "If the Crown won't sign."

But she knew that the shit was hitting the fan the moment
Mike handed up his Frankel Notice which had just been
officially served on the Frankel Gang's front lady.

And it was coming up in front of a perfect judge! Of all the
judges in Canada who have been made to look foolish by not
hearing about the Krieger decision, those who made really
bad bad decisions they would have never made if they had known
about Krieger, Goudge is one of the top three. Two of the
Orders in Mike's Application Record have Goudge's name! The
Hitzig Order to fix the MMAR and the Turmel/Paquette Order
to quash 4000 charges since Terry Parker Day.

Would Justices Doherty, Goudge and Simmons have tried to
resurrect the S.4 possession prohibition if they had known
that the Alberta Court of Appeal's Costigan, Wittman and
LoVecchio had already struck down S.7 cultivation and S.4
possession with it? Har har har har.

Next to those Canadians who were improperly accused and
dragged through the system like me and Mike, Justice Goudge
and his panel are the biggest victims of the Frankel Gang's
bogus charges scandal and he might just be the right judge
to give the Frankel Scandal a really angry look into.

Boy, was this building up into an intense confrontation. The
Crown and Defence seemed both intent on keeping the Frankel
Fork out of court. But once Mike handed up his complaint
about an abuse of the process of the court, properly served,
to a really special judge who is up on what's going on, this
could be one of the greatest Crown drubbings of all.

Imagine the Frankel brothers gang with Lara "Bonnie" Speirs
and Alan "Clyde" Young in their King St. Tower and this kid
about to press the launch button on the torpedo for their
ship. What would you advise Ms. Parker to do?

Do they really want to keep the kid in the Don Jail? What if
he gets hurt? Is stopping the avalanche once word gets out
about Turmel's Get-out-of-jail grounds worth explaining why
the Frankel Gang didn't call off the cops once they found
out for sure the law had died? Not a chance can they gamble
on letting the Frankel Contempt Motion be heard. I just
wanted to make sure we got it all on tape.

The hearing resumed and before Mike ever got to open his
mouth, the Crown indicated that they were going to consent
to his release pending appeal. Fine, Judge Goudge stood
things down until the Crown and Defence could work out the
terms of his bail and sent Mike out. Arrrgggg. Mike was gone
for his slow slide out of jail. Faster than any trap-door
and he was gone. It was over.

Outside, Maunder insisted on speaking with Mike's mom alone
to arrange for her to sign the surety as guarantor. I tried
to stay but Maunder insisted. I just wanted to tell her not
to give away the farm or I'd be forced to make a motion next
week to vary any unconscionable terms. That's doable. I've
done it.

While another hearing was going on, Ms. Parker and Ms.
Maunder agreed on the conditions for Mike's release and then
announced it to the judge. Mike came back to find out he was
being let out. I can't blame him for thinking it was all
over and he'd won so he didn't need to hand in the new
paper! I had never had the chance to speak to him. Doesn't
matter, being able to have it returnable on 3 days notice
has its uses. He's the only person with a play in the right
arena and they can never do more than stop it.

As Ms. Parker went by, I said: "Tell the boys we'll try to
have the contempt motion returned by next week." She said
"I'm not telling the boys anything for you." Wanna bet? I
should have followed to see if she went straight to her cell
phone with the good news that the the Contempt Motion has
been diverted for at least a week.

It was over around noon and Maunder took them over to the
Registrar's office and the Release Order was ready around
1pm. Then they had to get over with the Order to a J.P. for
some other reason. Finally, around 2:30, the J.P. faxed the
jail ordering the release. We were told to call and ask when
he'd be released. They said in about 2 hours.

As we were about to leave for the Don, we found out that we
had a flat and Chris didn't have a jack. Canadian Automobile
Association were so busy they weren't answering and we
didn't know how we were going to get to the jail for when
Mike came out. He didn't ave a coat and what demoralizing
way to get out if we weren't there. Finally, an angel of
mercy, Aaron, stopped and asked if he could help, had a
jack, helped us and soon we were on our way. Prayers of
thanks for Angel Aaron coming through in time to stop a
bummer day.

So we went over to the Don Jail and waited for about 3 hours
until Mike was released. Of course, he was happy to get out
but described a nightmarish stay in one of Canada's worst
jails. Maybe we'll invite him onto a chat some evening to
relay his adventure though penal hell in Ontario. I had
just told him to think of it as an adventure.

Worst of all though, the lawyer has made an appointment for
his return to court on Feb 21 2005 to speak to whether his
bail should be extended! He's only getting temporary bail?
And to inform the court of whether he's going to defend
himself or have representation. And he's going to have to
give himself up at the Don Jail the night before? So he can
discuss extending his bail?

I think this is incredible. It's probably over the fact that
the Crown didn't have their paperwork done and now he's
going to have to go back to jail for a hearing where they
caused? They screwed up and he's got to go through the Don
jail to correct a Crown error?

Anyway, there are lots of countermeasures available but it's
not going to be a merry Christmas for a lot of medpot
families thanks mainly to His Majesty The Clerk who
deflected the motion from being properly handed in to Judge
Goudge. Fascinating how an uppity little functionary can
change history. Unless his orders were: Don't accept
anything from the guy with the Royal Flush on his tie.
Har har har har.

Do they think they got much of a delay? Everyone's going
after their Crown Attorneys from now on. How dare they
continue to prosecute people when they can read the Krieger
decisions too?

Everyone now switches to offence against the Frankel gang
from now on.

And if Ms. Maunder is ready to fulfill her defence counsel
duty and present the Krieger Ace for Mike, I really think
that giving him an honest presentation of all his options
earned her that chance. Mike says she was great and fair and
I had been pretty rough on her. She was in a really tough
situation and other than her natural aversion to amateurish
me, I think she did an honorable job of it all.

I think I have to advise Mike to trust her to present his
Krieger case. Anyone question that feeling? Imagine. An
honest lawyer. It's almost enough to numb the brain. I think
serendipity may have struck again.


--
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

JCT: The National Capital Freenet has a news controller
who's been sabotaging my posts for years. About a decade
ago, Paul Tomblin and Kia Mennie and a few other juvenile
delinquents erased every one of my posts on the internet.
That's why, if you go to the Google Groups and search back,
my posts suddenly end. That was Paul Tomblin's doing. It
won't be forgotten.

But it looks like he's still at it:

>From: Weird Albert (oppyeahuknowme@...)
>Subject: John Turmel...I'm your biggest fan! Keep up the fight
Newsgroups: alt.fan.john-turmel, alt.drugs, alt.drugs.pot,
alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
Date: 2004-12-10 20:02:55 PST
John Turmel, I'm your biggest fan!  Keep up the fight.
Thanks, Albert

JCT: I just noticed that this article didn't make it to the
NCF alt.fan.john-turmel group on NCF! Only in googlegroups.
I guess Paul just couldn't stand anyone stating their
support so he censored it. Then just yesterday, again,

>From: Weird Albert (oppyeahuknowme@...)
>Subject: What happened today at Mike South's hearing?
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.john-turmel, alt.drugs, alt.drugs.pot,
>alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
>Date: 2004-12-20 10:22:16 PST
John, What happened today at Mike South's hearing? Albert

JCT: Just noticed that NCF didn't have the article. Again.
This is the first time I've noticed such deletion and I
can't imagine anyone with any malevolent motive than Paul
Tomblin again.

Just visit www.ncf.ca and check out their Usenet newsgroup
section and then wonder why Albert's posts have made it
elsewhere but not NCF!


--
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

JCT: As always, it's been kept short and sweet:

Court File No. _________

                 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Between:
                        Michael South
                                          Applicant/Appellant
                             and
                    Her Majesty the Queen
                                         Respondent/Plaintiff

                    NOTICE OF APPLICATION

TAKE NOTICE that on Dec 20 2004, Applicant will seek an
Order citing the Ministry of Justice for contempt of court
and abuse of process upon the added grounds for release
pending appeal that Crown Attorney S. David Frankel, Q.C.,
admitted to the Supreme Court of Canada that the marijuana
prohibitions in S.7 (and by implication S.4) of the CDSA had
been declared of no force and effect by the highest court in
Alberta on Dec 04 2002 and, in the absence of proof that all
inmates for convictions based on these repealed marijuana
prohibitions have been released pending appeals, that the
Ministry of Justice should be held in contempt of the
Krieger Court of Appeal Order affirmed by the Supreme Court
of Canada.

AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT Applicant seeks approval to
turn on a portable tape recorder pursuant to S.136 of the
Ontario Courts of Justice Act which states that "nothing
prohibits a party acting in person from unobtrusively making
an audio recording of the court hearing for the sole purpose
of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes in the
manner that has been approved by the judge;" or for any
other manner of audio-taping deemed preferable by the court.

AND FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the application, or amending any defect as to
form or
content of the application, or for any Order deemed just.

THE GROUNDS ARE:
1. On Dec. 11 2000, Alberta Judge Acton in R. v. Krieger
ruled:
"[44] I am satisfied that s. 7(1) of the CDSA deprives
Mr.Krieger and those who are similarly situated of their
rights under s. 7 of the Charter to the extent that it
prohibits these individuals from producing raw cannabis
marihuana for their own therapeutic purposes. I am also
convinced that such deprivation is not in accordance with
the principles of fundamental justice...
[55] I am prepared to agree with the Applicant that s. 7(1)
of the CDSA should be struck down to the extent that it
deals with production of cannabis marihuana. If s. 4 were
before me I, like the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v.
Parker , supra , would strike down the prohibition against
possession of marihuana because to do otherwise would be, to
use Dr. Kalant's word, "inhumane" to Mr.Krieger under the
circumstances."
www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf

2. On Dec 04 2002 the Alberta Court of Appeal sustained the Acton
repeal of prohibition in S.7 and Parliament has never since re-
enacted any new prohibitions.
App.2:
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf

3. The Calgary Herald and Sun reports misrepresented the striking
down of S.7 and S.4 as a personal victory for Krieger. Calgary
Herald's Daryl Slade wrote that "Krieger's lawyer, Adriano
Iovinelli, said outside court it was an important decision that
permits his client to continue to cultivate and use marijuana for
his own use to alleviate chronic pain caused by multiple
sclerosis. Iovinelli said, as it stands, it is status quo on
Krieger's charter exemption. But he suggested that would not
apply to the general public..
App.10 Herald, App.11: Sun

4. On May 16 2003, the Crown's Memorandum to the Supreme Court of
Canada in Krieger had Counsel S. David Frankel pleading for leave
to appeal because "[57 AS MATTERS NOW STAND S.7(1) HAS BEEN
DECLARED OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN ALBERTA."
App.12: S. David Frankel Memorandum

5. On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Crown's
application for leave to appeal the striking down of the
marijuana prohibitions.
App.7 Krieger Order

6. That the media, Crown and Defence misrepresented a general
striking down of prohibition for all Canadians as a personal
victory for Krieger does not make it so. The Attorney General for
Canada has known about the sections having been repealed since
the highest court in Alberta struck them down on Dec 04 2002.

Documentation to be used:
                                                              Page
App.1: 2000 Jul 31 Parker Ont.C.A. Order......................(6)
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum...........(7)
App.3: 2003 May 14 Turmel's Parliament Hill bust..............(9)
App.4: 2003 Oct 07 Hitzig Ont.C.A. Order for MMAR fix........(10)
App.5: 2003 Oct 07 Turmel Ont.C.A. Order for Parker Day......(12)
App.6: 2003 Dec 08 Ottawa stays 4000 pot charges (G&M).......(14)
App.7: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order.....(15)
App.8: 2004 Apr 01 Turmel letter to A.G. for correction......(17)
App.9: 2004 Nov 22 Canadian AIDS Society decries absence.....(18)
App.10: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article...........(20)
App.11: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Sun Krieger article..............(21)
App.12: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability.............(22)

Dated at Toronto on Dec 20 2004
For the Applicant/Appellant
Michael South
76 Cockshutt Rd.
Brantford Ontario
Tel: 519-720-0858
Fax: 519-753-0645


--
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

JCT: I'm going to be adding the two Calgary newspaper
stories misrepresenting the Krieger Court of Appeal victory
as:

http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegher.htm Herald
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsun.htm Sun

They will play a part in Mike South's contempt of court
charge against S. David Frankel and the Crown Attorneys in
the Ministry of Justice who knew too. Of course, the two
Crown Calgary Crowns Scott Couper and Janet Henchey knew and
kept quiet while Alberta cops kept busting Albertans. I'd
bet they end up in jail with the Frankel gang if only for
participating in the cover-up.



--
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

>http://www.voy.com/178771/15951.html
>Alberta Senior Crown: Corrupt, Scared, Biased, Mistaken?
>Author: Roger M Roeder
>Date: 08:55:27 12/17/04 Fri

RR: Krieger Order invalidates S.7 (commonly known as
cultivation)
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriego1.jpg
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriego2.jpg

Crown. S. David Frankel submits an Appeal for the Krieger
Court Order decision to counter the legality of cannabis.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegcm.txt

Krieger Supreme Court Order (Crown denied appeal of 7.1
(commonly known as cultivation))
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.jpg

Crown S. David Frankel loses the appeal. The Krieger Court
Order stating cannabis cultivation is legal is now the law
of all of Canada.

Constitution Act: (Note section 32 and 52) explains that
with cultivation/possession struck down in Alberta it has to
be the same as other Provinces and Territories for every
citizen.

Crown represents that Krieger is only in Alberta and Parker
is only in Ontario, that same level Provincial Judges can
set aside/void Court Orders from other parts of Canada
contrary to Constitution Act.

That for Krieger the Crown also represents that a Lower
Provincial Alberta Court can set aside the top court in
Alberta.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html

The questions that beg asking are:

Did S. David Frankel notify his superiors of the law change
upon the loss of Appeal?

JCT: I forget who was Minister of Justice on Dec 04 2002.
And who was Minister on March 15 when Justice Pitt first
opined that the Government had not yet complied with the
Parker's court's ruling, later proven correct. Lara Speirs
knew then but rather than stop the prosecutions that later
had to be stayed, she moved to set aside Pitt J's righteous
decision in the wrong court and won allowing herself to
believe that Pitt's opinion didn't count and was therefore
wrong. We know now he was right and she hid it with her
kangaroo court with Alan Young.

RR: Does S. David Frankel believe that the Constitution and
Charter of Rights represents that Canadian sovereign
citizens can have different Federal Laws within different
Provinces? If S. David Frankel did tell his superior, what
did his superior do????

JCT: And he did not, should he go to jail?

RR: If S. David Frankel did not notify his superior of the
law change, then why not?

Does S. David Frankel still believe that an Alberta Lower
Court can set aside (overrule, overturn), the top Court in
Alberta?

JCT: Let him lead with the O'Leary over-ruling the Supreme
Court of Canada alibi on his own.

RR: When the Appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of
Canada, IT CANNOT GO ANY HIGHER. The Krieger Court Order
becomes valid which states that cultivation is legal. THE
ONLY WAY FOR CANNABIS TO BE ILLEGAL NOW IS IF THE GOVERNMENT
PASSES NEW LEGISLATION AND PASSES THE NEW LAW.

JCT: But if no one announces to the police that the law has
been repealed, if the Crown Attorneys who know what the
Supreme Court of Canada decision means do not announce it to
their political masters, if they do and their masters tell
them to hush it up with the collusion of the CanWest Global
Presstitutes, if no one knows, does that mean it's not so?

RR: Why are people constantly held to fight charges by
police and Crown when the law no longer exist?

JCT: Ignorance of the law is no excuse? Unless you're the
law?

RR: A penny for Mr Frankels' thoughts.

JCT: They'll come out when he is deposed under oath, won't
they?

Roger Roeder
502-607 Heritage Drive Kitchener, Ontario
519-894-3358 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL OR IN PART IS AUTHORIZED.
---

>Virgil Post #59
>Date: Dec 18 2004, 12:56 PM

V: Thanks D&L for adding some life to this thread.
Message1569 just went up and it informs us that Pierre
Drouin did not make his court date in Cochrane because of a
storm. It mentions a Real Martin in the same sentence. It
seems like each new brain attached to the laws are dead
philosophy is a good sign.

JCT: They're the  Cochrane Dynamic Duo. The newspaper still
hasn't reported on their S.7 Krieger cultivation challenge.
The media black-out reaches even the Northern Ontario
sticks.

V: Message1569 is a display of wrath for what the Crown and
Attorney General Frankel have done hiding the death of the
CP laws. The motion by Mike South on Monday will ask that
Frankel be held in contempt and explains that the judge has
the power to release all inmates that find themselves in the
same position as Mike South. There is blame enough for the
Supreme Court that had knowledge of the situation and the
proof is in their own words in the Krieger decision they
made on December 23, 2003.

JCT: You have to wonder what the Chief Justice thought when
her ruling affirming the highest court in Alberta striking
down the Cultivation and Possession prohibitions came out
and the cops didn't stop busting! What would be the duty of
a judge who sees the process of the court ignored and held
in contempt? Nothing so far.

V: Anyone concerned with eliminating corruption in
government in Canada should be following this story. Anyone
concerned with ending a massive fraud and injustice should
follow this story and broaden its audience.

