JCT: Last Feb 04, Dominic Gravel called to tell me about a
story that had just come out of in the Journal de Montreal
about the Quebec Court of Appeal recommending lighter pot
sentences!:

Journal de Montreal Feb 04 2005
Pierre Richard
Pot: des sentences plus douces pour les producteurs
Pot: lighter sentences for producers

JOLIETTE: Les producteurs de pot ne sont plus
obligatoirement destines a des sentences de detention
carcerale, la Court d'appel ayant demande aux juges de la
cour du Quebec de tenir compte <<du caractere raisonable>>
des recommandations des avocats.
JOLIETTE: Pot producers are no longer obliged to be destined
to sentences of penal detention, the Court of Appeal having
asked judges of the Court of Quebec to take into account the
reasonable character of lawyers' recommendations.

La decision de la Cour d'appel a ete prononcee de facons
extremement laconique, a la fin du mois de janvier dernier.
Trois personnes, reconnues coupables d'avoir fait pousser
des plants de marijuana, contestaient devant la Cour d'appel
le fait que le juge de premiere instance n'avait pas tenu
compte de la recommendation des avocats, une suggestion
commune.
The decision of the Court of Appeal was pronounced in an
extremely laconic fashion. Three people, found guilty of
having grown marijuana plants, contested before the Court of
Appeal the fact that the judge in first instance had not
taken account of the recommendation of the lawyes, a joint
submission.

La Cour d'appel ne leur donne pas entierement raison. Elle
suggere au juge de premiere instance de revoir ses positions
ce qui, dans les faits, revient a dire au juge d'etre plus
souple.
The Court of Appeal didn't back them completely. It
suggested a judge of first instance should review its
options which, in in this case, tells the judge to be
softer.

C'est pourtant en se fiant aux enseignements de la Cour
d'appel que les juges de la Cour du Quebec, principalement a
l'exterieur de Montreal, imposaient des sentences severes
aux producteurs de pot, lesquels echappaient rarement a des
peines d'emprisonement, meme si des gens accuses de crime
autrement plus graves jouissaient souvent de sentences
nottament plus souples. Ce n'est, semble-t-il, plus le cas.

But it's by relying on rulings of the Court of Appeal that
judges of the Quebec Court, mainly outside of Montreal, were
imposing severe sentences on pot producers who rarely
escaped terms of imprisonment, even if people accused of
otherwise more severe crimes often enjoyed notably softer
sentences. It seems it's no longer the case.

La Cour d'appel, dans sa decision, signale qu'elle a peu
d'elements pour decider si le juge s'est trompe dans le
dossier qui lui a ete soumis puisque les arguments des
avocats n'ont pas ete soumis a la cour. Peu importe, l'effet
se fait deja ressentir: les juges de premiere instance sont
maintenant plus sensibles a des suggestions de sentences
avec sursis dans les cas d'accusations de production de
marijuana.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal mentions that there are
few facts to decide if the judge below erred in the file
before him since the lawyers' arguments are not submitted to
the court. No matter, the effect is already being felt: the
judges of first instance are now more aware of the
suggestions of suspended sentences in the case of charges of
production of marijuana.

JCT: Dominic added the article as Appendix 13 to his case.
If they're going to go easy on people convicted of
cultivation, how about going easy on people charged!



--
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: We've heard of nit-picking but today is a beaut. We
were before Justice Bedard in courtroom #2. The Crown was
Genevieve Depassille.

She had had the police call around to check on Dominic's
affidavit. So the first thing Dominic asked was to change
his affidavit. He explained how the police had called his
boss and when they didn't reach him, had called the boss's
family who didn't know him. The boss's family got so upset
that the boss informed Dominic that the job was no longer
there. So Dominic told the judge that after the police
intervention, he no longer had a job.

He also had not listed that he was living with his
girlfriend at his residence. They checked with her.

So they're going to be putting up the usual arguments
against release. Of course, I'm trying to obviate any need
for this kind of information by turning it onto the abuse
issue.

But there was some kind of big raid in town that had
made the news that morning, so the Crown wanted it adjourned
to Tuesday for her cops to arrive to testify.

She pointed out another glitch which was that when he listed
his criminal record, he didn't put the dates and the
sentences. Dominic responded that being in jail, he didn't
have access to that kind of information and he had done his
best to inform them of the charges and the years when he had
been convicted. It's real important to have the exact dates.
The judge pointed out how the Crown had his record and
she'll produce it next week.

But the real technical glitch that the judge stressed was
that the motion had failed in its body to say what
conclusions the applicant wanted the court to come to! I had
put the conclusion sought in the Notice of Motion, like we
do in Ontario. In Quebec, you mention it earlier in the body
of the Application. Mea culpa. In Quebec motions, they lay
out the facts and then put the conclusion at the end with:

Please the court to Order that.....

So the conclusion sought (his release) was in the Notice
rather than the body of the application. That's why the
judge didn't find it. Oh right, he was supposed to read the
Notice too. I'd have pointed
out to the judge how the conclusion sought was in the Notice
of Motion but Dominic didn't know what the judge was looking
for and couldn't help him find what was on the next page.
But that was the only glitch.

So, I'm going to have to move the paragraph:

"for an Order varying the bail conditions to permit release
upon Applicant's own recognizance on the grounds that
"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"

from his Notice of Motion to 2 pages earlier! Won't that be
funny. His motion is thrown out because one paragraph is in
the wrong place. What a reason to keep a guy in jail. As if
the judge couldn't figure out from the Notice what
conclusion was sought and needed to read it in the earlier
place.

So the judge booked him back for Tuesday morning March 2 at
9am and told him to have his papers fixed by then. And of
course, the Crown asked that Dominic refile a whole new
motion again! Dominic pointed out how he had had difficulty
the last time. No help.

But that shouldn't be a problem this time. There's a section
in the penal regulations that permits the warden to
authorize a non-family member to visit an inmate. So Dominic
asked that I be allowed to visit him and it was granted.

So I booked an appointment for 2:30 today to show him how I
switched the paragraphs in the application, get him to sign
the new motion and file it for Tuesday.

I must admit I'm disappointed over such a tiny mistake
keeping him in jail. One misplaced paragraph. Still, it was
probably going to be remanded anyway for the cops to testify
so it's easily fixed by Tuesday.

Finally, if it would be an abuse of process to keep him in
jail if Krieger applies, it shouldn't be necessary to
discuss all of the affidavit information insisted upon for
use by people not released on their own recognizance.

Dominic's going to have to ask to deal with his motion on
Krieger first before getting into the cross-examination of
his release affidavit by the Crown. Why even bother talking
about the affidavit and conditions of release unless he is
going to be getting out due to Krieger?


--
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 incredible. I decided that filing the papers
didn't need my personal presence so I had a friend act as
courier for Dominic's documentation. These are the
instructions I had sent him:

"COURT ERRAND
Tomorrow's errand involves picking up documents.
They include:
3 identical "motions to vary bail conditions"
1 motion (gov form) to bring the inmate to the court

On Page 6 of the 3 vary motions, changing motion date from
Feb 21 to Feb 24.
And on the inmate motion form too.

Go to the Superior Court Registry, ask to open a dossier for
a new criminal motion and put the new file number on the 3
motions to vary. Front and back. Should be very similar to
the one already there. But it's an old dead one and must be
replaced.

Then go up the stairs to the Crown's office. Give the
secretary one copy while she signes service on the back of
another copy.

File that serviced copy at the registry downstairs.
Also file the multi-form motion to bring inmate to court.

Took me under 10 minutes last time. Shouldn't take you long
either. And I'll be sitting in Brantford at the phone in
case any problem arises.

If there is ever any problem, mention how Judge Plouffe told
the kid to come back on 2 days notice with the missing
affidavit with the same documentation. It can't be denied!"

JCT: My buddy walked in with the documents and showed his
instructions to the clerk who made sure everything was
filled out right, filled in the motion date and sent him up
to the Crown's office for service and then filed everything.

The only problem is that he put the motion date as Feb 23,
not the  Feb 24!

But everything went through and has been set up. I called
today to find out that the judge signed his appearance order
for tomorrow's motion.

So now there isn't 2 clear days notice. Yet, we always can
rely on our standard motion asking that any irregularities
be ignored. Especially just 1 day. Caused by clerk.
Especially since the substance of the motion is the same as
that filed weeks ago and dismissed for lack of affidavit.

So everyone say a prayer that tomorrow's the day the Kreiger
Ace first gets played in Quebec. Even if only to release him
upon the chance it has merit to win, not a judgment on its
merit.




--
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 official. Dominic Gravel's papers were served and
filed today in Gatineau Quebec for his Superior Court
hearing for release pending trial on the grounds the Krieger
decision repealed the law he's been charged under.

Can't wait to see how the Crown answers, if they do. So far
in other cases, they filed no response except in Elliot Lake
where they were forced and did not, could not, deal with the
Krieger precedent.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/1611 has
the Crown's response to Johnson's Krieger challenge and
you'll notice their Memorandum doesn't mention Krieger once.

Think about that. The Johnsons claim the Krieger decision at
the Supreme Court of Canada shows that S.7 cultivation
statute is repealed. The Crown cannot offer any rebuttal.
But Judge Serre comes up with one to dismiss the motion to
quash and put the family through the court ringer! Richard
said she did comment on Krieger so we're all waiting to get
the transcript of the rebuttal the Crown couldn't think of.
It's tough when you have both the Crown and the judge
working on the prosecution.

Anyway, the Krieger shit hits the fan Thursday as I fax my
4-page Krieger flyer to all the local media. I just can't
imagine they'll be able to duck mentioning it's a new
Supreme Court decision, not the same old Turmel stuff, being
argued again.

Won't it be fun when Le Droit's Regis Bouchard has to
report that Dominic got out after writing it was based on
the same old grounds that didn't work last time!

And there's an army of inmates ready to follow Gravel out by
forcing their lawyers to use the Krieger Card even though
the Crown hasn't changed the Criminal Code.

This is it! Why didn't Frankel change the Criminal Code when
he lost Krieger so everyone would know? And notice how his
admission of guilt is one of the three pages!

If they manage to omit mention of the Krieger Ace in their
reports on what happens this time, I'll be real surprised.
So it looks like it's game over for Frankel's Folly Thursday
Feb 24!

I'm told that at his last bail hearing, they had asked for
$125,000 bail which he could not raise! Pretty big bail for
a big garden. Now he's asking to get out on his own
recognizance due to the unusual nature of his grounds. If
Krieger at the Supreme Court rules, keeping him in is an
abuse! Since there is a finite chance that SCC Krieger
rules, keeping him in is finite potential of abuse.

It's interesting that the "Project Robin Hood" raid on
Casino Turmel in 1993 was covered by Le Droit. It won't seem
so odd to report that Robin Hood just busted another of his
band of Mari men out of the Sheriff's jail. Har har har har.

Lots of fun in it all. But pay-back time for the crooked
government lawyers who victimized a quarter million
canadians. Remember when they dropped the charges against
the Fortunate 4000? Did they say they were sorry? No, they
just told them they were lucky to have escaped on a window
of technicality; while we knew the law being repealed was
far more than any technicality.

These lawyers misrepresented the true state of the law to
the Canadian public via the Criminal Code of Canada. And
now comes retribution.

And it all starts in La Belle Province of Franco-Quebec
where the Anglo-Ontario Hitzig resurrection shouldn't go
over very well on Thursday Feb 24 2005 at 17 Laurier St. in
Gatineau Quebec. Should be quite the show.




--
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 I was going over the 4-page Krieger hand-out, more
and more dirt kept surfacing. Sure, we've all heard it all
before but not in one concentrated lump.

Justice Acton found that the prohibition on cultivation
violated Krieger's Charter right and suspended her decision
for 1 year which was extended pending the further Order of
the Court of Appeal.

The first page of the hand-out is the further Order
of the Court of Appeal:
App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum on S.7
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf

R. v. Krieger, 2003 ABCA 85
Date: 20030318  Dockets: 01-00011-A  01-00288-A
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA
THE COURT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WITTMANN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE COSTIGAN
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LoVECCHIO
Docket: 01-00011-A

BETWEEN:  HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  Appellant
- and -  GRANT WAYNE KRIEGER  Respondent (Accused)

Appeal from the Judicial Stay of Proceedings by
THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE L.D. ACTON
Dated the 11th day of December, 2000

MEMORANDUM OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH
COUNSEL:
S.A. Couper  J. Henchey  For the Appellant
A. Iovinelli  For the Respondent

Costigan, J.A. (for the Court):

[1] The Respondent was charged with possession of marihuana
for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 and
unlawful production of marihuana contrary to s. 7(1) of the
Act.

JCT: First mention that the S.7(1) prohibition on
cultivation in involved.

[2] The Crown appeals a voir dire ruling which struck down
s. 7(1) and also appeals the Respondent's acquittal by a
jury of the s. 5(2) charge.

JCT: The next mention is Acton's ruling which struck down s.
7(1).

[3] As to the voir dire ruling, the Crown says that the
trial judge applied the wrong test in finding that the
Respondent was deprived of his s. 7 Charter right to
security of his person in the face of evidence that there
were other untried and effective legal alternative
treatments. We are not satisfied that the trial judge
applied the wrong test, nor are we satisfied that the
evidence established other effective alternatives.

JCT: No evidence of other effective alternatives! Big point.

At best, the evidence on the effectiveness of the
alternatives was equivocal. In those circumstances, the
trial judge was entitled to find that the Respondent's right
to security of his person was infringed by denial of a
treatment which the evidence established was effective.

[4] The Crown also says that the trial judge erred in
failing to find that the deprivation accorded with the
principles of fundamental justice. The Crown says a s. 56
exemption, for which the Respondent did not apply, would
have accorded with the principles of fundamental justice
because the Respondent had an available supply from his own
grow operation.

JCT: Even  though the Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker
ruled that a s.56 exemption did not accord with the
principles of fundamental justice, they just repeat their
loser card and hope the court lets it win.

[5] We agree with the trial judge that s. 56 creates an
absurdity because there was no legal source of marihuana.
That absurdity is not removed by the fact that the
Respondent had a personal supply at the time the charge was
laid. There was no evidence as to how long the supply would
last nor as to the duration of the potential s. 56
exemption.

[6] Nor are we satisfied that the trial judge imposed a
positive obligation on the Crown to ensure a supply. The
trial judge struck s. 7(1). Her order imposed no obligation.

JCT: This is the important point. Though the court points
out they didn't have to offer Krieger a supply, they only
had to get the prohibition out of his way, they keep harping
as if providing the legal supply was the only alternative
they were offered. Keep in mind that on TV, Government
lawyers don't lie and use cheap tricks. This is real life
and we're getting a real dose of it here. Third mention that
Section 7(1) is the prohibition being struck down.

[7] Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as it relates to the
voir dire ruling.

JCT: As of that moment, the Crown knew the statute had been
repealed and should have stopped all further prosecutions
pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada. Of course, they were hoping the new
prohibition would be introduced in Parliament making
fighting the repeal of the old legislation moot.

I found out about the Krieger decision from Brian
McAllister's post at Cannabis Culture:

>Silver Lining
>Brian_McAllister  journeyman
>Silver Lining
>Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 07:20 AM

BM: While still waiting to read (ie. find) an online version
of the SCC case, I wanted to point to a hidden silver lining
in this dark cloud.

Perhaps in an attempt to slip it under the radar screen,
with all the attention focused on DML, Caine & Clay, the
Supremes also released its decision on the Crown application
to appeal the Kreiger decision from Alberta. That was the
case, much like Parker in Ontario for simple possession,
that found the production offence to be invalid for want of
a proper medical exemption.

The Supreme Court denied the Crown leave to appeal to that
decision. The decision stands.

Production legal?
Hey Marc, how about a cross-country grow-out tour...

JCT: So Brian is the only lawyer in Canada who got it right.
Unfortunately, all he did with it was let me know so I could
use it while he didn't. Imagine if he used Krieger for his
clients rather than let his cultivators be convicted like a
good defence lawyer should.

>rastaruss addict
>Re: Silver Lining  [Re: Brian_McAllister]
>Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 07:26 AM
I noticed that too. Krieger's case was upheld by the Alberta
Supreme Court, stating that in the absence of a supply, that
a personal grow was legal... is that correct?

JCT: At the time. Once it was killed, it didn't matter if
they then came up with supply as they claim Health Canada
did on July 10 2003 in time to satisfy the Lederman
decision. Fixing things too late after the law has been
repealed doesn't work.

R: Krieger also had/has no MMAR exemption, and apparently,
doesn't need one now. It would be nice if they would
actually release the details!!!

JCT: There are no other details other than in the Crown
David Frankel's Memorandum to the court.

>Brian_McAllister  journeyman
>Re: Silver Lining  [Re: rastaruss]
>Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 07:30 AM

BM: Supreme Court leave decisions are released without
reasons. It's either leave application granted or leave
application dismissed. You never know why, so you have to
look to the decision for which leave was sought to appeal -
in this case, from the Alberta CA.

JCT: How true. So why not use it? It's pretty clear.

>Xuallus  old hand
>Re: Silver Lining  [Re: Brian_McAllister]
>Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 07:39 AM
Quote: The Supreme Court denied the Crown leave to appeal to
that decision. The decision stands. Production legal?

X: So we can grow, but not posses? Maybe I just need to go
to sleep for awhile and this will start to make sense...

JCT: No, in the Supreme Court note at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm they mention
twice that possession fall with cultivation by implication.

>rastaruss  addict
>Re: Silver Lining  [Re: Xuallus]
>Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 07:53 AM
R: To answer my own question, here are a few details I
posted a while back:

Quote: I just went back to Mapinc.org to look up an old
decision (well, it's old now). Grant Krieger had the
cultivation laws thrown out December 11, 2000, the decision
stayed for one year. Does anyone know what has happened
since? Appeals?

Here is a clip from the article :

A law that prohibits the cultivation of marijuana is
unconstitutional because it doesn't allow for medical use of
the drug, an Alberta judge ruled yesterday.
Justice Darlene Acton threw out a charge of cultivating
marijuana against Grant Krieger, who grows and ingests pot
to alleviate the symptoms of his multiple sclerosis.

JCT: Too bad they don't cite the source.

R: And this additional article :
JUDGE STRIKES DOWN POT GROWING LAW

But MS Sufferer Grant Krieger Not To Sell Medicinal
Marijuana
An Alberta judge has struck down a portion of federal law
that prohibits the cultivation of marijuana for medicinal
purposes, saying it's unconstitutional.
Justice Darlene Acton struck down Section 7( 1 ) of the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Monday, but stayed the
decision for a year.

JCT: Too bad they don't cite the source.

R: This means to me that cultivation is legal in Alberta --
maybe the thing to try in Edmonton or Calgary is planting a
few seeds or actually parking a pickup truck full of potted
plants outside the cop shop.

JCT: Not Alberta. Canada.

R: Not selling, officer, only cultivating....

JCT: Right. Except that selling falls with possession too.

R: Here's more -- one year later, appeals court decision
(Alberta):

CN AB: Court Upholds Drug Acquittal
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n2208/a03.html
Newshawk: CMAP
Pubdate: Thu, 05 Dec 2002
Source: Calgary Sun, The (CN AB)
Copyright: 2002 The Calgary Sun

COURT UPHOLDS DRUG ACQUITTAL

Pot crusader Grant Krieger's licence to grow won't be
chopped down by Alberta's top court.

A three-member Alberta Court of Appeal panel yesterday upheld
Kreiger's acquittal on a charge of cultivating a narcotic.

The appeal judges agreed with a lower-court ruling that the
federal government's exemption to pot possession was "an
absurdity because there was no legal source of marijuana."

But the high court overturned Kreiger's acquittal on a
charge of possession of the drug for the purpose of
trafficking.

Justice Peter Costigan, in handing down the unanimous
decision, said the trial judge erred in her explanation of
the defence of necessity to the jurors, who found Kreiger
not guilty.

Costigan said Queen's Bench Justice Darlene Acton was right
when she ruled Kreiger didn't have to apply for an exemption
to simply possess marijuana for his own use.

Crown prosecutor Scott Couper argued that Acton erred when
she ruled that the cultivation law deprived Kreiger -- who
suffers from multiple sclerosis - -- the right to his
medicine of choice. "The evidence clearly disclosed a number
of alternatives," he said.
---

R: Goes to the possession issue -- he "didn't have to apply
for an exemption to simply possess marijuana for his own
use. "

JCT: That's the media spin people who haven't read the
actual decision get.

R: That is significant for NON-EXEMPTED medical users (no
matter what the medical need).

There you go. CULTIVATION LAWS have been STRUCK DOWN. The
Alberta Supreme Court ruling was delayed one year, and was
apparently upheld by the SCC in its refusal to hear the
Crown appeal.

JCT: Right, and by implication, possession laws too. And by
the spirit and letter of the law, trafficking purposes too.

R: However, he was convicted, not on simple possession, but
on possession with the intent to traffic. His production
acquittal stands. The lines have been drawn (fuzzy lines,
but lines).

JCT: They should have never let the purpose stand though he
admitted trafficking.

R: Given the absence of supply, this ruling should stand,
however, since the MMAR is supplying Flim-Flam weed, maybe
there's no opening to grow our own???

JCT: The July 10 2003 fix came too late for the Dec 4 2002
further Order of the Court. And now, we have to look at the
Calgary Herald article, the second page in my hand-out.

App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegher.jpg

POT RIGHTS UPHELD BY APPEAL COURT
Daryl Slade
Calgary Herald Dec 05 2002

JCT: Actually, the real story isn't "pot rights upheld" but
"pot prohibition not."

DS: Calgary -- Pot crusader Grant Krieger won a partial, but
significant victory Wednesday in a federal Crown appeal of
his right to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes.

JCT: "his right to grow..."

DS: The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling
that said it was unconstitutional for the federal government
to prevent Krieger from being able to obtain the illicit
drug to alleviate pain caused by his multiple sclerosis.

"We agree with the trial judge that there is no legal forum
of marijuana for the accused," Justice Peter Costigan said
in speaking for fellow appeal court justices Neil Wittmann
and Sal LoVecchio.

JCT: Notice the quotation marks? Now go to the judgment
above and see if the judge was quoted right. He was not! He
really said:

"[5] We agree with the trial judge that s. 56 creates an
absurdity because there was no legal source of marihuana."

DS: "There is no evidence how it could be supplied, even if
he had a Section 56 (federal government) exemption."

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.

JCT: "his client" "for his own use." Same old thing. Just
another sick guy proving he's sick enough to beat the
charge. Seems like nothing new.

DS: "They upheld (Acton's) ruling from the voir dire, which
found Grant Krieger's Section 7 charter rights were
violated, specifically in the areas of liberty and health,"
Iovinelli said. "There was a breach, and it wasn't a
reasonable breach. The result was Grant Krieger was given a
charter exemption to cultivate and possess marijuana for his
personal use," said Iovinelli.

JCT: The actual result was that the voir dire ruling struck
down s. 7(1). It said nothing about a Charter Exemption to a
continuing live law. It said the law was repealed.

DS: Acton had issued a stay of her ruling for one year, to
permit the federal government an opportunity to provide a
source for people who require marijuana for health reasons.

JCT: Not providing a source and letting the prohibition
fall was the other alternative.

DS: Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Willis O'Leary last year
extended that stay indefinitely, until there is an
application to the courts to remove it.

JCT: This is completely untrue though it turned into David
Frankel's eventual spin that there needs to be an
application to remove the indefinite stay. The actual
O'Leary order says "until further Order of the court," and
the "final" order of the court is certainly a "further order
of the court.

DS: But the appellate court's three-justice panel also ruled
the trial judge had wrongly instructed the jury in the
defence of necessity for having the drug, and quashed
Krieger's acquittal on possessing marijuana for the purpose
of trafficking.

Krieger, 48, who has admittedly supplied others whom he
believes require the drug for health reasons, will have to
go back to arraignments on Feb. 12 to have a trial date set
on that charge.

"As far as I'm concerned, there are no pot laws in this
province," Krieger boldly declared outside court. "I'm ready
to go in front of another jury for trafficking. The defence
of necessity stands."

JCT: So Krieger boldly managed to get the truth out. I
wonder how he felt when his lawyer explained to him that
the right spin was that it was a personal victory for him.

DS: Crown lawyers Scott Couper and Janet Henchey declined to
discuss the Court of Appeal ruling and said their next move
is to go back to the federal government for instructions.

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 as Ottawa would move quickly to do
something if the stay was removed and it was generally
believed the possession law was struck down.

JCT: This is the incredible part. It "would not apply to the
general public" because of how Ottawa might react! Sure the
law's dead but you're better not claim it or they'll change
it to live again. Better to pretend the dead law is alive.

"The reason for Acton's ruling was for there to be changes
by the federal government," said Iovinelli. "There may or
may not have been changes, but I'm leaning more towards yes,
there have been. The stay continues and it's a benefit to my
client that nothing happens, because he has a charter
exemption to cultivate and possess marijuana."

JCT: "The stay continues" despite the further order of the
court coming from not only reporter but the defence lawyer
too.

So, to the bottom of the Herald article in the hand-out, I
added "Calgary Herald plays down the 3 times the Court of
Appeal mentioned that the S.7 cultivation offence had been
struck down for all Canadians as just another personal
medical-use victory for Krieger.

When I attacked Krieger early in 2004, I didn't know about
his Herald statement of the truth, I only knew he wasn't
trying to collect the pot on the grounds of bullshit
arguments from his lawyer. I thought they were just too
stupid to be true. But now that I've seen the Herald lies by
Iovinelli, I find it easier to believe Krieger was conned by
his lawyer like the Hitzig Eight were conned by Alan Young.

Page 3 of the flyer has the Crown's admission they knew the
law had been struck down and did nothing:
App.6: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.jpg

JCT: I added: Crown Attorney S. David Frankel admits to the
Supreme Court of Canada in Krieger that the Ministry of
Justice knew upon the further Order of the highest court in
Alberta that the prohibition on cultivation in "Section 7(1)
has been declared of no force and effect" and did not amend
the Criminal Code to stop prosecutions of innocent Canadians
under S. 7(1)."

Finally, the Supreme Court note on the Krieger decision:
App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm

JCT: I added: If cultivation of marijuana is no longer
prohibited, by implication, possession is no longer
prohibited. If possession is no longer prohibited, no
purpose of the possession can be prohibited.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/medpot.htm
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel

JCT: Luckily, the Supreme Court notes how the Court of
Appeal held that s. 7 of the Charter guarantees the right of
the sick to grow (and by implication, possess) marijuana.
Twice!

What's interesting is in the procedural history where they
mention
Nov 28 2001 Court of Appeal of Alberta (O'Leary J): Period
of judicial stay extended until further order of the Court
of Appeal.

Of course, reporter Daryl Slade, Krieger lawyer Iovinelli,
and now David Frankel all spinning that final Order of
the Court isn't a "further order of the court" and so the
stay of Acton's decision (so they can keep busting people)
is still active until another application is made. Of
course, nowhere does it say this but it lets Frankel plead
"I didn't realize the final order was a further order
because the defence and the media said so."

Then further along in the note, "appeal with respect to
s.7(1) dismissed."

And now, Slade, Iovinelli and Frankel expect us to believe
that the further order of 3 judges dismissing the
government's appeal doesn't remove the stay and that we have
to go back to a single judge to do that. It would be funny
it they hadn't gotten away with it.

Should be quite fun handing them out to the press at Dominic
Gravel's hearings Thursday. It should be pretty tough to
ignore and omit the name of the case he's relying on next
time! Imagine, the name of the case everything is based on
hasn't yet been sniffed out by the Canada's newshounds.

And we should soon be finding out the reasons why Ontario
Judge Serre said the Supreme Court of Canada ruling doesn't
count in Elliot Lake.



--
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 Krieger scandal is just such an incredible story
that it can all be backed up in just a few documents. So I
decided to produce an 11x17 4-page hand-out explaining it.

It includes Appendixes 2, 3, 6, 10 with short comments

App.2: 2002 Dec 04 Krieger Ab.C.A. Bench Memorandum on S.7
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/1998-2003/ca/Criminal/2003/2003abca0085.pdf

JCT: No comment needed to read the Court of Appeal's first
24 lines which mention three times how the S.7 prohibition
had been struck down.

App.3: 2002 Dec 05 Calgary Herald Krieger article
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegher.jpg

JCT: I added "Calgary Herald plays down the 3 times the
Court of Appeal mentioned that the S.7 cultivation offence
had been struck down for all Canadians as just another
personal medical-use victory for Krieger.

App.6: 2003 May 16 S. David Frankel culpability clause
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.jpg

JCT: I added: Crown Attorney S. David Frankel admits to the
Supreme Court of Canada in Krieger that the Ministry of
Justice knew upon the further Order of the highest court in
Alberta that the prohibition on cultivation in "Section 7(1)
has been declared of no force and effect" and did not amend
the Criminal Code to stop prosecutions of innocent Canadians
under S. 7(1)."

App.10: 2003 Dec 23 Krieger Supreme Court of Canada Order
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegscc.jpg
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/kriegsc2.htm

JCT: I added: If culvivation of marijuana is no longer
prohibited, by implication, possession is no longer
prohibited.
If possession is no longer prohibited, no purpose of the
possession can be prohibited.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/medpot.htm
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel

JCT: Luckily, the Supreme Court notes how the Court of
Appeal held that s. 7 of the Charter guarantees the right of
the sick to grow (and by implication, possess) marijuana.

Should be quite fun handing them out to the press at
Dominic Gravel's hearings Thursday. It should be pretty
tough to ignore and omit the name next time!



--
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: Three months ago, I wrote about Chris Buors in
"Winnipeg Alan Young supporter pleads guilty." He didn't
challenge the existence of the law a la Krieger, he
challenged the search warrant, a typical lawyer's ploy. It
lost. Then he pleaded guilty a la Marc Emery strategy and
sentenced to 6 months. From that post:

>Chris Buors member
>Re: Medical pot backer admits to grow op
>Date: Sat Oct 09 2004
>CB: there is no such thing as a medical defence. Did you
not see that the judge in the Krieger case ordered two jury
members to find Grant guilty?

JCT: Wow, I wonder where he got that?

>CB: And I plead guilty to trafficking. I was offered a 20
month serve it in the community sentence which I turned
down. I will have no choice but to throw myself at the mercy
of the courts. But the bottom line is the Manitoba
Compassion club is for all intents and purposes closed. I am
getting tired of having absolutely no support. I have been
living in poverty hoping for a patron saint to come along
and help. I can't even find anybody to supply me with
cannabis anymore. I've pretty well had enough and will think
seriously about leaving town and getting a job somewhere
where they never heard of me. Someone else can do the
activist thing from now on.

>Re: Medical pot backer admits to grow op
>Date: Sat Oct 09 2004
>CB: Well, I feel better after a couple of hoots.... Time to
carry on

Yeah....Grant did the "nessecity" defence and won. That
decision was appealed and a new trial was ordered. The
nessesity defence was not allowed at trial two. The appeal
court ruled that nessecity was meant as an immediate action
defence... Two juors at Grant's trial asked to speak to the
judge. They said with tears in their eyes that they could
not in good concious convict Grant. The judge asked them to
re-read their jury pledge. I just heard a jury pledge here
in Manitoba....Essentially jury member swear to park their
concious at the door and consider only the facts and
evidence heard in the court. They are ordered to ignore any
press reports or information they may have heard in the
news. The Judge thereafter asked the Jury members if they
remembered seeing Grant on the stand addmitting that he grew
and sold pot to sick people. Yes they said, they heard Grant
say that. We then you heard him addmit guilt and I am
ordering you to go back in there and find him guilty said
the Judge... Leave the punishment to me... that's my job is
what the jusge said. Still it took another four hours but
the jury came back and convicted Grant.

JCT: So that's the wrong reason why he won't argue Krieger.
Of course, he'd never use any strategy by The Engineer:

>Anonymous (Unregistered) (Chris Buors)
>Date: 5/16/02
>Re: Poetic Justice for Young, Emery, St-Maurice

The Engineer ought to have a good look in the mirror. It is
very easy to be a critic. This is a free country. Why don't
you start your own party. See if anyone will join.

Of course the Engineer knows better how to spend Marc
Emery's money than Marc himself does, although he obviously
has no clue of how to earn any of his own.

If you don't like the job Alan Young is doing, nothing is
stopping you from going to law school and defending every
case for free if you so choose.

So bottom line is some advice your mother gave you and you
are not even wise enough to follow that...if you don't have
anything nice to say perhaps you should just keep your yap
shut.

And I buddy boy have put my name and my ass on the line for
this cause. That gives me the right to bitch. What gives you
the right?
Print your name and come out of the shadows coward. What
have you done to enjoy the privilidge of shooting off your
yap?

>JCT: I didn't plead guilty.

JCT: Har har har har. Then a second post: "Emery supporter
Buors guilty plead gets 6 months!"

>JCT: Har har har har. Nyuk, nyuk.

>Chris Buors gets SIX MONTHS for helping sick!
>Wed Nov 17 2004
>Edited by Marc Scott Emery (Wed Nov 17 2004)

>ME: Chris Buors was sentenced to SIX MONTHS at HEADINGLY
PROVINCIAL DETENTION CENTRE outside of Winnipeg for his
medical marijuana service. This was his second conviction
for assisting the sick with a modest and non-profit medical
pot distribution system.

>JCT: And the Montreal Compassion Club got acquitted of the
same thing Buors is now doing time for. Har har har har.
I guess they didn't know about the Montreal Cadieux stay of
the charges against Marijuana Party of Canada leader Marc-
Boris St-Maurice.
Imagine. Boris wins the Compassion Club purpose to traffic
charge and Chris Buors pleads guilty to doing the same
thing. I can't keep myself from falling on the floor. Har
har har har.

>ME: Chris will need reading material. Can someone find the
address for Headingly Provincial Jail in the Winnipeg area?
Edited by Marc Scott Emery (Wed Nov 17 2004)

>JCT: Hey, maybe Marc can go to Winnipeg, pass out a doobie
in front of a cop, confess and plead guilty again so he can
join Chris at running the party in the tank.

JCT: Har har har har. Despite the Cannabis Culture Crowd's
penchant for doing time like their leader when they don't
have to, some have tried to help him:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?
Cat=&Number=991847&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=3&vc=1
>DrGreenthumbwpg  [Re: Dan420]
>Re: Chris Buors gets SIX MONTHS for helping sick!
>Date: #1019307 - Fri Jan 07 2005

Does anyone know how to get on Chris's visitor list at
headingly? I want to go see him and get him a get out of
jail form but I'm not sure how to go about getting to see
him or contact him.

JCT: Inmate appeal forms are provided by the jail. All they
need is the magic 27-word grounds.

>DrGreenthumbwpg  [Re: Marc Scott Emery]
>Re: Chris Buors gets SIX MONTHS for helping sick!
>Date: #1022012 - Tue Jan 11 2005

I don't know why his lawyer didn't present a krieger
defence, his case is nearly identical. The alberta court of
appeal decision should have been persuasive case law for a
judge to follow. Lawyers seem to always want to use illegal
search defences it seems.

JCT: Of course, there's always someone to help keep things
wrong:

>lexic0n  [Re: DrGreenthumbwpg]
>Re: Chris Buors gets SIX MONTHS for helping sick!
>Date: #1041692 - Sat Feb 12 2005

illegal search and seizure are the safest route to go 9
times out of 10. Every ITO has multiple mistakes on it and
if you can prove that there was a "gross" injustice
contained within the ITO or informing the suspect of his/her
rights, then you can usually get the person off.

JCT: Looking for typos in the paperwork seems the standard
legal strategy but I don't see how it's "the safest route to
go 9 times out of 10." What's so terrible about asking if
the law is still dead?

Legally speaking sec 8 violations are the best way to go.
Kreiger deals with fundemental justice which is largely
uncharted territory. You would be hard pressed to find a
judge who would grant an aqquital based on violation of sec.
7. The charter is open to broad interpretation in many
respects, and sec 7 is one of those areas that just dont
have the big time precidents to back up. Typically, you
submit a dozen or so precidents along with your basic PPT
Marijuana written legal defense. Some solid sec 8 defences
that have come up lately are r v. Calderon, r v. david malmo
levine, r v. muhmammed. You submit these multiple precidents
with the hopes of covering every conceivable fallacy that
could be found in the words of each written decision,
covering all your bases as it were. Going to court with one
precident is tantamount to pleading guilty.

JCT: Taqk about getting lots and lots wrong. Hope Chris
listens carefully.

>DrGreenthumbwpg  [Re: lexic0n]
>Re: Chris Buors gets SIX MONTHS for helping sick!
>Date: #1043709 - Wed Feb 16 2005

Chris was not needing to argue recreational use like DML his
case was identical to Grant Krieger's case in Alberta court
of appeal. The decision came down AFTER Hitzig. It declared
sec 7 of the CDSA unconstitutional. I am not suggesting he
should have made a charter issue out of it. The charter
issue was already ruled on by The Alberta COA.

JCT: Pretty clear to some of us.

Think of the gay marriage issue for a minute. Paul Martin
always says that parliament would have to use the
"notwithstanding" clause to block gay marriage because the
courts already ruled that denying it is unconstitutional.
The same should apply to section7 of the CDSA which has
ALREADY been ruled unconstitutional. I havn't heard any of
the political dicks invoking the notwithstanding clause so
we ARE being ILLEGALLY charged under an unconstitutional
law. Also possession was already ruled unconstitutional by
the Ontario court of appeal and no notwithstanding clause
yet there either so what the fuck are they doing harassing
us law-abiding citizens for?

JCT: So DrGreenthumb is still trying to help the idiot out
of jail while his friends keep helping to keep him in. Har
har har har. It's exactly the same thing as getting inmate
Mike South of jail by appealing that the lawyer didn't argue
Krieger.


--
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

>From: majere@... (roger)

John if you are still in Ottawa area you might if you have
the time look up Pierre Bourque. He is the one who linked my
krieger writing to his site for some publicity....
www.bourque.com I just forwarded your last email to him so
he is aware. cheers:) majere

Jct: I know him well. One of the more daring reporters.
So it makes the Turmel black-out even that much more
evident when the daring ones are cowed.

>Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:19:57 -0500
>From: majere@... (Roger M Roeder)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: 1st Quebec Krieger "Get out of Jail"

Agh crap, I was counting on him.  It seems like his nose for
politics is failing him.
I can only GUESS and say that he wants to not anger any
contacts he has or potential art purchases as he just
received a new member to his family. cheers :) majere

>Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:43:20 +0000
>From: majere@... (roger)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] Need help defending forum

Hi, I posted in www.bourque.com forum and it might be linked
to Pierres' news website. I will need help defending the
forum.
If Bourque links the forum to his main page that will lend
credibility to it. Then if you are able spread bourques site
to any news people you can think of pointing out how
cannabis is legal. cheers :) majere

JCT: So did his nose for news sniff out the two biggest legal
government scandals in Canadian history? Or is this just too
big for all the little guys?

And what's to defend. Frankel said the marijuana prohibition
was of no force and effect. What's hard to understand?
Unless you're a judge or lawyer who can say "Why is it still
in the Criminal Code?" Like all brain-dead bureaucrats, they
don't question. They just "follow orders." Standard human
response. People who will stand up to the bosses are just
too rare.

Anyway, when I see the overwhelming fear of crusading
reporters to tough this scandal with hundreds of thousands
of victims who don't yet know that they were victimized but
will find out when the Turmel DVD hits the stands.

John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the "New York
Times", was one of America's best loved newspapermen. Called
by his peers "The Dean of his Profession", John was asked in
1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club, and in
so doing made this revealing statement:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's
history, in America, as an independent press. You know it
and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write
your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand
that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for
keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected
with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar
things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write
honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for
another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in
one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my
occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is
to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to
vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his
country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I
know it and what folly is this toasting an independent
press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the
scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and
we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are
all the property of other men. WE ARE INTELLECTUAL
PROSTITUTES."

JCT: Since the "presstitute" media won't tell of the Parker
and Krieger scandals, why not one honest crusading reporter
who just happens be the engineer being reported since no one
else can break through. Isn't that what I've been doing the
past 4 years. Combat Engineering and Reporting it?