JCT: The numbers of victims is incredible, isn't it?

V: What gets me as a follower of the cannabis story for over
3 years is that we all knew the laws were dead when the
courts in May of 2003 finally said so. Even after all the
appeals of October 7th by the OCA, everyone was on the
bandwagon that only parliament could restore the laws. The
Supreme Court ruling of December 23, 2003 must have
sidelined people's thinking and the issue of
constitutionality of CP itself was a big topic even before
the rulings. I cannot get over how 14 months have passed and
the issue is still alive.

JCT: I didn't really find out what Krieger meant until Tom
Wloca and I made the trek to Ottawa to pick up a copy of the
Crown's arguments. I only checked out how the Calgary media
misrepresented the story last week. And now, they're going
into the newest kits.

V: I did mention the situation in a comment on a Canadian
situation on the front-page at marijuana.com I will try to
work it in at FreeRepublic before Monday.

JCT: If CNN asks CBC or CTV what's going on in the Mike
South complaint about the Crown trying him under a dead law,
they'll have to come.
---

>ron Post #60
>Dec 18 2004, 01:24 PM

Thanks for the link lifebuds. I'll watch that group too.
Usually I feel overwhelmed by the tangled details, in the
forest of initials and legalisms.

But this post was like walking along a mountain ridge
looking and looking clearly in all directions. John Turmel
was eloquent in his proposal to change the frame of the
debate.

JCT: It's a bit like judo, isn't it? We've been mainly on
defence in the courts and suddenly, we turn from defence to
offence and help the opponent with the hip a little more in
his own direction until he goes flying. Now that Krieger has
been engaged, it's time to go on offence. Make people
appreciate that the proper strategy now is righteous
indignation at the fraud perpetrated on the court that
caused such an incredible screw-up by the courts.

R: How can our inJustice Department continue this immoral
persecution when there is no law - and they know it? It's a
scandal to arrest 100,000 people on bogus charges.

JCT: I've just published a new S. David Frankel signature
page. Since there was tons of space at the bottom, I
included the last part of the previous page with the
infamous "Paragraph 57" confession of the Attorney General's
Bogus Charges Scandal.

R: How much did Frankel, Speirs et al know, and when did
they know it? Listen to the engineer and judge for yourself:
>JCT: There has to be a way to win more than just Mike's...

JCT: That's was "Getting out of jail" AND "Getting the
Frankel gang" as the new thrust. For all of us from now on.
Time to get all our Crown Attorney's charged too! Right?
They can read. They're experts. They should have known. Time
to really go on offence. Hey, Doug and Laurie, wouldn't you
like to get C.A. Greg Smith cited for abuse of process and
contempt of court? Let's all start to try. New strategy,
right?

>ron Post #61
>Dec 18 2004, 01:26 PM

R: I did mention the situation in a comment on a Canadian
situation on the front-page at marijuana.com I will try to
work it in at FreeRepublic before Monday.
Do you think we should let Cannabis News know?

JCT: A crowd of reporters in the court-room blows the lid on
the Bogus Charges scandal sky-high.
---

>Virgil Post #62
>Dec 18 2004, 01:44 PM

Ron, I would think that the regular visitors of Cnews would
be interested in knowing of the present situation more than
any group on the Internet.

JCT: I would think that since they banned Virgil from there,
that perhaps the ones who didn't seek out what they were
being denied would not be.

V: There is just not a more compelling cannabis story to
follow.

JCT: Especially when we've got the bad guys by the balls.

V: Now that you mention it, later this evening I will email
Marc Paquette and see if he will contribute his perspective
to this thread.. There is a Canadian issue up at Cnews with
a Paquette response -
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20042.shtml#7
---

>budEluv
>Date: Sat Dec 18 2004 12:14 PM

DML: Therefore, if others have tried and failed with the
"law is dead" thing,

B: I think that failure is not the applicable word. Look at
the reason(s) in the cases already adjudicated upon. It is
obvious that the issue is simply that the judges shirked.
They avoided the issues addressed within the courts and
side-stepped over to the now infamous Hitzig case.

The attempt(s) did not fail. The issues were not addressed.

JCT: Still trying to convince David Malmo-Levine it's better
the challenge the CDSA prohibition than the MMAR permission.

B: How is it a failure when an appeal is inevitable and the
matter will have to be addressed in a court of higher
jurisdiction?

Quote: DML: it might be wise to lead with the "anti-
genocide" argument in the future - it really has yet to be
the focus of any case.

B: David, (please address this)
I think it really sucks that you MAY be one of the ones who
has also turned your back on Terry Parker. You know, the one
who originally got the courts to strike down the possession
law? Terry is a miracle and a blessing. If you thought your
Supreme Court case left you a little jaded, think how HE
feels.

Terry has gone under the knife and had his brain hacked into
to "help" control his epileptic seizures. The result?
Surgery made it WORSE! He has been prescribed dozens of
toxic pharma drugs that nearly killed him to "help" is
epilepsy. All this has happened because he wasn't "allowed"
the only thing that continues to save his life to this
day...cannabis.

He has been segregated by the practically the entire med-pot
movement....including Alan Young and Alison Myrden. Why have
they gone separate ways? Terry is still fighting for his
RIGHT TO LIFE.

Fact - EPILEPSY KILLS.

Fact - The only thing that can PREVENT and STOP an epileptic
attack is marijuana.

Fact - Turmel has already raised the genocide argument that
conclusively shows how many epileptics die per year. These
numbers cannot be refuted. It is an official body count.

JCT: But Lederman said death statistics aren't "medical
evidence."

B: *FACT?* - The cannabis culture is not an "officially
recognized" culture in the eyes of the law, or within the
courts... (I could be wrong though)

JCT: Good point. Arguing genocide of epileptics is stronger
than genocide of culture if cultural genocide isn't even in
the law. But I can't see why David would steer us off onto
an argument that can't work in opposition to one that's
obvious.

B: How can the fact that epileptics, who are denied
marijuana by doctors and government, not be considered
genocide? Marijuana, the only thing that can prevent and
stop attacks that kill epileptics, is a violation of an
epileptics right to life. That's why Bruce Ryan and gang had
their charges dropped. One of them was epileptic.

Based on Terry's 40 year battle...yes, 40 YEARS, Shouldn't
Terry be regarded as a hero? I know he is in my books. I
know I recognize Aug. 1st, 2001 (the day s.4 died) as TERRY
PARKER Day.

JCT: Actually, the law died when the court said it did, on
July 31 2001 11:59. Midnight Terry Parker Day was the death
of the law, it was the life of the new freedom. Terry Parker
Day was our day of liberty. The beast was executed the night
before.

B: Why is Terry's name never brought up? Is it another
"guilt by association" because he has allied with Turmel? I
hope that it's not just that particular and petty reason.
When someone who has been fighting for his right to LIVE for
the past 40 years, and STILL IS FIGHTING, that is one of the
most courageous and admirable things I have ever seen.
---

>Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 04:25:00 +0000
>From: tsunami8972@... (tsunami8972)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Re: TURMEL: "Get out of Jail" AND

I think that's a great idea to try to cite David Frankel
with contempt. It's bound to hit the judge's gossip line.

JCT: May even break into the major media that there were
hundreds of thousands of erroneous convictions too.

T: Whether it hits the main stream press???  I'd be tempted
to bet it won't. The blockade is strong.

JCT: You never know when everything comes together or just
the right people take initiative. Remember, the world owners
say that there is nothing more dangerous than personal
initiative which can do more than can be done by the
millions amongst whom they've sown discord.

T: We need the engineer with some blasting powder to figure
out which abutments to knock out so the whole house of cards
of prohibition falls down. Ready on Monday for the first
blast. Ready. Sound the siren. Blast. Ready for the second
blast.

JCT: Liberation just in time for a Merry Christmas.

T: There's a carrot at the end of the stick John. If you
destroy prohibition like you promised you would also destroy
Alan Young and the monopolist slime at Cannasat. Think about
it. All that money and time and payola they invested down
the drain. What a lovely little reward at the end of the
day.

JCT: I never considered much of a threat, more of
diversion, a way to condemn the Professeur Saboteur for less
than his Parker stab in the back and Hitzig resurrection. Is
there anyone who can call a criticism for joining the board
of a marijuana company anywhere near as bad as what he did
to Parker and to all of us with his resurrection. It just
gave David Malmo-Levine something weak to attack Alan about
to sheep-dip him some more. But I think his true colors have
shown through by now.

>Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:49:40 -0500
>From: ed2411@... (ed pearson)
>Subject: Re: [MedPot-discuss] TURMEL: "Get out of Jail" AND

EP: It sounds great but how do you make proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that he read Krieger?

JCT: He's the attorney who signed the Crown's Memorandum
on the Krieger case!

EP:  He certainly cannot be compelled to testify against
himself no more than can you.

JCT: His signed Memorandum explaining how the Krieger ruling
invalidated the prohibition by the highest court in Alberta
should be enough.

EP: First Mandamus against Atty. General re Federal Crown
prosecutions and against Frankel if he then  errs u have him
for contempt. Or Prohibition against further prosecutions by
Atty. Gen. of Canada.

JCT: Excuse me if I do not read any advice from a guy who
missed the fact Frankel signed the government's analysis of
the Krieger case. I think I'll decide what I do on my own.

>ron Post #63
>Date: Dec 18 2004, 07:04 PM

R: Sent Cannabis News the following:
Subject: Exciting things are happening in Canada!

Mike South will be filing for a release from jail pending
appeal of the non existence of a law against possession
(s4.1 - Parker 2001) and cultivation (s4.7 - Kreiger 2002).

The judge will be asked to cite for contempt the Ministry of
Justice Attorneys and their Attorney General. They knew
there was no law left last December. Yet 100,000 people,
like Mike South, have been unfairly charged for breaking a
non existent law.

JCT: Turmel's one of them who didn't know and he's even
madder now.

R: If Mike South's appeal is granted the question of why the
media has stood silent about this shameful coverup will have
to be answered - or are they that powerful? Not if we don't
let them be.

JCT: The Turmel blackout is a fascinating dilemma for the
media, isn't it?

R: His court appearance at Osgoode Hall in Toronto on Monday
morning should be spot city for bloggers, presstitutes and -
dare we hope - presstivisionnaries themselves. I want to see
it live on CBC or CPAC Monday morning.

JCT: Ask them, please. Write them, call them, please.

R: I'm a realist though. There's some kind of colluding
going on between the inJustice system and the mediocrities
to cover up the fact that there is now no law in Cannabia
and they're still arresting 150 people a day!

JCT: Maybe not. Maybe the Calgary reporters were so busy
taking quotes from the two attorneys that they didn't read
the 24 line decision which three times mentioned the
cultivation section being struck down. Maybe they really
didn't notice?

R: People interested in following this drama should check
out this Cannabis Culture thread:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/show...sb=5&o=&fpart=9

I remember Marc Paquette parting ways with John last year in
CNews, but they seemed friendly in one of John's posts. I'd
like to hear his story.

Alan Young teaches at Osgoode Hall. The irony in this
unfolding drama is excruciating.

JCT: Yes, it was a law professor who told the Canadian
audience that an Ontario Court had brought the prohibition
back to life ending the period of legalisation as of 9am
this morning. It was a law professor who misled them. A York
University Osgoode Hall Law School professor who does not
know that Parliament Only Legislations, Court Only
Abrogates.

R: Will two aces win this pot? Ministers of inJustice often
produce a joker from their holes, nevertheless.

JCT: They've got no wildcards. They thought it was a tough
battle while we were on defence, imagine what they're
feeling now that know we've switched to offence. Bet they're
burning the midnight oil at their King & York tower tonight.

R: Will John and Alan discuss their differences in an
appropriate setting? And what about Naomi?  We could ask Tom
Lehrer.

JCT: I do some of his songs. Vatican Rag!
---

>ron Post #64
>Date: Dec 19 2004, 01:25 AM

R: This dam built by persecutors is going to burst very
soon. Maybe Monday.

JCT: Last chance before Christmas.

>Buds_4_Life Post #65
>Date: Dec 19 2004, 09:33 AM

QUOTE: "Will John and Alan discuss their differences in an
appropriate setting?"

D & L That's very doubtful, John wouldn't trust him after
everything he's done & still doing. Alan had his chance to
do the right thing for everyone & chose to line his pockets
through Cannasat instead. Alan is the reason the whole
country believes the law was resurrected......a major Paul
Revere....D & L

JCT: I'll discuss our differences in online debate any
time, any place. He's the guy who on the run.

>Virgil Post #66
>Date: Dec 19 2004, 11:29 AM

V: I am thinking of Turmel the future movie, where there is
this showdown resulting in victory at the historic hall of
justice in Toronto. I cannot help but have him wear a t-
shirt that says. Better kook than crook.
Tomorrow is showtime.

JCT: Young's a spent force. He tried to explain his Cannasat
motivations but deferred explaining how his Hitzig case
brought the prohibition back to life. Har har har har. All
Malmo-Levine's critiques he's ready to answer but my one, he
still says we'll have to wait to have that explained, and
only if we're nice.

>http:// www.hempcity.net
>Subject: Cannabis Prohibition is dead in Canada
>Virgil
>Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:33 am

V: The biggest and best cannabis story inside the saga of
the Free Cannabis Movement is happening in Canada. It is an
amazing story because it is so incredible that it challenges
your sense of what is real. There are those that say there
is Free Cannabis For Canadians right now because the
cannabis prohibition laws became dead on July 31, 2001. This
is a well-established historical fact even though it would
be May of 2003 before the media would inform the Canadian
public of the facts. Several court rulings in May of 2003
forced a media reporting frenzy that the CP laws were dead.

JCT: The media played it up while it was based on the
Windsor technicality that eventually lost and lost
interest that J.P. got off because of the Parker-Turmel-
Paquette merit argument that eventually won.

V: What is strange is that the Crown acknowledges the death
of their precious CP laws, yet there were 100,000 cannabis-
issue convictions when even the Crown admits the laws were
dead.

JCT: I know, Frankel's confession is a god-send.

V: There has been no move by the Crown to right this
injustice.

JCT: Worse, Judge Kenkel in R.v. Peddle said staying charges
based on a null statute is unjust, they must be quashed. So
they stayed the 4000 charges just to add a little greater
measure of injustice even when they lost.

V: They just let the criminal records of good people stay
there even though they were not in violation of any law.

JCT: My Supreme Court Application #0570 asks for that
correction.

V: What is stranger still is how the Crown and the media
have somehow resurrected laws that were struck down by the
courts. What brought the death of the laws in the first
place was Health Canada not providing an epileptic named
Terry Parker with cannabis. On July 31, 2000, the courts
ruled that Terry Parker's right to life under the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms was at risk due to the failure of Health
Canada to provide him access to the cannabis needed because
of his epilepsy. It was Terry Parker in the courts that
first required Health Canada to come up with a MMJ program.
When they failed, he would go back to court to say they
failed. The July 31, 2000 would say that the situation was
unconstitutional and that Terry Parker had a right to supply
and that if Health Canada could not fix its supply problems
in one year for people in need of MMJ, then there would be
Free Cannabis For Everyone. Health Canada to this day
obstructs supplying clinical cannabis and there are 600
approved patients where there are a million in need.

The Crown claims a miracle reincarnation of the dead laws
because of some words in the judgment section of a ruling on
October 7, 2003 in a Hitzig appeal before the Ontario
Supreme Court. The Court did not order a resurrection of
sections of the CDSA and it is the orders of the court that
have meaning. The judgment is only a line of reasoning the
judge is following to come to the orders.

Even if the Ontario Court of Appeals had ordered a
resurrection of the parts of the CDSA, it is beyond their
authority. It takes a legislature to pass laws and since no
new legislation has come, there are no laws against
possession, cultivation, or trafficking of cannabis in
Canada.

It is my belief that it is just another fraud inside the
massive fraud that is Cannabis Prohibition itself. The court
case that could break the story open could come as early as
Friday with a decision to quash the charges against Mike
South (Pierre Drouin & Real Martin) in Cochrane. The
appointed council says that either she or her partner will
make Canadian law history with this attempt to quash for
Mike South. It is at the end of message1552 of Turmel at
YahooGroups.

It is an all but unbelievable story that I have been
following for some time. You can read the story by John
Turmel at
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1551
Turmel is the one writing the messages at yahoo. There is
thread at the website created by people that ran the John
Kerry website that is following this amazing story at
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?showtopic=6332
I hope you hear that the CP laws in Canada are dead very
soon- and maybe on Friday.
_________________
My creed is to heed the need to free the weed, dweeb. Let the
prohibitionists say what they will, then ask, "How will things
be different when Miracle Plant is regulated?"
-------------------------------

emporer
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:30 pm
Subject: Turmel Time
One of the cannabis related websites I participate in is out
of Amsterdam at HempCity.net.
You might be interested in the thread going on in:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1006982&Main=1002\
863#Post1006982

David Malmo Levine and Eco2man have been cat fighting the
past few days, but guess what? - they both agree Turmel is a
kook. They offer no substantive answers but have provoked
several posters to eloquent defense of the engineering paper
pusher.
Everybody's expecting the thread to be struck down, but at
least the Cannabis Press is naming his name. The Prince
might even make a statement.
The court case that could break the story open could come as
early as Friday with a decision to quash the charges against
Mike South in Cochrane.
Mike South is appearing in Toronto court. His case will be
heard Monday. Cochrane is a mining town, a few hundred miles
to the north. It involves Pierre Drouin, another of Turmel's
coachees. Try:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1520
and
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1533
-------------------------------

>Virgil
>Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:36 am
>Subject: Thanks for that input

It is somewhat confusing figuring out what Turmel is saying
because it involves people and court cases that are
presented so casually in his writing.