Of course, I have to thank the Csomor brothers for putting
the movie all together and engineering the final product.
http:www.turmelmovie.com should have some previews soon.
It's a limited (1000 copies) First Edition with both the
Csomor documentary and Turmel presentation of the marijuana
legal case timeline. Next edition will certainly be
different so this should end up a collector's edition.

While they're busy putting them in the area video stores, I
can get them at a discount and peddle them with my Marijuana
Self-Defence Kits. Sure anyone can print out the kits from
my http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms page but each
kit will offer help and automatic upgrades to any who
register their kits, just like software. Sure, you can
pirate free copies but if you help and upgrades, you need to
register. http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/csomor.htm

There are a 100,000 victims of the Minister of Justice Anne
McLellan's Parker Scandal, she let them be busted, convicted
and didn't erase their criminal records. And 100,000 victims
of Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon's Krieger scandal. He
and David Frankel knew the law had died and let the cops
keep busting. The two biggest scandals in Canadian legal
history and the only person reporting on it is little old
me!

What a rush. Not only have I been acknowledged superior to
all the economists in the world, and to the Canadian Bar and
Bench who were all wrong about Terry Parker Day when I was
the only one right, but I've also got the better nose for
news than all the reporters too.

In the face of such professional ineptitude, how can it not
help swell one's engineer's head? Or are all engineers just
naturally superior to the financial trial & error crowd?



--
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 didn't think the Le Droit article promising a pre-
trial in weeks would keep Dominic turned off too long when
the alternative was to NOT try to get out again; for free.
Besides, he's found out the Le Droit article was completely
untrue and his pre-trial is in May.

So he's ready to go back and give it another shot. So I
prepared another set of documents for him with the the
affidavit of particulars which Justice Plouffe had told him
was missing the last time. What's sad is that instead of
pointing out each of the 7 questions to be answered, Judge
Plouffe could have elicited the simple answers and saved him
the extra 3 weeks in jail on a dead law.

His girl-friend brought them to the jail on Wednesday before
noon but instead of him getting them signed and back to her
in 2 hours like the last time, the jailers decided not to
give him the documentation until Friday. Think about that.
The "jailer" decided to delay his release by 2 days.
Imagine. The jailer did it.

Remember when the jailer didn't transmit the South Notice of
Inmate Appeal for 2 days which gave me the time to open the
file first! I think a system stinks which gives the jailer
the power to keep a prisoner's release documentation away
from him for extra days. That's real dirty.

But because he still has Jacques Belley registered as his
lawyer, the Crown won't file the motion to have him
transported to court and we had to pick up the Motion for an
Inmate's appearance for Dominic to sign with his Motion for
release. It's a court form that simply has to he signed by
the applicant and then the court clerks take care of the
rest.

So his documents were sworn in the afternoon and his
girlfriend then had to follow these instructions. Keep in
mind that but for the missing affidavit, the documentation
worked to get him before the judge the last time and the
judge invited him back on 2 days notice with the completed
forms. So it should have been a cinch.

Apportez une copie de la requete a la couronne (1ier etage)
et demandez qu'ils signent pour la signification sur le
derriere d'une autre copie.
Apportez la copie avec signification au greffe (rez de
chausser) avec la requete pour comparution.

Bring one copy of the motion to the Crown (1st floor) and
ask them to sign service on the back of another copy.
Bring the copy with the service to the clerk (ground floor)
with the motion for appearance.

Not hard, right? Wrong. The Crown wouldn't sign for service
saying that the papers weren't done right. She didn't know
what to do. We know we'd have just left a copy and written a
short affidavit of service on the back and gotten it sworn.

Then at the registrar's office, they pointed out that the
old file number was no longer good since it had been
dismissed. They didn't tell her she could have a new number.

And they told her she'd have to file in Montreal! I didn't
know Justice Plouffe and the Superior Court had moved.

So they really jerked her around. Imagine, the documentation
that worked fine to get him in Gatineau the last time and
now she's being told she has to go to Montreal.

So I'll be going to Ottawa-Gatineau on Monday to bulldoze
the motion onto the court docket like Judge Plouffe said he
could with the same, more complete" documentation too. Let
them try to tell me why what worked before doesn't work
anymore.

There are now over a dozen inmates in that one little jail
who realize that if Krieger applies to Gravel, Krieger
applies to them too! And he got no answer on whether the
Krieger Supreme Court card wins last time, he only got the
answer that the paperwork wasn't done right. And now it is
and he's going to find out if Krieger has enough of a chance
to warrant his getting out with no conditions.

One quick point about Belley's comment in Le Droit that the
Krieger card had "no chance" of winning. I witnessed his
interview and he said he thought it had "little chance," not
"no chance." Quite the difference and quite the distortion
of his words by the press. Dominic says he had only good to
say about me regardless.

And the headline "Gravel chooses to use Belley over Turmel"
was pretty stupid considering Gravel could choose to use
both. And he now has. Belley is still on file to help him
when it's defence. And he's going to do a few offensive
moves himself first.

                       ----------------
                       NOTICE OF MOTION
                       ----------------

To: Attorney General for Canada

TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday Feb 24 2005, the Applicant will
make a motion before a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec
at the courthouse at 17 Laurier in Gatineau at 9:30am for an
Order varying the bail conditions to permit release upon
Applicant's own recognizance on the grounds that "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"
Dated at Gatineau on Feb 18 2005.
Defendant-Applicant Dominic Gravel

JCT: And right after, he goes to the lower court to try to
quash his charges:

                       ----------------
                       NOTICE OF MOTION
                       ----------------

To: Attorney General for Canada

TAKE NOTICE that on February 24 2005 the Defendant will make
a motion before a judge of the Quebec Court at the
courthouse at 17 Laurier in Gatineau at 9:30am for an Order

1) an Order pursuant to S.601(1) of the Criminal Code
quashing all charges relating to marijuana under the CDSA as
unknown to law on the grounds Parliament has not re-enacted
the S.7 cultivation and S.4 possession prohibitions which
underpin all other marijuana prohibitions in the CDSA since
they were struck down by the Ontario and Albert Courts of
Appeal.

2) an Order staying any charges for marijuana as abuse of
the process on the grounds that statute is of no force and
effect.

3) 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
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.

4) or in the alternative, an Order staying the charges
pending the final determination of the repeal of the
prohibitions by the Supreme Court of Canada in Turmel v.
HMTQ #30570 (Hitzig) and R. v. Turmel #30571 (3.3Kg
Parliament Hill bust under S.5(2)).
Dated at Gatineau on Jan 24 2005
Defendant-Applicant Dominic Gravel

JCT: Finally, the Crown's going to get theirs on Krieger in
a province where the judges can't plead the Nuremberg
defence that they were just doing wrong by following higher
evil orders. Can't see the Ontario Hitzig decision going far
in resurrecting Section 7 in Quebec even if Ontario judges
say it did in Ontario even if Hitzig never mentioned S.7 at
all. Like Judge Serre ruled in Elliot Lake for Richard
Johnson who was charged with S.7 cultivation.

We're all waiting to hear her reasons which should be
available for our entertainment and revilement soon.

But a Quebec Krieger challenge has to be the Crown's worst
nightmare. And it's going to happen Thursday.

Any bets on whether the clerks are going to jerk me around
successfully or whether Dominic Gravel gets his hearing on
Thursday?


--
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@...
Friday Feb 18 2005

Honorable R. Roy McMurtry
Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal
130 Queen St. W. Toronto, M5H 2N5

Honorable Heather Forster-Smith
Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court
130 Queen St. W. Toronto, M5H 2N5

Honorable Brian W. Lennox
Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice
2600-1 Queen St. E. Box 91 Toronto, M5C 2W5

      re: Section 136 Courts of Justice Act

Dear Sirs and Madam:

Justice Lennox may remember back in the late 1980s when I
caused a todo around the Ottawa courthouse by first using
Section 146 of the Courts of Justice Act which allowed the
unobtrusive taping of legal proceedings by lawyers or
persons acting as their own counsel. I passed out the poem:

"Hooray, hooray, hi-tech is here.
Courtesy of `The Engineer'.
One forty six became the Rule,
That let me use tape as a tool.
The bailiff went the judge to see,
If I could bring my tape with me.
The judge said "Oh, this is so new,
But I agree. This can he do."

So I did tape all that was said,
And knew for sure just what was plead.
But only for my private use,
Or else it would be called abuse.
Yet if you ask yourself at night,
If words you thought you heard were right.
Then, get yourself a tape today,
Improve your notes and it will pay.

Maximum efficiency
Would cut the time to earn your fee.
And if the court, you do all ask,
"Oh please perform this simple task?
Please make our tapes that we may be
At optimal efficiency?"
And if you do, you'll shed no tear,
To see the backlog disappear.

One lawyer said "This is big news,
To end the transcript-waiting blues."
Do call the Citizen and state,
How "This will certainly be great."
Reporters took the story down,
But never told it to the town.
You only missed your chance to hear
Because I'm John, `The Engineer'.

The new Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act now states:
"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) (b) prohibits a solicitor, a
party acting in person or a journalist from unobtrusively
making an audio recording of the court hearing in the manner
that has been approved by the judge, for the sole purpose of
supplementing or replacing handwritten notes."

So twenty years ago, I had the right to tape for my own
notes and I did not need the judge to approve the manner of
taping. The qualifier was added later but that only gives
the judge say over the manner of taping, not say over the
taping itself. No one may prohibit taping, only an offensive
manner of taping. For instance, I could understand a judge
being not too happy about me trying hang a boom mike in his
face or pin a microphone on his robe. I taped over a dozen
appearances at the Court of Appeal for Ontario leading up to
the Parker-Hitzig-Turmel appeals except for once.

I have been helping sick and dying people fight their
marijuana charges with my do-it-yourself defence kits from
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm and for most of
these sick and dying applicants, the costs of transcripts
are prohibitive.

Since last July when Brantford Ontario Court of Justice
Judge Edward refused to permit any taping in the Nielsen
case, I now include the motion requesting the judge approve
the manner of taping in every Notice of Motion from then on.

"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."

But yet on Jan 14 2005, Brantford Superior Court Justice
Festeryga refused to permit the Nielsens to tape just a few
weeks later without even reading the motion.

On Jan 27, Judge Rogers in Sturgeon Falls refused to permit
Michael Ethier to tape his proceedings.

I think it may be incumbent on you Chief Justices to alert
your judges to expect more and more self-represented
applicants who insist on availing themselves of a tape
recorder in lieu of written notes. It so hurts the people
who are denied and it is so easily corrected. Please give
this matter your expedited attention.

John C. Turmel
The Engineer


--
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: Gord Armstrong filed his motion to quash which has been
slated for March 1 in Woodstock Ontario, an hour from
Toronto.

He's just joined the medpot-discuss list so he'll keep us up
to date on what happens.

He took the court and the Crown by surprise by standing
"mute" to the charges. The judge had to look in her Criminal
Code to find out what it was about and the Crown opined it
had something to do with marijuana!

Anyway, that's the 11th Krieger challenge filed in Ontario
to go with the 2 in BC and 1 in Quebec.

Woodstock's close enough I think I'll go watch the show on
March 1.



--
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 received this letter from the Supreme Court of Canada
registry:

>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:45:35 -0500
>From: LanielJ@... (Laniel Joanne)
>Subject: Turmel: Hitzig Stay of Execution #2
>To: TURMEL@...

Mr. Turmel,
This will acknowledge receipt of your e-mails dated February
7 and 11, 2005.
Your motions for extensions of time pursuant to Rule 64 in
both files 30570 and 30571 will be brought to the attention
of a judge shortly.
Once decisions are made concerning the extensions of time, I
will inform all parties.
Joanne Laniel
Head, Registry Branch / Chef de la Direction du greffe
mailto:lanielj@...
Tel./Tel.: 613-996-7810 | Fax/Telec.: 613-996-9138

JCT: I wrote back

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

BY EMAIL

Feb 17 2005

Joanne Laniel
Head, 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

In your emailled reply dated Tue 15 Feb 2005, you
acknowledged receipt of your e-mails dated February 7 and
11, 2005 and informed me that my motions for extensions of
time pursuant to Rule 64 in both files 30570 and 30571 will
be brought to the attention of a judge shortly.

Thank you for this information but the main question I asked
which remains unanswered is whether my request in
application #30570 for a stay of execution of the decision
below has been sent along or am I expected to seek the stay
below despite Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada
Act.

Yours truly,
John C. Turmel

JCT: If my motion for stay of execution has been held back,
I complain higher.


--
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 love it when super famous people can he shown to be
completely wrong. Here we have the opinions of a Nobel Prize
winner who gets the topic I expect to get a few Nobel Prizes
for wrong. If a Nobel laureate misses the mark, maybe
hitting it is as special as I say it is...

>Subject: [ijccr] Digest Number 946
>Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:41:50 -0600
>From: Levi Philos <leviphilos@...>
>Subject: Frederick Soddy

Frederick Soddy won the Nobel prize in 1921 for his work on
isotopes. Soddy books THE NATURE OF WEALTH:
http://www.normbook.homestead.com/ THE NATURE OF MONEY:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/kutyn.htm
http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/kutyn.htm#max%20debt%20level

FS: "The question must now be asked if there is a maximum
level of debt,

JCT: Depends if there's interest or not, doesn't it? The
same amount of repayments borrow less and less as the
interest rate goes up. Who can discuss such a question
without defining the positive feedback on the debt side of
the debt-money equation.

FS: and what factors could influence future debt increases.
Since the creation of debt (and money) is a simple
bookkeeping entry, these can be increased without limit,

JCT: Not without sane limit. Economists assume humanity's
"infinite appetite," not engineers.

FS: and so there is no maximum level of debt.

JCT: There's is a maximum level of honorable debt. Maximized
by the actual value borrowed. And no one can borrow infinite
goods. Wrong in "without limit," wrong in "no maximum."

FS: However, with each type of debt creation, there are
factors that will tend to restrict new debt (unless these
factors are ignored). For debt created to increase
expenditures, loan growth will exceed any income growth. It
then follows that the value of loan payments will increase
faster than income, and at some future date, loan payments
will exceed what can be repaid from income. Even here,
people can continue to borrow, and banks continue to lend,
if they ignore the repayment of loans.

JCT: We borrow more than we can pay ourselves? In unstable
units too.

For debt created to finance production increases, the
continual increase in production will eventually lead to
falling prices.

JCT: Standard economic thinking. The "continual increase in
production (of clocks that costs 1Hour to manufacture) will
lead to clocks costing less than a "1Hour bill." Sounds
pretty stupid when it's translated into the Time Standard of
Money, doesn't it.

FS: This will continually reduce profit margins and
eventually make the business unprofitable.

JCT: Of course, he's wearing economic blinders limiting what
he can think to what he's been told. This is the way they
way it all works. Even though it says "Clock worth 1 hour,"
that price tag is somehow going to change over time for
unusual reasons. It's silly. Economics is silly.

FS: Here again, it is still possible for banks to continue
to finance losses, and even increase production further. For
loans to purchase existing assets, this will lead to rising
prices for these assets.

A owes the Bank 100,000 for his house. He sells it to B who
borrows 100,000 from the bank. A pays his 100,000 to the
bank. The fact A borrowed to buy from B does not lead to
rising prices. As Jesus said, the money system is so tricky,
this Nobel prize winner has forever seen without seeing and
heard without hearing or understanding!

FS: This will lead to lower investment returns for these
assets. Eventually, interest costs will exceed investment
returns,

JCT: His cognitive dissonance would never allow him to even
think that an interest-free system was possible. This was
before the era of computerized interest-free local
currencies. But it shows he is confused.

FS: but even here this does not mean that loans will stop,
with new loans to pay interest expense and further purchase
of assets. People paying 8% on loans to purchase stocks
paying dividends of 1% is a good example of this.

JCT: Stuck in the machinations of the malfunctioning banking
system's engineering.

FS: In order for the economy to function, loans must
continue to grow.

JCT: Only to match the interest on the debt. An interest-
free economy does not need to grow to match the growth of
debt. That's why the Millennium Declaration resolves to use
UNILETS time-based currency as the only sustainable system
because the above statement isn't true for interest-free
systems which Soddy just cannot envision due to his
conditioning/brainwashing/hypnotizing.

FS: As we have shown, there must come a time when new loans
do not make logical sense if we consider that loans have a
requirement to be repaid. When something happens that causes
people to stop borrowing, or stops banks from lending, then
the economy will begin to implode.

JCT: Only if there is an increase in debt to meet. If the
money equals the debt like in any casino, if action in the
casino stops, the chip system does not implode.

FS: The greater the extremes of credit creation, the more
powerful will be the implosion.

JCT: Keep in mind that in his world, credit creation is at
the whim of the banker. In interest-free game, credit
creation (chips) is at the 1:1 for collateral rule.

FS: There is another factor that must be maintained for this
system to continue to operate. Not only must people continue
to borrow, or bankers continue to lend, but also depositors
must leave their deposits within the banks, even knowing
that the loans securing these deposits can never be repaid.

JCT: He thinks borrowers are getting savings without
realizing bank credit is brand new money. It's pretty well
acknowledged now that the loans come out of the tap (see
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm ) and not from
the reservoir of savings. Again, who can blame our Nobel
laureate in science for getting his conclusions wrong when
he didn't have the pipes in his blueprint hooked up right?

FS: This can hardly be considered to be a stable financial
system.

JCT: Sure, even hooked up wrong, it's unstable. The problem
is that what he thinks is hooked up wrong isn't. Wrong in
premises, wrong in conclusions.

FS: Moreover, a fractional reserve banking system is not
self-stabilizing.

JCT: Actually, it wouldn't be so bad if there were no
interest. In my motions to reprogram the banks computers to
the Supreme Court of Canada, I only asked that they be
reprogrammed to operate on service charges and abolish the
interest charge. The fact the issuance is based on an
irrelevant input is not an instability in the system, like
interest is, it's a malfunction in the user. If you want to
ride your bicycle backwards, don't blame the bicycle.

FS: People and firms tend to borrow in good economic periods
when profits and incomes are strong, and not to borrow in
poor economic times when profits and incomes are weak.

JCT: He's stuck in a world where interest deters loans when
they would be most useful.

FS: In poor economic periods, there are not as many
profitable areas to invest in, and in fact many businesses
may be losing money. In poor economic times, since their
incomes are reduced, people see themselves as unable to
repay new debt. This leads to a rising money supply in good
economic periods, and a falling money supply in poor
economic periods, which is the exact opposite of what is
required in order to have stable economic growth."
A discussion of Soddy's book Wealth, Virtual Wealth and
Debt:
http://fusor.net/board/download_thread.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_books&thread=1105
980084
Buy the last book:
http://hiddenmysteries.com/xcart/product.php?productid=16193

JCT: Wrong premises, wrong conclusions, completely taken in
by the Shift A "too much money" inflation scam and
completely unable to grasp a stable money token worth an
hour of labor that never changes value, how can I recommend
anyone check this guy out?

Anyway, it's always a rush to see such exalted individuals
holding backward opinions on this hypnotically tricky
enslavement scam. He should have stayed with chemistry and
left the money systems engineering to the experts (casino
bankers).

People wonder why I have such a swelled head. When I have to
correct so many errors by people cited for their opinions,
how can I not? Did anyone else here note all error after
error after error. Probably not because I'm the only one who
does my thinking with a casino chips model to ensure I can't
make such apparent and now elementary mistakes.



--
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, 10 Feb 2005 08:32:44 +0200
>From: "Tim Jenkin" <elists@...>
>Subject: RE: Sustainable CC systems?

> I have been looking for, for awhile, models, or ideas
> concerning how to keep a CC system alive.
> I hear of a lot of systems that survive from different
> means.  I know that a lot of groups rely on volunteers
> and grants for operating costs.

TJ: Our internet-based Community Exchange System (CES) keeps
alive because it does not rely on volunteers and has no
costs in the national currency. A transaction levy is used
to pay those who run the system and everything else is
'paid' for in the CES currency, including web hosting. With
many thousands of offerings there is very little that cannot
be provided by the CES itself.

JCT: Notice how being big and having thousands of offerings
is the simple solution to the problems that "L is
for Local" "let's means small" "don't let Coca-Cola join"
crowd keep suffering. With lots of offerings, lots of values
which can be purchased with the currency, there's no need of
national currency to pay volunteers. That's doing it right.

TJ: There are no postage costs because everything is done by
email, and those who require things by snail mail or on
paper purchase them with the cc money from their local area
co-ordinators, who are like local 'branches' of the 'bank'.

> But, grant money run out and groups spend a lot of time
> and effort searching for new sources of money, and it
> becomes a vicious cycle, spending a lot of time chasing
> money. When it comes to volunteers, they eventually
> burnout.

If you rely on a supply of conventional money to run your
system then it is not sustainable. Take away the bad money
and the system collapses.

JCT: But doesn't die. All those moribund transactions will
be rolled into the UNILETS. No one can lose the Hours
they swear they have earned once UNILETS arrives.

TJ: Volunteers don't burn out if they are 'paid'.

JCT: The "keep it small and useless" crowd have suffered
such incredible problems that you'd almost think their
stupidity wasn't accidental. Of course volunteers don't burn
out when their time at work is recorded for later spending.

TJ: If you are spending your time chasing conventional money
then you are not concentrating on the job; you have not got
a new money system but something that is just a function of
the old money system.

JCT: Music to my ears.

> The money from membership dues or transaction fees are
> used to compensate people for working to keep the system
> running.  But, are there successful models of this?  Are
> there other sources of help/money?

Forget membership fees, help, money. A small, transparent,
transaction levy solves all your problems. No one even
notices it yet as the system grows it provides respectable
revenue for your system. Your system must be self sustaining
or else you are just a slave to the old money system.

JCT: More good music.

> We will always have volunteers, but they come and go, and
> will help when they can.  But, the positions that we would
> compensate for will need that source of revenue.

TJ: If your 'volunteers' require payment in the national
currency then it is clear that your system has nothing to
offer them.

JCT: But that's the way the L is for Local crowd want it. I
remember how silly it sounded to hear they didn't want Coca-
Cola to join. That would be my dream come true for everyone
in the world with access to a Coke machine to know that
Greendollars now buy Cokes. I'd have thought it was sabotage
except that it had been said by someone who can't be.

TJ: Our CES has many thousands of offerings so those who run
the system are happy to be paid in the system's currency.
The only thing you can't get, yet, is petrol (gas), but as
there is so much else people don't mind spending their
national money on that.
SANE Community Exchange System: www.ces.org.za Tim Jenkin

JCT: I'll take SANE credits for accommodations in Canada.

>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:02:47 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>From: "Thomas J. Sherlock" <tjsherlock@...>
>Subject: RE: Sustainable CC systems?

Tim, it's encouraging to see a positive posting about a
community currency which appears to be successful.
>SANE Community Exchange System: www.ces.org.za

TS: Are the CES 'volunteers'/employees able to pay for
electricity and other sources of energy with the system's
currency?

JCT: Not yet. Who cares if their credits can buy everything
but this.

TS: How about local and national taxes,

JCT: Not yet. Who cares if their credits can buy everything
but this and that too.

TS: fees

JCT: Not yet. Who cares if their credits can buy everything
but this, that, and that too.

TS: and fines?

JCT: Not yet. Who cares if their credits can buy everything
but this, that, that and that too.

TS: Since you must still pay for petrol in the national
currency, you will need a source for the national currency.

JCT: And without the source for national currency to buy
petrol, your point about the complementary currency is????
Are you suggesting that if you can't use complentary
currency for everything, it's not worth using for anyting at
all? What's the purpose of pointing out we need national
currency for petrol? Even if the answer is "not yet."

TS: Do the CES employees work part-time so that they might
capture national money from other jobs? Tom Sherlock

JCT: How they capture national money is none of our
business. It's not our concern how members cover the needs
that aren't covered by our system.

>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:46:42 +0200
>From: "Tim Jenkin" <elists@...>
>Subject: RE: Sustainable CC systems?

> Do the CES employees work part-time so that they might
> capture national money from other jobs?

TJ: The CES more or less runs itself so the administrative
duties are not onerous and are shared among a number of
people. For example, applications go straight into the
database and just have to be checked for accuracy before
being approved. Someone else responds to member queries and
problems. Another person writes the newsletter and others do
things like arrange markets, organise publicity etc.
Practically everything is outsourced to the members so there
is hardly a committee at all. Everyone works part time but
no one does anything without being paid in the CES currency.

JCT: And all it took was "thousands of things" to spend the
currency on to make it valuable enough to use as money.
Proving that those who spend all their efforts making sure
that there aren't too many things to spend the local
currency on aren't doing it right.

TJ: In the CES sellers enter transaction information into
the system so the administrator is completely relieved of
that duty, unlike most conventional (non-internet) LETS
groups.

JCT: And if you used paper tokens for the tiny transactions
until you can afford larger less-counterfeitable tokens,
there isn't any accounting transaction to record at all.

TJ: All offers and wants are entered by the members
themselves or by their co-ordinators if they do not have a
computer, so the load is spread among the members. People
can view the lists of offers and wants in real time so there
is little need to compile paper directories and the like. We
do send the latest offerings by email once a month, but that
involves pressing one button.

JCT: Sounds like the prototype we've all been waiting for.

TJ: There is no need for monthly statements because everyone
can check their standing in real time, or go to their co-
ordinator to find out.

There simply is no need for the national currency in running
the CES. All costs are paid with Talents, the CES currency.
Where members do incur costs in Rands, they are happy to be
paid back in Talents because they know they can get
something of worth that they would normally spend Rands on.
Tim

JCT: Thanks Tim and SANE for doing it right. Add paper
tokens for tiny transactions and it'll really fly.

>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:51:58 -0700
>From: "Thomas Greco -- CIRC2" <circ2@...>
>Subject: Re: Sustainable CC systems?

Tim, Thanks for that great reply. It looks like your system
has reached "critical mass" and is self-sustaining. Thanks
for developing a business like approach. Is your software
available for others to use? Tom Greco

JCT: It just may be the proto-type we could all adopt
pending UNILETS. You sure made my day.

Can I in Canada and my friends join. I'll offer to find
Greenhour accommodations in dozens of Canadians cities for a
10% surcharge on the deal. (If I get you a private room in
Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa for a 5Hour credit to the
host, you send me a half-hour commission to set up the deal
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: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:26:56 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@... (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: Elliot Lake Standard prints partial updates from
>To: MedPot-discuss@yahoogroups.com

Elliot Lake Standard
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
Feb. 1
Marijuana case going to trial

Richard Johnson, 40, and his wife Suzanne Johnson, of Elliot
Lake, appeared before Justice Serre to hear to her decision
regarding charges held against them.

JCT: No mention of what section.

Richard Johnson, acting as his own defence lawyer, had
previously argued that the laws concerning possession of
marijuana had been struck down, and therefore they should
have not been charged.

JCT: Not mentioning the section earlier lets him confuse
section 4 and section 7 now. Richard Johnson har argued the
laws concerning cultivation had been struck down. That's
what makes this so different. So the report gives the
impression it's just chasing more of the same. Everybody's
heard of the challenges to possession which this is not, no
one's heard of the challenges to the cultivation which this
is. Still.

Justice Serre was very deliberate in her reasoning, quoting
from various legal challenges and court rulings.

JCT: There was only one big Supreme Court of Canada ruling
dealing with cultivation.

She quietly explained to Johnson that he should seek the
services of a professional in the field of law and consider
his options.

JCT: Sure, the guy who was right about Terry Parker Day when
she didn't know has it wrong this time? What's a lawyer
going to do for him? Help him get convicted legally. He had
a grow-op in his basement. And he can argue medical need
himself. So what can a lawyer possibly do him? Thanks for
the suggestion but no thanks.

Justice Serre found that there was no merit to the position
held by the Johnsons

JCT: And what position was that? That Krieger at the Supreme
Court of Canada was the top decision? Justice Serre found
that the top decision had no merit and the reporter didn't
think her dissing the top court was worthy of a mention?

and that the case would go to trial.

JCT: After we try to prohibit it in Sault Ste Marie Superior
Court first.

The two were given the option of which type of trial to
choose from. The choices being a trial by a Provincial court
judge, a trial by a judge and jury in a Superior court or by
a Superior court judge alone.

JCT: Of course, they'll have a much better chance with a
jury than a lawyerly judge.

Johnson asked for and received a delay until March 8 before
telling the court which option the pair would follow.

JCT: No mention that they busted a child too?

Anyway, a pretty substandard report. Let's hope the Sault
Ste. Marie reporter has keener nose for news to sniff out
the real Krieger story behind this all. This was just more
of the same government spin about S.4 possession challenges.
They can't hide the fact it's a challenge to S.7 cultivation
for too much longer. It did break into the Quebec news. But
it didn't break in Richards' Elliot Lake Sub-Standard
report.



--
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: Last Monday I sent off a letter and fax to the Supreme
Court asking about my properly served and filed motion for a
stay of execution. No answer. So I have to prod once more:

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

Feb 11 2005

Joanne Laniel
Head, 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. Laniel

In my last letter dated Feb 07 2005, I pointed out that my
application for leave to appeal had been perfected and
wanted to know about the disposition of my request pursuant
to Section 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act for
stay of execution of the order below.

Should I be addressing the someone else?

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: I've left untold messages for Mike South explaining how
easy it is to have his bail extended simply by filing his
required memorandum on time and how easy it is to avoid
giving up to the Don Jail the night before the slated
hearing by slating a hearing earlier to show that he's
fulfilled his required paperwork and should have his bail
extended.

His mama is a chronic worrier. When I reached the point
where I was explaining that the Criminal Code of Canada
worked all across Canada and not just in Alberta, I must
admit my heart sank and I didn't think I'd ever be able to
allay all the hundreds of dangers she'd be able to worry
about.

So I guess she just worried her son out of continuing his
fight and into just doing his time.

But after she had heard about the trauma he had been put
through after his release on the ride home, I just couldn't
imagine anyone wanting anyone else to go through something
so terrorizing again.

Anyway, as long as he has his signed memorandum when he
shows up in the court-room, he'll be able to get his bail
extended. If not, he's not getting out.

As for avoiding the terror of the gangs in jail, he may have
missed the regular Monday criminal motions court but
luckily, regular motions court does sit every other day so
he could still file by next Tuesday to be heard next Friday
with the good excuse that though he missed regular criminal
motions day, the Don Jail is so dangerous, the hearing on
non-criminal-motion day should be permitted.

And even if he blows his Tuesday service, I'd be willing to
do him a short notice motion right up until Friday morning.
After all, the only purpose is to show he's done his part so
since he's done his part early, there's no reason not allow
bail extension early and avoid the night in the Don.

But I don't think I can really do more. If he has a change
of heart, I'll still be able to help him. Otherwise, it's
out of my hands.



--
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

\proteus\wsf508
>Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:22:53 -0800
>From: coopg@... (Dave Gutknecht)
>Subject: Re: [ijccr] TURMEL: Davos 2; World Social Forum 0
>To: TURMEL@...

DG: Mr. Turmel, Debate is good, and your ideas are valuable
insofar as they contribute. But you lose the attention and
respect of listeners and readers when you use extreme
accusations,

JCT: But what makes the use of extreme accusations so
entertaining to readers is that everyone knows the facts I'm
using in my accusations happen to be true. Everyone likes
watching the bad guys take their beatings, like a prize
fight. People like watching others get beaten up in a fair
fight and I happen to be the toughest political-legal combat
engineer on the planet.

No one can ever bet I'm wrong. You can't too. So I happen to
be brutal about a continuous stream of corpses generated by
the malfunctioning banking system, malfunctioning Health
system, that would not be caused once the malfunctions have
been corrected. And those who'd slow down repair by their
unqualified opinions dissing the real expert in the systems'
engineering.

DG: sneering condemnation,

JCT: It's because everyone knows I'm waving cash while I do
my sneering. It's that no one can stand up to my dare that
makes the condemnation so effective. And I've offered a
billion to one odds my arithmetic on the corpses is right
and no one can fade it. $1000 Canadian to 1 Turkish Lira. So
please excuse the supreme confidence of The Professor
against a crowd of Gilligans.

DG: and repeated assertions of your own brilliance.

JCT: Anybody with a Science degree could beat a crowd of
Gilligans. But yes, I've been privileged with the role. I've
been privileged with being the engineer who put the
blueprint of UNILETS heaven on the most important document
in human history, that is once resolution C.6 to governments
adopting the Time Standard of Money is achieved.

Plenty of people have "blood on their hands" for their
actions and inactions, often for much worse than advocating
one or another form of alternate currency and exchange.

JCT: Canadians pays $1,000,000,000 million a day to service
debts to rich people who don't even need it. Do you have any
idea how much the usury adds to the cost of living in a
high-tech world? Sure, things like the Judge Simmons,
Goudge, Doherty deed, have costs thousands of easily
identifiable corpses. Just count every known epileptic who
had a fatal seizure because he did not have an anti-epilepsy
marijuana joint in his pocket since they erroneously
concluded that Parliament's failure to make their medicine
illegal again had to be remedied by the courts.

Now think about former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, who sat
on one of my early 1980s appeals to the Supreme Court of
Canada to restrict the banks computers to a pure service
charge (a la LETS) and abolish the interest charge which
would fund the salvation of 17 million children who would
needlessly perish in each upcoming year. When Justice Lamer
didn't stop the banks genocide machine, hundreds of
thousands of people lost their jobs and were wiped out. Ask
you parents about Trudeau's 22% Prime Interest rates and how
many people got creamed by one of Canada's greatest
Canadians. For the banks. He lifted the ceiling from 6% to
60%. Pierre Trudeau. And I picketed his entry at the West
Door of the House of Commons every Wednesday for his last 4
years until he was gone.

Of course, Mulroney was worse. Just as bad but he couldn't
lie as well and "Lyin Brian" kept getting caught up. It was
an embarrassment to the nation. Well, not as bad as George
Bush who holds all records.

DG: A lot of hard work and suffering will happen in any case
if we are to enable the world to survive the mess it is in,
and then we will have to add forgiveness.

JCT: I'll save forgiveness for the guys who get out of my
way. Guys slowing down the engineering of Heaven get their
brains crushed.

DG: Please temper your language, otherwise it is
destructive.

JCT: My purpose is to be destructive to those who would
sabotage the engineering of heaven. No working with
saboteurs. No need. You either see the big picture and thus
bravely speak up and back me or less bravely shut up and
hope I win or you are in the way of the big picture being
engineered. And I've got no time for feelings of people who
are in no rush while half of the world is on the brink of
death.

When I plan to have every marijuana charge take up the time
of 15 judges, does that sound constructive? Quash 1;
Prohibit 1; Appeal 3; Leave 3: Trial 1; Appeal 3: Leave 3.
That's 15 judges attention per guerrilla defendant armed by
me. I don't have the resources to build Heaven but I can
talk about the blueprint while I'm spending my resources on
destroying Hellish institutions and functions.

DG: Dave Gutknecht Athens, Ohio List subscriber, war
resister, tax resister, dedicated to cooperation and
democratic economics

JCT: I understand what you're saying, that is if I were some
ordinary joe just getting into re-engineering my world. But
I'm a bit more. I'm a systems engineer whose been on the job
full time for 25 years of re-engineering my world. Search
for the joke about the Engineer in Hell and you'll see why
it can't be helped.

For gosh sake, you expect me to be humble when I sign myself

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

A slave has nothing to lose but his chains so does it sound
to you like I'm too worried about turning off people by my
claim to engineering superiority? Tough. Those kind don't
ever get past talking about what needs to be done to doing
it. They could never overcome their doubts and help engineer
Heaven. They'll see it when it gets here. I just can't worry
about losing people who prefer Hell because they don't like
the Engineer who drafted the blueprints for Heaven.




--
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

>Subject: [FixGov] Digest Number 1463
>Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:14:24 -0600
>From: "Tom" <ommani@...>
>Subject: Fw: ELECTRONZ - 502
>Just in case anyone thought this was a recent phenomenon-TK

>----- Original Message -----
ELECTRONZ - 502
7 February 2005
Weekly international Ezine focusing on the New Economics
In this issue:
[ 1 ] MCFADDENS FED INDICTMENT

USA has had many knowledgeable presidents and Congressional
Representatives issuing warnings about allowing private
interests to create the national money supplies. One of
these was Representative Louis T. McFadden. He was for 10
years the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency
Committee, but was consistently frustrated in his attempts
to have the privately owned "Fed" (U.S. Federal Reserve)
nationalised or at the very least brought directly under
government control.

After surviving two assassination attempts and realising
that his days were numbered he entered into the 1935
Congressional Record a 13,000-word indictment of how and why
the "Fed" was corrupt, and what should be done to rectify
the situation, in the interests of the country's future
peace and prosperity.

Not surprisingly, he was dead within a year, in what police
admitted were suspicious circumstances, but of course no one
was charged with his murder. We include from the
Congressional Record a few sentences to illustrate how
unimaginably vast was the extent of national swindling
involving the Fed and its private partners, and acknowledge
research material published in "NEXUS", April - May, 2004,
under the title of "Fractional Reserve Banking As Economic
Parasitism". We quote:

"We have in this country one of the most corrupt
institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the
Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Reserve Banks, herein
after called the "Fed". It has cheated the Government of
these United States and the people of the United States, out
of enough money to pay off the National Debt. The
depredations and iniquities of the Fed have cost enough
money to pay the National Debt, several times over.

"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the
people of these United States; has bankrupted itself, and
practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this
through the defects of the law which it operates, through
the maladministration of that law by the Fed, and through
the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control
it".

JCT: We have our Bank of Canada.

"I charge them jointly and severally, with the crime of
having treasonably conspired and acted against the peace and
security of the U.S., and with having treasonably conspired
to destroy Constitutional Government in the U.S".

Our Comment: There does not have to be a "banking
conspiracy" with temptations and rewards of that magnitude.

JCT: Good point. Once the satanic prize has been glimpsed,
once they start getting their usurious something for money's
time which does not work, they're hypnotized so effectively
they will forever be hearing without hearing and seeing
without seeing or understanding.

Just the gold plated commercial incentives will do fine, to
keep policies consistently directed towards further growth
and profitability of the club. And with that sized bounty to
share around there will be plenty for themselves as well
generous chunks for the executives and frontline puppets. If
you think we're exaggerating, refer back to last week's
Electronz story with details of the Australian Macqarie
Bank's staff wages and platinum handshakes.

JCT: But there are the controllers at the top who understand
how the banking systems engineering works as well as the
banking systems engineer does, or close. They know it's a
genocide machine and they're  still running it.
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/biglie.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm

Still, I hope I've honored Louis sufficiently for his soul
to travel proudly through posterity in my epic "Ballad of
the Banking Systems Engineer" from
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/pombank.htm

RECENTLY
Not only were there Abolitionists in Bible days,
But there were many more for abolition I can praise.
The Kings and Popes of middle ages were the ones to say,
That interest was evil but since then they've lost their way.

Some presidents who of this Populist idea knew,
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson too.
Some brilliant scientific men were also of accord,
With Franklin. There was Thomas Edison and Henry Ford...

Two notes used in America can clearly show the way,
Both legal tender now down south. They can be spent today:
"United States Note" issued by the nation's Treasury,
And "Federal Reserve Note" which is banker's currency.

Their fronts are very similar except the name they state,
Their backs are very different, it means another plate.
The Treasury provided notes for federal expense,
And taxed them back to balance books with numbers that made sense.

In 1913, other plates were given to the banks,
Creation of the money. They gave politicians thanks.
The Government had given banks permission to create,
A batch of brand new money to be lent at interest rate.

The Government then borrowed from them and at their request,
The Congress passed the Income Tax to pay them interest.
One Congressman objected, Louis T. McFadden, loud,
"The greatest crime in history," he said with head unbowed.

Ten dollars out, eleven back, it often takes a while,
But after years, the end result's a melancholy style.
The money from the Treasury, its use did almost cease,
To pay the interest to banks, the taxes did increase.

And when we ask "The Treasury, why is it never used?"
In answer, we get silence and an attitude bemused.
So to this day the bulk of the American supply,
Is borrowed from the banks at rates that make debts multiply.

All Governments do service debt by taxing you and me,
Instead of letting Treasury create it interest free.
I see no reason for a tax to pay them interest,
When use of plates by Treasury would lower taxes best.

The money from the Treasury was used down south before.
The "Greenbacks" used by Lincoln paid to win the Civil War.
The "Continentals" did their job until King George did state:
"There'll be no use of your own plates, for gold you'll have to wait."