The idea of kook is not relevant. It was Turmel that
engineered the defeat of the possession and cultivation laws
in the Parker decision made by Judge Pitt. The subject is
discussed in the thread at Common Ground Common Sense using
Alan Young's own words.

This is really somewhat of a test for our ability to
communicate news throughout the world using the Internet.
This is important stuff that Turmel is spouting and it only
has three places on the Internet exploring the subject that
is definitely the subject of a media blackout in Canada.
Does anyone argue that 100,000 people were convicted in the
period from August 1, 2001 to October 7, 2003? Even the
Crown does not dispute the laws were dead during this time
and what has the Crown done to remedy the injustice.

There is plenty of stink in all of this no matter how you
look at it. Of course if what Turmel says is true, we should
know soon enough. The reason it has taken this long is
because we as a reform community did not get the story out
for people's defense before the courts in Canada. Now there
are people presenting the proper arguments and in some ways
our discussion in the three known threads on the subject,
including this one, are not as important as it once was.

It is still a great perspective to see through Turmel's
eyes. This is a story of giant fraud and media blackout. The
reason I put up a thread here is so that people might have a
chance to latch on to the story as it unfolds now that it is
crunch time.

JCT: Sumbitch David Frankel's confession is so important
that I have put together on 1 page all that is needed to
torpedo his boat:

http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.bmp
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.jpg
Go read it and enjoy the Supreme Court's answer:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.bmp
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.bmp

Let's all pray there's a good judge on the roster tomorrow.



--
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

JCT: Alison Myrden's always been part of the Alan Young's
nest of narc moles. Last year, just before the Hitzit-Myrden
resurrection of the MMAR and CDSA, I wrote about her:

>JCT: Hitzig Group taking credit for Parker case

>AlisonMyrden                   stranger
>Date: Sun Oct 05 2003 08:05 PM
>International Press Release
>OCTOBER 6, 2003 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AM: MEDICAL MARIJUANA -- ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL TO RULE ON
PRECEDENT SETTING CASES AFFECTING CRITICALLY AND CHRONICALLY
ILL CANADIANS
For more information, please contact:
Counsel:
Alan Young -- 416-964-1999 -- alany@...
Paul Burstein -- 416-204-1825 -- paul@...
Joseph Neuberger -- 416-364-3111 -- joseph@...
Leora Shemesh -- 416-364-9020 -- leora@...

Litigants:
Alison Myrden - (905) 681-8287 - myalison@...
Marylynne Chamney
Catherine Devries
Jari Dvorak
Warren Hitzig/The Toronto Compassion Centre
Marco Renda
Debbie Stultz-Giffin
Stephen VandeKemp

Alison Myrden, Federal Medical Marijuana Exemptee, and one
of the litigants in Hitzig et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen
(C39532; C39738; C39740) will be joining York University Law
Professor Alan Young as well as other counsel and litigants
for formal release of the decision of the Ontario Court of
Appeal in this matter.

This appeal was heard on July 29th and 30th of this year,
along with other cases brought forward by Windsor, Ontario
lawyer Brian McAllister on behalf of a young offender, and
epilepsy patient Terrence Parker Jr., among others.

>JCT: "and epilepsy patient Terrance Parker, among others."
The case is called Parker et al, not Hitzig et al, after
being changed by the court. What are the bets that the
appeal court gets it wrong and styles the cause Hitzig? I'll
take even money they screwed up. Probably on purpose.

AM: DATE/TIME: Tuesday, October 7, 2003 at 10:00 AM
LOCATION: Osgoode Hall, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
130 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N5
Phone 416-947-3300 or 1-800-668-7380
Corner Queen Street West & University Ave, near Osgoode
Subway Station

Hitzig v. HMTQ is a precedent setting lawsuit in which seven
critically and chronically ill people, as well as their
caregiver from the Toronto Compassion Centre -- a total of
eight people -- sued the Federal Government of Canada for a
safe and reliable source of marijuana as medicine.

>JCT: Hitzig v. HMTQ is the "misguided" action to declare
the MMAR permission system unconstitutional while Parker was
the guided action to declare the CDSA prohibition system
unconstitutional.

AM: The lawsuit demands that the Canadian government provide
a legal, consistent and affordable source of therapeutic
cannabis to sick and dying people in Canada, or provisions
of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act -- which is the
basis of Canadian cannabis prohibition -- are dead.

>JCT: Parker asked that the provisions of the CDSA are dead
and now Alison's taking credit for it when they didn't argue
it before Lederman, we did.

AM: Says Myrden, "We are then prepared for a ripple effect
across our country, through every province, allowing this
law to be freed entirely. Join us Tuesday morning for this
intriguing, important international media release. The world
is watching!"

>JCT: The world is watching Alison and Alan taking Terry's
bows.

JCT: It was worse. Alan ended up crowing how their Hitzig-
Myrden case ended the summer of legalisation "as of 9am
this morning."

So how is Young's pet weasel keeping busy in later days?
Adding to the government spin that S. David Frankel is an
idiot for saying the law is still dead:

http://boards.cannabis.com/archive/index.php/t-1102.html

Buds_for-life (Doug & Laurie)
Oct-03-2004, 20:45

If you want the truth about MJ being legal in Canada go to
http://members.msn.com/nocookies.msnw or http://medpot.net/
The laws on prohibition were made of no force & effect as of
Aug. 1, 2001 Terry Parker Day. They say they resurected it
in Oct of 2003, but the government didn't legislate it & the
court that they say made the new law has refused to sign the
order saying they made it law again. We're in court tomorrow
to try our motion to quash again. The man behind these
motions has been in this fight from the start. Good luck in
school
---

JCT: Alison adds her spin:

Alison Myrden
Oct-03-2004, 21:05

There IS a Law in Canada regarding Cannabis. IF you can
confuse a lower Court Judge to believe your banter, THEN you
MIGHT have a chance. MOST PEOPLE WOULD LOSE.

Please people beware. A few people, led by an eccentric man
by the name of John Turmel, are running around Canada
telling people this.

IF - there is no Law, I am wondering why people are still
getting arrested and CHARGED with Marijuana issues all
across Canada ???

Please UNTIL YOU WIN, don't spread the word too far.
You are putting other people in jeopardy - ask ANY Lawyer in
the Country.  Be responsible.
---

JCT: Doug and Laurie keep pushing:

>http://boards.cannabis.com/archive/index.php/t-3079.html

Buds_for-life (Doug & Laurie)
Oct-03-2004, 20:59

D&L: For the truth on MJ being legal in Canada go to
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot-discuss/messages
or http://medpot.net/ The law is dead in Canada, they admit
that it died on Aug. 1, 2001 but they say that the judge
brought the law back on Oct. 7, 2003. If you read the law
books it explains that only parliament can legislaye new
laws. POLCOA (Parliament Only Legislates, Courts Only
Abrogate) We're in court tomorrow to challenge the validity
of the possession laws, again. This could be big if we win.
---

JCT: Then Alison shows up again to add her spin:

Alison Myrden
Oct-04-2004, 21:03

Please see my Posting in the Legal Forum re: Cannabis being
Legal in Canada... Cannabis is NOT legal in Canada.

A small group of people led by John Turmel are confused -
THAT is why their most recent case was remanded until late
November 2004.

Please Educate yourself before you risk the chance of Jail.
Be Responsible when you Post.
The World is watching....
Alison Myrden Federal Medical Marijuana Exemptee in Canada
The Medical Marijuana Mission  www.themarijuanamission.com
Member L.E.A.P. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition leap.cc
---

JCT: So now we see the contribution from the medpot movement's
favorite former Law Enforcer for Prohibition. Alison
Myrden's no reformer to be pushing the Hitzig resurrection
with the Professeur Saboteur so readily.




--
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

PRESS RELEASE

On Dec. 11 2000, Alberta Judge Acton in R. v. Krieger ruled:
"[44] I am satisfied that s. 7(1) of the CDSA deprives Mr.Krieger
and those who are similarly situated of their rights under s. 7
of the Charter to the extent that it prohibits these individuals
from producing raw cannabis marihuana for their own therapeutic
purposes. I am also convinced that such deprivation is not in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice...
[55] I am prepared to agree with the Applicant that s. 7(1) of
the CDSA should be struck down to the extent that it deals with
production of cannabis marihuana. If s. 4 were before me I, like
the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker , supra , would
strike down the prohibition against possession of marihuana
because to do otherwise would be, to use Dr. Kalant's word,
"inhumane" to Mr.Krieger under the circumstances."
www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/qb/Criminal/2000/2000abqb1012.pdf

On Dec 04 2002 the Alberta Court of Appeal sustained the Acton
repeal of prohibition in S.7 and Parliament has never since re-
enacted any new prohibitions.
App.2:
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf

The Calgary Herald and Sun reports misrepresented the striking
down of S.7 and S.4 as a personal victory for Krieger. Calgary
Herald's Daryl Slade wrote that "Krieger's lawyer, Adriano
Iovinelli, said outside court it was an important decision that
permits his client to continue to cultivate and use marijuana for
his own use to alleviate chronic pain caused by multiple
sclerosis. Iovinelli said, as it stands, it is status quo on
Krieger's charter exemption. But he suggested that would not
apply to the general public..

On May 16 2003, the Crown's Memorandum to the Supreme Court of
Canada in Krieger had Counsel S. David Frankel pleading for leave
to appeal because "[57 as matters now stand s.7(1) has been
declared of no force and effect by the highest court in Alberta."
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegcm.txt Repeating:
"[57 AS MATTERS NOW STAND S.7(1) HAS BEEN DECLARED OF NO FORCE
AND EFFECT BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN ALBERTA."

On Dec 23 2003, the Supreme Court denied the Crown's application
for leave to appeal the striking down of the prohibitions. The
fact the media, Crown and defence misrepresent a general striking
down of prohibition as a personal victory for Krieger doesn't
make it so. The Attorney General for Canada has known about the
prohibitions on marijuana having been repealed since the highest
court in Alberta struck them down.

On Monday Dec 20 2004, an application by Mike South for release
pending appeal on the basis of the Krieger repeals will be heard
at Osgoode Hall in Toronto at 10am. An application to have the
Crown cited for contempt of court until all prisoners jailed
under the invalid statute will also be sought.

JCT: I'm sending out this fax to the following Toronto media.
Hamilton Spectator  City News 905-526-1395f  800-263-8386
Toronto Globe and Mail 416-585-5085f desk 416-585-5397 566-3604 416-945-8712
Toronto Ming Pao Daily News (Chinese) 416-321-6339f
Toronto National Post  Editorial 416-442-2209f 416-442-2077
Toronto Scarborough Mirror (2x/week) 416-493-4703f
Toronto Sing Tao Daily  416-596-8497f
Toronto Free Press 416-977-1322f
Toronto Star City 416-869-4328f
Toronto Sun Newsroom 416-947-1664f

TELEVISION STATIONS Ontario
Hamilton ONTV Fax: (905) 523-8011
Toronto CBC-TV 416-205-7459
Toronto CBLFT-TV Channel 25 Fax: 416-975-5622
Toronto CBLT-TV CBC  Fax: 416-975-3453
Toronto CFMT-TV Rogers Inc.  416-260-3621
Toronto CFTO-TV Fax: (416) 416-299-2273f 299-2386
Toronto CBLT-TV CBC  Fax: (416) 975-3453
Toronto CFMT-TV Rogers Inc. Fax: (416) 260-3621
Toronto CIII-TV Global Television Network Fax: (416) 446-5543
Toronto CITY-TV 416-593-6397
Toronto CTV Canada AM 416-291-5337f 416-332-7363
Toronto Global 416-446-5447f
RADIO
Toronto CBC-R 416-205-3888
Toronto CFTR-680 416-363-2387
Toronto CHFI-98 416-363-2434
Toronto CHWO Oakville 905-845-0021

JCT: I urge all supporters to not only send them a fax telling
why you think it's important to cite the Crown for contempt and
abuse but give their newsrooms a call too.

Also, call your local media and ask them to pressure their
Toronto affiliates to cover the story of the Attorney General for
Canada's Frankel Gang's Crime of the Century. 200,000 innocent
victims since Terry Parker Day is a record, for sure.


--
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

JCT: Pierre Drouin reports that he and Real Martin couldn't
cope with the storm to get to Cochrane yesterday. Damn, bad
luck. Since the Crown had not served them with any response,
they must be pretending Her Majesty The Clerk can keep the
application off the docket. Or the Crown could have raised
the issue that they had only received 29 days notice. But we
know it's returnable any time after 30-days notice so they
could be returned next week.

After they had served the Crown 29 days ago and sent in
their applications, HMTC returned them with her legal
opinion that they'd have to wait until their trial in months
to have it heard. Guess the 30-day notice doesn't apply in
Cochrane. I reassured them that no Canadian needs live with
the cloud of a defective indictment hanving over their heads
for more than 30 days and no clerk, no matter how uppity,
can stop their application from being filed as returnable
after the 30 days notice has been fulfilled.

I told them to find the next date when the criminal motions
are heard and we'll send the Crown a Notice of Return of
Motion, and mail it all in once again. Pierre found that the
first available motions date was Jan 7! He'll be back and
there'll be no service problems this time.

If HMTC returns it once again, they'll just show up on the
slated date and hand it up to the judge with the demand to
be heard. Just like Doug and Laurie just showed up after
they'd been told their hearing of their application was
postponed by a JP and demanded it be heard by the real
judge. Know your rights and have grit.

Mike South was transfered to the Don Jail for his trip to
Osgoode Hall on Wednesday. Certainly before the paperwork I
sent him in jail had reached him. When I was out on release
pending my gaming house appeal, I had to give myself up the
night before at the Don Jail for processing through the
bowels of the court to my hearing. It's was a filthy, scary
place.

I always find it important to take time to muse on not only
what's really really good for us but what's really really
bad for them. One must look not only for the silver linings
in our jail-house clouds but also the nightmares in theirs.

John Thomas Cook
H: Is the Crown/justice system breaching their duties by
laying and proceeding with offences not known to law?

JCT: Darn right. And Mike South was dragged through the
slime of the system because these Crowns did just that.

H: All public servants are sworn to uphold the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have repeatedly failed to
do so.

JCT: There has to be a way to win more than just Mike's
release on Monday which presumes the defensive attitude of a
person who's thankful to be getting out.

If it was me, I'd be angry about being put in and
immediately strike at the persecutors, expose and establish
their crime from the very first moment. And the Frankel
Posse at the Ministry of Justice did it to him. And me. I
was busted on the Hill after Krieger which I didn't find out
until the Supreme Court buried it under Clay-Caine-Malmo-
Levine.

So how to optimize on Monday's hearing? We've got a chance
to get a piece of paper in front of a judge with power to
push the Crown around on Monday. Remember when the Crown
told Justice Moldaver: "you can't force Health Canada to
grant Parker and Paquette exemptions." He responded: "I'm
making it a condition if you want a hearing for your stay."
They can do that.

But this is out and out abuse of the court's process and the
judge can make it a condition that the Crown release all
inmates on marijuana charges pending their appeals if they
don't want the present minister cited for contempt by not
correcting the crimes of the Frankel gang.

It's such a major injustice going, 60,000 busts a year is
164 improper busts per day still going on. Every day across
Canada, this many people get dragged through the system
because the Frankel cabal hushed up the repeal of the law.
What do we say to a Magistrate with complete power over the
Attorney General to put a stop to this injustice?

What can we say to the Magistrate to make her prefer having
them all freed by the Attorney General after one hearing
rather than have The Engineer stuff all those inmate appeals
onto their dockets for an attrition in time of 5 or 6:1 per
inmate hour. Driver, Guard, Clerk, Crown Attorney, Judge,
Duty Counsel. Per inmate.

I'm going to let myself imagine I'm the one coming up in
chains from the cells below up into the courtroom. After
all, if I'm convicted of the House of Commons bust, I'll
probably have to make the Don Jail trek again. I can imagine
being permitted to have my manacles removed, or not. I
forget, it's in my unpublished early journals.

But I'd be steaming at the Frankel Posse who knew the law
was invalid and didn't tell anyone just because the CanWest
Presstitutes helped them hush it up. Do they think that the
media not reporting it means it didn't happen? Reality
is going to bite.

What would I want show the judge about why the injustice of
my charge is such that release is mandated?
1) Kreiger Memorandum where the court dismissed the appeal
against Acton striking down S.7.
2) Frankel's Supreme Court Memorandum admitting S.7 and S.4
were struck down and pleading for leave before anyone finds
out.
3) Supreme Court ruling in support of striking down S.7.
4) Calgary news reports distorting the striking down of the
prohibitions into a personal win for Krieger, out and out
lies so the Frankel Posse can keep playing at cops and
farmers.