Though we've been told that their revolt was over tax for tea,
Ben Franklin said "The war's because they took our currency."

JCT: I hadn't heard he was done away with but it only proves
my point that the planet's owners may be ready to let the
slaves be free or they'd have accidented or suicided me a
long time ago. I got the "No interest" resolution on the UN
Millennium Declaration, probably something more dangerous to
the powers that be than any words of any mere Senator. To
have let someone as dangerous to their control of the
banking system's engineering as a banking systems engineer
publicly sworn to fixing the malfunctioning machine would
seem to be has to indicate they prefer survival of the
planet in freedom than catastrophe under their
unfortunate control.

And I promised that if elected Prime Minister, President,
First Secretary of Earth, I won't let anyone shoot the
Rothschilds and Rockefellers for what their inherited
slavery machine has done to us.

>Subject: [FixGov] Digest Number 1463

JCT: Funny but this is one yahoogroup that banned Turmel's
posts on interest-free money reform a few years ago and now,
fixing the malfunctioning money machine is pretty well the
only solution they're left talking about.

After having ejected the banking systems engineer whose
words struck so powerfully at their cognitive dissonance
that merely forgetting what was uncomfortably true wasn't
enough, they had to stop the uncomfortably truth from
getting on their list.



--
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

>budEluv [Re: peacepuff
>Re: Marijuana Legalization 101 : was Re: PTV's "man
>Date: #781663 - Wed Jan 21 2004 09:07 AM

Bud: Peace. First of all, Big amazing standing ovation for
Marc for allowing this venting to take place (even though I
disagree with him). Second, Big amazing standing ovation for
all who have lent their thoughts and ideas to this thread.

JCT: Big ovation for Marc for permitting freedom of speech
that doesn't bother Marc. He only censors speech he doesn't
like.

Bud: Quote: Kirk says: Because the last set of whacked laws
led to judicial decisions that prohibition law was invalid -
that was pretty helpful. And that argument lives on.

I'm so glad you raised this point. If the law was
effectively "of no force and effect" for over two years, why
were people still being arrested? During his SOL tour Marc
made specific note of this disgusting violation of our
Charter rights that all Canadians were exposed to.

JCT: Marc's spin was only to claim it was since the Rogin
decision, the "summer" of legalisation rather than the "2
years" of legalisation.

Bud: The Gov and those that enforce and uphold the law, were
not following the law(s) themselves. Do you really think
that talking about decrim is even productive? We should be
screaming bloody murder that those who are supposed to
protect and to serve were actually continuing their agenda
against us even though they had no legal basis to do so.

JCT: The contempt citations coming up in all new quash and
prohibit motions should do that.

Bud: What would you call purposely ignoring the law to
continue their war on the cannabis culture?

JCT: Pursuant to the Criminal Code, falsely getting people
busted is "Mischief" and falsely keeping them away from
their life-saving medicine is "inflicting on the group of
sick conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction: "genocide."

Bud: [... Marc, did you not state that you would personally
finance an appeal to the SCC for Hitzig and the gang? Why no
follow through? HC being in contempt was resolved which
solves distribution, but what about access?

JCT: Justice Lederman said 10 epileptics out of 400,000 was
access enough for the group. Lederman rules access was fine
after Pitt had ruled access had failed. Which is right?

Bud: Is anyone allowed to sit and discuss with their GP the
benefits and detrimental effects of medical cannabis as it
relates to them? Will the GP know these facts? Will the GP
sign the MMAR? Will a specialist? What about the waiting
time to be approved?

Even if it were possible to get your GP and a specialist to
sign, you may die before getting your approval. Cindy-Kripps
Prawak admitted to 15 people having died before a decision
was rendered. So, 15 died suffering because they could not
legally obtain what the Government promised. This is the
same group that you wish to approach politely and
diplomatically?

JCT: Actually, the Dupuis-Neron Federal Court win says you
send along a 30-day ultimatum for their response.

Bud: We may not be to sue the members of parliament, but we
can start the domino effect to really stir the pot (no pun
intended). What do you think would happen if every single
person in Canada who currently uses medical cannabis, were
to file a suit against their doctor because they refused to
sign their MMAR application? Think that could be quietly
pushed aside?

JCT: It would take forever and the lawyers would get rich.

Bud: What about rounding up every single person convicted of
cultivating / trafficking during the period where possession
was of no force and effect?

JCT: I've already got the "appeal late" forms at my
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/mpforms.htm site which
consist of an Application for Extension of time to file the
Notice of Appeal on the grounds the learned judge didn't
know the law had been repealed when he convicted them.

Bud: How many lawyers, officers, agents, informants, etc,
could be held liable for prosecuting and persecuting
citizens based on a fictitious law? I think there might be
just a few?

JCT: None. Like Jacques Belley pointed out "It's still in the
Criminal Code." How can you blame the cops for enforcing the
written law. They didn't know the law was dead. The Ministry
of Justice did not amend the Criminal Code to reflect the
Parker and Krieger decisions.

Bud: How can absolutely nobody be held liable for these
things?

JCT: Punishment's coming up for the right guys. Harvey and
David Frankel, Lara Speirs, they pulled off the cover-up.
Rather than admit Pitt had ruled the MMAR had not complied,
Lara Speirs thought having Pitt set aside with Alan Young's
help would change things. It only delayed things. Their
crime stands obviously exposed now.

Bud: Crying foul after the fact decrim passes is way too
late. The time for crying foul and expressing our outrage is
now. The time to gather our ranks, counter attack and go for
the jugular is now.

JCT: Gee, why are all the old champions so not eager to go for the
jugular, I wonder?
---

>puff_tuff [Re: BuzzzWorthy
>Date: #781678 - Wed Jan 21 2004 09:50 AM

P: Har, thats hilarious, if Marcs only concern was the
bottom line than he would be fighting to keep cannabis
illegal. We all know there's more money to be made in a
prohibited world. In a legal world cannabis (and seeds) will
be worth a lot less and anyone, including you, can go ahead
and open a cafe or grow and distribute it. Marc is fighting
for your right to do that. Marc will not corner the market.
If Marcs only concern was money he would not have spent
$250,000 funding the BCMP fighting for legalization, knowing
he had no chance of winning.

JCT: Making sure there was no chance of winning, making sure
the movement spun their wheels uselessly.

P: Marc ensures all of us are contributing to end
prohibition by using the money we spend on magazines, seeds,
etc. towards legalization.

JCT: Actually, the joke on the movement is he's using the
money medpotters spend not towards legalisation but toward
helping Alan Young ensure Turmel's motion to invalidate the
law does not proceed.
---

>kt421
>Date: Wed Jan 21 2004 10:26 AM

KT: Your next paragraphs on the ills of decrim (and those
that appear later in your post) I agree with, as I've
repeatedly pointed out in this thread - take a look at my
testimony before the Justice Committee.

Quote: If the law was effectively "of no force and effect"
for over two years, why were people still being arrested?...

KT: It took a judicial decision, by a provincial court, at
the beginning of last summer to acknowledge that the law was
of no force an effect.

JCT: See. The Emery-team spin is that legalisation didn't
happen on Terry Parker Day 2001 when the law died, it
happened on Phillips and Rogin Day 2003 when the first
courts admitted it. Only once admitted dead was it really
dead. And the court acknowledged it of no force and effect
for wrong reason. Luckily, Parker and Turmel-Paquette got it
acknowledged of no force and effect for the right reason,
that the MMAR didn't work, not that it hadn't been
legislated right.

KT: Prior to that decision, everyone operated under the
belief that the law was valid and in force.

JCT: Except the Turmel Team.

KT: And provincial court decisions are not binding authority
outside the province in which they are decided;

JCT: They eventually dropped the charges against 4000 across
all Canada. It was never provincial court, it was court of
appeal that's binding. The Parker Court of Appeal striking
down the section was binding on all Canada.

KT: and even in that province they have only persuasive, not
binding, authority on other provincial court judges. In
other words, the issue of whether the law was valid or
invalid was an open question that many legal experts
disagreed about - up until the JP/Hitzig decisions a couple
months ago in the OCA.

JCT: And all the legal experts who disagreed with Turmel
were wrong. One engineer was smarter than the whole Canadian
bar and bench. Of course, the Bench is made up of members of
the Bar so it's no wonder they'd be just as non-learned.

KT: Hard to imagine that cops, who are not lawyers and do
not have that legal expertise, would somehow know that the
law was invalid (or, more accurately, was going to be
declared invalid down the line).

JCT: But Crown Attorney David Frankel knew and misinformed
the cops.

KT: Heck, the situation is confusing to me, and I'm writing
a masters in law thesis about it. I am by no means a police
apologist, but I also don't expect them to know more about
the law than experts in the field.

JCT: Maybe it's the study of law that causes confusion.
Seems pretty clear to me.
---

>>Marc Scott Emery [Re: budEluv
>Date: #781834 - Wed Jan 21 2004 02:05 PM

ME: Oh, I'm sorry, along with carrying along the entire
movement in the previous noted activities, I have advanced
Paul Burstein $5,000 to proceed with an appeal of the Hitzig
decision, and it has proceeded. This was done in December
and we will hear in the fall if the SCC will hear the
appeal.

JCT: This was the appeal to challenge not having the Health
Canada supplies supervised by provincial courts; which was
thrown out. Not the Turmel appeal to challenge the Hitzig-
Myrden resurrection which is still in play.

ME: I didn't want to list all the activities and funding I'm
doing because I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression
that I'm responsible for every single major activity in
Canada (although I am) that is happening.

JCT: Har har har har. He's a guy who's spent a fortune on
the cause and can't cite one winning move compared to the
Engineer who had only time and no money to spend and beat
4000 charges while still shooting for the remaining 200,000.

ME: Oh yeah, did you hear I was the principle patron of the
Supreme Court case.

JCT: The one that didn't remember to challenge the
resurrection of the law but only asked for supervision of
the product and then got thrown out? Sure I figured you'd be
behind Burstein's Bowzer at the top.

ME: You don't see me bitter. I soldier on.

JCT: So you're used to failing.

ME: I've got 10 - 20 major campaigns all working
simultaneously, plus the media we control, plus, plus,
plus.... As to the rest of you, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR THE
MOVEMENT LATELY?

JCT: Like confessing and pleading guilty to passing out a
joint? That's was one great campaign.

>Marc, did you not state that you would personally finance
an appeal to the SCC for Hitzig and the gang?..

ME: Buzzworthy and your degenerative sneering, man, you
prove my point. Many of you are jealous and envious, simply
because I have GOT IT DONE, and so you have to say "I'm only
in it for the coin" in some childish, completely untrue
statement. Do I run a drug addiction clinic (cost $200,000 a
year) at no charge to anyone because I'm money hungry? How
about the additional $300,000 - $500,000 a year we spend on
rallies, marches, court cases, ballot initiatives,
elections?

JCT: So many campaigns and so little to show for it.
Actually, nothing to show for all those campaigns. Not one
useful thing that Narc Emery spent all that money on has
ever paid off. "What a winner, not." From a real winner.

ME: Remember if marijuana becomes legal, my cash flow
personally would be way less than it is now.

JCT: As if we haven't figured that's the reason you've paid
for so many useless moves that ended up nowhere. If you ever
scored legalisation, you'd be out of business. We can all
see why you don't support the "law is dead" arguments. You
don't want it to be.

ME: I should shut up and hope prohibition stays forever if
it was about the money.

JCT: No, admitting the truth is good for the soul.

ME: I contribute more to the movement in money than ALL
OTHER CANADIANS COMBINED!

JCT: And accomplish less than 1 engineer who contributed
only time.

ME: Marc kicks in more than 30 million other Canadians you
say? Wow! Thats heroic! You're damn right it is, and Buzz,
you should thank your lucky stars I exist or you wouldn't
even be posting here on MY SITE!

JCT: Giving money is all Marc thinks matters, even if it
never scores. What a loser talking.

ME: Buzz, you are a bad person and disgrace to say those
things about me, considering how much every activist and
victim of prohibition in Canada owes me by way of gratitude.

JCT: How sad for our champion spender to not have one
worthwhile trophy on his wall.
---

>budEluv [Re: Growgrrl Date:
>Are they winning...or are we?
Date: #782188 - Wed Jan 21 2004 08:42 PM

Quote: Oh, I'm sorry, along with carrying along the entire
movement in the previous noted activities, I have advanced
Paul Burstein $5,000 to proceed with an appeal of the
Hitzig.

Bud: I apologize for not being aware of the appeal, as I
have not come across any information in relation to the
Hitzig case moving forward. Did I perhaps miss the
announcement (Pot-TV or forums) concerning the appeal for
the OCA decision? On what grounds is the appeal being based?

JCT: Burstein's Boner issue has been posted at
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/messages/1117

Bud: I realize that you have done more than anyone else in
Canada for this movement to achieve the ultimate goal of
removing cannabis from the criminal code.

JCT: Actually, that's never what he has aimed at.

Bud: No one in their right mind can dispute that unless they
want to lose the debate.

JCT: I'm ready to argue his efforts having been a
complete waste of movement resources that was no blunder but
the deliberate sabotage by a government narc mole. How else
to explain his never-ending never-successful moves?

Bud: I respect you Marc. I admire you, but I don't envy you.
I would not wish to be in the spotlight all the time as you
are.

JCT: His political career is now finished. He got caught
lying about his sheep-dipping confession and guilty plea and
no one comes back from that. He's a dead man walking in the
political arena.

Bud: From the beginning when you first voiced your contempt
for the censorship laws way back in London, up to the
present day, I have supported you in your fight 100%.

JCT: Oh right. He fought for the right to speak about it
after the Feds had just made speaking about it illegal.
You'd almost think they made it illegal to give their narc
mole something of little value to win. Didn't count for
much, did it?

Bud: I, myself, am a strong vocal supporter and I have
always defended the manner you fight to achieve those goals.
I always vehemently defend what we both fight for. We simply
fight in different ways. I am voicing my opinion on the
methods you have adopted to continue the ongoing fight.
Don't misconstrue difference of opinion mixed with hard
questions as a degenerative attack on your character.

As I stated in my first post in this thread, You're a
wonderful voice within the movement Kirk, just like Marc
Emery for keeping a thread like this to allow valid
criticisms and opposing ideas to be voiced and to perhaps
come together.

JCT: Of course, Marc has censored many discussions since
this. His girl-friend Jodie's heavy on the kill switch too.
They deserve each other.

Bud: I realize that it is impossible for the police to be
aware of all changes in policy and law, but is it not the
responsibility of the Feds and the AG's to impart that
knowledge on those who are to enforce them. especially if a
major change like a criminal law they regularly enforce had
been stricken down as unconstitutional?

JCT: That's Lara Speirs and Harvey Frankel and David Frankel
too. And don't forget Croft Michaelson, Chris Leafloor, and
Vanita Goela who knew the law was dead and fought it and
lost rather than admit it.

Bud: From your statement, it appears that you are saying the
Feds had no idea what impact the Parker decision had? Did I
misconstrue?

JCT: If Kirk is confused, why can't the Feds be too?

Bud: Did the law makers, those who legislate, enforce and
uphold the law really have no clue the constitutional
challenge and judgment rendered in Parker completely altered
the marijuana laws in the CDSA?

JCT: Evidently they rely on the media to tell them what's
happening too.

Bud: To think that is illogical. They (those who were
obligated to inform the entire justice system) knew exactly
what it meant.

JCT: That's Frankel's admission of guilt to knowing the law
was dead http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/frankel.jpg

Bud: That's why they left everything well enough alone. They
knew it would take another case/challenge to force the
courts to acknowledge that ruling.

JCT: And now that it's official, they have to pay for being
wrong and not correcting their error so it hurt even many
people more. These shysters need to see the inside of a jail
cell.

Bud: Please provide your interpretation of how section 52 of
the Constitution Act relates to the Parker decision.

JCT: He's confused, he's studying law.

Bud: Are the powers that be, acting in compliance and in
accordance with the Rule of Law? Or, does this bring the
administration of justice into disrepute?

JCT: He's confused, he's studying law.

Quote: Obviously, sincere people can disagree on this point.
But what do you think would be more effective - the multiple
items Marc has laid out (political protest on the Hill,
rallying the college vote and gathering top thinkers to
create a roadmap for legalization) or throwing a pie at the
justice minister who inherited the decrim bill from his
predecessor?

Bud: Perfectly legit question, but is it the right one? I
agree 100% that ALL of the initiatives should be
implemented. The question is not Which way is better?" Or
"More effective. The question is... How do we win?

JCT: First determine what you want to win before how. I want
legalisation, decriminalization, whatever ends up with
cannabis being treated like garlic or tomatoes.

>kt421
>Date: #782356 - Thu Jan 22 2004 12:27 AM

>Please clarify. I realize that it is impossible for the
police to be aware of all changes..

KT: On July 31, 2000 the OCA decided Parker. It declared the
prohibition invalid because medical use was unduly
restricted. It suspended the declaration of invalidity for
one year in order for the feds to rectify the medical-access
problem.

JCT: Kirk Tousaw's timeline.

KT: On July 30, 2001 the feds enacted the MMAR. This was in
direct response to Parker and set up a scheme (however
flawed) that enabled medical access - thus nominally
rectifying the deficiency identified in Parker and thereby
nullifying the Court's declaration of invalidity.

JCT: "Nominally." A lawyer's word for "Not."

KT: So, arguably, the feds had rectified the problem
identified in Parker (lack of medical access) and thereby
saved the prohibition. Not so fast, though.

On January 2, 2003, the Ontario Provincial Court decided R.
v. JP. In that case, the Court determined that enacting
regulations - instead of laws - that allow medical access
wasn't good enough. Parliament dropped the ball. As a
result, the Court decided that the prohibition died as of
July 31, 2001; one year after Parker. Accordingly, it now
seemed arguable that anyone charged - in Ontario - between
July 31, 2001 (the date that Parker's declaration of
invalidity took effect) and January, 2003 (the day JP was
decided in Ontario provincial court) was charged under an
invalid law. And from that point forward, there was no
prohibition. In Ontario.

JCT: Notice how he cites the JP case that eventually lost!
The Court of Appeal said Phillips and Rogin were wrong. So
if they were wrong, why was J.P. still acquitted?

KT: It was only in Ontario because provincial court
decisions do not bind other provinces. Indeed, it is
arguable whether they bind other judges in the provincial
court.

JCT: It was in all of Canada because it was the Court of
Appeal for Ontario Parker decision. It was only just first
admitted in Ontario that it was dead Canada-wide, not that
the admission in Ontario meant it only died Ontario-wide.
Others followed.

KT: But it got the ball rolling, and other cases across the
country adopted the same analysis. The death of prohibition
spread across Canada, and Marc embarked on his Summer of
Legalization tour. Cops were resistant, predictably, and the
Crown began to appeal the decisions.

JCT: And the reason eventually lost.

KT: Ultimately, the OCA reversed the remedy of invalidity in
JP and, in Hitzig, determined that enacting regulations was
good enough - as long as those regs were tweaked a bit.
Prohibition was back. Or was it?

JCT: If the Court of Appeal ruled JP was wrong, then why did
J.P. get away with it?

KT: Perhaps not. Health Canada has failed to conform the
MMAR to what the Hitzig Court ordered.

JCT: Two months later. What about while Alan Young was
saying the law was back since Oct 7. Was it? Answer the
question.

KT: That, arguably, could mean that the MMAR are
constitutionally invalid - leading to the restoration of the
remedy in Parker. Prohibition could still be dead.

JCT: "again dead" he corrupts to "still be dead." A shyster
misinterpreting everything for the other side. Spoke for us
in Parliament while Turmel was denied.

KT: Arguably. And the case, that Marc is funding, is before
the Supreme Court for consideration of whether leave will be
granted. If they take the case, who knows what the decision
will be?

JCT: Notice he didn't mention the appeal against Hitzig
wasn't an appeal against the Hitzig resurrection. Makes
everyone believe that it's about the Hitzig resurrection
while those of us who read the posted text know that's not
true.

KT: You'll notice the repeated use of "arguably" a favorite
word of lawyers. Its a favorite word because uncertainty
means more work. But its also relevant to this brief
synopsis. That's because coherent and plausible arguments
existed that the prohibition was valid, in most of Canada,
except for a very short span; from the date of a particular
provincial court decision like JP to the date JP and Hitzig
were decided in the OCA (September 4, 2003).