Everybody is improperly in jail in Canada for marijuana
since Dec 04 2002 because the Frankel Posse knew the truth
and helped keep it hushed up. I'd ask the judge to cite the
trio of Toronto Sumbitches in the Attorney General's office
with contempt of the Alberta Court of Appeal and Supreme
Court of Canada for not obeying the striking down of the law
and knowing it.

I want them jailed for dragging me and Mike through the
system knowing the prohibitions in S.4 and S.7 had been
struck down. I want the Ministry of Justice Attorneys who
knew and their Attorney General cited for contempt of the
Court's Order as long as they continue in any prosecutions
and continue to hold any prisoners.

Of course, the judge could hold a hearing (before Christmas,
how about Tuesday? the judge is there all week) on why the
Attorney General should not be cited for contempt of court
for continuing to prosecute Canadians knowing the sections
had been struck down even if the judiciary and bar did not.
Release them and we'll settle for just the Frankel gang.

Why couldn't S. David Frankel be cited for contempt of court
as a first stage in seeing the Frankel gang behind bars.
Imagine being responsible for knowingly convicting 100,000
Canadians under an invalid prohibition? Pretty spectacular
crimes, aren't they? What, did they think this was a game
with Turmel talking genocide again?

So, coming up from the dungeon, can the inmate hand in a
motion that he not only be released but that the Crown show
why they should not be cited for what looks to be a really
serious abuse of the process of the court?

They, and the media, fooled the whole judiciary into
convicting 100,000 people while they knew the prohibitions
were no longer valid. Can you imagine the destruction
they've done to so many people's lives and families? The
genocide that this shyster cabal has committed is an
incredible crime, actually.

Har har har har. Going on offence is so therapeutic. Mike
hands up his new motion for relief other than release
pending his appeal which specifically forces the Frankel
Gang to prove to the judge that the law is alive after
Krieger killed it. Can you think of anything that can hurt
the Attorney General's Frankel gang more than moving for
abuse of process and contempt of court?

These crooked shysters have to be made into the whole story
at Monday's hearing. Once the request goes in that they be
cited for contempt, there may be no more ducking our most
powerful move. Sure, admitting Krieger wins is nice but
admitting they hid it on purpose is better. Look at what
these Crown Attorney's have done. Regardless of whether
their political puppet of a minister knew or not.

Imagine the press release I'll be faxing out to all the
Toronto media. Imagine other activists being enlisted to
inform their local and national media outlets of why Mike
South is asking to have the Crown Attorney S. David Frankel
cited for contempt?

It's the start of the trek to jail for the other team for a
change? Can the threat of a contempt citation force the
Attorney General to free all the marijuana prisoners instead
of forcing me to free them all one at a time? Before
Christmas?

Can the abuse be so obvious that the judge threatens the
citation if the cells aren't opened up? Can all the innocent
victims of the Frankel Gang abuse of process be freed before
Christmas? Why not try? Why not ask? Mike South is our
chance.

Remember, this judge didn't know about what Frankel knew
because the media did not tell her and Frankel didn't
either. Can I convince the court it's better to blame the
Frankel Gang and open the jails to save us all the time I'll
spend stuffing their courts with inmate appeals at a 6:1
time attrition rate? I sure hope so.

All Mike has to do is sign the Notice of Motion I'll have
prepared for him asking to cite Attorney General for
contempt of the Alberta Court for ignoring the repeal of S.7
and S.4 of the CDSA and hand it to the clerk right away.

Hope this new nightmare ruins the Frankel Gang's Christmas.

So Monday's strategy changes from just "Getting out of Jail"
to "Getting the Frankel Gang."


--
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

>DrGreenthumbwpg
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:49 AM
DR: I was around when this happened. Nobody from the big
clubs out west asked Alan to "fix" the MMAR program - both
clubs and many on the CCC asked him to challenge it and he
ignored all of them.

Actually David that is the problem he is pointing out. The
CDSA was already declared unconstitutional as per parker
because there was no satisfactory exemption system for those
that needed cannabis for medical reasons.

The regs lacked the law that they were exempting people
from. It was like an exemption from a law that was already
of no force and effect because it was unconstitutional.

The judge, Pitt confirmed that. That is when alan helped the
crown get pitt's decision set aside and got the attack on
the mmar combined with john and terry's attack on the cdsa.

It gave the opportunity to the judges to tinker with the
regs and decide what would be constitutional. The challenge
of the mmar were totally unnecessary as the judge had
already ruled they were inadequate and did not satisfy the
parker order and were not even enacted in time to save the
cdsa if they had been adequate.

The judges also said that regs were not good enough because
they could be changed on a whim as they only needed to
printed in the canada gazzette. Parliament still hasn't
enacted a law but alan and his crew (myrden included) are
still pushing the idea that the law has been passed by
judges.

Note: Even if it was possible for them to have resurrected
the law health cnada has not complied with the things the
judges said would make the law unconstitutional so the
minute they re-instated the parts of the mmar that the
judges said made it unconstitutional the cdsa is once more
unconstitutional and of no force or effect.

as far as deleting posts and banning people from posting,
that is the chickenshit's way of not answering the critics.
maybe eco2man should be banned for calling DML a moron?
Why would anyone even suggest such a prohibitionist tactic?
Are you a chickenshit or do you have some more nefarious
reason for not wanting forum members to see all sides of the
issue? Just because someone is being a prick doesn't make
the issues they raise illegitimate.

You call John a kook and say he should be banned for
accusing Alison of colluding with the enemy. Unless there is
some proof that she is not doing so then you are insulting
him with no proof so you are no better.

JCT: Her involvement in the Hitzig resurrection and her
opposition to me all the way was all the proof I needed.

DR: I have also heard that she has ties to cannasat. I did
not hear that from john either. If she is going to publicly
support Alan and the governments spin that Hitzig resurected
prohibition that she should expect to be scrutinized.

JCT: And of course, the purpose of her national speaking
tour is to explain to people how the law is back alive. Real
useful to us "the law is dead" crowd.

DR: How hard is it to believe that an ex prison guard may
still harbour some prohibitionist ideals?

JCT: When you hear the cheers from the prohibitionist
benches for her Hitzig victory resurrecting the prohibition,
you have to wonder.

DR: I won't pass judgment on her till I know more but i
won't discount the possibility either. The forums are a
place for us to discuss any current events and developments,
and our suspicions should be discussed here to try and bring
out the FACTS. Stifling the discussion only helps keep the
facts hidden. Your suggestion of banning and censoring the
posts makes me wonder just what you feel you need to hide.

People reading these posts are perfectly able to discern
what is based in fact and what is speculation, or do you
doubt the intelligence of all the forum members and not just
DML?
---

>james101
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 09:31 AM
DML wrote: "it's not my first line of defense (I've got one
in mind that is way more educational and principled - less
"win by technicality")." David, would you be so kind as to
share YOUR first line of defense then, so that we can all
use it to defend ourselves and to defeat prohibition?
---

>davidmalmolevine
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 09:31 AM

DML: Sure. First I would summarize where we have gotten so
far. The only gain out of my Supreme Court visit would be
paragraph 100 of their decision in which they said basically
the harms that come with cannabis abuse can be mitigated
through proper use. Those aren't the words - the whole thing
is located in the counter-counterspin forum under "Supreme
BS".

JCT: The point is he's still at proving the law is bad. I
dropped that the moment I realize the law was dead and
getting it declared buried, not declared bad, was the new
goal. I can't count how many times I've explained how
everything changed once we had orders declaring the law is
dead and we had to change strategies from "it's bad" to
"it's dead." Too bad David never read my stuff.

DML: Next, I would put someone on the witness stand who knew
what the legal term "Genocide" was and could define it for
the court. (There IS a definition - the United Nations anti-
genocide treaty is the one I use.)

JCT: I guess the one I use from the Canadian Criminal
Code isn't good enough for Canadian courts?

DML: Then after that I would put an anthropologist on the
stand and define "culture". Then I would go into the anti-
Genocide treaty (1952? 1956?) and argue that international
law forbids what is currently happening to our culture.
Finally, I would use section 8(3) of the criminal code
(Necessity) to defend whatever non-violent mode of protest
led me into court in the first place. Howzat?

JCT: Compared to pointing at the corpses of 4 epileptics a
day from the epilepsy.ca statistics like I did, not very
good.
---

>Orchidman
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 03:21 PM
David, I find it interesting that you would use the argument
of genocide. John Turmel has a very good genocide argument
using the Canadian definition of genocide and shocking
statistics of dead epileptics. You should take the time to
read it, it's included in his supreme court paperwork I
think. A lot of people called Turmel kooky for raising the
genocide argument, so now I wonder if they will now call you
because of it.
---

>davidmalmolevine  [Re: DrGreenthumbwpg
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:28 PM
>DML:"I was around when this happened. Nobody from the big
clubs out west asked Alan to "fix" the MMAR program - both
clubs and many on the CCC asked him to challenge it and he
ignored all of them."

DR: Actually David that is the problem he is pointing out.
The CDSA was already declared unconstitutional as per parker
because there was no satisfactory exemption system for those
that needed cannabis for medical reasons. The regs lacked
the law that they were exempting people from. It was like an
exemption from a law that was already of no force and effect
because it was unconstitutional. The judge, Pitt confirmed
that. That is when alan helped the crown get pitt's decision
set aside and got the attack on the mmar combined with john
and terry's attack on the cdsa. It gave the opportunity to
the judges to tinker with the regs and decide what would be
constitutional."

DML: If you and him are stating that VICS and the BCCCS
ASKED Alan to do that, that would be a lie.

DR: "The challenge of the mmar were totally unnecessary as
the judge had already ruled they were inadequate and did not
satisfy the parker order and were not even enacted in time
to save the cdsa if they had been adequate."

DML: That was the CSA's argument as well - the MMAR was
inadequate. Read their press releases and media coverage I
provided.

JCT: So should you challenge the CDSA because the MMAR were
inadequate like Turmel was doing or challenge the MMAR?
That's the issue here. David and group did not say they
wanted to challenge the CDSA because the MMAR did not work.
They said they wanted to challenge the MMAR to prove what?

DR: "The judges also said that regs were not good enough
because they could be changed on a whim as they only needed
to printed in the canada gazzette. Parliament still hasn't
enacted a law but alan and his crew (myrden included) are
still pushing the idea that the law has been passed by
judges."

DML: JCT is talking as if ALL the clubs are part of Alan's
"crew" - not so.

JCT: I'm talking as if what I read David say about the clubs
urging Alan was true. Whether he suckered them or they knew
did not enter the discussion. So far, I've made criticized
David and them as dupes, not moles. But moles is always a
greater possibility for the guys who were there to keep the
media away from me.

DR: "Note: Even if it was possible for them to have
resurected the law health cnada has not complied with the
things the judges said would make the law unconstitutional
so the minute they re-instated the parts of the mmar that
the judges said made it unconstitutional the cdsa is once
more unconstitutional and of no force or effect.

JCT: That's the Health Canada "gimme" when they knew we
couldn't lose with Krieger. Wouldn't it be nice to have the
CDSA declared dead because of the gimme to help Sumbitch
David Frankel get off the hook for not telling the cops
about losing Krieger.

DR: "as far as deleting posts and banning people from
posting, that is the chickenshit's way of not answering the
critics."

DML: Are you accusing me of doing either? I've done no such
thing.

DR: "....maybe eco2man should be banned for calling DML a
moron? Why would anyone even suggest such a prohibitionist
tactic?"

DML: Where do I say "ban eco2man"?

DR: "Are you a chickenshit or do you have some more
nefarious reason for not wanting forum members to see all
sides of the issue?"

DML: Please. Quote me where I endorse censorship. This
should take a while - I've NEVER endorsed the silencing of a
voice.

DR: "Just because someone is being a prick doesn't make the
issues they raise illegitimate. You call John a kook"

DML: That I did. He accused the clubs of asking Alan to fix
the MMAR when their dozen press releases on the subject
(CSA) indicate that they believed it was "inadequate"

JCT: But they did not challenge the CDSA. So what did they
want challenged if not the CDSA and not the MMAR?

DML: - Alan did what he did DESPITE what the western clubs
told him to do - not because of it. Blaming all the clubs
for what Alan did IS kooky.

JCT: I'm blaming them for not challenging the CDSA.

DR: "and say he should be banned for accusing Alyson of
colluding with the enemy."

DML: Where do I say "ban"? You're putting words into me
falking mouth, buddy.

JCT: It's the Ecoman, not the Dr.

DR: "Unless there is some proof that she is not doing so
then you are insulting him with no proof so you are no
better."

DML: Proof that who isn't doing what?

DR: "I have also heard that she has ties to cannasat."

DML: Who has ties to cannasat?

DR: "I did not hear that from john either. If she is going
to publicly support Alan and the governments spin that
Hitzig resurected prohibition that she should expect to be
scrutinized. How hard is it to believe that an ex prison
guard may still harbour some prohibitionist ideals?"

DML: If you mean Alyson, she's not a monopolist. If Alan led
her astray, she will be the first to quit his "crew" when
she finds out the truth. Perhaps you Alan critics would
reach more of his "crew" if you weren't so quick to call
people "narcs" - that's usually reserved for drug war
predators, not "sick folks who didn't know any better".

DR: "I won't pass judgment on her till I know more"

DML: You should have done that for me, too.

DR: "... but i won't discount the possibility either. The
forums are a place for us to discuss any current events and
developments, and our suspicions should be discussed here to
try and bring out the FACTS. Stifling the discussion only
helps keep the facts hidden."

DML: Where do I falking say "ban" anyone??????

JCT: I have no idea why David thinks he's the one who
proposed Ecoman's censorship. Didn't he read previous posts?

DR: "Your suggestion of banning and censoring the posts
makes me wonder just what you feel you need to hide."

DML: I'm missing that post completely. Quote me, straw-man
builder.

JCT: Funny when they get their lines crossed.

DR: "People reading these posts are perfectly able to
discern what is based in fact and what is speculation, or do
you doubt the intelligence of all the forum members and not
just DML?"

DML: You're obviously having a hard time discerning the
concept of "lack of endorsement" with "censorship". Next
time you accuse ANYONE of censorship - have the quote you
are refering to at the top of the page so everyone will know
what the fak yer talking about.
---

>eco2man
>Crapfest escalates. Crap-slinger shootout.
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:56 PM

ECO: Moderators and all. This interaction below between
David and someone else illustrates the problem of allowing
defamatory "crap-slinging" to show its ugly head at all. It
ends in one big non-informative confusing crapfest that puts
people off from these forums and these issues.

Quote: "I did not hear that from john either. If she is
going to publicly support Alan and the governments spin that
Hitzig resurected prohibition that she should expect to be
scrutinized. How hard is it to believe that an ex prison
guard may still harbour some prohibitionist ideals?"
If you mean Alyson, she's not a monopolist. If Alan led her
astray, she will be the first to quit his "crew" when she
finds out the truth.
Perhaps you Alan critics would reach more of his "crew" if
you weren't so quick to call people "narcs" - that's usually
reserved for drug war predators, not "sick folks who didn't
know any better".

ECO: Contrast this crap-slinger shootout thread with the
non-defamatory thread called "Possession laws not legit,
marijuana advocate says"
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Number=989668
It is much more informative on the same issues.
It is one thing to state general opinions of people such as
"kook" "idiot" "moron" and so on.
It is entirely different to call people narcs, monopolists,
collaborators, racists, etc.. For those specific accusations
proof is needed or those posts should be deleted. And people
who insist on posting those type of posts more than once
should be banned in my opinion.
I volunteer to be a moderator here.

JCT: Har har har har har har har har.

ECO: It is not difficult to tell what a defamatory type of
accusation is.

JCT: They need Ecoman at CBC, maybe CNN.

ECO: It is one that could be taken to court if printed in a
major media. This started out as an interesting thread. But
the problems started when the compilation of Turmel stuff
was posted.

I believe it is the responsibility of the person who posts
Turmel's stuff to edit out the defamatory accusations-
without-proof. If that person keeps posting unedited Turmel
stuff, then that person should be banned in my opinion.
---

>davidmalmolevine
>Re: Crapfest escalates. Crap-slinger shootout.

"I volunteer to be a moderator here... If that person keeps
posting unedited Turmel stuff, then that person should be
banned in my opinion. "

DMl: Moderators are here to encourage debate, not silence
it. If you ban everyone who insults anyone else a) we won't
know why people have a beef with others and b) we won't know
what else they have to contribute and c) we won't be able to
solve whatever problem is at issue.

Banning, in my opinion, should only be for people who spew
nothing but vile hatred and bad language and contribute
nothing to the furthering of knowledge, and who all attempts
at reasoning with has failed.

The way you talk, people are going to be banned for "insult
by disagreement" - you're too quick to silence others. You
don't have my vote for moderator status. Turmel may not be a
"team player" but he doesn't fall into the "ban him
instantly" category.
---

>eco2man
>Re: Crapfest escalates. Crap-slinger shootout.
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 09:41 PM
Quote: Turmel may not be a "team player" but he doesn't fall
into the "ban him instantly" category.