JCT: Not from when the Court of Appeal said it died but from
when the J.P. Court accepted that it had died? Notice he's
spinning this despite the fact the Hitzig-Myrden decision
mentions how it died after July 31 2001. He's still pushing
the "since JP" rather than the "since Parker." Perhaps it
does take legal training to get this stuff so wrong?

KT: At most 9 months of the knowledge of legalization in
Ontario and less elsewhere in Canada (and, in some
provinces, not at all).

JCT: So the law didn't die on Terry Parker Day when the
Court of Appeal ordered it dead, it died on JP day when
lower court accepted it died on Terry Parker Day. Imagine,
the JP decision admits it died since the MMAR failed to
satisfy Parker and Kirk Tousaw is conning us into believing
the JP court did it. At most 9 months. And yet, the JP
decision does say between Terry Parker Day and Hitzig Day.
Even though JP and Hitzig decision accept Terry Parker Day
for 26 months, the guy who spoke to Parliament for us with a
legal degree says it's only 9 months.

KT: Note that the effect of legalization was held by the
provincial JP Court to stretch back to July 31, 2001 when
Parker took effect; knowledge of and the effective date of a
decision can be and, in this case, were, different.

JCT: So he picks emptying the jails of only those charged
since knowledge of and not the effective date for Parker to
have taken effect.

KT: I say knowledge of because, up until JP, there was no
real reason for the feds to agree that prohibition was dead.

JCT: Ontario Superior Court Justice Pitt made the National
Post telling them that the MMAR had failed to comply with
the ruling of the Parker court. Why doesn't that count? It
even made the news. And evidently, for the "knowledge of"
crowd who don't accept the death of a law until it's
acknowledged someday, it doesn't count because it was
ignored.

KT: In legal battles, that you ultimately lose your argument
doesn't automatically mean that your argument had no merit;
it simply wasn't as persuasive as the other side.

JCT: A loser isn't a loser, it's just less of a winner than
the winner. Har har har har.

KT: Of course the feds are going to argue that prohibition
was valid.

JCT: They lost.

KT: In a perfect world they would not have; but in a perfect
world these legal battles don't even get fought because
prohibition never exists.

JCT: In a perfect world, student lawyers know that courts
can't resurrect dead laws. With student lawyers like Kirk,
there'll never be a perfect world.

KT: The point - and you may have begun wondering if I had
one - is that even those involved in the JP and Hitzig
appeals didn't know what the Court would decide.

JCT: Isn't it funny that he keeps citing the two decisions
where the Simmons, Goudge Doherty court hid the answer to
the Parker/Turmel-Paquette application to declare the
prohibition unknown to law on Terry Parker Day.

KT: Alan Young didn't know,

JCT: John Turmel knew.

KT: Paul Burstein didn't know,

JCT: John Turmel knew.

KT: the Crown didn't know,

JCT: John Turmel knew.

KT: the Appellants didn't know.

JCT: Appellants John Turmel, Terry Parker and Marc Paquette
knew.

KT: To suggest that the police, or anyone else, should have
had better knowledge seems to be asking too much.

JCT: It isn't asking too much for S. David Frankel who knew
on Dec. 4 2002 that S.7 had been ruled of no force and
effect by Alberta's highest court to inform the police and
everyone else who should have had better knowledge.
---

>budEluv
>Re: Marijuana Legalization 101 : was Re: PTV's "man
>Date: #791516 - Fri Jan 30 2004 01:46 PM

Quote: Alan Young didn't know, Paul Burstein didn't know,
the Crown didn't know, the Appellants didn't know. To
suggest that the police, or anyone else, should have had
better knowledge seems to be asking too much.

Bud: I respectfully disagree with that statement. Someone
should have asked Reverend Damuzi or John Conroy.
<http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2146.html>
The Narcs and law enforcement that are paid to look over the
forums would have made a similar comment to whomever they
reported to?

Quote: Health Canada (HC) then introduced new regs, the
MMAR. Ultimately, the new regs were deemed unconstitutional
and the Ontario courts (and, later, other provincial courts)
decided that meant that the prohibition had been eliminated
due to the effect of Parker (OCA). So we had a court
decision(s) declaring that there was no prohibition.

Bud: Exactly. The smoke and mirrors tactics employed by the
Feds worked quite well, yes? As they ignored the order by
Rosenberg to enact new legislation, the attack on the MMAR
is moot. The court did not stipulate regulations. They gave
parliament the task of new legislation, not regulations.
This was the premise behind the possession laws being
stricken in Rogin.

The wording by Rosenberg in the Court of Appeal is quite
specific...I have also concluded that the prohibition on the
cultivation and possession of marihuana is unconstitutional.

The conclusion of this judge has been ignored. If a law has
been deemed unconstitutional, the law then ceases to exist.
This, of course takes into consideration the "grace period"
given to parliament to enact new legislation.

The invalidation of the cultivation prohibition in s.7(1)
engages the invalidation of the possession in support of
Parker's Ontario Court of Appeal decision in 2000.

See: Schachter v Canada [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679 and Re Manitoba
Language Rights for the requirement that once a law is
invalid it may only be re-enacted by Parliament, and it is
not for the Courts to make laws. .

How can a Court of Appeal interpret and give life to a
statute or regulation that is invalid and of no force and
effect? Clearly it is of no force and effect for all
purposes. May a Court of Appeal interpret a law that in law
and fact does not exist?

I really do not believe that the Court of Appeal could do as
it did as concerns the MMAR which ceased to exist after the
expiration of the 6 month delay of Lederman.

This usurpation of power resulted in an even greater and
gross monumental error, as by this impermissible act, the
Court took another ultra vires leap and re-enacted a law
CDSA 4 [on Oct. 7th 2003] that had been and was as
acknowledged by the Court, in the same Hitzig judgment,
invalid since July 31 2001.

JCT: It really was a double-resurrection. MMAR had been
repealed since July 10 2003 and CDSA had been repealed since
Aug 1 2001. They resurrected the MMAR to resurrect the CDSA.
Bud; Clearly only Parliament could re-enact CDSA 4, and not
a Court of Appeal. Especially the same Court of Appeal that
in Parker [200] order or directed that parliament enact a
new law that conformed with Charter requirements.

This is the reason that the entire attack on the MMAR, and
anything that recognizes the MMAR is counter productive.

JCT: Even the Court of Appeal called Alan Young's attack on
the MMAR misguided before using it to resurrect the law.

Bud: According to Supreme Law, there is no prohibition of
marijuana.

Quote: You'll notice the repeated use of "arguably" a
favorite word of lawyers. Its a favorite word because
uncertainty means more work.

Absolutely. Unless the courts actually acknowledge the fact
that our government is in Constitutional Jeopardy regarding
marijuana prohibition...  Do you think the right question
was asked in the Hitzig appeal? Peace

JCT: Burstein's question about the provincials supervising
the distribution of supply by the Feds? No. Turmel's
question about the courts resurrecting repealed statutes?
Yes.


--
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

A while ago, I had a conference call using my three-way
calling feature, usually one of the choices in the package
which people don't pick too often.

The Nielsens called me. I 3-wayed to Richard Johnson. He 3-
wayed to Pierre Drouin. As long as the next person has 3-
way, we can keep adding people to the conference. So, medpot
guerilla warriors, upgrade your communications to conference
calling by selecting 3-way from your Bell package. Give up
call-ident, anything else, and get this one.

PS. I use London Telecom's all-you-can-use except business
hours (8am-6pm;Mon-Fri) for $23 per month. London Tel is 10
cents a minute during business so I use 1010-1001-number at
4 cents a minutes during business hours.

All warriors who'd like in on these 3-way conference calls
which take minutes to set up had better get the feature
turned on if you want to get in on the loop and let your
upline and downlines know.

Of course, I guess we could use Yahoogroups chat feature
with audio and video except that my low-tech laptop can't
join. Sad I didn't think to use the latest tech because the
engineer is hobbled with the weakest machine in the war.

Makes the barriers the World's Richest Pauper has to over-
come even more epic though. No power tools. No power
armaments. No money: "Wow. He took out Goliath with a lousy
sling-shot to the head."

By my favorite timedollar coffee-house songstress from
Madison Wisconsin said:

Tea In The Park
http://thecomasavants.com/lyrics/tea.html
c 2000, Stephanie Rearick

They couldn't get you
You knew what to do
you looked all around and you found
there was nothing to lose

And how does it fit
your keen interest
that some are in Prada
and others not wearing a stitch?

So you spend death-gamble days,
blackjack at night
No one goes out
without a fight

No more
just sitting back
while the bank robs the store

and that's how the weeble wobbles
and that's how the tower topples

They couldn't get you
you knew what to do
you looked all around and you found
there was nothing to lose

And how did you see
that you could break free
from the now barely-legal tradition of duplicity

Tea in the park
Pigs in the dark
You turn an eagle into a lark

No more
just looking on
while they lock up the poor

and you crawled up silent
through the mines
and you slew the giant
from behind

JCT: Silent? No sling-shot?



--
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 sent off a letter and fax to the Supreme Court:

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

BY EMAIL AND FAX

Feb 07 2005

Joanne Laniel
Head, 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. Laniel

Last Wednesday Feb 2 2005 I perfected my two applications
for leave to appeal with the required applications for
extensions of time.

Now I need to know the result of my request pursuant to
Section 65.1(1) for a stay of execution.

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: I didn't hear a thing about the World Social Forum at
all. I did hear about Bill Gates and Bono at the Davos
conference though, twice.

What to expect out of a forum with 20,000 diverse interest
groups and nothing to unite them all except shouting one big
"ouch, stop."

A UNILETS resolution might have shaken the world but with
the likes of Stephen DeMeulenaere making sure everyone
thinks LETS is a small local phenomenon, I can understand
why they wouldn't realize the power they could have wielded
by their numbers.

And don't think Stephen DeMeulenaere was all alone. I have
no doubt the Bernard Lietaers of the world were all there
making sure the world solution wasn't heard at the world
forum without being dissed. Right? You've heard Stephen dis
UNILETS here, is it any wonder the bankers wouldn't finance
his efforts to dis UNILETS there?

Remember, I don't try to shut down his "Local time currency"
message, he tries to shut down my "global time currency"
message. He sabotages my serious efforts, I don't even
bother with his dinky toy efforts.

My only pleasure is knowing I can count the number of extra
people who die during the delay of the world-wide solution
and Stephen's bears a share of the responsibility. It's not
just the banksters Jesus beat up who are the bad guys, there
were also the bankster moles no one notices who lead the
sheople astray.

Actually, I just noticed that the Davos conference and the
Social Forum were held at the same time. I wonder if that
was planned to keep the plebes away from the elite knowing
the elite would make the news in their owned newspapers
while the plebes were kept busy elsewhere and wouldn't even
be noticed.

Well, the World Social Forum 2005 sinks away to oblivion
without having caused a ripple over here. Maybe I'll be able
to make it next year and counter the "small thinking"
LETSers of the world who just can't seem to keep up with the
big picture.

I'm just glad their words are down on record for posterity
so that when UNILETS is installed, we'll be able to note the
guys who did not see and those who worked against what they
did not see that cost so many lives.

Stephen's covered in blood and he can never correct the
souls lost due to his slowing down the conveyor belt of
death. He's got a K-slab of responsibility that will keep
growing until the problem is solved or he joins working on
the solution.


And of course, I have a huge A-slab for having worked to
speed up their salvation for the past 25 years. I've got far
more lost souls waiting at Heaven's Gate to thank me for
trying to save them than Stephen has who want to kick his
ass to Hell for working to keep them dying by slowing down
the UNILETS solution. I wonder how it feels finding out you
share responsibility for costing millions of lives. Har har
har har. He who laughs last laughs best. Serves him right.


--
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: Hey Gord Armstrong. Have you struck a blow for
Abolition of marijuana prohibition in Woodstock Ontario?
Have you tried to quash the charges for you and your
epileptic wife?

If you did, I ask all members of the A-Team launching
Krieger attacks to send reports of how you were treated and
the reactions to the truth to medpot-discuss@yahoogroups.com
so everyone can benefit of your experience, especially those
from the Woodstock area who will no doubt follow in your
footsteps.

You can't imagine how much I'll enjoy hearing about someone
who needs it for epilepsy. I've always said that a
prescription for epilepsy is an automatic exemption, ask
Terry Parker, Marylynne Chamney and Bruce Ryan.

Of course, do have your wife apply for her exemption at
Health Canada now that you're no longer exposing yourselves,
having already been now exposed as Tree of Life gardeners.

And if she ever does get an exemption, she doesn't have to
tell the Crown and can then drag them all the way to the top
before letting them know she's immune anyway. Har har har
har. I can't think of anything more fitting than the Crown
doing combat with someone sick who they don't yet know they
won't convict anyway. Har har har har. Completely wasted
Crown time. Har har har har. And Health Canada can't tell
anyone when she gets her exemption. They might even know and
not be able to introduce it to let you go unless you tell
them. Har har har har.

Just like charges were dropped against Marc Paquette and
Robert Neron once they got their exemption, the government
will have to drop the charges against your wife, and
probably you, when she gets her exemption for epilepsy. I
advise everyone who's been busted to apply for the freebie
chance at a "get out of jail" card and if you get it, keep
quiet and let the Crown spin their wheels for nothing while
beating them up in front judges every time you can.

It's bound to happen and I envy any warrior who can continue
the combat knowing he's got an out at the end of the day. It
sure has to feel better than those people facing charges
with no hopes of such exemption out. It's tough to qualify
for but once you've been busted, you may as well apply and
see if you get your Health Canada "stay out of jail" card.
So make sure you get your wife's application in, and if you
want speedy response, include a 30-day ultimatum and they'll
know you're a Turmel scholar who's going to do a judicial
review of their pharmacist's questions to your doctor.

Again, I can't think of anything more enjoyable than you
getting the exemption and then not telling them until you
had challenged the law all the way to the top that they had
no hope of winning at all. I love "nothing to lose,
everything to win" situations.

Right now, they've got you on the hook but get your
exemption and you've' got them on the hook. You don't tell
them you are now immune and you make them pay. No letting
them off the hook without maximum pain. Only if you don't
get justice at the top and are sent back to the bottom for
trial, then you pull out your Health Canada "get out of
jail" card to use.

And by the time you are through your 30-day Quash process
and your 3-day Prohibit process, you can then file in the
Court of Appeal and perhaps be consolidated with the
Nielsens, Johnsons, and other medical gardeners into an
exquisite Cast of Cripples to put the Government prosecutors
to shame.

I had 11 ailing people in Federal Court railing at Health
Canada in the Supreme Court of Canada building! Just a few
days after Terry Parker Day!!

Since the Crown has 2 months to finish their Nielsen
Memorandum and the Appeal Books, and then it's more months
to get a hearing date unless it's expedited like my Big Five
appeals were, there's plenty of time to have lots of people
go through their 33-day minimum first two steps and join the
Nielsens, Johnsons next, Drouin, Menard, and a host of
others too. If necessary, imagine the whole A-Team filing
their $50 Applications for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada all at the same time!

But now that your garden has been exposed, apply for your
"get out of jail" card and see if you hit it lucky. If not,
you can always do a $50 judicial review like all the others
and they usually back down before having to put down in
writing why the Minister overruled your doctor's
prescription.

If you're getting your TURMEL feed from elsewhere, send a
blank email to medpot-discuss-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
before you write to us. That way you can speak to those with
previous experience with quashing their charges like the
Nielsens, Drouin, Menard, Johnsons, Evers, and those with
previous experience with Prohibiting their prosecutions like
the Nielsens who did it first, and those with previous
experience at the Court of Appeal (Parker & Paquette) and
even Parker's experience at the Supreme Court of Canada!

So please take the time to tell us what happened. I'm sure
I'm not alone in wondering what happened, especially since I
announced you were going into action. Time for your report
to the A-Team and I'll pass it on to the world.




--
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 may as well let everyone suffer the same tension I'm
undergoing. I spoke to Mike yesterday and he seemed to be
pretty bummed out.

If I'd left him in prison, he would have finished his
sentence by now so if it would be pretty bad if he goes back
to jail after he would have already been out.

At his last Monday Dec. 20 appearance, they booked his next
hearing for Monday Feb 21, just 60 days later, to discuss
extending his bail further and whether he wants to use a
lawyer. So he has to surrender himself by 6pm Sunday night
the 20th for the Monday criminal motions day.

Of course, why would they not just grant him bail pending
his appeal? Why have another hearing to discuss extending
his bail? The real reason is probably that if he doesn't
file his Appellant's Memorandum within 60 days, his appeal
gets abandoned and he'll stay in jail.

My plan to keep him out of jail was to file his Memorandum
before the 60-day deadline and then file a motion to vary
his bail conditions at some Monday criminal motions hearing
before then so he can enter the courtroom by the front door
instead of in cuffs.

Once his Memorandum is filed, he has fulfilled his part in
the scheduled proceedings and there would be no reason not
to extend his bail while everyone's now waiting for the
Crown to do their bit.

I drew up a Memorandum and Motion to Vary in early January
but he didn't show up. I wasn't too worried because there
were plenty of other Mondays yet to go.

Last week, I had readied a new motion so he could come file
his documents at the same time as I was serving my documents
and the Nielsens were serving their appeal. He didn't show
up.

When I finally spoke to him, he was very upset. Of course,
he's had doubts about me amplified by a worried parent.
Seems he has an appointment with a lawyer in Toronto to
discuss his appeal. The lawyer did say he could only appeal
the sentence and maybe get Mike house arrest instead of
jail.

Of course, Mike can ask the same thing. The only difference
is that I'd be challenging the conviction and sentence and
the lawyer will only challenge the sentence.

Anyway, I explained to him and his mother that if he doesn't
file his Memorandum, he's not going to get out of jail.

And if he doesn't file the motion to vary by this Wednesday
for hearing on Feb 14, then he's going to have to surrender
to the Don Jail on the date before his 21st hearing.

I explained that only the Court of Appeal can change the
sentence and the lawyer couldn't do anything any faster than
I was doing it. But, of course, since I'm not a lawyer, I
have to explain everything I want to do to people who say
they don't understand what's going on.

So I signed off on the note that he'd have to book his
Monday Motion by Wednesday to avoid a night in the Don. And
he'd have to file his Memorandum to avoid being kept in.

So now we all sweat it out and see if Mike decides to stay
out of jail or if he's too depressed to try.



--
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 Application for Leave to Appeal the Hitzig-Myrden
resurrection was missing the signed Lederman Order and the
Reply to the Crown's Memorandum. Both were filed on Feb 2
with the extension of time I say I'm not required to file.

HITZIG-MYRDEN RESURRECTION APPEAL

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
                                          Applicant for leave
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                         Respondent for leave
                                         Respondent in appeal
         NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
      (Pursuant to Section 59 of the Supreme Court Act)

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John C. Turmel hereby applies to
the Court in forma pauperis for an Order extending the time,
if deemed necessary, to perfect the Application for Leave to
Appeal by immediately filing of Applicant's Reply and the
signed Order of Justice Lederman.
OR FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the application, any Order amending any defect as
to form or content of the motion or any Order deemed just.
THE GROUNDS ARE that Applicant is a pauper and thought he
qualified for extra time and the numbers make the matter is
of national importance.
Dated at Brantford Ontario on Jan 31 2005
Applicant: John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

ORIGINAL TO:  THE REGISTRAR
AND TO Respondent:
- 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
- Robert Frater: robert.frater@...
2311-284 Wellington St. Ottawa, K1A 0H8
Tel: 613-957-4763, Fax: 613-941-7865

                    APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
      (Pursuant to Section 59 of the Supreme Court Act)

I, John C. Turmel, residing at 8-37 Colborne St. E in
Brantford Ontario make oath and say as follows:

1. Ex. A is the Arizona Republic article "The World's
Richest Pauper" dated Saturday July 19 1997
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ariz97.htm which details
why I was dubbed The World's Richest Pauper.

2. I have nothing but clothes, furniture and tools.

3. I do not qualify for government money.

4. I have no means of support and am living off my retired
pensioner mother whose cancer helped her appreciate and
support my war to abolish prohibition of her medicine.

5. I owe Revenue Canada hundreds of thousands of dollars
from the Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel in 1993.

6. I have debt collectors calling almost every day.

7. Government seized my last monies from my bank account
last year.

8. I may not be the World's Richest Pauper but I sure may be
the World's Angriest Pauper. And for sure I'm a pauper.
Perhaps the King of the Paupers, but always a pauper.

9. I need an extension of time if I wrongly believed I did
qualify for extra time under Section 59(4) to file my Reply
and signed Lederman Order.

10. I continue to believe I should not have been rushed into
my presentation nor made to pay $50 for this motion to
request extensions of time that S.59(4) of the Supreme Court
Act says paupers don't need.

10. That 99.998% of Canada's 400,000 known epileptics
continue to go without access to anti-seizure cannabis
medicine 7 years after the prohibition of marijuana was
declared unconstitutional for epileptics by Justice Sheppard
in R. v. Parker is of national importance.

11. This Affidavit is made in support of an application for
an extension of time, if deemed necessary, to perfect the
Application for Leave to Appeal by immediately filing of
Applicant's Reply and the signed Order of Justice Lederman.
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
Sworn before me at the city of Brantford Ontario on January
31 2005
A COMMISSIONER, ETC.

                       REPLY MEMORANDUM
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
                     Pursuant to Rule 28
1. The Crown's only argument is that the issues raised are
not of national importance or not raised below.

2. The Order dated Oct 7 2003 of the Court being appealed
from read:

"THIS APPEAL by John C. Turmel for a declaration A) that the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana in the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act is a genocidal violation of
Applicants' S.7 Right to Life in accordance with the
decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker and
has been of no force and effect since Aug. 1 2001."

3. In paragraph 170 of the judgment below:

[170]...In R. v. Parker, supra, this court declared the
prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by that date the
Government had not enacted a constitutionally sound medical
exemption. Our decision in this case confirms that it did
not do so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 has been
of no force or effect since July 31, 2001.
4. Wonderful. On Dec 8, 2003, the Crown announced the
staying of 4000 pot charges pending from the period that the
prohibition had been repealed. Not wonderful was the Crown
refusing to delete the 100,000 convictions from the criminal
records of those improperly charged since Terry Parker Day.

5. Much less wonderful was the rest of paragraph 170:

"[170] First, if we do not suspend our order, there will
immediately be a constitutionally valid exemption in effect
and the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA will
immediately be constitutionally valid and of full force and
effect. In R. v. Parker, supra, this court declared the
prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by that date the
Government had not enacted a constitutionally sound medical
exemption. Our decision in this case confirms that it did
not do so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 has been
of no force or effect since July 31, 2001. Since the July 8,
2003 regulation did not address the eligibility deficiency,
that alone could not have cured the problem. However, our
order has the result of constitutionalizing the medical
exemption created by the Government. As a result, the
marihuana prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent with
the provisions of the Constitution. Although Parliament may
subsequently choose to change it, that prohibition is now no
longer invalid, but is of full force and effect. Those who
establish medical need are simply exempted from it. This
consequence removes the cloud of uncertainty from the
marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA - a cloud which we
were told in argument has created very considerable
confusion for courts and law enforcement agencies alike. A
suspension of our remedy would simply have continued that
undesirable uncertainty for a further period of time."

6. The court has no power to resurrect or resuscitate any
statute which had been repealed 26 months before. Parliament
Only Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate.

7. Applicant sought to have the prohibition declared no
longer known to law since Terry Parker Day 2001 thus opening
the window of legalisation.

8. The Court did so declare the prohibition repealed since
Terry Parker Day thus opening the window of legalisation.

9. The Court then opined that it's operations on another
piece of repealed legislation, the MMAR, had now unrepealed
the CDSA statute that had been struck down 26 months earlier
thus closing the window of legalisation.

10. Applicant sought the window open. The window is still
not open. Until the window is open, Applicant's issue cannot
be said to have been dealt with.

9. The criminal records of hundreds of thousands of
Canadians are at stake. The Crown's failure to correct its
mistakes is of such a magnitude as to rate being of national
importance.

10. The Application for Leave to Appeal should be granted.
Dated at Brantford on Jan 31 2005
For the Applicant: John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
---

PARLIAMENT HILL S.5(2) BUST APPEAL

JCT: The Application for Leave to Appeal the Aitken refusal
to quash S.5 charges was missing the signed Doherty Order
and the Reply to the Crown's Memorandum. Both were filed on
Feb 2 with the extension of time I say I'm not required to
file.

File Number: #30571
Appeal Court No: 40027
                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
       (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
                        John C. Turmel
                                          Applicant for leave
                                          Appellant in appeal
                             and
                    Her Majesty The Queen
                                         Respondent for leave
                                         Respondent in appeal

         NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
      (Pursuant to Section 59 of the Supreme Court Act)
TAKE NOTICE that Applicant John C. Turmel hereby applies to
the Court in forma pauperis for an Order extending the time,
if deemed necessary, to perfect the Application for Leave to
Appeal by immediately filing of Applicant's Reply and the
signed Order of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
OR FOR any Order abridging the time for service, filing, or
hearing of the application, any Order amending any defect as
to form or content of the motion or any Order deemed just.
THE GROUNDS ARE that Applicant is a pauper and thought he
qualified for extra time and the numbers make the matter is
of national importance.
Dated at Brantford Ontario on Jan 31 2005
Applicant: John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

                       REPLY MEMORANDUM
                  JOHN C. TURMEL, APPLICANT
                     Pursuant to Rule 28

1. The Crown's only argument is that the issues raised are
not of national importance or not raised below. The Order
dated Oct 7 2003 of the Court being appealed from read:
"[5]. A declaration does not delete a provision from a
statute. Pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982
its effect is to render the provision of no force or effect
to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of
the Constitution.
[6] The declaration of invalidity made by this court in
Parker supra, does not delete marihuana from Schedule II of
the CDSA. It simply declares that the reference to marihuana
in Schedule II is of no force or effect for the purposes of
the possession charge in s. 4 of the CDSA. The declaration
does not extend to any other section of the CDSA. In
particular, it does not diminish the effect of the leisting
of marihuana in Schedule II for the purposes of s. 5(2) of
the CDSA. As a result, the charge of possession of marihuana
for the purposes of trafficking existed on May 26, 2003.

3. On Dec 8 2004, the Ministry of the Attorney General
announced the stay of 4000 mistaken prosecutions because "A
declaration does not delete a provision from a statute."

4. The further 100,000 convictions registered while the
statute was repealed and never corrected because "A
declaration does not delete a provision from a statute. The
legislation must reflect changes in print.
5. When another statute such as S.5(2) is based upon the
struck statute S.4(1) or S.7(1), the spirit of the law is
gone leaving only a thought crime.

6. Nowhere in the history of the Canada's legislation does
the invalidity of the Section 4 prohibition by Parker which
precipitated the stay of 4000 mistaken charges show. The
Criminal Code has never been changed to obey those rulings.
The very fact no newly-printed legislations exists is the
proof of negligance causing the 100,000 mistakes. The
numbers of Canadians victimized by the malfunctioning bench
makes this appeal of national importance.

7. Challenges to the S.5(2) prohibition with due to the
repeal of S.4(1) in R. v. Parker and of S.7(1) in R. v.
Krieger have been filed in Ontario (10), B.C. (2) and Quebec
(1) with more on the way. Judge Serre reserved her decision
on quashing S.5(2) charges in R. v. Johnson in Elliot Lake
until Feb 1 2005. Judge Rodgers reserved his decision on
quashing S.5(2) charge in R. v. Ethier in Sturgeon Falls
until Mar 31 2005. The Application for Leave to Appeal
should be granted.
Dated at Brantford on Jan 31 2005
For the Applicant: John C. Turmel, B. Eng.

                          AFFIDAVIT
JCT: Same affidavit as previous Hitzig post. So now
everything is perfected on my end and the only thing is to
find out what they did to my motion for a stay of execution
of the Hitzig resurrection. Did the clerk decide to not send
the motion along on her own initiative? I'll find out next
week and if the clerk denied my right under Section 65.1(1),
I just might write another motion to deal with that non-
service. I wonder who I should write to about an uppity
clerk? The Chief Justice, the Justice Minister, or maybe the
Prime Minister? Maybe all three.

Anyway more on the Hitzig-Myrden stay next week.


--
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: Of course, only people who read my Turmel report know
that Dominic Gravel was just one 1-page 8-line affidavit
away from his release hearing based on Supreme Court of
Canada Krieger #29569.

Of course, the judge took so much time to explain each of
the 8 lines that Dominic was missing in his 1-page document
that Dominic might be under the impression that this 1-page
affidavit is just too insurmountable an obstacle for me to
overcome. So let's see what the only print media report that
is going to get out tells the world without comment:

Gravel a choisi de se fier a un avocat plutot qu'aux freres
Turmel
Gravel chooses to trust lawyer rather than Turmel brothers

Regis Bouchard rbouchard@...
Le Droit http://www.cyberpresse.ca/droit
JCT: The story didn't make their web site!

La tentative de Dominic Gravel de contester en Cour
superieure le rejet de sa demande de remise en liberte,
n'aura pas fait long feu. Le jeune homme de 30 ans qui est
accuse de culture (plus de 5000 plants) et possession pour
fin de trafic de marijuana, a fait son lit, hier, et a chosi
d'abandonner les demarches de revision de caution que lui
avaient conseillees les freres John et Raymond Turmel, ce
dernier se trouvant en detention en compagnie de Gravel.

Dominic Gravel's Superior Court attempt to contest a refusal
to release him on bail didn't last long. The 30-year-old
man who is accused of cultivation (more than 5000 plants)
and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking
made his bed yesterday and has chosen to abandon the motions
to appeal his bail refusal which he'd been advised to do by
brothers John and Raymond Turmel, the latter finding himself
in detention in the company of Gravel.

En apres-midi hier, Me. Jacques Belley a laisse savoir que
Gravel avait accepte sa suggestion et choisi de concentrer
ses energies a la preparation de son enquete preliminaire et
eventuellement de son proces, de preference a une revision
dee caution devant la Cour superieure. Me Belley estimait
que la procedure concoctee par les freres Turmel, n'avait
aucune chance de succes sous la forme presente.

Yesterday afternoon, lawyer Jacques Belley let it be known
that Gravel had accepted his suggestion and chosen to
concentrate his energies in the preparation of his
preliminary inquiry and his eventual trial in preference to
a request at the Superior Court to vary bail conditions. Me.
Belley's opinion is that the application concocted by the
Turmel brothers had no chance of success in its present
form.

REJET DE LA REQUETE
REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION

La decision de Gravel s'imposait de plus en plus a la
lumiere des evenements survenus en avant-midi hiere, devant
le juge Jean-Pierre Plouffe de la Cour superieure qui a
rejete la requete presente par Gravel.

Gravel's decision stems more and more from the light thrown
by events that took place yesterday morning before Superior
Court Judge Jean-Pierre Plouffe who rejected the application
presented by Gravel.

Le magistrat avait poliment suggere a Dominic Gravel de
faire appel a un avocat pour preparer les documents
pertinentes s'il voulait que le tribunal se penche sur sa
requete qui, pour le moment a ajoute le juge, ne respecte
pas la procedure.

The magistrate politely suggested Dominic Gravel call on a
lawyer to prepare the pertinent documents if he wanted the
tribunal to deal with his application which, for the moment,
wasn't up to procedure.

Du meme souffle, le juge Plouffe a rejete la demande de
l'accuse qui aurait aime que le controverse John Turmel
parle en son nom. Le tribunal a rappele a l'accuse que seul
un avocat pouvait faire des representations au nom d'un
accuse.

In the same breath, Judge Plouffe rejected the request of
the accused who would have liked the controversial John
Turmel to speak in his name. The judge reminded him that
only a lawyer could make arguments in the name of an
accused.

Dans le document que Dominic Gravel a ecrit en compagnie de
Raymond Turmel qui purge 18 mois de prison pour une culture
de 613 plants de marijuana, on attaquait la
constitutionality de la Loi sur les stupefiants pour
justifier une revision de caution. Or, selon le juge
Plouffe, ce n'est qu'au proces qu'un tel argument peut etre
souleve.

In the document which Dominic Gravel wrote in the company of
Raymond Turmel who is purging 18 months in prison for the
cultivation of 613 marijuana plants, the constitutionality
of the law on drugs was being challenged to justify a
variance of bail. As well, according to Judge Plouffe, such
an argment can only be raised at the trial.

Le magistrat a explique a Gravel qu'une requete pour
revision de caution devait etre accompagne par de faits
nouveaux qui n'avaient pas ete portes a l'attention du juge
de premiere instance ou encore d'erreurs de droit ou
d'appreciation des faits de la part du juge qui a refuse la
remise en liberte.

The judge explained to Gravel that an application to vary
bail must be accompanied by new facts which were not brought
to the attention of the judge in the first instance; or
errors of law or of appreciation of the facts by the judge
who refused the release on bail.

En apres-midi, Me. Belley a explique avoir clairement
explique a l'accuse qu'il acceptait de le representer
uniquement si ce dernier abandonait son recours en Cour
superieure et, de ce fait, son partenaire avec les freres
Turmel. De toute facon, selon Me. Belley, il sera toujours
possible a Dominic Gravel de demander sa remise en liberte a
l'issue de son enquete preliminaire qui devrait se tenir au
cours des prochaines semaines.

In the afternoon, Me. Belley explained having clearly
explained to the accused that he accepted to represent him
uniquely if he abandoned his recourse to the Superior Court
and, thusly, his partnership with the Turmel brothers.
Regardless, according to Me. Belley, it will always be
possible for Dominic Gravel to apply for release at his
preliminary hearing which should take place in the next few
weeks anyway.

Dominic Gravel fait face a des accusations de culture et de
possession de marijuana dans un but de trafic a la suite de
la decouverte, en juillet dernier, d'une importante
plantation jde 5000 plants de marijuana a Ottawa Lake, dans
le Pontiac. Dominic Gravel est detenu depuis son
arrestation, fin juillet 2004.

Dominic Gravel faces charges of cultivation and possession
of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after the
discovery last July of an important 5000 plant grow-op at
Otter Lake in the Pontiac. Dominic Gravel has been held
since his arrest at the end of July 2004.

JCT: Do you feel like laughing or crying? Don't believe what
the media say until you've heard it on the Turmel News. "2
clear days notice." It hangs over the Crown's head like a
sword of Damocles. "2 clear days notice." "2 clear days
notice." "2 clear days notice." "2 clear days notice." "2
clear days notice."

JCT: Avez vous envie de rire ou de pleurer? Ne vous fiez pas
a ce que disent les media jusqu'a ce que vous l'avez entendu
aux Nouvelles Turmel. "2 jours francs d'avis." Ca pend par
dessus la tete de la couronne come l'epee de Damocles. "2
jours francs d'avis." "2 jours francs d'avis." "2 jours
francs d'avis." "2 jours francs d'avis." "2 jours francs
d'avis."

Dominic Gravel
Prison de Gatineau
75 St. Francois
Gatineau, QC, J9A 1B4


--
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 don't know why but even though I had expected Dominic
Gravel to be passed through Provincial Court and then up to
Superior Court, and remembering that last time, they had
booked him for 9:15am instead of the regular 9:30 opening
time, I decided to play safe and show up half an hour early
at 9am.

Good move. Dominic was slated in Courtroom #1 at 9am before
Justice Jean Pierre Plouffe who ran Ray Turmel's marijuana
cultivation trial. Before it started, I heard the clerk say
it wasn't expected to last long and he'd then be transfered
over to #4 for a date. Sounds like they already had heard
what was going on.

There was no one else there when Dominic came out. Only me
and the bailiff, clerk, Crown Attorney, Judge.

So, Justice Plouffe, with me right in the front row taking
notes, explained to Dominic Gravel that he had both dossiers
in front of him, his recent application to quash in the
court below and his application now for varying the
conditions imposed by Judge Dagenais in denying him bail.

The told Dominic that theu motion in the court below was
fine and would be heard on Feb 24 as slated. But his motion
for release in Superior Court had a few problems. It wasn't
up to the Quebec Rules of Procedure.

He pointed out that such variances according to S.520 had to
fulfill certain conditions and there had to be an Affidavit
of Circumstances. What was your job? where do you live? what
will you do? where will you live? type of standard
questions.

He mentioned how they normally needed to have the
transcripts of the Dagenais decision and it had already been
ordered but had not yet arrived. This could be problematic
but may not be since we are not saying Judge Dagenais erred
but that something new, very important, has come up that no
one knew about. So there's no real criticism of Justice
Dagenais decision and no transcript of the decision no one
is objecting to would seem necessary.

And Rule 21 insisted that such application "shall" have the
Affidavit of the Appellant's circumstances. Keep in mind
that a judge can always dispense with any rule.

Justice Plouffe did tell Dominic to go ahead and bring the
motion for release back on 2 clear days notice once it's
done right by a lawyer.

But in case he wasn't going to use a lawyer, the judge was
going to explain everything that he would need to say step-
by-step in his affidavit! I started to take notes.

Notice that this is the way a judge should speak to a self-
represented defendant. The judge was his legal counsellor
and filled him in not only on what he had to do but on how
he had to do it. People may think this was Judge Plouffe's
chance to put a beating on "The John Turmel" which he's
entitled to do when I come in on a bare two red aces but it
was also his duty to the rights of the accused before him to
do the job he had no lawyer to do. He explained exactly what
Dominic had to do to have his claim heard. So, did the judge
treat his unrepresented accused properly. You bet he did.
Other judges who tell them "something's wrong and I'm not
going to tell you what and you're going to have to find out
yourself" are not doing that duty right. We had that happen
just recently when the judge wouldn't tell Richard Johnson
that it was the 30-day rule that needed to be fixed, which
we suspected and Richard even asked about. "Is it the 30-day
rule" that's Turmel's screw-up? He wouldn't tell him and
Richard only found out it was when the next motion with the
30 days notice got through. Even after Richard had asked,
his judge refused to indicate what the Turmel screw-up was
unlike Plouffe who not only explained what the Turmel's
screw-up was but how to fix it. You just don't see a judge
do this right very often but I'm thrilled to be able to
point at it as a great example of how a judge should care
for the unrepresented accused in his court.

He may have been giving me good advice but he kept putting
me down over and over for not having included the affidavit
that any competent attorney would have known about. Ouch.
Ouch. Ouch.

You have to understand, I got a call from Dominic on a
Sunday night. I don't have the Quebec Rules of Practice, I
race to get his papers in on the Monday based on the
injustice of pre-trial detention when the law could be
repealed as a special kind of abuse; that the mere chance of
such injustice should be enough to liberate the inmate. So
the usual "let me expose my soul to get out affidavit"
behind a good-behavior release should be laid not on the
victim of the abuse but on Crown David Frankel!!! A favorite
joke. So now I was paying for my error, over and over. As he
explained how to do it right, he made fun of the moron who
didn't do it right. I kept taking notes.

Finally, he noted the presence of Mr. John Turmel in the
court-room who was taking notes despite its being against
the rules, but he didn't mind he sighed, as it's expected
Turmel'd be bending the rules. I didn't know. First I'd
heard of it in 25 years of recording my cases in my
journals. So I stopped taking notes on what was necessary to
include in the affidavit that would be needed to have it
back before the court on 2 clear days notice. Later, I got
the form to order the tape! 20 cents a minute, 4 bucks for
the 20 minutes it took. Should be a real good tape. I hope
to order it, not the transcript, tomorrow. Isn't Quebec
grand?

Of course, that was nice of the judge to mention so many
times that Dominic can fix it and be back on 2 days notice.
Even if he kept putting the boots to me, I almost felt he
was daring me to get it back in minimum time. Especially
since he'd just told me everything I needed to do it right.

He even gave Dominic what I consider the ultimate good
advice! All my legal history, I've asked clerks and lawyers
for a model motion that I could copy. Nothing works better
than something that's worked right before. Judge Plouffe
told Dominic to get himself a model of the Affidavit of
Circumstance for varying bail refusal from some lawyer who
had done it right before and copy it.