ECO: As usual you distort what I say, David. Scroll up a few
inches to what I said and see what I mean. It is constantly
amazing to me that you will reply to me and have what I said
right in front of you, and then you distort it. When you
reply to someone what they said is on the same page as the
box for typing in your reply. I didn't say "ban him
instantly" I said that when people post his remarks they
should edit out the defamatory accusations-without-proof,
you dumbass kook.
--------------------

>davidmalmolevine
>Date: Dec 16 2004 09:52 PM

"I said that when people post his remarks they should edit
out the defamatory accusations-without-proof, you dumbass
kook."

DML: I would rather know what lies people are saying than
try and determine ahead of time what is the lie and what is
the truth. Censoring selectively and banning are more
similar than different.
---

>DrGreenThumb
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument!!
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 10:09 PM

DML: "If you and him are stating that VICS and the BCCCS
ASKED Alan to do that, that would be a lie."

DR: I am certainly not stating that and i don't think he is
either but i can't speak for turmel. I think the compassion
club model would have had the perfect opportunity to succeed
in a legal market. I suspect that Alan convinced some people
to go along with it, after all he is a lawyer so he needs a
"defendant" to challenge the regulations right?

Why challenge the regulations when the law had been declared
unconstitutional anyway? There was no law to be exempted
from, hence the 4000 judicial stays.

I honestly think the compassion club people were just
looking to protect themselves and get screwed the hardest if
the cannasat monopoly goes thru. They have the experience
and the clientell already, that would have been tough for
any private company to compete with in a legal market. I
think they were tricked into thinking he was looking out for
their best interests when he was looking after his own best
interests.

DML: "JCT is talking as if ALL the clubs are part of Alan's
"crew" - not so."

DR: I didn't know he was suggesting that the clubs wanted
alan to do this, i may have missed something in that respect
but i believe john supports compassion clubs or anyone else
being able to sell legal cannabis for any reason.

DML: "as far as deleting posts and banning people from
posting, that is the chickenshit's way of not answering the
critics."
"Are you accusing me of doing either? I've done no such
thing"

DR: No, lol I was directing that comment to eco2man for
calling you a moron and then calling on the moderators to
delete posts he didn't like or kill the thread or something
like that because he said we were crap spewing and crapping
on good activists for even having this discussion on the
possible monopolization of the sacred herb.

DML: "Where do I say "ban eco2man"?

DR: You didn't, I was suggesting that if he thought others
should be banned for discussions he considered insulting
then by his own standard he should have been banned for
insulting you. He certainly didn't have facts to back up
that you were in fact an actual moron but he said it in a
public forum. (It was supposed to be sacrasm) I think by now
you understand that it was eco2man not DML that i was
acusing of endorsing censorship. Either I misrepresented
what i meant to say or you just misunderstood but it was not
you the second half of that post i made was about.
---

>davidmalmolevine
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 10:32 PM

Marc Emery and I have been arguing "cultural genocide" since
at least 1996 if not before.

JCT: It's a lot easier to prove "genocide of epileptics" with
corpses than "genocide of cultural" with what? I wasn't
aware that there was as law against the genocide of culture.
I always thought it was genocide of people.

DML: I did two shows on the subject for PTV and they seem to
have been appreciated:
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-3096.html
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2119.html

JCT: And he never knew the definition from the Criminal Code
of Canada?
---

>elagabalus
>Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 12:02 AM
E: David, A half a dozen people are trying to have a
reasonable discussion here, and you keep falling into the
exterminator's (the moderator wannabee) trap. You even took
the last half of DrGreenthumb's post personally - although
he was clearly speaking to "he-who-wants-us-all-to-stop-
talking-about-this"
You started a thread about the law being too muddled.
Eco2man keeps changing the title, so now you're arguing
about "shit". That's what he keeps changing the title to.
Never mind his pr tactics - let's get back to your original
thread. Even though the story was a year old, it IS Current
News and the Events ARE unfolding.

You and Turmel have both raised the "genocide" argument, and
I certainly support it. It's not just epilectics who have
died because of the conspiracy between politicians, press,
police and the judiciary.
You seem to agree with Turmel about the law too, although
you haven't really mentioned Krieger, one of his aces.

DML: "It's not fair to say I don't feel his argument has
substance. I've never said that."

E: Okay. Let's say you didn't address the main point - his
arguments concerning Kreiger and Parker, which certainly
relates to the topic of this thread.
Anyway, you seem to be in agreement with us. Why do you want
to help eco2man to change the focus. He's talking about
crap.
---

>eco2man
>Defamation versus general insults.
>Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 02:12 AM

ECO: Moderators. Please read the suggestions here.

Eco man: "I said that when people post his remarks they
should edit out the defamatory accusations-without-proof,
you dumbass kook."
David: I would rather know what lies people are saying than
try and determine ahead of time what is the lie and what is
the truth.

ECO: Censoring selectively and banning are more similar than
different.

Of course you think that. Having succeeded (by your
accusations-without-proof) recently in having 2 threads on
Cannasat locked and/or moved by the moderators. One has been
moved by the moderators to the Pot Politics forum.

You, and others, are again smearing Alan Young of Cannasat.
Without proof. Others are smearing Alison Myrden, Marc
Emery, etc.. Others are quoting Turmel in smearing Alison,
Marc, and many others.

Therefore I think that this thread should also be moved. Or
the offending posts deleted. Since you started this thread,
maybe you should be given the choice.

But I don't think you and some others in this thread are
capable of having a discussion without smearing people
without proof.

JCT: I have always provided evidence of the dirty deeds
before calling people names. That's calling them names hurts so
much, because they fit so right on. Remember how my saying
Emery confessed and pleaded guilty was considered a smear
until it was pointed out that that is what he did? When the
truth is taken as a smear, what can be inferred?

ECO: And I doubt moderators want to constantly have to
delete the smearing posts, then I suggest to the moderators
that this thread be moved. That is not censorship.
All forums have topics, and moderators set the rules of each
forum. I suggest that this "current news and events" forum
meet stricter standards since it is the forum most outsiders
see first, and it is one of the busier CannabisCulture.com
forums.
---

>Orchidman
>Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 03:42 AM

O: Here is a recent re-print from Turmel. As you can see
there is no mud slinging. Noreen Evers is using the Turmel
paperwork in her own defence in a BC court. She knows the
stuff backwards now and has even dug up a couple of good
additions to the information that Turmel has included in his
work.
It's not that Turmel isn't a team player. He has Noreen
Evers handing out the kits in BC and other people handing
out the "Quash Kits". A lot of people believe in his work
and support him, so he has a team. There is a press clipping
below which John and Noreen discuss.
This is contemporary and in process. Her case was put off
till March and they have figured out a way to speed it up.
Nobody needs to deal with John Turmel if they are afraid of
his reputation. I'm sure Noreen Evers would be glad to help
anyone who asked.

>Press of Noreen's day in B.C. court.
----

>rtav
>Date; Fri Dec 17 2004 05:37 PM

DML: "I think Turmel is right."

R: OK. If you think he's right, why isn't a simple motion to
quash the recommended first line of defense? It can be
easily served without an attorney. If it's not accepted,
well, you're no worse off for having done it, are you?

JCT: Don't forget the Notice of Prohibition next, then the
constitutional motion like Parker and Krieger next, then on
to the trial with the lawyer.

R: Aside from that, though, if it was accepted, doesn't it
make you a _bit_ uneasy that the police and crown are
harassing people over DEAD LAWS?

JCT: We've got them on the defensive. I guess it's not a
mode of action that these marijuana reformers are used to,
offence. Sure, I've been called very offensive, maybe the
most offensive person in the world. Maybe.

R: I have no idea how you think that is a "technicality".

JCT: Parker and Krieger both presented major cases to prove
that the law was bad. Why is it called a technicality to now
force them to conclude it's dead?

R: Have I misunderstood?

JCT: Depends on whose side he's on but probably not.
---

>Whirlwind
>Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 07:44 PM

"I have no idea how you think that is a "technicality".

W: Speaking only for myself - but in the belief that others
share this view - I work to end not just the legal
prohibition, but also the cultural prohibition of pot. If we
win a court case that proves the law dead, we only win our
freedom until the feds pass a new law. The faster the law is
shown to be dead, the faster the new law will be drawn up
and the poorer it will be.

JCT: So his point is "why try, they'll just beat us anyway?"

W: And what will the public have learned? Only that it's
amazin' what them there dope smokers kin do when they put
their minds to it!

JCT: It wasn't dope-smokers. It was gutsy dope-smokers armed
by a dope-smoking combat engineer.

W: Its the court cases like Carol Gwilt's and the defenses
of DML that lead to a future of cultural tolerance, even
understanding, because they seek to elucidate the public.

JCT: So you're saying we should prove the law is bad all over
again. Parker's and Krieger's cases weren't enough. When do
we get to have the funeral if funerals call forth new laws?

W: A man is accused of molesting a child. In court, the man
proves that molestation is a crime not currently "known to
law" because the law agaisnt it was struck down due to a
technicality. The crown dismisses the charges and the man
goes free. Innocent or not, in the eyes of the community the
man will always be a child molester.

JCT: Bad analogy to call the Parker and Krieger medical
challenges "technicalities" because we then have to move
to have the law declared dead because the Crown won't admit
it and stop the busts.

W: If the pot laws are indeed dead, they only died because
the laws failed to make pot accessible to patients. The laws
were struck down due to a technicality.

JCT: The laws were struck down because they violated the
rights to life of the sick. Call this a technicality but
I can't understand your need to denigrate their efforts.

W: If the laws against pot were never to be resurrected, pot
would be vilified potentially forever.

JCT: Not being a scientist, you don't have a scientist's
understanding of the scientific principle. Do you think
the lies about the best medicinal herb on the planet will
escape the truth detectors of engineers just because they've
continue to escape yours. Now that the truth has caught the
attention of The Engineer, more will be done than can be
done by the millions thrown off target by the sown lies.

W: But, to have a jury trial court case, a chance to
vindicate the herb's reputation, to extol its virtues, to
open the eyes and ears of the public in such a way as to
make the lies finally end, that would be truly good.

JCT: That's exactly what Parker and Krieger both did and now
you want to do it all again. The strategy changed when
Parker and Krieger won, from proving the law is bad to
proving the "technicality" that it's repealed.

W: So, I guess I watch the cases like Marko's and RAM's with
interest,

JCT: Oh, are these using the Krieger and Parker Aces?

W: but my heart lies with a case that will win using truth:

JCT: Forgetting that two have already done just that.

W: Laws against pot should never have been written. The
science bears this out for any health concerns and our
cannabis culture is witness to its general wonder and
benevolence.

JCT: And yet you would just pessimistically keep trying to
prove it bad but never try to collect the pot by proving
it's dead because once it's admitted dead, Parliament
will just bring it back to life again anyway?

Whose side are you working on, anyway. You want us spinning
our wheels in eternal proving the law is bad but never
claiming it's dead?



--
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

>rtav
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 08:15 PM

R: OK, I agree that Turmel does a lot of finger pointing and
calling people narcs---but that's neither here nor there to
his legal argument. Assume he's 100% unjustified every time
he calls someone a narc. Even this does not make his legal
arguments unreasonable---and this isn't so much about
arguments against anything on his part as it is about having
the courts and crown recognize what's already true---i.e.,
that the law is dead. What else does Krieger say? The crown
admits this themselves.

JCT: How many days has it been since people have asked David
for his opinion now. He thinks Turmel's right but not clear
enough to start shouting it from the roof-tops like Turmel.
I know, isn't it incredible that the Crown admits that the
law is dead in their secret documents I had to dig up at the
Supreme Court (which puts the court on the spot in the
cover-up, sorry lady) and we still can't get our champions
to admit it too. Imagine, out greatest foe, the Crown
Attorney, screaming Krieger struck down prohibition and our
greatest champions aren't so sure.
It's always just an "if" despite two court orders and the
Crown's statement. Does it sound to you like David's happy
to find out that the law is dead?

R: Do you have an alternate interpretation of Krieger and
the crown memorandum? I mean, if you do, I would be very
happy to hear it! This is all focusing on the font instead
of the writing.

JCT: And when David keeps refusing to face the facts, you
have to ask yourself what it is about the facts that he
doesn't like. Does it sound to you like David's happy to
find out that the law is dead?
---

>budEluv
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 08:37 PM

Quote: 1) If the judges toss out the very reasonable "harm
principle" and lump us in with cannibals & animal abusers &
pimps and incestuous people, what makes you think you can
find some judges to agree with you that "the law is dead"?
Unreasonable judges = longshot.

B: Longshot? Agreed. It is very much a longshot.

JCT: John, the Great Canadian Gambler, calls the Acton
ruling affirmed by the Alberta Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court of Canada a cinch. Even David's under-
estimation of it's potential can't make the Krieger Ace a
longshot by any standards. The Crown's falling back on all
fronts, delay their on hope. Long-shot?

B: That doesn't mean that attacking the CDSA by the throat
and going for the kill is a bad thing though. Fighting to
end prohibition, is still fighting to end prohibition.

JCT: But David never said he wanted to challenge the CDSA
prohibition system, he said he urged Alan to challenge the
MMAR permission system. Then when Alan did it, and it back-
fired, he now claims Alan did not do what they instructed
him to do. When I pointed out he did, it hurt and David
lashed out instead of oopsing and apologizing. Looks bad.

B: Gotta keep up with that whole clogging up the courts
thing ya know?

Quote: 2) Why would I endorse someone who considered
everyone who doesn't agree with him right off the bat a Narc
(Alyson Myrdon????????)?

B: I don't think any are asking you to do that. Most wanted
an honest opinion on your interpretation regarding the legal
arguments.

JCT: And we're still all waiting for something from the guy
who's so proud of writing his own case at the Supreme Court.
I know how it feels, these are 12 and 13. Parker was 11.

B: The 'rantings and ravings' should be taken with a grain
of salt and you should try and look past the 'spectacle' and
address the issues of fact.

JCT: They're not rantings and ravings, they're vicious
right-on shots exposing their weaknesses in blunt blows.

Quote: 3) Why would I endorse someone who didn't bother to
phone either of the compassion clubs and fact checking
before blaming them for asking Alan to "fix" the MMAR
(something I know for sure they didn't do)? No fact
checking?

B: That anyone would ask DML for a leap of blind faith is
ludicrous. If they did, they would get the answer in the
negative, and rightly so. Turmel's guilt by association
(Young and Myrden) are egomaniac ravings.

JCT: Sure, I know. The Crown uses Alan Young's Wakeford
case to hurt us. Oops. Alison Myrden's Hitzig case is used
to hurt us. Oops. David's case is used to hurt us. Oops. So
far, I've never implied that David was part of the Hitzig
conspiracy to challenge the MMAR and resurrect the CDSA.
Only part of the dupes who asked for it not knowing what it
meant. He's the one who raises that possibility and I still
haven't commented on the probability.

B: The thing is, his reputation precedes him, and valid and
factual points don't score as they would if others had
brought them up.

Quote: Longshot + paranoia (calling Myrdon a Narc) + no fact
checking = not the sinking boat I wish to attach myself to.

B:I agree in that context it looks grim, but the 'sinking
boat' may be going to the Supreme Court to argue the law is
dead.

JCT: No one's ever called me a sinking boat before. I seem
to be the only one with cases still afloat.

B: Look at the timeline again. WITH the legal cases to
reference. Look at the orders from the Court(s). Look at the
arguments presented in those cases in the timeline. A
frivolous and irrelevant argument shouldn't be before the
courts, but this isn't one of them. The matter needs to be
addressed.

JCT: It's no long-shot. It's a cinch. Especially since John
The Engineer scares them all at the top.

Quote: I'm open to being corrected on this ... I hope
someone can point out where I'm wrong on all that.

B: The fact that there are currently 6 cases / motions
asking for the courts to acknowledge the fact that there is
no possession or cultivation laws can only be a good thing.
Out of those 6 cases, there will be 6 judges. The more we
keep bringing them before the court, the better the chances
one might come across a 'reasonable' judge.

JCT: And more and more and more as word gets out. Lots more
when Mike South gets out on Monday. Notice no press yet.

Quote: And one more thing: I admit that many times people
use the word "kook" instead of reasoned debate... I get
called a Kook alot and most of it is undeserved.... but in
this case Turmel is certainly acting like one!

B: This 'kook' that you refer to, is actually the one that
should be given some of the credit for the over 4,000 stays
for possession.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=current&Number=737\
531&fpart=&PHPSESSID=

I see no reason why anyone should pass up a free shot at
getting their charges dismissed. Nothing to lose, everything
to gain. Get out of Jail Free forms
<http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm>

JCT: That's the gist of it. There's nothing to lose by
presenting the Supreme Court killed the law before going to
trial. And people are finding out.

Quote: Fact checking JTC - try it out sometime.

B: He seemed to have his facts together when he helped Bruce
Ryan and the Compassion Club get off the hook with the
Krieger argument. So in reference to your question about the
Krieger ruling and how binding it is? Ask Bruce Ryan. The
Crown withdrew the charge, which didn't set a precedent, but
it certainly made the Crown nervous enough to drop the
charge.
<http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan2.jpg >
Bruce Ryan CC Thread
<http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=current&Number=88\
2753&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Bruce%20Ryan&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limi\
t=25&Old=6months&Main=882714&Search=true>
---

>davidmalmolevine
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:06 PM

Quote: "OK, I agree that Turmel does a lot of finger
pointing and calling people narcs---but that's neither here
nor there to his legal argument."