Who needs a lawyer when you've got a judge like Plouffe?
Again and again, I've seen judges do their jobs right and
very few do it wrong, usually because of the novelty of the
situation. But you have to admit that this was one of the
finest examples of a judge taking good care of the
unrepresented accused before him I've ever seen. I wish
there was an award I could nominate him for. He was kicking
me in the sore spots every second sentence and I was in
bliss as he took tender care that his "client" found out
what was happening to him.

I almost got thrown out when Judge Plouffe mentioned how
he'd handled Ray's constitutional motions and was up on the
issues and that I hadn't done this constitutional challenge
right. I tried to sputter about Krieger making it different.
I felt the guards were on the way to grab me but he waved
them off. I guess he wanted to make sure I received his
instructions right. But then the first time Dominic got to
speak, he pointed out that his new Turmel reason was not the
same as the Old Turmel reason. Perfect answer.

Anyway, he got even with me for my presumptuousness. I guess
you'd to say that he was beratingly helpful. While putting
down my performance, he kept reassuring the kid that it
could be fixed and be back before him on "2 clear days
notice." Ouch but hooray in the same breath. I don't mind at
all. My gambling Prof used to call it the "shit on me"
principle. Shit on me all you want but show us how to get
the kid justice. The reporters have no idea how useful the
judge was.

The judge did point out that Dominic could wait to make the
same motion to vary his bail conditions at his pre-trial in
the court below in March. Har har har. He can be back in
Superior Court on 2 clear days notice with a properly done
affidavit or he can wait to use his properly done affidavit
in March!!! Sure, it was an invitation to come back soon!

And he mentioned that the Motion to quash below was fine a
second time.

Dominic did ask if Turmel could explain as a friend of the
court. The judge could only hunch his head and say no.
Turmel can't be granted status as a friend of the courts.
Especially since I've beaten them up with their Kilo-
mistakes so many times.

I think that if the law proves dead by government cover-up,
then continued incarceration has to be construed as an
abuse. That's why I showed how the Krieger decision had been
hidden. What was there in the 8 lines that could be
necessary to delay his getting out on the chance the law is
dead?

I didn't have the list of things that needed to be included
in the affidavit and I had no access to the Rules of Quebec
Procedure to get the list of details needed for the
affidavit. I asked the clerk of the court if they had the
Rules handy, no, it was in the legal library for lawyers and
judges only. Not the registry. Then suddenly I ran into
Pierre Bourget who had represented me in my Hull "Operation
Blackjack" raid application release pending appeal in 1991.
He was good enough to come to the library to get me a copy
of Section 21 with the needed affidavit ingredients. It's
lucky to know so many people. So here's the only form that
Judge Plouffe insisted was necessary:

Rule 21 says applicant needs an affidavit that details: :
I, Dominic Gravel, swear as follows:
a) Date and place of arrest:
b) residences for the past 10 years
c) marital status
d) occupation at time of arrest
e) admit full criminal record
f) any pending criminal charges?
g) any passport?

So that's all that was missing in the Affidavit which is
already in the motion. But for those 8 lousy lines, Dominic
didn't get his hearing and the media are going to make a
monkey out of me for blowing it by 8 lines. Until I spring
him on Wednesday. He who laughs last laughs best.

Regis Bouchard had come in to catch the end of the show so
he wasn't aware that the only missing thing was the
Affidavit of Circumstance. Later I popped into his office
and I told him it was his first goof-up to say the after-
Ray-Turmel Krieger case was the same old Ray-Turmel stuff.
The CJRC reporter was there and he laughed and pointed out
that judge Plouffe had said I wasn't doing the kid's
constitutional motion at the right time. I said it wasn't a
constitutional motion, Parker's and Krieger's were. It was
not about badness but about non-constitutional repeal of the
law. I have no doubt Judge Plouffe's erroneous conclusion
that this challenge to the existence of the law was like Ray
Turmel's old constitutional one remain in the public
consciousness after tomorrow's Le Droit. Imagine getting it
wrong and not wanting to hear my side why. After all, the
judge didn't let me answer in court, Regis could have let me
make the answer outside.

I went back to court-room to see if I could catch Dominic
when he came in. The CJRC girl had a better nose for news
and invited me outside for an interview. Suddenly, four more
microphones are in my face, several TV cameras are rolling
and it's my chance to explain how Krieger killed the law.
Surprise. It was a scrum. Everybody was going to play it. So
I went back to get a copy of the kit so I could flash the
Supreme Court of Canada Krieger decision and other goodies.

CHOT's Genevieve Latulippe whined about my trying to get the
king-pin of a 6000 plant operation off the hook. I said
"wonderful. Glad to hear it was so big. (Thumbs up.) Glad to
know there are people out there cultivating this wonderful
plant.

But 6000 plants, she repeated? I pointed out cultivation
Section 7 was struck for all numbers. Appendix 2 where
Alberta struck down S.7 cultivation, Appendix 10 where the
Supreme Court of Canada agreed that S.7 was struck down and
then Appendix 5 where Crown Attorney's David Frankel
Memorandum's admitted knowing Martin Cauchon's Ministry of
Justice knew "S.7 has been declared of no force and effect
by the highest court of Alberta" and did not re-print the
Criminal Code to reflect the Parker or Krieger invalidations
of Section 4 and Section 7 of the CDSA.

It was struck down for all amounts, I didn't care how much.
My goal was to legalise this healthiest of herbal remedies
because I wanted to get them out to the farmers' markets
with their crops.

They had joked to me to keep it short and I quipped I'm a
master at keeping it short because it's easier for people to
understand. What gives them impression it takes a lot of
time is that they heard a lot in that little power-packed
time.

Then they did a scrum around Jacques Belley. I hope he
wasn't surprised. They asked him about being fired, he said
he was aware that his client had done some things on his own
but that he was only stepping back while the client did his
own thing and would be there when the case reached the
trial. I winked at him for getting it right.

They then asked him about John Turmel's involvement and he
started to say he didn't know anything about me, "except we
played Blackjack 25 years ago," I quipped, so he had to
explain how he wasn't going to participate in those things
his client could do even if he didn't think they had much
chance of success of over-ruling bail refusal on such a
large bust.

Before he left to see Dominic, I asked him to relay that the
affidavit could be ready for signing by this afternoon and I
would be ready to get him filed for next Tuesday.

I ran into Robert, the court translator, and when I asked
him about this "no taking notes" he said he hadn't heard
about it, it was something I should check out. Imagine,
people can't take notes in a court-room? But later, while in
#4 waiting to see if he'd be heard before noon, a guard came
over to tell me I wasn't allowed to take notes! What's going
on?

TVA Headline: John Turmel shown the court-room door in
Gravel case.

JCT: Sure, but only for 3 days. So Turmel's spectacular goof
cost my first Quebecker 3 extra days in jail. Big deal.
Won't it make him coming back at them in 3 days like Plouffe
invited him to, and which they didn't report, be a surprise.
File Friday 2 clear days later is Wednesday. Bouncing back
from their media laugh-in to the question of merit and won't
they be surprised when the courts open their Criminal Code
dealing with his S.5(2) charge and run into R. v. Turmel.

Latulippe reported Turmel's "Sa bataille n'a pas fait long
feu." Turmel's fight didn't burn long.

They played Belley saying it was premature to be filing
constitutional motions which had to be done at the trial.

So the spin is that stupid Turmel didn't know that
constitutional motions had to wait for the trial.

Then they finished that his experience today has made him
ditch Turmel and retain his lawyer.

Surely this can't mean he doesn't want to file the 8 lines
and try to get out on Wednesday? He was heard today without
his lawyer while his lawyer was on the file, he can be heard
on Wednesday too without his lawyer while his lawyer is on
the file except he has to file the form to bring him from
jail to the court himself. Last week's lesson.

Anyway, I'm going to prepare his affidavit with new notice
of return of motion where he can fill out 2 clear days
notice and be heard and then leave a copy with Belley, his
girl-friend, by fax to the jail, and by mail.

It would be so sad to think his confidence has been so
shattered in "free with nothing to lose" Turmel that he'll
prefer to stay in jail and than try another "free with
nothing to lose " Turmel motion with the extra 8 right
lines.

Anyway, it's still early so you can catch CBC French and
TVA. CHOT lead off the news with my flame-out. Bet I'll get
Dominic to file the last 8 lines and be back soon.



--
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: Here is as much of the report of the Johnson hearing
before Judge Serre as I have been able to put together.

>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:25:14 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@... (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: Re: we weren't prepared for door no.3
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com

sorry virgil all i can say at this point is that i was
running on less than 6 hours sleep out of the last 72 hours
prior to going to court, i was pretty brain dead before the
judge and heavily relied on the tape recording,
unfortunately the tape recording has a very high static
interference, possibly because of the computer between me
and the judge. im trying to figure out a way to eliminate
the static in order to hear the judge.

going to the high school tomorrow and talk to the audio
visual teacher there, ive heard they have some impressive
equipment there.

all i can tell you about the ruling is she talked for about
30 or 40 minutes pretty well straight with very little
interruption. it was all very technical, quoting all the
major players that ive used in my motion, i believe she said
she is bound by hitzig on sec 4(1) and possibly sec[5[2.

she took my motion and turned it into two, striking down the
first part and allowing me to continue on for trial using
the second part.

the confusing thing is we're all not exactly sure which part
is which? again i appoligise for being brain dead at the
time, couldn't help it. part of my medical condition.

now if ive got any of this straight it may be that she is
going to allow me to argue that 1) I can still fight for sec
7 cultivation or 2) that the law is un-constitutional again
based on health canada putting back in the cancers to mmar.

i really need to hear whats on that tape in order to fill in
all the gaps that i cannot remember but i know is all filed
in my brain i need recording to help coax out memories.

final result

the clerk read out an election of choices such as superior
court with judge for jury, appeals court judge and jury and
a whole lot of other choices but the only smart choice for
me, i elected to have any further hearings right hear in
elliot lake as i feel the judge serre is on my side, and
seeing all the problems everyone else is having at all
levels of court i thought this was in my familys best
interest.

judge serre was concerned wheather she had jurisdiction

crown aube assured her that she did.

i also made mention to john in ottawa today and quebec
tomorrow and if all goes well i may not have to come for
trial.

judge remanded until mar 8 i think.
until i hear whats on the tape this is pretty well it try my
best to decipher or possibly buy transcripts.  richard
---

>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:36:45 -0800
>From: muirhead@... (Michael)
>Subject: Re: Re: we weren't prepared for door no.3
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com

You've done what you could, Richard - and under the
circumstances, I have the impression that your having done
anything at all is a bit of a blessing. :-)

I'm almost certain that you're being offered the chance to
argue the death of Sec 7(1)... because there's documentation
start to finish that it really is dead. The 4(1) thing is a
major nuisance, because until Serre can be forced to accept
that the Hitzig ruling is nothing but opinion, she's bound
by the CA in her own province more than by any other court
but the SCC. What Serre thinks about the reinstated
unconstitutional conditions in the MMAR is anyone's guess.

JCT: That's why it's so important to do it in another
province.

I'm crossing my fingers and toes that you can sort out that
tape. Barring that, however, I think I'll be ordering some
transcripts.  :-) ((U))   M
---

>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:45:32 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@... (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: [medpot-preview] ALSO

sorry i forgot to mention about the rev. tarzan. while
waiting out in the car before court started. a court
official came out and handed me what we thought were the
north bay transcripts. it appears only to be copies of the
rev's 3 applications he submitted in court. no recorded
dialogue of actual proceding. we have just purchased a new
printer, when i figure out how to scan i will post here at
preview, it may help,
tarzan writes like tarzan, i cant make out parts of his
submissions.
regardless the judge said there was nothing here to help me
with. richard
---

>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:13:20 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@... (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: ALAS, BUT ANOTHER PROBLEM PLEASE ADVISE
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com

in regards to my daughter the minor who was charged with all
the same charges as mommy and daddy.

the crown request the judge to move on my daughters charges
in young offenders court, up until now everyone concerned,
the judge, mr. aube the crown, and my self have agreed to
include my daughter as a tag-a-long until judge renders
decision on mom and dads charges.

i believe the judge told me i should get legal counsel for
my daughter and have him return with us on mar 8 or would my
daughter want to keep me as legal counsel and has she had a
screening form done, i dont know iam not a lawyer. i think
they are wanting to try my daughter before a decision is
rendered on mom and dad.

if the judge is only dismissing half of my motion and at
this time my daughter was included as a tag-a-long then must
she not be included until its very end? thank- you for any
input. richard
---

>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:45:08 -0500 (EST)
>From: budweedluv@... ("Bud E. Luv")
>Subject: Re: [medpot-preview] ALSO

Sorry to hear that Judge Serre ignored the orders from the
Appeal Courts (Alberta & Ontario).

I hope that she digs into the matter further because the
endorsed decisions in Tarzans cases may not be relevant, but
the oral decision rendered certainly is.

The Judge spoke correctly when she said that the endorsed
written decision is not relevant. It is the ORAL DECISION
RENDERED THAT IS CRITICAL!

In the decision given orally, Judge Valin acknowledged that
s.4 & s.7 had been declared to be of no force and effect.

As the Rev was not up on any of those charges and only
s.5(2), there was nothing binding which obligated the Court
to quash the charge before him.

I left 3 detailed messages over the past 2 weeks requesting
the transcripts from the 7 (seven) motions heard and
adjudicated upon that day. I only received a call back today
in response to my messages. The only reason she did call is
because I went to the manager in the Sudbury district who
sent an e-mail on my behalf to a Manager in North Bay.

She will be getting back to me in regards to an approximate
cost. At $3.20 a page, it's not going to be cheap. But, if I
can manage to locate the funds for them, I will most
certainly pick them up. Fortunately, if another party has
already ordered the transcripts, the cost goes down to
approximately $0.55. If the Crown or the Courts have already
ordered them as you have stated, I might be lucky enough to
get the entire proceedings that conclusively shows that
Judge did acknowledge that s.4 & s.7 had been struck down.
Peace
---

>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:07:25 -0500 (EST)
>From: budweedluv@... ("Bud E. Luv")
>Subject: Re: ALAS, BUT ANOTHER PROBLEM PLEASE ADVISE
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com

As far as I know, (others can confirm), the screening form
is the "official notice" that you have been charged with an
offense.

You and your wife should already have received one along
with disclosure by the Crown (if you have requested
disclosure).

It basically states your name, charge(s), how the Crown is
to proceed...(ie. indictment, summary conviction) and what
they are asking...(ie. custody, fine, probation, diversion).

With the choice you made today, I believe you may have
skipped your option to a preliminary hearing (where you get
to cross-examine officers on their will state (disclosure of
police) and information to obtain (if the information to
obtain the search warrant has not been sealed....usually is
if an informant is involved). Any relief you could have been
granted at pre-trial (however limited), will now have to be
heard by the Trial Judge as they are taken with any Pre-
Trial motions once they have been assigned to a particular
case.

As you have chosen the manner and court jurisdiction you
wish to be tried in (Provincial Court before Judge Serre),
you are well on your way to a trial. The March 8th
appearance might be for a Pre-Trial. Can you confirm?

JCT: Unless they file an application to prohibit in which
case there's no trial for a real real long time.

In regards to your daughter, I would think that the appeal
you are going to pursue would put that issue at rest.  If
any appeal is pending, the trial is put on hold until the
appeal is resolved. Would need a little more info to offer
more. Hope this helps. Peace
---

>Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:31:21 +0000
>From: el_sunset_warrior@... (el_sunset_warrior)
>Subject: [medpot-preview] Re: ALSO

> She will be getting back to me in regards to an
approximate cost.

i can absorb the cost if the actual transcripts does indeed
show the oral submission from the judge concerning sec 7 and
4.

also i was talking to pierre drouin earlier and he is trying
to get in court shortly, he has suggested to me that he will
ask the judge for my court transcripts as part of my motion
still has to be ruled on.

by making this request we are hoping to save on the court
cost with pierre also receiving copys at hopefully no cost
just like i made request and got free partial transcripts
from tarzan's case. does this sound like it may work?
any ideas how long it takes court to make transcripts in
case i decide to buy them?  richard
---

>Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 23:02:00 -0800
>From: wworld@... (Evers)
>Subject: Re: Re: ALAS, BUT ANOTHER PROBLEM PLEASE ADVISE
>To: medpot-preview@yahoogroups.com

Richard - I am thinking that you didn't point out the
constitution itself to the court.  (Read here Section 52).
You also may want to use Chen's decision on Bobbie Jo Parks
(I can get it for you) - it is in a BC Court (Provincial),
but has all the arguments, in that the government hasn't
legislated new law.  (Also the Masse case).

JCT: Chen decision on the "too muddled" argument was on the
day before the Hitzig-Myrden resurrection.

In the case of your daughter, minors here are entitled to
legal aid.  That MAY be the case with your daughter, if so,
it appears that the judge is giving you the opportunity to
have HER get the lawyer and present the case - thereby
getting thru all the legalese.  (Although I would make sure
the lawyer understands it fully and is willing to present
it, and ONLY THEN, would I use the lawyer).

As I said before, and John just laughed at - the judge can
only go by existing cases presented to her.  Although you
did present Krieger, EDWARDS ruled "the case" out because of
the Hitzig reasoning, so you need to prove that Consitution
kicks butt over anything (so there is no law) and that
interpretation act translates the constitution into "the
CDSA never existed". You may also need the MMAR itself (not
the AIDS point) - 3 Dec 2003 - where the MMAR states they
are not following the Ontario court ruling, and because of
that, unconstitutional anyways.

(You may also need to point out (as I have) that in Krieger
the judge is NOT asking for the govt to supply, so it is
different from Hitzig).

JCT: It's in the Costigan ruling. Paragraph 6.

I would also present the Constitution.  - pointing out sec
52 and 32  AND the Interpretation Act Sec 2 (which says when
laws are valid).

After this, I am seriously thinking about subpoenaing my MP
(John Duncan) to come to court on 17 Mar, to inform the
judge who MAKES law (the legislature).  I will be going to
his office tomorrow to speak to his agents about this.  He
is a conservative/reform - heavy on the R, and anti-pot -
BUT - he has also just sent around a little flyer that says
govt makes law and courts uphold them.  He is supposed to be
at the conservative convention on the 17 Mar, but if unless
Crown acceeds to my demand that only parliament makes law, I
am going to make him tell it to the judge.  I suggest you do
something of the same.

As I said before - when you go before a judge - and I have
never been to court myself - but for all I understand of it
from what I have read, is the EVIDENCE needs to be there.

You may also wish to adjourn your trial date to well after
17 March, so I can present mine.  It is a different
province, but Crown did not appeal Parks or Masse - which
both say CDSA 4.1 is GONE.  (Although Crown says they won't
acknowledge it till it goes to an appeal or Supreme Court).
Hope it helps. Noreen

JCT: The point is that the judge didn't accept Krieger and
if she used the Hitzig Nuremberg defence, the next step is
the same as the Nielsens. Prohibition to a higher judge who
may prove high enough to not be bound to "follow the Doherty
Order."

When the transcript comes through, we'll publish but all we
really need to know is that she didn't quash.

Time for Step 2 before even talking about letting the
daughter get close to a criminal record.


--
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 Gravel hearing was before Quebec Superior Court
Justice Jean Pierre Plouffe, the judge in Ray Turmel's trial
who was was very familiar with me, even spoke to me once, or
twice, or three times.

After it was over, there was a huge media scrum. More
microphones shoved in my face than I've ever seen before.

But not one English question so I guess it's going to be all
over the French media tonight, watch for the guy with the
Royal Flush on his tie.

CHOT-TV, CBOT-TV French, CJRC-radio, and whole host of other
reporters.

The scrum reformed an hour later to interview Jacques
Belley, his official lawyer. Jacques did a real good job
explaining what was going on.

Unfortunately, Regis Bouchard missed my conference so he's
going to keep reporting on Gravel's constitutional motion
which we know wasn't constitutional at all.

So watch the French media tonight and I'll do the report of
what I saw and heard tomorrow.

Oh, one reason the media were so interested in my version,
the Gravel hearing started at 9am, half an hour earlier than
usual, and only I had showed up, in case. Boy, did that
precaution pay off. When Dominic came up into the court,
there was the judge, clerk, Crown and me.

So I had to tell the press what happened because they hadn't
arrived in time! Anyway, Lots of good to report.


--
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