DML: I agree. It IS here and there when I get accused of not
promoting the argument - give me someone who is a team
player who is presenting the argument (someone who won't
call me a narc the moment I disagree, someone who will give
the FRIGGIN CSA the benefit of the doubt etc etc etc) and I
would love to help them out.

JCT: Excuse me but I'm the player-coach. Not only am I the
toughest player in the legal arena but I'm also the coach
who plans the strategy and selects the tactics. Excuse me if
that doesn't qualify as being a "team player." What's your
team at Cannabis Culture done to fight the prohibition, not
the permission?

DML: Teaming up with a non-team player seems like more
trouble than it would be worth

JCT: Even a non-team player on the 1-yard line?

DML: - notice how the latest (today) attempt resulted in the
Judge ignoring the argument?

JCT: That was Pearson's deuces biting the dust. He didn't
even include the Krieger Memorandum which states the
prohibition in S.7 has been struck down, nor the Supreme
Court Order backing it up. All my people have them both.
Please don't think Kamikaze Pearson's bombless run counts
for anything.

DML: Now imagine the judge ignores the argument again,

JCT: A judge hasn't had the chance to ignore it yet but
once. And the Edward refusal is being short-circuited.

DMl: PLUS anyone who threw their lot in with Mr.
Fingerpointer Fact-ignorer will be called a KooK too.

JCT: Is being called a Kook with Turmel a fate worse than
jail? Har har har har. If they want out, they won't be so
worried about their intellectual reputations as David is. But
after his recent head-aches, an intellectual reputation
shouldn't be much of a problem much longer.

DML: Perhaps if he was more of a team player there would be
no risk supporting him,

JCT: Why support ending CDSA prohibition when you could be called
a kook. Better support ending the MMAR permission so you can
hang out with Alan Young and thinkers in the movement. I'm
the quarterback, sorry if I'm you don't like my play-calling
but I engineer the artillery and call the plays. Parker and
Krieger Aces, that is all anyone's getting. That's why
everyone's feeling so good about their hands. It's easy to
play only Aces.

DML:but he presents himself as too crazy even for me to back
him up.

JCT: So far, I haven't actually read anything to back up his
continued calling me of names.

DML: And that's saying a lot when the guy who once had green
dreadlocks thinks you're too much of a wingnut to get
behind.

JCT: Narc moles aren't always sheep-dipped to black.

DML: I will vocally support anyone (aside from John T.) who
presents the "law is dead" argument - I'm just betting it
will continue to be ignored.

JCT: And since no other team has come up with that legal
artillery yet, I guess David's consigned to the sidelines
until he can challenge the MMAR again.

DML: I can't be bothered to help the guy who calls everyone
a Narc

JCT: Same cheap exaggeration all the time. I don't call
everyone a narc. I call people who help the narc cause and
do not stop when it's pointed out narcs. I look at the
results of what they did and if it hurts us and helps the
prohibitionists, like people who urged Alan Young to
challenge the MMAR while the CDSA was dead, then I increase
the probability they're rats. The fact you've never
apologized for urging Alan to challenge the MMAR while the
CDSA was dead remains a glaring hint.

DML:  and who won't call the FRIGGIN clubs up to double-
check...

JCT: I took your word for it that you and the clubs urged
Alan to "challenge the faulty MMAR" while the CDSA was
invalid. I'd never made that inference before until you
admitted your participation in getting the MMAR challenged
by Alan Young.

DML: or even bother to read any of the press releases
against the MMAR that were on line and available from the
CSA.

JCT: Are they going to tell me that you did not want to
challenge the MMAR while the CDSA was invalid? No, they'll
probably mention the very points Alan got fixed. Too many
doctors, too many conditions, etc. I won't even look and
I'll bet that at least 2 of the 5 conditions that the court
cut to fix the MMAR were conditions you complained about!
I'll bet David $20 blind that 2 of the 5 slashed conditions
had been objected to by David or the clubs.

"Assume he's 100% unjustified every time he calls someone a
narc. Even this does not make his legal arguments
unreasonable"

DML: Unreasonable? No.

JCT: Just not reasonable enough to check out.

".... and this isn't so much about arguments against
anything on his part as it is about having the courts and
crown recognize what's already true---i.e., that the law is
dead. What else does Krieger say? The crown admits this
themselves."

DML: Good luck with anyone who attempts it

JCT: But David's not going to help spread the word the law is
dead. Count on it. Sounds like he's part of the Emery law is
still alive schtick.

DML: - I might use it myself if I got busted for possession,

JCT: Only when he gets busted. Until then, let the others be
jailed. David's not telling them.

DML: but it's not my first line of defense (I've got one in
mind that is way more educational and principled - less "win
by technicality").

JCT: Har har har har. He's got a better defence than Parker
and Krieger killed the prohibition and we want the funeral?
I'd bet he's going to try to kill the dead law all over
again.

"Do you have an alternate interpretation of Krieger and the
crown memorandum? I mean, if you do, I would be very happy
to hear it!"

DML: Nahhhh... I think Turmel is right - I just think he's
too much of an asshole.

JCT: So much of an asshole that he won't tell his friends ow
to get out of jail, I'm sure. It really must hurt to find
out his urging Young to challenge the MMAR while the CDSA
was dead helped bring the law back to life. Oops. David
should learn that you must always acknowledge your strategic
mistakes right away, say "oops sorry" and then get on with
it. He's sounding like a guilty man rather than a sorry man
who knows the error of what he did. Doesn't sound like he's
aware yet of what he did.

"This is all focusing on the font instead of the writing."

DML: Sometimes being a nice guy is the difference between
the Kooks you support and the kooks you shun.

JCT: For some, being right's the only criterion. Who cares
what reason Davids' got for not supporting the good fight.
It'll sound hollow once the war is over. "I didn't join the
team fighting the good fight because I didn't like the
quarterback" won't wash.

DML: I guess I refrain from calling too many people "narcs"
and I DO check my facts before I go public on things and I
try and work with the rest of the activists...

JCT: And you presume I don't? As I've pointed out, the only
people I've ever accused of being narc moles are those who
have done things that have hurt the movement. And it's
because I've documented them all (and you didn't read about
them no doubt) that make the attacks hurt so much. And even
though your loss is now being thrown in our faces in court,
I still never imputed evil intent to David. It's this recent
refusal to acknowledge his "oops" that raises the
probability that he's not working for Emery without being in
on what the bad guys are doing.

DML:therefore my fellow drug-peace activists allow me my
kookieness and even support me from time to time... who
knows, that might even work for the engineer.

JCT: You go ahead and keep alleging I call everyone a narc
to save you having to check into my accusations. "If he
accuses everyone, some must be baseless so why bother
checking?" won't wash. But those people who know how
carefully I launch my accusations will have to wonder why
the continual exaggeration.
---

>houseboy
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 05:07 AM
H: Hi David and all, not sure if this is of any benefit,but
these excerpts are taken from my memorandum that is
currently waiting for a date in Federal Court of Appeal.
Also a small correction, turmel is JCT, not JTC. Let me know
what you think. John

PART III. SUBMISSIONS
C: Is the MMAR still unconstitutional even if we accept the
Hitzig ruling in October 2003?
D: Is the Crown/justice system breaching their duties by
laying and proceeding with offences not known to law?
G: Is Parliament the only legislative body that can enact
legislation under the CDSA? Can the courts only abrogate?

JCT: Good questions. What's the name of the case?

H: 16. In R v. Parker (Ontario Court of Justice), the
Honourable J. Sheppard wrote: "It is ordered pursuant to
Section 52, that Section 4(1) and Section 7(1) of the CDSA
be read down so as to exempt from its ambient persons
possessing or cultivating cannabis (a schedule II substance)
for their personal medically approved use." This order was
upheld again in R v. Parker (Court of Appeal for Ontario)
Docket No. C28732.
17. The government, in reaction to Parker, established the
Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR), which has not
yet been constitutionally sound, as a result, cannabis was
removed from Schedule II of the CDSA.

JCT: I wish the letter of the law argument holds up at the
top. My neck is on the line and I'm still going to have to
fight to get my jury. I notice all the Dakine people got the
choice, only Turmel scares the Crown out of a jury. But I
won't take a non-math graduate shyster single judge without
a major war yet to come.

H: 18. This effectively removed cannabis from the Schedule
in the CDSA, creating an offence not known to law for
possession, cultivation and trafficking.

JCT: Sounds good. I see the deletion from the Schedule as a
necessary effect when they did not include the exemption
right in Section 4. Sure hope so.

H: In the Parker decision, paragraph 210, "Accordingly, I
would vary the remedy granted by the trial judge and declare
the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act to be invalid. I would suspend the
declaration of invalidity for twelve months from the release
of these reasons. The respondent is exempt from the
marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act during the period of suspended invalidity for
the possession of marihuana for his medical needs."
Regina v. Parker, 2000 OJ No C28732 (O.C.A.)

19. Due to the Parker and Krieger rulings, cannabis was
removed from Schedule II in the CDSA. This includes
possession, cultivation and trafficking in the substance
cannabis.
R v. Parker, 2000 OJ No C28732 (Ont. C.A.)
R v. Krieger, 2003 ABCA 85
R v. Krieger, Supreme Court of Canada, (Crim) (Alta) (29569)
December 18, 2003

JCT: Where's he get Dec 18? I thought it was Dec 23?

H: 20. As of August 1, 2001, cannabis offences under Section
4(1) and 7(1) of the CDSA are "no longer known to law".

JCT: Hooray. Another Krieger challenge going on that we
didn't even know about.

H: (E) Breach of Duty
21. The Appellant, John Thomas Cook, states that after
numerous attempts to rectify the shortcomings at all levels
of government and crown agencies, which have been of little
value. I believe that this amounts to an abuse of power.

22. All public servants are sworn to uphold the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have repeatedly failed to
do so.
(i) The Hitzig decision, in my opinion, even taken as
relevant, has not been implemented by the federal
government" even though the court's order was to have
immediate effect. Only Parliament can legislate cannabis
back into the Schedules (once they have been removed by the
courts). The courts can only abrogate.

JCT: Love that word "abrogate." Courts can only abrogate.
Someone's got to put these uppity judges in the places.

H: C: Is the MMAR still unconstitutional even if we accept
the Hitzig ruling in October 2003?
The Order set forth by the Court which would make the MMAR
constitutionally sound have not yet been implemented. There
were five items to be amended (s. 4(2)(c), s. 7, s. 34(2),
s. 41(b) and s. 54). In the Canada Gazette, Part II, SOR
2003-387 3 December 3, 2003, the proposed amendments do not
include three of the five items. Therefore, the MMAR are
still unconstitutional.

JCT: But such a "gimme" from Health Canada makes me leery.
They knew they were losing Krieger, why not have the loss
look like it came from a reason they can now fix? And it's
connected to Hitzig-Myrden and that smells all by itself.

H: D: Is the Crown/justice system breaching their duties by
laying and proceeding with offences not known to law?
All public servants are sworn to uphold the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and have repeatedly failed to do so.

JCT: I think Sumbitch David and brother Harvey Frankel and
Lara Speirs should spend some time in jail for mischief and
genocide.
---

>elagabalus
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:29 AM

E: I want to thank those who've contributed to my
understanding of Turmel's significance in the fight we're
all in against shameless persecutors. DrGreenthumbwpg,
Orchidman, rtav, source, houseboy and breefairy seem to
think Turmel has a point that the law is dead. Several
mentioned the Kreiger and Parker decisions to support their
belief. Steve Kubby seems to think so too. That's how this
thread got started.

Eco2man and David don't like his style so they don't look
for substance. Parker and Krieger are what Turmel's about,
so if people don't address his arguments concerning those
decisions, they're just messing with the focus.

Turmel has two players coming up to bat with real Kreiger
wood: Pierre Drouin in Cochrane tomorrow and Mike South in
Toronto on Monday. We'll see whose arguments have substance
- that is, if this forum is still open.

JCT: Actually, Mike South's Krieger argument doesn't play
Monday. Only the fact he's no threat to society pending the
appeal on any argument. Krieger comes up at his appeal. The
quash motions will all hit first.
---

>davidmalmolevine
>Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 08:40 AM

E: "Eco2man and David don't like his style so they don't
look for substance. Parker and Krieger are what Turmel's
about, so if people don't address his arguments concerning
those decisions, they're just messing with the focus."

DML: It's not fair to say I don't feel his argument has
substance. I've never said that. I think he's right, but
it's not a matter of "liking his style" - more like "David
doesn't think lending support to a long-shot who calls
everyone a narc and believes everyone is in a grand
conspiracy against him is smart.

JCT: Let's skip abolishing prohibition because David doesn't
like the guy leading the charge. David would prefer lending
support to more team-oriented person who makes the same
argument. Back to his exaggeration about me calling everyone
a narc, not just those who have acted like it.

DML: I'm all for "the law is dead". His argument DOES have
substance. I even like his funny hat.

JCT: A construction helmet is "funny?"

DML: But I just can't fully get behind someone who calls
sick people "narcs" for not believing in him,




or who thinks
all the compassion clubs are there to get sick people to
sign up for a fuct-up MMAR program.

JCT: Luckily, I never said that but when their exaggerations
reach epic proportions, then we have to look deeper into
why. I don't think David liked finding out that his urging
Alan Young to challenge the MMAR while the CDSA was dead
helped bring the CDSA back to life and rather than admit his
error, he's throwing out chaff.

DML:If this guy is so smart, why couldn't he have figured
out the Compassion Club's perspective on the MMAR from the
CSA press releases and media?

JCT: I never read them. I only accepted your statement that
you and they urged Alan Young to challenge the MMAR while
there was need to. You said it. I believed it and criticized
you and those who urged with you for being fooled by Young
into paying for the opposite of what you wanted or for being
in on it with Young and getting exactly what you knew you
wanted.

DML: Why would he make the assumption that the Clubs were
asking Alan to tweak the MMAR instead of destroy it?
Somebody answer me that.

JCT: Why would you need to urge it to be destroyed when the
CDSA was already invalid? Answer that.
---



--
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

JCT: DrGreenThumb posted my article about the muddled law at
Cannabis Culture:

>DrGreenthumbwpg
>Re: BC Court Case wins on "Law too muddled" argument!!
>Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 10:05 PM

DR: David please respond to this as i have been trying to
cement your credibility with the well informed group of
stoners i hang with online. This is the most important cover
up that we as activists could ever uncover. I cannot be as
open as you for family concerns but you have the ear of the
culture and ir is your responsibility to inform our people.
I hate thinking that what appears to be happening is really
happening because it appears one of my personal heroes may
even be invested in it. Let's get this out in the open
David. I know you are no bigot who hates the white man like
has been suggested around here lately. Hell I am the white
man. Just read this post and respond thoughtfully like you
do to bennet's posts and you will further your cedibility
greatly with those who aren't only members at cc.
JCT: There's a fascinating thread going on at Cannabis
---

>elagabalus
>Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 11:05 PM

E: From the Doctor's post(of Turmel's post):

>DGT "I too would like to hear a reasonable critique of John
Turmel's argument that the laws are still dead. I don't want
the usual crap about him being a nut job or a moron either.
Lets see someone dispute his argument with intelligent
argument. If Alan is so sure the law is back alive, lets
hear his explanation of why. Let's hear when exactly courts
got the authority and jurisdiction to enact laws that have
been struck down.
>JCT: Bet no one answers."

E: Turmel has leveled serious accusations against some major
leaders in the cannabis community. He publishes every reply
on his website. All I've seen so far is people calling him
an idiot, or worse. Any of you experts care to call his bet
and deliver a reasonable critique?...
Criticize his arguments and let us be the judge, experts.
---

>eco2man
>Turmel and David Malmo-Levine should apologize.
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 10:05 AM

ECO: Moderators: This thread should be moved in my opinion
to the politics or conspiracy forums.
DrGreenthumbwpg wrote:
Quote: David please respond to this... Just read this post
and respond thoughtfully like you do to bennet's posts and
you will further your cedibility greatly with those who
aren't only members at cc.

David's thoughtful responses to Bennett's posts! Ha! What a
joke. Ask Chris Bennett if he thinks they were thoughtful.
The long thread DrGreenthumbwpg compiled contains more of
the same conspiracy bunk. It is more about the politics of
cannabis activist competition, than any actual honest, non-
defamatory discussion.

The problem with Turmel and friends is they viciously attack
anybody who disagrees with them, ascribe nefarious motives
to them, distort their replies, and generally defame them in
any way possible. Sound familiar. It should. Because lately
David Malmo-Levine has taken on all these tactics in dealing
with me, Chris Bennett, Alan Young, Cannasat, etc.. I have
no problem with these discussions occuring ELSEWHERE! Just
not on the main CC forum "Current News and Events" Because
these types of insulting discussions only smear all the top
activists.

I say let the smearing occur in the politics forum. Because
politics and positioning and posturing are what all this
crap really is. Better yet would be to create a "crap-fest
smearing" forum. Why pollute the Pot Politics forum? It
would be good to have a place for honest discussion of
politics.

Some examples of the smears in the compiled thread:
Quote: JCT: He can't do that now that's he's led the way
with the new Marc Emery defence strategy of confessing and
pleading guilty.
Quote: JCT: If the "law is muddled" is the only alternative
to "the law is dead" that they have left, we're on pretty
solid ground. Should be no resistance from Alison Myrden's
nest of the narc moles.
Quote: DR: and what possible reason would Alan have for
convincing the public that pot is illegal again even though
the judge from hitzig refused to sign an order stating the
law had been resurrected?
What could his motive be? Oh wait a second, isn't he
starting a company that sells non smoked cannabis as a "safe
alternative" for med users? I wonder how many customers that
company would have if pot remains completely legal? hmm how
much market will there be for sativex style oral sprays at
exhorbitant costs when anyone can grow their own cannabis
for free and make their own extracts? Not much i reckon.

Turmel's mass emails have been blocked from almost every
Yahoo Group I know of. And these Yahoo Groups are controlled
by a great variety of cannabis and drug reform activists.
The reason in my opinion is that Turmel attacks so many
people in the ways I have described. The moderators of these
groups know many of these people.

Turmel may have some good ideas. But he just can't resist
using all the tactics I have mentioned. David Malmo-Levine,
and everybody else in my opinion, should learn from all this
that using Turmel's tactics does nothing but cause people to
lose respect for them.

Turmel and David should honestly apologize and stop those
tactics. People are forgiving. Then the honest discussion
will increase and a lot more progress will be made.
---

>rtav
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 10:37 AM

R: Quote: JCT: He can't do that now that's he's led the way
with the new Marc Emery defence strategy of confessing and
pleading guilty.

How is this not an accurate representation of what happened?
Have you read the transcript and the accounts of his arrest?
I'm not saying I buy into the implications that his motives
were impure, but how is this smearing anyone? This is what
happened. Period. This isn't even judgmental; how you can
find fault with this statement is beyond me.

Quote: JCT: If the "law is muddled" is the only alternative
to "the law is dead" that they have left, we're on pretty
solid ground. Should be no resistance from Alison Myrden's
nest of the narc moles.

R: I agree that calling people "narc moles" is incendiary, and
perhaps insulting, but Turmel has his reasons. He's an
exceedingly well-written man, so that alone should incline
you to charitably look past his, ah, desire for colourful
labels =]. Do you throw out a book because you don't like
the font the page numbers are written in?

Quote: What could his motive be? Oh wait a second,

R: This is entirely reasonable _speculation_. Couldn't this
be his motive? Have you looked inside of Alan Young's head?
What's it like in there?

A muddled law is no law at all.

"Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
7.(1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person
shall produce a substance included in Schedule I, II, III,
or IV.
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1)
(b) where the subject-matter of the offence is cannabis
(marihuana) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years" (CDSA)
"32. In the result, the trial Judge (a) declared that s.7(1)
of the Act to be of no force or effect as it relates to
marihuana, (b) suspended the declaration for one year, (c)
granted the Respondent an exemption from the application of
s.7(1) during the period of the suspension, and (d) stayed
the production charge (Count 2) as a remedy under s.24(1) of
the Charter."
and
"57. In addition, as matters now stand s.7(1) has been
declared of no force and effect by the highest court in
Alberta."
(http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegcm.txt

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL made by the crown,
seeking an order granting leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada.) The Supreme Court denied the crown leave
to appeal: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.bmp

So, as it stands, the decision of the supreme court of
alberta in the matter of Regina v. Krieger stands - namely,
s.7(1) has been declared "of no force and effect", in the
words of the Crown. It's more than one year after that
ruling, so, how does s.7(1) stand---does it? Anyone out
there with any response other than "ask a lawyer"? How does
it sound -to you-?

JCT: How come so many non-major activists can explain why
Krieger stands and so many major activists just can't seem
to catch on?
---

>eco2man
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:13 AM

ECO: Moderators: I think rtav should be banned from these
forums. Except for maybe the new "Crap-fest smearing" forum.

Quote: JCT: He can't do that now that's he's led the way
with the new Marc Emery defence strategy of confessing and
pleading guilty.
How is this not an accurate representation of what happened?
Have you read the transcript and the accounts of his arrest?
I'm not saying I buy into the implications that his motives
were impure,...

ECO: Exactly. The obvious insulting implications. We have
had this discussion ad nauseum concerning Marc Emery's case.
And this is Marc Emery's house we are playing in. His
forums. It is not good to insult one's host in their own
house. So stop covering for people who are insulting him. I
noticed you went along with many of the insults of Alan
Young in other threads. So I know where you are coming from.

Maybe we need another forum for "Amateur Lawyering" where
people like you can insult and complain instead of seeking
honest discussion. And your latest comment about Alan Young
illustrates this again.
Quote: This is entirely reasonable _speculation_. Couldn't
this be his motive? Have you looked inside of Alan Young's
head? What's it like in there?
---

>rtav
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:33 AM
R: Listen, that was a statement of fact that made no
judgment. I have read the transcript. It is a guilty plea!
Please note that I said I did not buy that it was for
nefarious purposes. There is no direct evidence of that. If
I can't say Mr. Emery, there is no evidence that your
confession and guilty plea was other than as you said,
without risking banning well, I am confused. I can't say
it's as he says? I can't post quotations that say it's as he
said?
I do not really feel like pressing this issue, either. I
simply replied to what you called a "smear"---it isn't. It's
a statement of fact. This is what happened, is it not?
Perhaps characterizing it as a "defense strategy" is
improper. I apologize for agreeing that was reasonable.
I have tried to stick to the facts in all of my statements--
-quoted words are not my own; they are quoted words. If you
really want to at best make me into an evil hypocrite
instead of addressing the issues at hand, by all means, do
so!
---

>eco2man
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:42 AM
E: Thanks for getting my point, rtav. I notice though that
in threads supporting bigotry that the bigots congregate.
And I notice in threads supporting smearing activists that
the smearers (is that a word?) and smearing-supporters show
up. A big crap-fest to spread their feces on top activists.

JCT: If he finds that the facts leading out make the top
activists look like they're covered in feces, who would doubt
someone I can discern is a real expert on the subject.

ECO: I just wanted you to feel the heat yourself by
suggesting you get banned. People do get banned here. Rabid
racists for example, have been banned when they got out of
hand and racially-insulted somebody we cared about. Such as
Jonathan Magbie.

JCT: And of course, John Turmel was banned for getting 4
times more votes than Marc Emery in their straw poll for the
Marijuana Party of Canada leadership election in 2002.
Hurts, eh, Marc to think I got 4 times more votes for you.
Two years ago before I starting winning big.
---

>rtav
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 11:49 AM
R: "Feel the heat"? OK, listen. I am no stranger to censure
on the internet. I understand that some people are not fully
committed to the idea that words are vital and any
restriction on them is unjustified---and I accept that some
people have that view. It's a completely valid view. It is
of course not my view, tho, so I would never argue for it.
But it doesn't bother me when people exercise their rights--
-after all, my right to disagree with them in the public is
worth the price of censure in private, even if I believe it
is a price no one is ever entitled to charge.
But that's really neither here nor there. Again, you're
making this about me and what I've said and why I should be
banned.
Let's say _all of this is true_. That still doesn't address
any of the legal issues here, so, my questions re Krieger
certainly stand, don't they? I didn't ask for a lawyer's
opinion---I asked for anyone's. If an average adult can't
even make an educated guess at what the law means, something
seems wrong.
---

>eco2man
>Re: crap-fests and crap cleanup. [Re: rtav]
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 12:41 PM

Quote:Let's say _all of this is true_. That still doesn't
address any of the legal issues here, so, my questions re
Krieger certainly stand, don't they? I didn't ask for a
lawyer's opinion---I asked for anyone's. If an average adult
can't even make an educated guess at what the law means,
something seems wrong.

ECO: No problem with the way you asked this time. But the
previous posts by you and others should be moved or deleted
in my opinion. Apologies and/or understanding is good, but
now the mess needs to cleaned up. The crap still stinks and
needs to be flushed. And I am not into allowing the crappers
to just apologize and come back and shit on us another day.
At some point they need to be banned, in my opinion, if they
keep it up.
---

>rtav
>Re: crap-fests and crap cleanup. [Re: eco2man]
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 04:20 PM

"But the previous posts by you and others should be moved or
deleted in my opinion."

R: Why? Because they say inconvenient things? There is
certainly discussion warranted on this topic, and your
repeated attempts to derail it and make it about my conduct
is juvenile. There are legal issues of just a _bit_ of
importance here. Maybe you could focus on the meat instead
of the bread? I know it's easier to chew through bread, so I
don't blame you, but sometimes one just has to chomp down on
a steak and go to town...
---

>eco2man
>Re: crap-fests and crap cleanup.  [Re: rtav]
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 04:51 PM
ECO: I didn't start the crap-fest. I just pointed it out.
Now I am trying to clean it up,

JCT: Like I deduced, and expert at cleaning it if not an
expert at defining what it is.

ECO: so that the discussion can go back to the honest non-
insulting discussion it was. The only way (in my opinion) to
do that is to delete the insulting, insinuating, or
deviously-defamatory posts. I quoted from several people,
not just you. So don't play the "poor me" game. It's old.
---

>davidmalmolevine
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 06:37 PM
"It has to do with that That he is the big lawyer guy that
everyone looks to for expertise and he did not tell you that
the whole of the law does not even apply to you and he is
supporting and subsisting off of a fictional scam!! You'd
think you would have got that David..."

DML: Don't accuse me of supporting lawyers. I did most of my
legal research myself and I gave all my won arguments in all
the courts.. I encourage others to do so.

JCT: But reading Turmel's research on winning cards gives
him a head-ache?

"Why not comment on your amazement at what you just read..
It is kind of humbling isn't it? Kind of makes you feel
you've wasted a lot of time fighting fictional law right?"

DML: It's only a waste of time if you don't learn anything.
I've learned lots. Are you asking me if I regret using the
"harm principle" argument? Nope, that one should have one -
something tells me that decisions are made by judges on
considerations other than the quality of the argument. That
is one of the valuable lessons my experiences have taught me
- one of the little lessons that make even failure
worthwhile.

"If you like feeding bogus lawyers to support fiction than
you may feel differently"

DML: Again... do you even know who you're talking to? Here -
proof I saved money on lawyers doing the work myself:
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1956.html

"...but how about all who are believing the lie? Don't you
want to tell them? Don't you want to scream at the top of
your lungs it is all a fiction and the law does not apply to
us and heres proof? Why not expose the fraud David?"

DML: Basically it doesn't matter - it's all academic -
unless you find a judge who will agree. Screaming won't
help. But I would help to promote community support for any
non-screamer who put the "law doesn't exist" argument in
front of a judge.

"Why continue to act as if the law of the corporation
applies to you and I??"

DML: Believe me... I don't. That's why I smoke big fatties
on my internet show and break other pot-related laws out the
open at rallies.

JCT: So does Marc Emery and he's a narc mole telling the
country that the courts brought the prohibition he needs to
profit from his seeds business back to life.

"Now that the proof is available for all to see that the law
of the corporation known as Canada is not applicable to men
and women don't you think it deserves expansion and
discussion??"

DML: What do you call this? This is the discussion.
"Quityerdamnbellyaching" as my Norwegian Buppa (Grampa)
might say.

JCT: Actually, short of guess Turmel's right, David has
never actually expressed an understanding of why Krieger
wins like most everyone else does.
---

>davidmalmolevine
>Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 07:12 PM

DML: I tried to read through the thin "cut/paste" discussion
on this and I got to this quote by a certain JTC and now I
know for sure that Turmel doesn't know what the fak he's
talking about.

JTC: "Alan did exactly what they asked him to do. Alan got
the faulty MMAR fixed so that it was now a constitutionally
acceptable medical exemption they wanted which now could
sustain any new legislated prohibition."

DML: I was around when this happened. Nobody from the big
clubs out west asked Alan to "fix" the MMAR program - both
clubs and many on the CCC asked him to challenge it and he
ignored all of them.

JCT: What does "challenge the MMAR" mean? Did they want to
challenge the fact some people get exemptions? I'd bet no.
Did they want to challenge the fact they demanded so many
doctors to sign. I'd bet yes. Did they want to challenge one
grower per exemptee? I'd bet yes. Did they want to challenge
a limit of 3 growers sharing space? I'd bet yes. Did they
want to challenge no remuneration for growers? I'd bet yes.

But why challenge the MMAR at all when the CDSA was dead?
Did they not fall right into Alan Young's trap? If they
weren't in on the move from start? And it was these
challenges to the MMAR while the law was dead and the MMAR
was not needed that gave the court the chance to do the
Doherty Deed. And our "quasi-legal-expert" who's so proud of
having gone to the top all on his own can't follow that?

DML: Nowhere does JTC provide any evidence that ALL the
clubs asked him to challenge it in the way he did.

JCT: David's own words were the first evidence I ever found
that he and the clubs urged Young to challenge the MMAR. I
thought it was Young's idiot idea or sneaky feat. Now David
admits that they were the dolts who urged him to challenge
the MMAR, not the CDSA. Didn't he say Alan endorsed the MMAR
while they wanted to challenge the MMAR? Didn't David say he
was in favor of challenging the unneeded MMAR which brought
it back to life? Did he ever sound happy about challenging
the CDSA?

DML: Perhaps it is true that the EASTERN clubs asked him to
challenge the MMAR in that way, but the critique of the MMAR
that came from the western clubs was much more penetrating,
and is reflected in the Canadians for Safe Access critiques
of the MMAR programs; Canadians for Safe Access Denounce
Health Canada Interim Cannabis Distribution Plan as
Unworkable

JCT: And I'd bet they denounced it while there was no
prohibition that needed it. I'd bet they denounced all the
unworkable things I've mentioned. David's statement is the
first I'd heard that the Compassion Clubs urged Young to
challenge the MMAR while the CDSA prohibition was dead.

DML: All the above links are to press releases that
criticize the MMAR. If anything I would say that the
Compassion Clubs are way ahead of the paralegals in terms of
doing the research AND outreach to the public.

JCT: Why challenge the MMAR when the prohibition was dead?
And you're making my point that your criticisms of the MMAR
were the reason for Young's going to court to fix it.

DML: The following link is to a page where all the press
against the MMAR that came from the Canadians for Safe
Access.  <http://safeaccess.ca/news/index.htm>

JCT: I've not gone to search there but I am only taking
David's word for it that he urged Alan to challenge the MMAR
while we all know the CDSA was dead. And we all know that
once the MMAR was successfully challenged and fixed, they
say it brought the CDSA back to life. Oops. Did David
realize the consequences of challenging the MMAR when the
CDSA was already dead?

DML:I can't think of anyone else in Canada that has done a
better job of challenging the faulty MMAR program than the
CSA. And another thing ....

JCT: And when it came time to switch strategies, from
challenging its badness to challenging its existence, they
kept right on uselessly challenging its badness, whether by
ineptitude or guile. So why they challenged the MMAR while
the CDSA was dead has never yet been dealt with by David.

DML: Perhaps the reason I haven't jumped on the "law is
dead" bandwagon and began screaming it at the top of my
lungs is because:
1) If the judges toss out the very reasonable "harm
principle" and lump us in with cannibals & animal abusers &
pimps and incestuous people, what makes you think you can
find some judges to agree with you that "the law is dead"?
Unreasonable judges = longshot.

JCT: We have a Supreme Court of Canada Order stating that
Section 7, and implicitly Section 4, of the CDSA are invalid
and are trying to bury them. You're still trying to kill
them on weaker than medical grounds. Sure, your shot at the
top with no back-up Orders was a longshot but my two shots
at the top with Krieger and Parker isn't in the same minor
league. I'm not in the fight for recreational use, I'm in
the fight for preventative medical use.

DML: 2) Why would I endorse someone who considered everyone
who doesn't agree with him right off the bat a Narc (Alyson
Myrdon????????)?

JCT: First, he'll have to stop exaggerating. I don't call
"everyone" who doesn't agree narc moles, just mainly the
people David hangs out with. I never accused Alan Young of
being a narc mole while he was just disagreeing with me that
I didn't have enough materials to win the law was dead on
Terry Parker Day. Justice Pitt disagreed and said it had
not complied with Parker on time. I accused Young when he
worked with the Crown to have Parker's Pitt protection set
aside. That's when I labelled him a Judas Saboteur. And I
raised on the probabilities of the same applying to his
close associates. Legal eagles Burstein, Malmo-Levine, et
al. And I still haven't called David another of Young's narc
moles even though he works for Narc Emery and his case keeps
propping up the Government's case against us.

I never accused Alison Myrden of being a narc mole just for
disagreeing that the law is dead. I accused her when she
bade-mouthed me to people and saying that those who were
filing the Turmel defences were getting into trouble and how
she was going on a national speaking tour on ending
prohibition when her Hitzig-Myrden case was used to bring it
back to life. She's had the microphone and never told the
truth about the death of prohibition once. Actually, so has
David but he didn't read Turmel. Right. You might not think
she was a useful narc mole but every prohibitionist out
there sure appreciates what she and Oops Young have done.

DML:3) Why would I endorse someone who didn't bother to
phone either of the compassion clubs and fact checking
before blaming them for asking Alan to "fix" the MMAR
(something I know for sure they didn't do)? No fact
checking?

JCT: You are the one told us that they urged Young to
challenge the broken MMAR while the CDSA was already dead. I
pointed out that the Crown are now arguing that Hitzig-
Myrden fixed the MMAR to bring the CDSA back to life. Did
you think of this while you were urging Alan to challenge,
not endorse, the MMAR?

DML: Longshot + paranoia (calling Myrdon a Narc) + no fact
checking = not the sinking boat I wish to attach myself to.

JCT: You've certainly found all the excuses you need not to
join the fight to bury the law.

DML: I'm open to being corrected on this ... I hope someone
can point out where I'm wrong on all that.

JCT: You admitted you urged Young to challenge the MMAR
while the law CDSA was dead. And it hurts to look foolish.
And you over-reacted to your error. Instead of admitting
"oops, I didn't realize the CDSA was already dead because I
don't read Turmel and I didn't realize that challenging the
MMAR would bring the CDSA back to life," you lash out that
the messenger who brought you such unwelcome tidings about
the effects of your own inept urgings.
So far, no one has imputed that you knew what you were doing
when you urged Alan to challenge the MMAR while the CDSA was
dead. So far, you can plead ignorance or incompetence. But
trying to diss me for pointing out your error does not do
your probabilities any good. Taking to long to grasp the
fundamental nature of Krieger doesn't help for such a guy
sharp enough to write your own case to the top. Sometimes
you crow about your prowess and other times you plead your
sore head. Can't be both ways.

DML: And one more thing: I admit that many times people use
the word "kook" instead of reasoned debate... I get called a
Kook a lot and most of it is undeserved...

JCT: I got World Internet Kook-of-the-Month July 1995. Once
again, you're bush league.

DML: but in this case Turmel is certainly acting like one!
Fact checking JTC - try it out sometime.

JCT: I don't need facts if I can deduce from yours. You told
me you and they urged Young to challenge the MMAR. I ask why
if the CDSA was dead. "I don't read Turmel so I was ignorant
isn't much of an excuse but it's all you got. I presumed you
had your facts right when you said it. So you'd better
buckle your mouth and do some homework before you dig
yourself into a deeper hole.
---




--
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

Dec 17 2004
BY: EMAIL

Leslie Maunder, B.A. LL.B.
Criminal Defence Lawyer
Pinkofskys Criminal trial & appeal lawyers
510-481 University Ave. Toronto,M5G 2E9
Tel/Fax: 416-598-1811/3384 Email: maunder@...

Dear Ms. Maunder:

I hope you're impressed by the Krieger find at the Supreme
Court of Canada.

Yet we both realize that the quality of his appeal should
not matter with respect to Mike South's release pending
appeal on Monday. Even with an iffy appeal, the issue is
whether he is a threat to society until his appeal is heard,
not how good is his appeal.

So we're back to your bailiwick. I have no doubt that you
have much experience explaining why inmates should be
released pending appeal without getting into their appeal
materials.

So I'm hoping you can make exactly that presentation on
Monday considering Mike hasn't been in trouble with the law
for 10 years.

Since there will be no purpose in raising the Krieger
arguments at this hearing, I trust I won't have to pull you
from the game.

I would only point out that the whole medpot world is
watching you. The main interest is that I was once refused
leave pending appeal a gaming house conviction, a really
violent threat to society, so we're all aware how crooked
the courts can be.

I look forward to seeing you get Mike released pending his
appeal and I hope you end up holding this as one of your
more entertaining adventures in law.

Yours truly,

John C. Turmel


--
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

JCT: These are the cases I've added to the
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.ws4

Jul 31, 2000 Parker Crown Memorandum v. Sheppard
From http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/1299
to http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/parkercm.txt

Aug 01 2001 Terry Parker Day Fumble
From http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/158
To: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/parkerda.txt

Apr 17 2002 added Chapnik sets Pitt aside
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/chapnikj.txt

May 03 2002 added Feldman leaves Parker with no Pitt
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/feldmanj.txt

Dec 04 2002 Kriever ACA moved from March 18 2003

Feb 13 2003 Supreme Court nixes Pitt protection pending

May 30 2003 added Kenkel on Peddle: staying a nullity unjust

Oct 06 2003 added Chen" no resuscitation of a nullity

Oct 07 2003 added OCA dismissal of Chapnik appeal for Pitt

Dec 7 2003 added Hitzig SCC Notice, Crown Response, Reply
From: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/messages/1116
To: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/hitzsccl.txt
Proving they did not challenge the Hitzig Resurrection, they
challenged not Ordering supervision of the Feds by the
Provs.

Dec 23 2003 added Krieger SCC note on S.7(1)
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm
This is a one-page reduction of the huge bulletin.

--
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

>Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:16:48 -0800
>From: wworld@... (Evers)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Mike South's non-repentant medpot use
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

>JCT: But now, not only have we treed the Crown into
explaining how Krieger does not apply, we've also treed a
Duty Defence Counsel into explaining how Krieger does apply!

N: A call today from a 74 year old man that has his plants
taken away in 2003, and 10 plants summer 2004. He has a
doctor prescription and was looking for a MMAR specialist at
the time.
Cops rate that his plants could yield 4 pounds, so he is up
on trafficking charges (intent to traffic).
He has already hired a lawyer, as I understand, Noor Ahmed -
candidate for the Federal Liberal Party 2004 election -
$1500.00 retainer. Ahmed told him he will try to get him a
conditional discharge - what a load of crap! This guy has
raised over $50,000.00 for kids charities.  (Not by selling
pot).
I informed him I have a copy of the Supreme Court Order
upholding the unconstitutionality of cultivation and
therefore possession. We will be meeting with his lawyer for
me to present. He called me because of the press clipping:

Comox Valley Echo Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Woman charged with growing pot will argue case to quash
legislation:

A local woman charged with production and trafficking of
marijuana has made an application to quash the federal
legislation that makes marijuana possession and production
illegal.

Noreen Evers appeared in court Friday to set a hearing date.
She intends to argue the case on her own behalf, without a
lawyer.
Evers is a local medical marijuana activist and a founding
member of the Vancouver Island Compassion Club. She has said
she believes current marijuana laws are unconstitutional and
therefore invalid.
Her motion to quash documents include several cases she
believes set precedence for the legality of maijuana
cultivation. The cases date back to the year 2000.
"You probably appreciate you've got an uphill battle ahead
of you, as is the case to quash any legislation," said judge
Keith Libby during Ever's appearance Friday.

JCT: Actually, Noreen's not trying to quash the legislation,
she's trying to quash the charges because Parker and Krieger
already downed the legislation. She's not trying to kill it,
she's trying bury it.

N: While the Crown argued that Ever's case 'has no merit',
lawyer Carrie Swift said a full hearing would be required.
The hearing is scheduled for March 17, 2005.

JCT: I can't wait to hear why the Supreme Court of Canada
ruling has no merit in B.C.

N: A couple things wrong with the report, amazing how they
never get it right.
1. I have an order to quash the charges against me, not the
legislation.
2. A founding member of the North Island Compassion Club,
not the one in Victoria (but that's Vancouver Island
Compassion Society).
3. "Current" marijuana laws???  - have been already declared
unconstitutional.

Anyway, I am looking forward to meeting the Liberal
candidate lawyer and presenting the quash. Noreen

JCT: Good for you. You picked all the errors out too. You're
ready to go. That's why you should find someone else to file
their quash motions on 30-days notice then move to have
yours returnable on the same date since it's the same
argument and you can do the argument for both of you.


--
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

>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:39:28 -0800
>From: muirhead@... (Michael)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Crown's Supreme Court "All Sections"
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

ed pearson wrote:
> RE Marko:
> Judge Keany:
> " Although my reason for judgment do not speak to each
> specific issue they have all been considered. [????] As
> regards the CDSA s. 4 (1) I am bound t follow the Hitzig
> judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of
> appeal in Parker, held that the prohibition against
> possession of Marihuana for [medical ] reasons was
> unconstitutional.

JCT: Same cop-out as Judge Edward. Of course, he wasn't
facing a Supreme Court decision later and higher than
Hitzig.

MM:Yes, but it declared the prohibition of marijuana for any
reason at all to be of no force or effect...

> However the Court of appeal in Hitzig rectified those
> problems and possession of marihuana is a crime known to
> law under the CDSA.

MM: The Court of Appeal in Hitzig had no jurisdiction to
resurrect a law that it admitted had died,

JCT: But good Nazi judges know how to forget it when they
"just follow Orders."

MM: but even *that's* moot, because that court made no order
in any case, and its suggestions for a constitutional law -
adopted by Health Canada at first - have been scrapped,
leaving the MMAR (and thus the CDSA) unconstitutional once
more.

JCT: I guess Ed forgot to mention the Health Canada Gimme
too.

> This was the only issues covered in a twenty line reason
> for judgment which I will be receiving this week and will
> post. None of the jurisdictionAL ISSUES WERE SPOKEN TO IN
> THE REASONS. If you wish I will,post the entire factum
> once again

JCT: Not interested in any case that didn't include both my
best arguments, Krieger and the Health Canada Gimme. It was
merely: Oshawa Kid loses with Pearson Deuces. No aces
played.



--
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

>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:26:53 +0000
>From: paquettemarc@... (Marc Paquette)
>Subject: Johnny Dupuis WINS stay of procedures!
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

MP: Hi my Friends; Just a small report to announce the good
news to everyone! Johnny had a stay of his procedures and
the charge is dropped.

JCT: Judge Chevalier ordered a say with no reasons? Or the
Crown withdrew the charges?

MP: The bad news is that the Crown doesn't recognize the law
as being dead by mentioning Hitzig

JCT: Alan Young's Hitzig case challenging the MMAR once
again bedeviling the marijuana movement. Keep in mind that
David Malmo-Levine says he and the Compassion Clubs were the
ones who urged Alan Young to challenge the MMAR which
resulted in the fixed MMAR resuscitating the dead CDSA.

MP: and that Johnny will still have to apply again for
another "Hell-th" Canada exemption even if he was refused
before.

JCT: Since they didn't bring up Krieger for cultivation, who
cares what the Crown thinks right now. We'll see what the
Crown thinks on Friday in Cochrane when faced with Krieger
with Pierre Drouin's and Real Martin's pure S.7 charges.
Johnny should send his cops a copy of the Krieger decisions
and tell them he'll be growing for sure.

MP: Even if Quebec doctors were advised by their
associations that they can't sign for exemption applications
anymore, Johnny will still have to try to apply or he could
still be arrested and prosecuted.

I found Johnny's lawyer pretty ill-informed about the state
of the law that doesn't exist anymore since August 1st
2001...and all new exemption applications and renewal for
the MMAR since then are based on a dead law.

JCT: Hey, he managed to convert a challenge to the law for
everyone into a challenge only for Johnny. The narcs sure
have to appreciate his playing so weak cards. Just enough to
win, not rout, the opposition.

MP: Even if Johnny would be arrested again, it would be
senseless to do so.

JCT: Tell that to the cop doing his duty. The Krieger Orders
in their face will scare them off better.

MP: Congradulations Johnny...5 years of stress are over for
you!

JCT: Maybe we'll go after the general Krieger solution for
everyone next time he's busted.

>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:42:19 -0800
>From: muirhead@... (Michael)
>Subject: Re: Johnny Dupuis WINS stay of procedures!
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

MM: This is *so* screwy... I mean... the charge is dropped
(Yippee! but did the Crown offer any explanation *why* they
dropped the charge?) and yet they insist that there's still
a law under which the charge should be upheld if the same
circumstances come up again.

JCT: I don't know either.

MM: If the law exists, why doesn't the charge warrant
prosecution? If the law doesn't exist, why is the Court
not being given a chance to say so?

JCT: It would be nice to find out what happened.

MM: This whole process (as so many other examples in this
whole issue) is nothing but an obstruction of justice. What
*else* can one call the prevention of the law's arbiters
from ruling on the law?

WTF is *wrong* with people (with judges, even) that they
refuse to see this for the bald-faced hypocrisy that it so
obviously is? ((U)) M

JCT: What's wrong with Chief Justice McLaughlin? The
Attorney General flouts her Krieger ruling with contempt and
she takes it? Her Order may be ignored?



--
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

John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E., Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645, Email: turmel@...

Dec 17 2004
BY: EMAIL

Leslie Maunder, B.A. LL.B.
Criminal Defence Lawyer
Pinkofskys Criminal trial & appeal lawyers
510-481 University Ave. Toronto,M5G 2E9
Tel/Fax: 416-598-1811/3384 Email: maunder@...

Dear Ms. Maunder:

When you look at the Applicant's Inmate Notice of Appeal,
you will notice that the grounds Mr. South inscribed on the
form are very simple: "that Parliament has not re-enacted
the necessary S.7 cultivation and S.4 possession
prohibitions that sustain the improper purpose imputed in
S.5(2) since they were struck down."

The grounds for his application for release pending appeal
are: "My attorney (Renwick) did not inform me of the Krieger
decision at the Supreme Court of Canada on Dec. 23 2003
invalidating the prohibitions on marijuana in S.7 and S.4 of
the CDSA since Dec 4 2002. I was charged after that date. I
only learned of the Krieger decision after I had been
sentenced."

I'd bet you had not heard of the Krieger decision at the
Alberta Court of Appeal striking down the S.7 cultivation
prohibition and S.4 by implication! Nor at the Supreme
Court.

The striking down of S.7 was mentioned 3 times in the 24
lines of the appeal decision and yet it wasn't mentioned
once in the reports to Canadians, the judiciary and the bar.
I've done two posts on the reasons why no one knows. It
seems that the Calgary media, the Crown and the Defence
Attorney colluded to misrepresent the striking down of the
section for all Canadians as a personal victory for Krieger.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/1544
Why no one knows about Krieger repealing S.7 Thu 12/9/2004
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/1548
How Crown, Media, Krieger hid S.7 repeal! Sat 12/11/2004

You did not hear of the Supreme Court of Canada affirmation
of the Alberta Court of Appeal's support of Justice Acton's
decision because the dismissal of the Crown's leave to
appeal was handed down on the same day as the far more
celebrated and covered Clay-Caine-Malmo-Levine recreational
use losses. Once again, the media did not inform the bar or
the judiciary and, not being called to the same standard as
engineers, the development remained unknown to the legal
profession.

So it's not the fault of the bar or the judiciary for not
knowing of the Alberta Court of Appeal's support of Justice
Acton's decision striking down S.7 because it did not make
the news. I also only found out about the decision of the
highest court of Alberta one year after the fact for the
same reason but, as The Engineer, I am called to a higher
standard and I had to dig it up.

I hope you noticed that neither Mr. DeFreitas nor Justice
Simmons dissed me and we go back along way. The media
covered up my involvement in the Big 7 appeals at the Court
of Appeal last year. I had 5 appeals heard. In their rush to
focus on the Hitzig loser, they forgot to mention Turmel
winning the Terry Parker Day declaration resulting in the
staying of 4000 pot charges. I have the two remaining
Applications at the Supreme Court of Canada and I'm still
after emptying the jails and the erasure of plus 200,000
criminal records registered since the law was repealed on
Aug. 1 2001. Minimum.

So you and your firm are tapped with helping Mike South when
he appears before the court on Monday. Think of me as the
General of Combat Engineering for the Resistance and Mike
South as one my insurgents. These are the instructions I
will have him give you.

1) Read the Notice of Application with the 3 pages of
argument presenting the Parker and Krieger Orders from
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/quscon.txt

2) Handle any questions after that.

If there's anything you can't handle that I can, Mike will
be signaled to tell the Court that he is resuming his own
representation. Then he asks for a moment to consult with
his coach which is inevitably granted.

I don't want to have to lay you off. These are not hard Aces
to play. http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/timeline.htm
contains all the relevant case law that's been hidden and
discovered. Familiarize yourself with it and you'll be the
first person to use the Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Ace
to win something.

Mike will also be handing in a Notice of Application for an
Order of mandamus that the Crown stay all marijuana charges
in Canada and that the Crown empty the jails rather than
make The Engineer liberate the prisoners one at a time.

But when Mike South gets out, the Court may wish to avoid
the rush of other prisoners by ordering the Crown to release
them all pending resolution of the Krieger challenge.

I have no doubt you find this hardly credible but keep in
mind that my winning 4000 stays gives me a better record
than any lawyer in Canada. And I won't quit until all of the
hundreds of thousands of innocent Canadians convicted under
the invalid statute have had their unjust convictions
overturned.

So be prepared and don't make me yank you from the game. You
have all the cards needed to win. The O.P.P. didn't call me
"Robin Hood" for nothing. Time for Robin to break my outlaw
band of "mari" men of out of jail.


--
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

jzzzzzzzz (jonz1973@...) writes:
> Hey Turmel
> Very interesting, now if you can only win an election and grant more
> licences for card rooms in Ont you would be my hero.

JCT: It is already done,
Even if it's not yet already won.
See my presentation to Ontario's Gaming Commission in 1993
http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/35_parl/session3/finance/f018.htm


--
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